How to turn a rib into a woman!

It is actually a very simple thing to do. All it takes is to convince yourself that you are more important than God.

Of course, this will mean that you will have to close your eyes and be asleep to the truth, but that is precisely what happened to Adam when he was feeling lonely in the Garden.

In that famous biblical story, Adam was put to sleep and a woman was miraculously formed out of his rib. This story is actually a metaphor for any person who begins to favor self-guidance over God’s guidance.

To favor our own prudence in all things is to put oneself into a metaphysical snooze. In this diminished mental state of self-delusion, something relatively dead is turned into something beautiful to behold. Our imagined importance becomes what is most attractive to us, even though when compared to God, it is not nearly as vital.

A rib is a bone in the chest—an area also occupied by the vital organs. A rib bone is less vital and less animate than a heart or lung. Therefore, to create a woman from a rib is the psycho-spiritual equivalent of putting lipstick on a false assumption. It represents attraction to a belief in something of little importance to our eternal welfare.

Eve represents choosing self-love and self-worship as our life-long partner.

Such profound insights and revelations contained in Scripture are hidden to those who insist that Scripture is only to be interpreted from the literal sense of the words. This will NOT keep us from going astray—every Christian denomination has resulted from different interpretations of the very same words.

Theologian Emanuel Swedenborg wrote twenty volumes of work solely to reveal to humanity the deeper levels of meaning contained within Holy Scripture. These deeper interpretations will provide more rational evidence for the authority and sanctity of God’s Word, provide more relevant theology for the modern world, and finally, provide a higher vantage point by which all can have a similar understanding of spiritual truth!

Oh, I left one important thing out. Exposure to these higher levels of meaning will make you less likely to have your rib go through such a transformation. The only thing that can come from a “rib” is a parody—a feeble or ridiculous imitation.

http://www.staircasepress.com

Advertisements

About thegodguy

EDWARD F. SYLVIA, M.T.S. Philosopher/Theologian Edward F. Sylvia attended the School of Visual Arts in New York and received his Master of Theological Studies at the Pacific School of Religion in Berkeley, CA and a Certificate of Swedenborgian Studies from the Swedenborgian House of Studies. He is a member of the Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences (C.T.N.S.) and the Swedenborg Scientific Association (S.S.A.). Award-winning author of "Sermon From the Compost Pile: Seven Steps Toward Creating An Inner Garden" and "Proving God," which fulfills a continuing vision that God’s fingerprints of love can be found everywhere in the manifest universe. His most recent book, "Swedenborg & Gurdjieff: The Missing Links" is an edgy collection of anti-intuitive essays for personal transformation that challenges and inspires. He has been a student of the ideas of both Emanuel Swedenborg and George I. Gurdjieff for over thirty years. Read more about TheGodGuy, his books and his ideas at http://www.staircasepress.com
This entry was posted in god, Inner growth, love, metaphysics, psychology, Reality, religion, spirituality, symbolism, unity and tagged , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

16 Responses to How to turn a rib into a woman!

  1. Oldschool36 says:

    … Except that God created male and female of every kind of animal, and on His own said that it wasn’t good for Adam to be alone. He then proceeded to have Adam name every kind of animal, in order to show that none among them is suitable. God then created woman to be a partner to Adam.

    If you claim that the creation of the human female is the result of Adam not being satisfied, you reduce women to a lesser level of importance than males.

    You also make the claim that Adam suffered from greed and/or jealousy before the Fall. This makes no logical sense whatsoever. Certainly, mankind is guilty of many sins, but let us not indulge in self-depreciation to the point where we mistake a gift from God as some kind of punishment for selfishness.

    You also reduce God to the level of having to kowtow to man, like a mother rushing to soothe her crying infant.

    This is not to say that Scripture doesn’t contain symbolism, but we must be careful not to overlook the forest for the trees, such as in this case. In attempting to find these so-called “deeper… higher levels of meaning,” you create nothing but contradiction and paradox.

