It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Noli me tangere

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 12:13 AM
link   
A discussion on another thread reminded me of Christ's puzzling words to Mary Magdalene after she had recognised him in the "gardener" and rushed (understandably so) towards him to effusively hug him (or something like that):

“Don't hold on to me! I have not yet gone to the Father."
(In Latin, the words "hold on" clearly mean 'don't touch me'. I am not familiar with the original wording - not yet, anyway.)

Why?
Why didn't he want her to touch him?

Modern readers would tend to assume that there is a "spiritual" (only) meaning to them.
But there was another instance when a physical action/object appeared to be directly relevant to Christ's actions: when a woman, desperate to be healed, touched his robe from behind. Apparently, he "felt" it, and asked who had touched his robe.

So perhaps there was something to the robe itself?

I feel silly for asking such a seemingly naive question, but the usual "symbolic", "allegoric", metaphoric" and what-not explanation simply doesn't sound satisfying in this case.

If anyone has thoughts on this (and I am sure that is the case
), I'd be glad to read them.




posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 04:40 AM
link   
i don't know about him not wanting to be touched before his ascension but if you think about the laws of the universe one is everything and everything is one the robe is interconnected with Jesus and thus a part of him with his energies running through it because it was on him and he was in it. like he said the women's faith healed her not the energy from the robe, chances are he just felt a tugging at the bottom of his robe and thought which one of you infidels touched me



posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 10:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Kis11
 


Yes, of course everything is interconnected; and there is no question what healed that woman.

But Jesus' emphatic, even startled reaction - considering that he was amidst a pushing and shoving crowd of people, all trying to get to him - is still "odd", to say the least. After all, according to the evangelists, he only reacted when the woman, whom he didn't even see, touched his robe.

But, as I said, it's the Mary Magdalene incident what's really puzzling me. The emphatic words - their strength is usually illustrated by an unambiguous gesture (depicted countless times by medieval and later artists) - leave no doubt as to their meaning. He didn't want her to touch him - because he had "not yet gone to the Father".

Interesting, to say the least...





[edit on 31-3-2008 by Vanitas]



posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 01:09 PM
link   
I thought I'd add this interesting article about these words:

"Touch Me Not"

(For all ye fans of Greek grammar lessons - yay!
)










[edit on 31-3-2008 by Vanitas]



posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 10:44 PM
link   
personally i believe its because he needed to present himself to the father untouched for some reason i'm not sure why but i believe he had to present himself as he was before he can contact and touch anyone. notice after that he appeared to his disciples ate and drank with them and asked thomas to touch him which was most likely after he presented himself to the father. So obviously the evidence couldn't be touched or tampered with, it had to be presented like it was possibly. what i mean evidence was he was slain an innocent man.


Keeper



posted on Apr, 1 2008 @ 09:14 AM
link   
There was a specific occult reason. It can be found in the study of the philosophy of fire. The build up of spiritual force to that extent is deadly to one who has not completed their own transmutation. Remember he had risen, but the body was in such a state that with woulds on every part and a potentially mortal wound to the stomach cavity, the volume of that force to heal would also leave voids in the being of of the person touching. To the extent of the evils that had not been transmuted.

He had not yet gone to the father, is indicative that he was having to build the power and energy on his own and was not yet being received in the Temple built without the hammer. I would say that was his business with the father for whatever reason. Not being received is a sign of dis obedience, but it could also be a lesson. or the need for this local energy build up to finish its work, we will never know. God must withdraw at times to force man to do what he should do, but does not want to do. At other times he wants man to see what he can do for himself, and be proud of his works.

I believe it was Solomon that when all was taken from him only requested from God that he would not take away his presence. His time together. It came down to that being the one thing in his existence he truly loved. Now that is the wisest man that ever lived.


One of the healing lessons I teach is the use of natural fibers being used on every surface and natural threads used in the sewing, so energy dams or diversion do not take place.

The answer to your second question is yes the healing fires or energies that can not be held within the body are built up and stored in the garments. They fit loosly and hold that aura of energy close.

[edit on 1-4-2008 by Illahee]



posted on Apr, 1 2008 @ 09:34 AM
link   
To fully answer your original question would need to be done offline, or u2u because while it is no great bit, there is a reason it should not be out there. (or here)



posted on Apr, 1 2008 @ 03:32 PM
link   
Thank you, Keeper of Kheb and Illahee.
I am sure MANY will appreciate your replies.

I've been in a lot of hurry for the past few days, so I can only take time for a short reply or two at a time. But I'll be back.








[edit on 1-4-2008 by Vanitas]



posted on Apr, 1 2008 @ 03:34 PM
link   
Why can't "hold on" just mean hold on? Who said that he meant it in some other translation?



posted on Apr, 1 2008 @ 08:35 PM
link   
Its all going to depend on the source of the original and the translation. I compare many translations an sources. Then I balance the likelihood of the meaning. Most text is Hebrew or Greek and if those are not your native languages a lot of work has to go into the meanings. Choose wisely and then dig as deep as you can handle. The truth is always there if you put in the work.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join