It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Whereas the first age (the Father) had been characterized by the law, fear, and servitude, and the second age (the Son) had been ne of faith and filial submission, the new dispensation (the Holy Spirit) would be one of love, joy, and freedom. The knowledge of God would no longer be mediated but would come in direct revelations from God to the hearts of men.
...a burning light of tremendous brightness coming from heaven poured into my entire mind, like a flame that does not burn but enkindles. It inflamed my entire heart and breast, like the sun that warms an object with its rays.
The Grail is the heart, illumined and awakened so that it may serve as a receptacle for divine energies.
Today it is common to click one's tongue at the ceaseless and internecine warfare and brutalities of that era. No one can deny that these took place. But we must also acknowledge the context. The people at whom this ethos was directed were not sensitive modern-day Californians who do T'ai Chi regularly and take their holidays at Esalen; they were only a few generations removed from the barbarians who sacked the Roman Empire. The myth of the Grail and the chivalric ideal were probably the best means of introducing some moderation into the violent culture of the era. Possibly those who formulated the Grail ethos realized that their solution was imperfect; most realistic solutions are.
Originally posted by dontreally
The former would be justified by the positivist interpretation of the physical brain, and the latter, as well?
Originally posted by RockLobster
You do know he had a daughter ... riiight ? and she was"the holy grail" , they were looking for the wrong thing , that`s what the codes are about , his daughter ........ i thought all of this was over and done with now ?
We've been explaining ourselves to ourselves through symbols and narrative ever since we sprouted thumbs.
It seems to me that we were pretty well able to come to an apprehension of the nature of our composite brains by observing and codifying behavioral trends well before anatomy and neuroscience gave us the empirical understanding.
Originally posted by dontreally
Always in the Bible, whenever the birthright is passed down, it's given to the 2nd born, and not the first born. Abel was favored instead of Cain. Isaac was favored instead of his older brother Ishmael. Jacob was favored instead of Esau (who came out first). Joseph instead of Rueben. The older is indicative of the immature - that first presence. In the case of Cain (from the root 'to possess') it is the base egotism which man experiences first (in his earliest years) before the spiritual functions which come as a consequence of society enter and become a part of his being. Cain offers the vegetable i.e. merely an outward service, in other words, one which doesn't change his internal structure. But Abel (Hevel in Hebrew, meaning 'vapor') considers himself as nothing, and so offers his animal, his lower, instinctual 'animal', or the 'snake/dragon' as a service to God. Abel is that MATURED part which follows. Likewise, Isaac and likewise Jacob. Jacob comes second, behind Esau who is of a 'ruddy complexion', alluding to the same physical prowess. Esau is a 'man of the field' - a hunter, one can almost say, Esau is the patron of the aristocratic tendency. Esau will do and say whatever to give the impression of being a certain way, because to Esau, the 'birthright' i.e. the spiritual qualities, are not as valuable as those things of temporal import; such as the lentil soup Jacob used to procure the birthright. Esau sells his soul, in other words, for things of physical value. Esau misjudges, Jacob does not.
The Bible tells the story of a wayward second son who rebels against his father while his responsible older brother stays home and works hard. Now scientists have proved the tale of the Prodigal Son has the ring of truth. First-born children are more conservative, while their younger siblings are more likely to be rebels, they found.
'Second-born children showed increases in traits like adventurousness and independence across adolescence, whereas in first-borns, these traits did not change much over time,' a spokesman for the researchers said. 'These findings are consistent with the idea that first-borns conform more, while second-borns are more likely to rebel.'