The Prodigal Sun

[chiscotheque]

Oh, I see. Well, it's funny to refer to Jesus as the Christ. Jesus as Christ perhaps, but THE Christ ? This would imply that there has only ever been one and never will and no-one else should dare ever attempt the same trick. That's a sad prospect. And Christ predates Christianity doesn't it ? Surely Krishna and Christ are related terms. The story of Krishna bears many similarities to the Jesus story. I believe the two words are not of the same etymology, but still... they sound oddly similar.

Paul wrote "I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me". It's unlikely that a living Jesus was living in him, sort of like a little alien.

To what extent I wonder were the cardmakers of the Tarot of Marseilles influenced by gnostic ideas. To some extent I would assume they were. But I don't think they were gnostics as such.

christ is a title, like mahatma. it means annointed, as in chrism. the messiah in hebrew is the one who is annointed. in orthodox christianity, there is talk of the immitation of christ, but to presume that anyone other than jesus could ever be the christ - the messiah - is sacrilege (cf. judaism & islam).

speaking of names and "false" or coincidental cognates, the greek letter chi - X - is used as a symbol for christ. plato noted it symbolized the crossing of the 2 aspects of the soul world - we might say male & female. in a sense, christ is man made whole - he becomes like adam before eve, both male and female. this idea is essentially the union of christ the logos with sophia, the female aspect of god. we might remember how, in the gospel of thomas, jesus tells peter he will make mary and the women who accompany her "like men" - that is, like jesus became both male and female, mary will become both female and male - like god. in chinese culture, the "chi" is the vital life force - it is the essential energy that brings life to all things. it is the same light and life that paul speaks of within, if you will. and in a sense, it or he or she or chi is indeed a little alien - unlike the world all around which seems so very real, god is hidden within us, and he - like we to ourselves - is a stranger to us.

as for what the makers of the cards knew - we may never know. and more exactly: they may never know. that is, as jung would posit, the makers themselves may have been working from ideas beyond their own consciousness, from the zeitgeist, the collective unconscious, and their own subconscious. that said, we in our own limited knowledge know that neo-platonism and unorthodox christianity and eastern theologies and syncretic mysticism come superstition was at hand, just as we can summarize by saying that perennial wisdom has always existed, hence its name. on that note, when i'm saying all this stuff, i'm really talking about my own subjective interpretation of the cards and how the cards apply to life and ways of thinking about metaphysics. a great many things are tied together - some would say everything is - and i'm talking more about that - connections and extrapolations - rather or at any rate more than i am about was and was not intended by the makers of the cards originally.


.


.

[Diana]

christ is a title, like mahatma. it means annointed, as in chrism. the messiah in hebrew is the one who is annointed. in orthodox christianity, there is talk of the immitation of christ, but to presume that anyone other than jesus could ever be the christ - the messiah - is sacrilege (cf. judaism & islam).

Yes, anointed indeed. But according to the 23rd Psalm, we all have the opportunity to get anointed. It's written in black and white and it's not an ambiguous sentence. Sacrilege has always sounded suspicious to me. If God is all powerful then so called sacrilege and blasphemy should be like water on a duck's feathers to it. For the Gnostics, I think it is Sophia - the feminine - who brought all the troubles on the world by what one writer spoke of such : "In the course of her journeyings, Sophia came to emanate from her own being a flawed consciousness, a being who became the creator of the material and psychic cosmos, all of which he created in the image of his own flaw. This being, unaware of his origins, imagined himself to be the ultimate and absolute God." Sort of like Eve and the apple and the serpent. It's always the "woman" who creates trouble - since forever.

Somewhere in the Jeshua channellings to Jayem, he says something like (this is not verbatim but from memory) that man started taking seriously the things that in the beginning he had only intended to play with. And the spiral began...

speaking of names and "false" or coincidental cognates, the greek letter chi - X - is used as a symbol for christ. plato noted it symbolized the crossing of the 2 aspects of the soul world - we might say male & female. in a sense, christ is man made whole - he becomes like adam before eve, both male and female. this idea is essentially the union of christ the logos with sophia, the female aspect of god. we might remember how, in the gospel of thomas, jesus tells peter he will make mary and the women who accompany her "like men" - that is, like jesus became both male and female, mary will become both female and male - like god. in chinese culture, the "chi" is the vital life force - it is the essential energy that brings life to all things. it is the same light and life that paul speaks of within, if you will. and in a sense, it or he or she or chi is indeed a little alien - unlike the world all around which seems so very real, god is hidden within us, and he - like we to ourselves - is a stranger to us.

