A Different Take on that Early Christian Text - "Wife" as Soul

page: 1
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 20 2012 @ 11:12 AM
link   
For context, I'm referring to the recent discovery of an early Christian text that supposedly indicates Jesus may have been married.

Metaphorically, the soul has been referred to as the "wife" - or, more often, the "bride" - that joins divine union/oneness with God/Tao/the universe. That is to say, that immediate and definite sensation where one feels, to quote Alan Watts, "that the whole energy, which expresses itself in the galaxies, is intimate" - which has alternately been called mystical experience, peak experience, beatific vision, moksha, satori, samadhi, nirvana, cosmic consciousness, Christ consciousness, bodhi, etc... The bride symbolizes the individual's sort of void-like receptiveness to the experience. In Christian terminology, 16th Century mystic St. John of the Cross put it this way:


"It is the property of love to place him who loves on an equality with the object of his love. Hence the soul, because of its perfect love, is called the bride of the Son of God, which signifies equality with Him. In this equality and friendship all things are common, as the Bridegroom Himself said to His disciples: I have called you friends, because all things, whatsoever I have heard of my Father, I have made known to you."
en.wikiquote.org...


St. John's Dark Night of the Soul might actually be an excellent resource. And "wife" could therefore be referring to the soul of any "disciple," or any potential "disciple" in general (given everyone's supposed ability to attain union with the Godhead - which might explain how/why "she will be able to be my disciple").

Not saying that's the case here, but it wouldn't be the first time religious text was wrongly interpreted literally. The anonymous author of another mystic Christian text - The Cloud of Unknowing - warns about the misinterpretation of "words spoken with a spiritual intent":


"And take great care that you do not construe in a material way what is to be understood spiritually. For what I say is true: That the material and sensual interpretations of those who go in for elaborate whims and fancies are the cause of much error.
...
So it seems to me that we need to be greatly on our guard in the interpretation of words which are spoken with spiritual intent, lest we interpret them in a material way and not spiritually as they are meant."


There's even talk of "union with the Spouse" and "to be made one with God in spirit and in love" in that book.

I'm not a Christian and don't have a dog in this race either way, but I have recently been intensely interested in the potential for and accounts of mystical experiences - which have been recorded throughout time and across religions. And by both religious and non-religious folk alike, for that matter. Here's a particularly fascinating account by one Allan Smith - who at the time had been a self-proclaimed "materialistic-atheistic-scientist":


"Along with the light came an alteration in mood. I began to feel very good, then still better, then elated. While this was happening, the passage of time seemed to become slower and slower. The brightness, mood-elevation, and time-slowing all progressed together. It is difficult to estimate the time period over which these changes occurred, since the sense of time was itself affected. However, there was a feeling of continuous change, rather than a discrete jump or jumps to a new state. Eventually, the sense of time passing stopped entirely. It is difficult to describe this feeling, but perhaps it would be better to say that there was no time, or no sense of time. Only the present moment existed. My elation proceeded to an ecstatic state, the intensity of which I had never even imagined could be possible. The white light around me merged with the reddish light of the sunset to become one all enveloping, intense undifferentiated light field. Perception of other things faded. Again, the changes seemed to be continuous.

At this point, I merged with the light and everything, including myself, became one unified whole. There was no separation between myself and the rest of the universe. In fact, to say that there was a universe, a self, or any 'thing' would be misleading - it would be an equally correct description to say that there was 'nothing' as to say that there was 'everything'. To say that subject merged with object might be almost adequate as a description of the entrance into Cosmic Consciousness, but during Cosmic Consciousness there was neither 'subject' nor 'object'. All words or discursive thinking had stopped and there was no sense of an 'observer' to comment or to categorize what was 'happening'. In fact, there were no discrete events to 'happen' - just a timeless, unitary state of being.

Cosmic Consciousness is impossible to describe, partly because describing involves words and the state is one in which there were no words. My attempts at description here originated from reflecting on Cosmic Consciousness soon after it had passed and while there was still some 'taste' of the event remaining."

more at the link: www.awaresilence.com...


Like I said, if this text does turn out to be "legitimate" (whatever that means), I just wanted to offer another possible interpretation (which I haven't seen proposed elsewhere). It may even be just as heretical/scandalous as Jesus having an actual wife, as the Church (and mainstream Christianity in general) have largely suppressed and denied the mystical experience, fancying themselves as gatekeepers to consciousness and the Divine. Whereas the mystical experience, according to Alan Watts, was the original intent of the Gospel (or, 'good news'):


"In other words, the Gospel, or 'good news' that Jesus was trying to convey, despite the limitations of his tradition, was that we are all sons of God.
...
But the Church, still bound to the image of God as the King of kings, couldn't accept this Gospel. It adopted a religion about Jesus instead of the religion of Jesus. It kicked him upstairs and put him in the privileged and unique position of being the Boss's son, so that, having this unique advantage, his life and example became useless to everyone else."