  2. thegodguy says:

    Dear Oldschool,

    Thank you for your comments.

    For someone who believes there is a symbolic element to Scripture I find it amusing that you hold tight to the idea that the story of Adam and Eve must be taken literally. Call me crazy but it would seem that the literal interpretation of this story is demeaning to women – being created from a man’s rib, then being fooled by a talking reptile.

    By the way, to have a mere literal (corporeal/sensual) understanding of God’s Holy Word is to CRAWL ON ONE’S BELLY ALONG THE GROUND. So stand up, dust yourself off, and elevate your mind!

    You have provided my readers with a perfect example of what happens when old school meets New Jerusalem.

    Spiritually yours,
    TheGodGuy

  3. Oldschool36 says:

    I must ask how you arrive at your conclusions. For example, how can you verify that your deeper meaning is, in fact, the correct meaning? Do you claim to have received a form of special revelation from God apart from Scripture? How does one “elevate” one’s mind? Through study of God’s Word, and the exercise of the intellect? Or through succumbing to the ebb and tides of New Age transcendentalism? And when one has reached what seems to be an elevated state of mind, how does one actually know that one has actually been elevated, and is simply grossly mistaken?

    Bear with me. For example, another individual may agree with you that the account of Adam and Eve is to be taken completely symbolically. Yet, in their search for deeper meaning, they arrive at a conclusion radically different from your own. Neither of you can use any other source to support your own view over another’s, so how can a third party know that the higher meaning found in your blog post is actually correct? Or do you claim that both are correct?

  4. thegodguy says:

    Dear Oldschool,

    Great questions!

    The symbolic language I am speaking about is neither arbitrary nor based on subjective attempts at creating metaphor.

    God’s Holy Word is a multi-dimensional document. It contains higher levels of meaning based on a universal symbolic language called THE SCIENCE OF CORRESPONDENCES.

    One arrives at this symbolic language by elevating natural words to their psycho-spiritual equivalent. If this is done correctly the higher meaning of a word will consistently hold true everywhere it appears throughout Scripture. That consistency will determine whose symbolic interpretation is correct.

    When we apply the science of correspondences to Scripture the Lord can reveal deeper doctrinal truths to us concerning the mysteries of faith and salvation.

    This elevated language is now being re-introduced to the world by the Lord and will become the property of all those who will inhabit the Holy City, the New Jerusalem.

    The Second Coming is happening now! It is not a physical event but a transformation of the human heart and mind. This is how all things will be made “anew.”

    Spiritually yours,
    TheGodGuy

  5. Oldschool36 says:

    I suppose my issue has to do with epistemology. How does one know the “science of correspondences” is, in fact, actually intended by God to interpret Scripture? Nowhere in Scripture itself is it implied that elevate their mind before they can interpret Scripture. On the contrary, one must look to Scripture before he can become wise (Proverbs 1:1-7; 2:6; II Timothy 3:16-17; Col 3:16).

    On the other hand, there are those who subject God’s plain Word to man’s wisdom, claiming that they have discovered some special key to interpreting Scripture. In response to this, I offer the very straightforward words of Proverbs 14:12: “There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end of it are the ways of death.” These individuals who masquerade as godly men can always be tested by Scripture, which God has ordained as our measuring rod for truth (1 John 4:1; II Timothy 3:16).

    You have provided the blogosphere with a perfect example of what happens when so-called god-guys meet the Word of God.

    Spiritually His,
    OldSchool36

  6. thegodguy says:

    Dear Oldschool,

    “Then He opened their minds so that they could understand the scriptures.” (Luke 24:45)

    If a terrestrial understanding of the words of Scripture were sufficient, the Lord would not have had to make extra efforts to aid the comprehension of His disciples.

    This is wonderful! You are beginning to experience the upheaval of your world view. These are the spiritual earthquakes of the “end times.”