I would assume then that this essential life force is God itself. The marriage of male and female - this reminds me of the wedding at Cana when the "water" was turned into "wine". The unmanifested (female) become manifest (male). I would dare here to suggest that it's not the Magician who is the male, but the Pope/High Priest. As the High Priestess and the High Priest are pairs. The Magician being the means to unite these two in marriage. (What is the difference between a Hierophant and a High Priest ?)

as for what the makers of the cards knew - we may never know. and more exactly: they may never know. that is, as jung would posit, the makers themselves may have been working from ideas beyond their own consciousness, from the zeitgeist, the collective unconscious, and their own subconscious. that said, we in our own limited knowledge know that neo-platonism and unorthodox christianity and eastern theologies and syncretic mysticism come superstition was at hand, just as we can summarize by saying that perennial wisdom has always existed, hence its name. on that note, when i'm saying all this stuff, i'm really talking about my own subjective interpretation of the cards and how the cards apply to life and ways of thinking about metaphysics. a great many things are tied together - some would say everything is - and i'm talking more about that - connections and extrapolations - rather or at any rate more than i am about was and was not intended by the makers of the cards originally.

It's these connections and extrapolations that make the Tarot so rich. Everywhere we turn, there are more and more connections to make. The Tarot is part of this perrenial wisdom. And the zeitgeist must have a lot to do with it.

Thank you for all you share. I always look forward to your posts.

[chiscotheque]

Yes, anointed indeed. But according to the 23rd Psalm, we all have the opportunity to get anointed. It's written in black and white and it's not an ambiguous sentence. Sacrilege has always sounded suspicious to me. If God is all powerful then so called sacrilege and blasphemy should be like water on a duck's feathers to it. For the Gnostics, I think it is Sophia - the feminine - who brought all the troubles on the world by what one writer spoke of such : "In the course of her journeyings, Sophia came to emanate from her own being a flawed consciousness, a being who became the creator of the material and psychic cosmos, all of which he created in the image of his own flaw. This being, unaware of his origins, imagined himself to be the ultimate and absolute God." Sort of like Eve and the apple and the serpent. It's always the "woman" who creates trouble - since forever.



I would assume then that this essential life force is God itself. The marriage of male and female - this reminds me of the wedding at Cana when the "water" was turned into "wine". The unmanifested (female) become manifest (male). I would dare here to suggest that it's not the Magician who is the male, but the Pope/High Priest. As the High Priestess and the High Priest are pairs. The Magician being the means to unite these two in marriage. (What is the difference between a Hierophant and a High Priest ?)

you'll get no argument from me about sacrilege and what is written which people choose on the one hand to glorify and on the other to neglect. i was simply iterating church doctrine, which in part accounts for the following...

fear and hatred of women abounds and permeates much if not most male thought, which is to say for our purposes here: theology. if you think about it, the movement toward god - perhaps inspired by how awe-inspiring existence is - is actually counter to existence, insofar as it posits there is something more and greater to what exists than simply what exists; that there is a metaphysic which is superior to the physical, hence the physical is lesser. this rather philosophical discussion aside, many gnostics do claim sophia is to "blame" for this flawed universe - indeed, even that she is an emanation of god suggests she is one level down from god and so inferior. in this version of events, yahweh is the inept and vainglorious architecht of the universe, and eve is off the hook since lucifer's "temptation" opens her eyes to the truth. something of a slender silver lining, since the female sophia remains very much like pandora. but let's not forget, if sophia is flawed, it was god the father/monad who created her and therefore he/it is flawed - this is akin to the problem of evil implicit in christianity and all religions. that, again, is a complicated philosophical discussion. what i would say about woman being the cause of trouble: that's an opinion, fostered by men. just as we look at the bible and pick and choose what we want to emphasize and what to ignore, we can blame woman through eve for being a deceived transgressor (and overlooking that adam was also deceived) or we can laud her for being inquisitive and the vessel through which knowledge came to Man. in other words, as leonard cohen says: there is a crack in everything, that's how the light gets in. in Lacanian terms, the original fear is fear of the Other - what is the Other? it is reality, therefore we are afraid of reality. what's more, it's we who determine what reality is - what consititutes the Self and what the Other - and that is a fault in ourselves, not some Other, reality, or the stars.