Watts happens to be one of my favorite speakers on the mystical experience (attempting to convey that which is really ineffable, as he flatly admits), with plenty of fantastic talks on the matter to be found on YouTube. Here's a great lecture that speaks on "Jesus and His Religion" in particular:





posted on Sep, 20 2012 @ 11:20 AM
link   
Maybe it's wise to wait until it has been at least confirmed to be from the claimed era.

Someone has suggested it to be the "Church" here.
And you have suggested it to be the "Soul".
Wasn't "Mary" literally mentioned in the same text?

Maybe the reason why it has been too embarrassing to mention Jesus' wife is the fact that she was a sheep called Mary?



posted on Sep, 20 2012 @ 11:34 AM
link   
reply to post by deometer
 


wtf?

Don't quit your day job.

Do you feel a desperate need for it not to be Mary, but any soul of the desciple?



posted on Sep, 20 2012 @ 11:58 AM
link   
As Alan Watts describes it: Soul = Psyche = Mind = Everything.

If the wife is the soul, then it's basically uniting with your true self, which is everything, God and "Mother Earth" included. Stepping out of this by embracing delusion is stepping out of the bridal chamber, falling out of union with "divinity," and becoming impoverished sheep/egos.


Fun idea OP.



posted on Sep, 20 2012 @ 12:11 PM
link   
reply to post by MarioOnTheFly
 


Not at all, I just have a problem with a culture that is incapable of seeing/thinking beyond a literal interpretation of things. That's one of the problems with the followers of Christianity and a whole host of other religions (and even atheistic/scientifically minded folk), is that they're more interested in the historicity of these stories (virgin birth, God's only begotten son, etc...) than what the stories might point at symbolically/mythologically. And when I say "myth", I don't simply mean fanciful stories. But "myth" in terms of our image of the world - or our attempts to understand, make sense of, and orient ourselves to the world. I highly recommend another lecture from Alan Watts on the subject:



I also suggest looking into Joseph Campbell's work, who was one of the foremost experts of our time on mythology and the interpretation of it and its symbolism. Also, the book Madness at the Gates of the City: The Myth of American Innocence by Barry Spector helps to jar one out of their ruts of perception, and looks at modern culture through the lens of mythology and, specifically, the ancient Greek tragedy The Bacchae by Euripedes.

So, no, I don't have a problem if Jesus - if there was such a man - had a wife. "Bride as the soul" could be true and he could have very well had a wife, for that matter. I just wanted offer another perspective that might not be blatantly obvious on its face, and thought people might be interested in having it pointed out. "Deny ignorance," and all that sort of thing.



posted on Sep, 20 2012 @ 12:12 PM
link   
reply to post by AdamsMurmur
 


Phenomenally put, AdamsMurmur!!!!


Edit to add: Amazing sig, too!
edit on 20-9-2012 by deometer because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2012 @ 12:42 PM
link   
reply to post by deometer
 


Well I applaud your will to speculate...it's just that it feels a little too far fetched for my taste.

I am not a religious person...and jesus having a wife seems logical. Him declaring to his student, and some of them having issues with women being Jesus's desciples, that this is his wife...also seems reasonable.



posted on Sep, 20 2012 @ 12:55 PM
link   
I disagree with the concept of the soul being the wife. The body is the feminine principle. It is entered by the soul and impregnated with spirit. Matter is impregnated by spirit, spirit is the masculine principle.



posted on Sep, 20 2012 @ 07:00 PM
link   
reply to post by deometer
 
You are very right in what you say, in all mystical traditions this is so, Sufi,Tantra,Gnostic,Christian mystics etc etc.In fact if you take a closer look the feminine is always closer to god because it is through the feminine that absolutely everything is born. The Tao is considered to be feminine also. Jesus supposedly said "when the two become one" meaning when the male and female are one "marriage". Only in the our 3D world, are we talking about a completely different ball game.We try to replicate that in our world and it rarely works because we haven't done it inside ourselves. The ego doesn't like that approach because it is moving in the wrong direction.




posted on Sep, 20 2012 @ 07:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by windword
I disagree with the concept of the soul being the wife. The body is the feminine principle. It is entered by the soul and impregnated with spirit. Matter is impregnated by spirit, spirit is the masculine principle.