    Spiritually yours,
    TheGodGuy

  7. Oldschool36 says:

    I do not argue with the truth of Luke 24:45. Note that the Lord opens a persons mind so that they can understand Scripture. I find nowhere, however, where it says that God came down and instituted a “science” of corresponding psycho-spiritual meanings of words. The *Lord* elevates people’s understanding; people do not arrive at an elevated mind on their own, or through a earthly-devised method of biblical hermeneutics.

    Scripture must first be interpreted in light of other Scripture. Jesus used this principle in Matthew 19:3-8. The Bereans also checked what the apostle Paul preached by looking at Scripture. I find no mention of their using any science of correspondences. Since the Bible was written over a vast period of time, large parts of it were available long before others. Why, then, is there no mention in the New Testament, for example, of the apostles admonishing people to elevate their minds by attempting to use corresponding psycho-spiritual meaning to the plain words of Scripture? The answer is because only the Holy Spirit can open a person’s eyes to the truth of Scripture, and the way He does so is a mystery.

    In 2 Corinthians 4:2 Paul says that he and his colleagues set forth the truth *plainly*. This does not sound like an admonition for his Corinthian readers to read between the spiritual lines of his epistles, but rather a statement that the truth is plain so that no one who reads it has any excuse but to know it as truth.

  8. thegodguy says:

    Dear Oldschool,

    Plain words?

    The Lord spoke only in parables. Is that plain words?

    Is a seven-headed dragon attacking a pregnant woman who is standing on the moon, plain words?

    If plain words are sufficient, why did the Lord have to explain new things about Scripture to two of his disciples on the road to Emmaus?

    If plain words are sufficient, why did early theologians make up artificial words like “hypostatic union” to explain how their bizarre idea of three Gods could be understood as one God?

    If plain words are sufficient, why would theologians take God’s two great commandments to “love God and the neighbor” then render these laws obsolete because of the cross and invent the irresponsible doctrine of salvation by faith alone?

    In John 1:1-3 it states that God is the Word. That means the Word is Infinite! Therefore, how is God’s infinite wisdom squeezed into the finite book we call the Holy Word – unless it contained layers of meaning?

    At least you do not argue about the truth of Luke 24:45. But if the Lord (not the Holy Spirit) opened their minds, the question is, opened their minds to what? You have given the nod to the fact that there must be more to Scripture than meets the eye!

    So why are you trying to dumb-down my readers?

    Spiritually yours,
    TheGodGuy

  9. Oldschool36 says:

    To answer each question:

    1. Yes.

    2. Mark 4:14-20. Again, I remind you that I do not claim that the Bible is devoid of symbolism, which brings me to the next question:

    3. Revelation 12 is actually using direct, literal language to describe what John saw. Why this particular vision is not fully interpreted, as are other visions found elsewhere in Scripture, I do not know. But it is possible that this is a case where Deuteronomy 29:29 applies.

    4. Alas, fallen man has been blinded by sin, and only sees what he wishes. So often we try to bend the plain teaching of Scripture to fit what we want it to say; we twist it to fit how we think it should look. These men had taken certain portions of Scripture out of context, and had failed to let Scripture interpret Scripture. Jesus then plainly showed them – from Scripture – how He had fulfilled prophecy. Note that in Luke 24:25 Jesus points out their being “slow to believe in *all* that the prophets have spoken” (emphasis added). Here is a case where man tried to invent a new meaning for Scripture, one that escaped a plain reading of *all* Scripture. In mentioning this particular portion of God’s Word, you argue against yourself. Also, have you not ever read something written by a man, in plain language, yet still not grasped the concept at first? Not every mind grasps at truth easily. I mean no disrespect to mentally handicapped people when I assert that plain language is often misunderstood by such individuals. This does not mean that the language is not plain, only that they cannot always immediately understand.