followers of magdalene argue that the marriage of cana is actually the marriage of jesus and mary magdala. metaphorically, it is the beginning of christ's ministry, since the bride and groom - sophia and the logos - are united in the bridal chamber. the water and wine are as you say allegorical, as is the white and red of female and male, and the wine of the eucharist, and the water and blood which emanated from christ on the cross.

the hierophant might be like the hp, if he was a monk pursuing communion with god, or an enlightened being like ramanamaharshi, but the h is a self-appointed leader, teacher, and evangelist. as pope, head of the catholic church, he is bound to that which is earthly - his own dedication to the church - and, sinking like a stone, is dead in the water because of it. the church, recall, has rejected the female - and i'm not just talking about the poor treatment of nuns. on the one hand - the physical - the church has eshewed and denigrated women. in jesus' time, a man could not enter the temple or preach who was not married - christians have turned that on its head. jesus said " a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined with his wife, and the two shall become one flesh", yet the council of trent decreed that "if anyone claim that it is not a better and happier thing to dwell in virginity and celibacy than be married, then that person shall be anathematized." the sub-human status of women runs through the church from (the mostly spurious) letters of paul, to augustine, to thomas aquinas, to odilon of cluny who said: "feminine grace is nothing but blood, humours, and bile and we who recoil at the touch of vomit and excrement, how could we therefore desire to hold in our arms the very sack of excrement itself?" on the second hand, and hand in glove with the first, the church has rejected the feminine aspect of god, from the notion that god is both and neither male nor female - he is decidedly male, and decidedly not female, i don't care the half-hearted lip service to the contrary - and more importantly the denigration and in the end rejection of the holy spirit. in this way, the church is not fit to represent christ nor be the spiritual leader it purports to be. this is why the papess is called the papess - because the pope is a fraud. it's akin to trump calling the parents of a fallen serviceman liars and cowards. if we needed any more proof that the church is unqualified, simply its struggle with sexuality and the female (or Other) is proof enough.

Many sick and maimed came to Jesus, asking him, “If you know all things, tell us why do we suffer with these grievous plagues?”
Jesus answered: “Happy are you, that you hunger for truth, for I will satisfy you with the bread of wisdom... for I will lead you into the kingdom of our Mother's angels, where the power of Satan cannot enter.”
They asked him in amazement: “Who is our Mother? And where is her kingdom?”
“Your Mother is in you, and you in her. She bore you; she gives you life... Your breath is her breath... he who clings to the laws of his Mother, to him shall his Mother also cling. I tell you truly, When the Son of Man resists the Satan that dwells in him and does not his will, in the same hour are found the Mother's angels there...”
- The Gospel of Peace of Jesus Christ by the disciple John

thinking about perennial wisdom, what the TdM card-makers intended, and my own subjective interpretation, i would just point out that i am not the only one who has moved the papess-hp card in a particular direction - waite and the golden dawn did too. they make explicit reference to the book of revelation, the myth of persephone, solomon's temple - home of the ark of the covenant - and christ's covenant represented by the rent veil in the temple - symbol for the hymen.


.

[Diana]

Oh, that's pretty harsh language some of those quotes you give. Am quite shocked ! Of course, that kind of obscene discourse has trickled down.

The Gnostic beliefs are interesting. I understand where they're coming from. The conclusions they reach I don't find very compelling all the time but some of the time yes so I like to read what they believed. I don't think it's surprising that Gnosticism doesn't really have a big hold anymore though. It was right for its time maybe. But there's a lot of interesting things.

Jesus certainly never preached celibacy. The church founders must have been very pleased that Peter was designated as head of the church. But I heard that this is a bad translation and it shouldn't read "church" but "congregation". I always find it odd that in the New Testament it's written that Jesus said that Peter would be the rock on which the church would be built. It doesn't seem to have been a very good choice if he did say this and honestly, I do trust Jesus' judgement. So if he meant congregation that changes things. The church founders preferred the word church. King James too. They would. But it's odd that it's Peter. Is this mentioned do you know anywhere else like in the scrolls or other apocrypha ?

Also Jesus said one doesn't have to go and pray in temples and holy mountains and be seen of men. I don't think he ever meant to build an organised religion.

Did you see the thread that I started about Strength maybe representing Thecla ? If you have time to read it and comment, I'd be very happy. Your name is even mentioned at the end (!). viewtopic.php?f=12&t=2367

[Diana]

followers of magdalene argue that the marriage of cana is actually the marriage of jesus and mary magdala. metaphorically, it is the beginning of christ's ministry, since the bride and groom - sophia and the logos - are united in the bridal chamber. the water and wine are as you say allegorical, as is the white and red of female and male, and the wine of the eucharist, and the water and blood which emanated from christ on the cross.