What you are saying makes sense, but... everything has many layers. Sure the body has its feminine principle but I see the body as an action vehicle and our inside self as feminine. The body is yang and the mind is yin, of course we are a combination of both. Just look at the world it is ruled by men and masculine principles. We have had a few queens but history shows the world is ruled by very masculine acts. Anyway, it is very complex to understand and requires for one to update many times over as society has a very simplistic view on the matter.



posted on Sep, 20 2012 @ 07:25 PM
link   
reply to post by ancientthunder
 


It's not complicated. Matter is receptive, mutable and is responsive to the will of the spirit. The spirit animates and impregnates the body. Life is a dance between the wedded couple, body and soul.
edit on 20-9-2012 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2012 @ 07:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by ancientthunder
 


It's not complicated. Matter is receptive, mutable and is responsive to the will of the spirit. The spirit animates and impregnates the body. Life is a dance between the wedded couple, body and soul.
edit on 20-9-2012 by windword because: (no reason given)

Yes I agree, so how about if we say the soul is the wife? We come back to what the original post is saying. Then we can have the the idea (impregnation) that two souls can become a wedded couple. That pointing to the idea that even souls have a more feminine quality over others that have a masculine quality. Not so simple
see. But if you take in to account that everything, no matter what it size is or what it is formed of as in this picture. It becomes simple again.



posted on Sep, 20 2012 @ 08:26 PM
link   
reply to post by ancientthunder
 





Yes I agree, so how about if we say the soul is the wife?


Does the wife seek out, propose to and enter the husband? No. The soul, which is immortal takes a body (wife). Matter does not impregnate spirit, as neither does a wife impregnate her husband.



posted on Sep, 20 2012 @ 08:36 PM
link   
If the text is found to be 'authentic' why can’t wife just be ‘wife’ – why does everything need to be manipulated and interpreted hundreds of different ways from the pathetic fairy-tail?

If wife does not mean wife, then what did they call a wife - an elephant?

Mickierocksman



posted on Sep, 20 2012 @ 08:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Mickierocksman
 
Yes if only it was that easy life would be perfect, but it is not.If you want the simple life forget the internet, books and talking about any deep subject.Forget politics or ancient history, old texts and you may be fine.I remember when I lived in Sydney and used to skateboard to school it was great. I knew nothing about nothing and life was truly amazing in a childlike manner. But if I had of asked my mum or my dad what was going on, then my reality would have crumbled real quick.Which it did anyway fairly soon after.So what to you reckon.




posted on Sep, 20 2012 @ 09:02 PM
link   
reply to post by deometer
 


Before man is sent here to Earth, he is joined with a pair, or what you call a "soul mate", this is his equal, or counterpart.

The soul of man is himself, split to make two entities while here on Earth. When man dies, he is joined back unto his soul to become whole again.



posted on Sep, 20 2012 @ 09:03 PM
link   
reply to post by windword
 



as neither does a wife impregnate her husband.

Are you sure about that? So you are saying she is just like a vase and that is it. When you meet her, her voice doesn't enter you, her love doesn't transform you.Her beauty doesn't move you, her smile heal you. I would say she is impregnating you and if she isn't, you might as well just get yourself a surrogate.



posted on Sep, 20 2012 @ 09:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by ancientthunder
reply to post by windword
 



as neither does a wife impregnate her husband.

Are you sure about that? So you are saying she is just like a vase and that is it. When you meet her, her voice doesn't enter you, her love doesn't transform you.Her beauty doesn't move you, her smile heal you. I would say she is impregnating you and if she isn't, you might as well just get yourself a surrogate.



I am sure that a wife can't impregnate her husband!

The emotion that one can imbue onto another is not limited to a marital relationship. A piece of art or literature can affect profound feelings as well.

A person can't enter your mind but their spirit can. Their spirit can impregnate your mind with ideas, thoughts and motivate you to action. The spirit moves through the aethers and enters into matter, not the other way around.
edit on 20-9-2012 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2012 @ 09:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by ancientthunder
reply to post by Mickierocksman
 
Yes if only it was that easy life would be perfect, but it is not.If you want the simple life forget the internet, books and talking about any deep subject.Forget politics or ancient history, old texts and you may be fine.I remember when I lived in Sydney and used to skateboard to school it was great. I knew nothing about nothing and life was truly amazing in a childlike manner. But if I had of asked my mum or my dad what was going on, then my reality would have crumbled real quick.Which it did anyway fairly soon after.So what to you reckon.



I tell my 6 year old son everything, always the truth; he understands and is not scared.

He still has childhood innocence and a great imagination - but he knows of the real world and what goes on.

You can have both and it forms a better person that can tell difference between real and make-believe.

Mickierocksman



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 02:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Mickierocksman
 



it forms a better person that can tell difference between real and make-believe.

No doubt about it, but what happens in many cases is that a spirit find what is said to be real so depressing and repellant that naturally one searches for make believe in ones life. In fact so much so that the make believe becomes more desired. Once one learns where that leads you "nowhere" it becomes hard to navigate in that so called "real world" I now look and see that the "real world" is made up of pure fantasy in many ways, so you are prompted to re evaluate once again.





new topics
top topics
 
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join