It would have been odd for a rabbi to not get married. It would have been surely even held against him and therefore would maybe have been recorded as an issue of the day or an argument with the other rabbis. Which it isn't. But there is just no historical evidence that they were married. Even in the apocrypha. But perhaps the mention that he kissed her on the lips is sufficient evidence ? I don't know. Possibly. But then the disciples wouldn't have taken offence, would they. I like to believe that he married, and that Mary Magdala came to France later. It doesn't seem implausible at all. She must have gone somewhere. I wonder if a man of his time and his religious leanings would have made love without being married. Seems unlikely. Sex stuff was already a big issue in the day. Adultery and all. Committing adultery was one of the biggest sins you could commit. And I think Jesus would have made concessions to his times. (I think the 10 commandments should be read principally with their spiritual interpretation though - they also are dark sayings.)

There are no reputable scholars who deny that Jesus really existed and lived at those times. So we know there is something of historical truth in the New Testament. But it's so hard to separate the myth from the real story, the allegorical from the literal.

Anyway personally I don't that the wedding at Cana was Jesus' wedding. If there was a gathering for a real wedding, it was someone else's. And I lean more towards the whole thing being an allegory.

the hierophant might be like the hp, if he was a monk pursuing communion with god, or an enlightened being like ramanamaharshi, but the h is a self-appointed leader, teacher, and evangelist. as pope, head of the catholic church, he is bound to that which is earthly - his own dedication to the church - and, sinking like a stone, is dead in the water because of it. i

Now speaking purely in tarot terms here, I would have great difficulty reading the Tarot of Marseilles if I had to take the Pope literally as the head of the Roman Catholic church. This would discredit the whole great work for me. I have to consider the Pope in the TdM as a High Priest of some sort - a Hermes Trismegistus for example. Or an Enoch. Or even a John. But the Three Times Great is pretty cool. I can imagine him looking a bit like that - without the ceremonial Catholic robes.

A funny personal anectode : my father was Polish (he was born in 1910 - he had me very late). His father (my grandfather) hated the Catholics. He was of one of those very small Christian minorities that wasn't Catholic. But the woman he married was devoutly Catholic (the other kind must have been hard to find). So they made a deal. If they had daughters, they could be Roman Catholic, but the sons had to be Protestant. I think he chose to be Presbytarian but very half heartedly. He was also interested in Rosicrucianism and stuff like that. He sent my father to a Jesuit school later though to get a good education. He got shot most likely by a firing squad after WWII. I don't think by the Catholic Church though - lol. Most likely the Russians or similar. He also fought in WWI in Verdun - he had a very varied life. My father inherited his dislike for Catholicism - he used to go nearly apoplexic when during the Solidarnosz years in Poland, the workers would demonstrate in Gdansk holding a political banner in one hand and a picture of the Virgin Mary in the other. This whole dislike and distrust of the Catholic church has naturally trickled down to me too. Sort of carries on in the generations. Like a river that flows forever. Until it reaches the sea I suppose.

[chiscotheque]

It would have been odd for a rabbi to not get married.

This whole dislike and distrust of the Catholic church has naturally trickled down to me too. Sort of carries on in the generations. Like a river that flows forever. Until it reaches the sea I suppose.

hopefully not the holy see (?).

not only would it be odd for a rabbi not to marry, it would've been an extreme exception, as there is only one case of a rabbi not being married, Ben Asaj, from the 2nd century - and even he is reputed to have been married, but spent his time alone. recall that the disciples called jesus rabbi. could the disciples resent jesus' wife? i wouldn't put anything past them - they often act like stupid children and self-interested blockheads. paul actually says he has no evidence jesus was celibate, and he (or his forger) certainly would've made hay of even the rumor of it if he could. luke emphasizes that jesus obeyed his father and mother, and the standard practice of jews at the time was for a man to marry at 18. this is especially true if he followed the torah. any man in his 30s not married and discussing religious matters is not only almost totally implausible but if he existed he would've been criticized for it, say by the pharisees. as with the other criticisms of the pharisees that the gospels are at pains to present, it's untenable that no mention would be made of an unmarried jesus.

personally i don't care either way, except that the orthodox doctrine that jesus was not married shows that orthodox doctrine can be and IS wrong and reveals its in-built prejudice to women. i am concerned with the allegorical meanings involved, but the literal and real is not irrelevant - prejudice and deception on the physical plane leads to spiritual dishonesty and belies moral deceit.


.

[Diana]

hopefully not the holy see (?).

That is very funny. And you have redeemed yourself at last for not appreciating time traveller jokes.

the standard practice of jews at the time was for a man to marry at 18. this is especially true if he followed the torah. any man in his 30s not married and discussing religious matters is not only almost totally implausible but if he existed he would've been criticized for it, say by the pharisees. as with the other criticisms of the pharisees that the gospels are at pains to present, it's untenable that no mention would be made of an unmarried jesus.

But we have to also take into account the lost years of Jesus. Perhaps he was not in the region when he was 18. If it were true that he was taken to study in India or Nepal, then he would not have married as this theory says he left when he was about 14. And returned well as we know, many years later. It makes a lot of sense actually.

personally i don't care either way, except that the orthodox doctrine that jesus was not married shows that orthodox doctrine can be and IS wrong and reveals its in-built prejudice to women. i am concerned with the allegorical meanings involved, but the literal and real is not irrelevant - prejudice and deception on the physical plane leads to spiritual dishonesty and belies moral deceit.


.

Yes, the lies must be exposed. They are despicable.

[Diana]

Oh, and chiscotheque, did you read my post where I asked what you thought about why Peter of all people was apparently chosen to be the rock ?

[chiscotheque]

Oh, and chiscotheque, did you read my post where I asked what you thought about why Peter of all people was apparently chosen to be the rock ?

actually i missed it - thanks for pointing it out. i can't keep up with all the posts!

my short answer to why peter is pointed out (in Matthew) is simply this: it was de rigor in gospels to suggest that the disciple whose gospel it is is the disciple jesus most favoured, loved, deigned to confide in - john in the canon does this, as does thomas, mary, and even judas. basically, it's the hot air of self-promotion, like modern-day rappers. matthew - or the guy(s) claiming to be matthew - were peter's homies. that said, peter was the more or less acknowledged leader of what we now call the orthodox christian congregation; whether ordained by jesus himself remains dubious. the name given to him could and probably more accurately describes "peter" (aka simon son of jonah) as rough or craggy, since peter was notoriously gruff, obdurate, and obtuse.

it's worth noting paul quite intentionally avoided peter & co after his conversion, essentially eschewing peter's self-proclaimed authority. further, paul opposed peter to his face when they did meet, because peter was in the wrong (Galations 2:11). it's true, of course, that gnosticism properly speaking is irrelevant today. but so arguably is christianity. if you believe the latter isn't true, then arguably the former is as untrue. there are many forms of gnosticism, and many gnostics consider(ed) paul a gnostic, making his differences with peter that much more interesting, especially in light of the church's subsequent embrace of paul. in reality, if anyone is the rock on which the catholic church was built, it's paul. is paul's church, or the catholic church for that matter, the church jesus was even talking about - was it not, say, the eastern orthodox church?

again, this is all very "political" and open to debate. similarly, it's next to impossible to be sure that anything in the bible is true or accurate - from paul's forged letters to so-called verbatim quotes made by jesus and written down by people with their own agenda centuries later who weren't even there. in summation, i give no credence to the assertion of peter's authority, and even if i did, i would still judge him (peter and those assuming his name and ruby slippers) by his own merits and shortcomings (which were many).


.

[chiscotheque]

But we have to also take into account the lost years of Jesus. Perhaps he was not in the region when he was 18. If it were true that he was taken to study in India or Nepal, then he would not have married as this theory says he left when he was about 14. And returned well as we know, many years later. It makes a lot of sense actually.

the proposition that jesus went to the east is total speculation. i personally believe he was involved with the essenes, being groomed by them in the desert. but one needn't go to the ganges to be influenced by hinduism. here's the thing - even if he had his reasons for being unwed, it would be unusual and people - notably the pharisees - would've called him on it. further, paul desired strongly to find evidence of christ's celibacy but couldn't - if he knew jesus was unmarried (and he would've known either way) he certainly would've said so to strengthen his argument. it's fairly clear that jesus' marital status was intentionally omitted. the only way it's realistic that jesus wasn't married and no one mentioned it is because at the time not being married was considered a weakness, tantamount to not being whole. ironically, it would've undermined jesus' authority in some quarters. nevertheless, i believe if that were the case, someone such as a pharisee - who criticize jesus repeatedly - would've been recorded as asking about it only to be rebuffed by one of jesus' zingers. further, paul would've mentioned it (jesus' bachelorhood) if he could, but he didn't and even the forgers and people who later added the odd sentence couldn't make that claim - less because it wasn't true (that christ was unwed) than that most people at the time knew he was married and they (paul and the forgers) simply couldn't get away with lying.


.

[Diana]

You make a very good argument. I also think it's more likely he was spending all his years with the Essenes. But there is a curious gap in the telling of the tale. They all invented nice stories about his birth - contradictory - but didn't speak of his later childhood and young adulthood. Maybe so as not to mention that he was brought up with the Essenes ? They were considered as a kind of sect I would imagine. I wonder if his parents were with him wherever they squatted in the desert.

What do we actually know about the Essenes ? Is it all also speculation ?

[chiscotheque]

In English, not connected to the Tarot as such, there are the remarkable lectures by Martin Lings, of which two books were published (although some of the plays are dealt with twice, the text is different): Shakespeare's Window Into the Soul/The Secret of Shakespeare/The Sacred Art of Shakespeare (same book, different editions), and To Take Upon Us the Mystery of Things.

i checked through my library and found i had a copy of "to take upon us the mystery of things". it is quite interesting, lings's focus on the mystical and transcendental in shakespeare. it's right up my alley, to look at work allegorically in relation to the psyche and/or soul. that said, shakespeare is so layered and such a confluence of things that other avenues of thought and research on his work are also rewarding, such as the psychological, the linguistic/poetic, and the historical. having read countless stuffy old blatherings on about god knows what by professors simply for the sake it seems of hearing themselves write a book, it's nice to come across someone who approaches shakespeare from a fresh and meaningful angle.


.

[chiscotheque]

What do we actually know about the Essenes ? Is it all also speculation ?

like anything in history, there is a fair amount of speculation, deduction, and assumption. but that said, we do know quite a bit that is fairly reliable about the essenes - from pliny and josephus on down. essentially, essenes are fundamentalists, and as such existed like any fundamentalists do among all groups of people/religions. and like any such group, they weren't all the same, believing the same things, but varied among themselves. the essenes were many and quite widespread. the dead sea scrolls are essene documents of a certain group. some believed the laws of moses, some believed that moses was privy to the laws of god but those laws weren't the 10 commandments, which if you remember were the 2nd version of laws, moses having destroyed the first. those essenes believed for instance that eating meat was forbidden by god. in the gospel of peace of jesus christ by john christ forbids the eating of meat - including leavened bread, presumably because the yeast are living beings (cf. Janism) - suggesting christ was an essene. talking about christ's celibacy and not being married - one of the only things that makes sense, aside from it just being "the will of god", is that jesus could've been unmarried and yet talked about god and scripture and entered a temple because he was an essene, some of whom eschewed marriage and sexualal relations. this would also explain why the gospels go out of their way not to mention it, because then they would also have to mention the fact that jesus was an essene, which would undermind his ministry and the fledgling church.


.

[Diana]

The "cauda pavonis" or "peacock's tail" is supposed to be an advanced stage of the alchemical process, a brilliant burst of colors in the alchemical vessel announcing the imminent arrival of the white and then the red Stone. In appearance I think it would be very like the fire from above in La Maison Dieu. A lightning bolt appears on the RWS Tower card but perhaps it should be a multi-colored feather.

So these two stones that we see on the Maison Dieu, and again in the Sun.

I found a wonderful post on Aeclectic that will help us on our quest to find out what these two stones are. Am copy/pasting it here. I think it will please us all greatly. It's about the connection between the words Bethel and Baetyl. I don't think Robert (lependu) will mind my posting it here. I would think he'd be greatly pleased that his research is not being buried somewhere. We knew each other at the time on Aeclectic and he was one of the Great. Many rungs further up the ladder than I was (am).

**********

Definition of "Bethel" from Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bethel_(god)

Bethel meaning in Hebrew and Phoenician and Aramaic 'House of El' or 'House of God' is seemingly the name of a god or an aspect of a god in some ancient middle-eastern texts dating to the Assyrian, Persian and Hellenistic periods.

and

Sanchuniathon mentions the god Baitylos as a brother of the gods El and Dagon. He later says that the god Sky devised the baitylia, having contrived to put life into stones. The reference would seem to be to Bethels in the plural, that is to many stones like the stone in the Israelite city of Bethel which served a housing for God in Israelite belief.

So "Bethel" means "House of God" in Hebrew, seemingly translated as "Baetyl" and "Baitylos" or "Baitylus" or "Baitylia" or "Bætulia", and all indicate a type of magical stone.

From a page on the word Baetyl:
http://www.livius.org/ba-bd/baetyl/baetyl.html
Baetyl (or Baitylos, Beth-El): a venerated stone, believed to be in some sense the "house of god".
All over the ancient Levant, we find the cultic practice of venerating stones that were believed to be the house of a particular god, a Beth-El.

We're beginning to see a pattern here of stone(s) that are worshiped, containing the essence of God. Now another connection:

First line of definition for "Baetylus" on Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baetylus
Baetylus or Bethel is a semitic word denoting a sacred stone, which was supposed to be endowed with life. These fetish objects of worship were meteoric stones, which were dedicated to the gods or revered as symbols of the gods themselves (Pliny, Nat. Hist. xvii. 9; Photius, Cod. 242).

From Wikipedia for "Meteorite"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meteorite
A meteorite is a small extraterrestrial body that impacts the Earth's surface. While in space these bodies are called meteoroids, and they are called meteors after entering Earth's atmosphere but before reaching the surface. These are small asteroids, approximately boulder-sized or less. When it enters the atmosphere, air drag and friction cause the body to heat up and emit light, thus forming a fireball or shooting star.

From a site about meteorites:
http://www.haberer-meteorite.de/english ... ligion.htm
Even in the monotheistic religions of judäo-christian tradition traces of the old meteorite cults can be found. In hebrew language, the stones fallen from the sky are called Bethel (hebr. "House of God"). In the old testament it is reported, how Jakob, the tribe father of the Israelites, had his vision of the sky ladder, when he had fallen asleep in the desert with his head placed on such a Bethel-stone. According to the story after this he erected a temple around the stone, of which today unfortunately no more traces can be found.

From the Theosophical Society's page:
http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/etgloss/ba-be.htm
Betylos, Baetylus (Latin) [from Greek baitylos meteoric stone] Also betylus, baetyl, betyles. In Classical antiquity a stone, either natural or artificially shaped, venerated as of divine origin, or as a symbol of divinity. There were a number of these sacred stones in Greece, the most famous being the one on the omphalos at Delphi. Likewise there were the so-called animated or oracular stones. "Strabo, Pliny, Helancius [Hellanicus] -- all speak of the electrical, or electro-magnetic power of the betyli. They were worshipped in the remotest antiquity in Egypt and Samothrace, as magnetic stones, 'containing souls which had fallen from heaven'; and the priests of Cybele wore a small betylos on their bodies" (IU 1:332). In Persia they were called oitzoe; but their origin was of far greater antiquity, for "Lemuria, Atlantis and her giants, and the earliest races of the Fifth Root-Race had all a hand in these betyles, lithoi, and 'magic' stones in general" (SD 2:346n). See also OPHITES; ROCKING-STONES

Quote from a odd website here:
http://www.quantavolution.org/vol_09/gods_fire_03.htm
The Greek word for Bethel was Baetyli, meaning a Jovian thunderbolt. Baetyls are sacred thunderstones or meteorites carried by the holy litters or arks of various Bedouin tribes.

If this is true, then we can bring "Thunderbolt" into the discussion as well.

From a site about prehistoric meteorites:
http://www.jjkent.com/articles/China-pr ... orites.htm
In prehistoric times meteorites were quite naturally supposed to possess a special sanctity, and were indeed regarded as animated by the very essence of some divinity. The name baetylus, given to these stones by Greeks and Romans, is derived from the Hebrew (bethel) or "house of God," a term indicating clearly enough the belief held by the ancient Hebrews in regard to meteorites, or supposed meteorites. However, long before this designation had reached the Greeks, certain meteorites had been accorded a peculiar reverence, and even worship. One of these was a black stone, called the Omphalos of Delphi. This was said to be the stone given by Rhea to Kronos when she substituted a stone for her offspring Zeus, to save him from being devoured by his father, Kronos. Zeus himself (or Kronos) threw it down to the Earth and the spot where it struck was supposed to be the centre of the Earth, hence the name Omphalos, or "navel-stone."

A little more about Sanchuniathon of Berytus mentioned in my first Wikipedia quote above on "Bethel", from this website:
http://phoenicia.org/theomythology.html
Sanchuniathon of Berytus (Beirut) or Sakkun-yathon in Phoenician means "the god Sakkun has given." He was an ancient Phoenician sage, priest and writer. He lived before the Trojan times. Judging from the fragments of the Phoenician History, Sanchuniathon appears to have been a contemporary of Semiramis, the Queen of Assyria, the wife of Ninus, with whom she founded Nineveh 2,000 BC. However, some believe that Sanchuniathon was a contemporary of Gideon 1339 BC without any proof. His book goes back into fabled antiquity. Sanchuniathon, like Vgasa in India, is said to have been a compiler of extremely ancient theogonic and historical documents that had been transmitted to him either by oral tradition or in writing. Sanchuniathon derived the sacred lore from the mystic inscriptions on the nfjawtis (probably hammanim, "sun pillars,"1) which stood in Phoenician temples. Porphyry of Tyre says that Sanchuniathon wrote a history of the Jews, based on information derived from Hierombal (i.e. Jeruba'al), a priest of the god Jevo (i.e. Yahveh). He dedicated it to Abelbal or Abibal, king of Berytus. The story was thought to be fictional because of its reference to Berytus; however, excavation in Berytus in recent years prove that the city maybe older than Byblos that has cultural tradition to 8,000 BC. His Phoenician History may be regarded as one of the most authentic memorials of the events which took place before the Flood. It begins with a legendary cosmogony and relates to how the first two mortals were begotten by the Wind (Spirit) and his wife Baau (Darkness). It refers to the Fall, the production of fire, the invention of huts and clothing, the origin of the arts of agriculture, hunting, fishing and navigation, and the beginnings of human civilization. Sanchuniathon gives a curious account of the descendants of the line of Cain. His history of the descendants of the line of Seth reads like the record in Genesis.

[chiscotheque]

not sure if you saw it, but i mentioned some of these connections on a post on La Papess: viewtopic.php?f=128&t=554&p=15092&hilit=bethel#p15092
the omphallus connects the navel of the Papess with the lightning bolt of Zeus, since it is the stone used to trick Cronos and allowed Zeus to live. the meteorite quality brings in the Star card, since it is a shooting star - a star (god) brought down to earth, and thus the reunion of soul with god. with the RWS HP, she sits in Solomon's temple, where Jacob slept on the anointed rock. this is a kind of birth of Judaism, akin to Zeus's birth. The Temple houses God's law, written on 2 stones. there may be an extended metaphor here: when Sophia gave birth to the Demiurge (and hence our word) it was like a stone; that is, dead but charged with an inner spark. rhea gives cronos a stone to eat and zeus is allowed to grow, defeat cronos, free his siblings, and begin a new dispensation on earth. jesus bears some resemblance to zeus. when he is resurrected, the stone is rolled away from his crypt and he frees the souls in hell/limbo. like jacob's bethel, jesus from Bethlehem is the christ: the anointed. the madonna here is akin to rhea and sophia. the red and white stones tie into the red and white of male and female, the lily and the rose, christ's water and blood on the cross, life and purity.

some stray thoughts on stones - there's Sisyphus, the trickster who cheated death. there's the 3 gorgon, notably medusa with snake hair, whose look turned humans into stone. there's the myth of zeus ending the bronze age with a flood, after which deucalion and pyrrha are told by an oracle to throw the bones of their mother over their shoulders, which they assume to be rocks since their mother is gaia; they do so and babies are created. looked at another way, bones are like stones - we carry stones around inside. stones are also slang for testes and there's the strange case of lithopedion. jesus of course famously paraphrased psalms: have you never read this scripture: 'The stone the builders rejected has become the cornerstone." these builders suggest the demiurge and masons echo the maison dieu.


.

[Diana]

not sure if you saw it, but i mentioned some of these connections on a post on La Papess: viewtopic.php?f=128&t=554&p=15092&hilit=bethel#p15092
purity.

I saw it but haven't had time to read it in depth. You speak of a lot of things and I'll need to research a bit to understand some of it. I'll return in due time. It looks very interesting.

some stray thoughts on stones - there's Sisyphus, the trickster who cheated death.

The reason I didn't take time to read it properly yet is because I'm very concentrated on the book I'm writing. But I'll be taking a natural break at some time I think when I'm tired. And looking forward to it. For the moment, things are moving well and I don't want to stop the momentum.

But I did want to say as you mention Sisyphus, that I'm finalising right this minute one of the chapters (Wheel of Fortune) and I speak of Sisphyus and his eternal torment. Camus said "il faut imaginer Sisyphe heureux" - one must imagine Sisyphus happy. It's a wonderful book, the Myth of Sisyphus. Did you ever read it?