    5. Early theologians, just as theologians today, are fallen, imperfect men. They were not God, nor were they “inspired” in such a way as were the writers of Scripture. I cannot answer your question, except that I know that the word “hypostatic union” is not necessary for a rudimentary grasp of the concept of a triune God. The Word of God given in Scripture is sufficient for man (II Timothy 3:16-17). Also, I wonder why you classify “hypostatic union” as an “artificial” word? Any word is a word, so long as it conveys a thought or idea. Languages grow as people find new ways to express themselves. English did not exist at the time of Scripture. I, for one, am glad that someone took the time to translate God’s Word into all of these “artificial” words!

    6. I personally know of no theologian who considers these commands to be obsolete. I do not consider them to be. I cannot speak for any erroneous theologian you have encountered. As for your “irresponsible” doctrine: John 6:47; Galatians 3:11; 5:4-6. That’s just the appetizers.

    7. The word “Word” in this passage is referring to Jesus Christ. Let me point out that while in English, using the word “Word” to refer to a person may not be our first choice, in the original language it did not take much interpretation, especially in light of the verses immediately following, to recognize who John was writing about. The word “Word,” which can also be translated as Logos, or Logic, was used to communicate a truth about Jesus. The point is that John 1:1-3 is *not* talking about Scripture. God never intended for man to possess His infinite knowledge. Once again I refer you to Deuteronomy 29:29. Our minds will never be infinite, thus we cannot know all of what God knows. The individual who assumes that it is possible to know the “secret things” of God, either in this life or the hereafter, suffers from delusions of grandeur.

    8. The Holy Spirit opens minds. 1 John 2:20-27 cannot be clearer. By the way, this also affirms the doctrine described by yet another “artificial” word, the Trinity. John 16:13 is another good verse that shows how the Holy Spirit reveals truth. Oh yes, and 1 Corinthians 2:10-12. Excellent example. And for an Old Testament reference, Isaiah 59:21. Now, lest you be tempted to quote 1 Corinthians 2 to defend your psycho-spiritual interpretation of Scripture, know that this passage poses no threat to the view of a more literal translation. Paul is emphasizing a reliance on the *Spirit* to make truth known, *not* a man-made system of ascribing corresponding “higher/deeper” meanings to the words that God has chosen to employ.

    9. That is the last thing I intend. I do not wish to confuse or deceive anyone. Allow me to refer you to Jeremiah 17:10, where God establishes that He alone is the One who judges people’s motives. Job 1:8-11 is an excellent example of an individual who chose to ignore that principle.

    Sincerely,
    OldSchool36

  10. thegodguy says:

    Dear Oldschool,

    I am impressed with your “linear” knowledge of Scripture. However, the the only valuable statement you make above is your admission that you do not know why further explanation is not given concerning the meaning of biblical visions.

    This involves a “vertical” understanding of Scripture. While I believe you have a genuine interest in Spiritual truth, you seem more interested in refuting me than learning more about the information I am sharing with my readers.

    The science of correspondences is not a man-made system. And not having access to this multi-leveled system of exegesis is why the meaning of visions remains out of your reach.

    Rather than recoil at the idea of “higher meanings,” intellectual discernment should be leading you to find out how well correspondences can be applied to the Lord’s Holy Word.

    Spiritually yours,
    TheGodGuy

    P.S. I have a full day of meetings today. So I will not be able to respond to any further comments until this evening.

  11. Oldschool36 says:

    “The only valuable statement you make above is your admission that you do not know why further explanation is not given concerning the meaning of biblical visions.” -This is opinion, not a logical refutation of my answers to your questions. The logic of my answers cannot be dismissed so easily; they continue to stand.

    I am very interested in refuting any illogic. 2 Corinthians 10:4-5 admonishes Christians to do so.

    Since the Bible is God’s Word, and since there is no mention of relying on any science of correspondences, but instead only on the Holy Spirit, I must conclude that the SoC is, in fact, man-made. Only in Scripture are we presented with propositions that we know to be true. Therefore one cannot know the SoC to be legitimate, much in the same way we cannot rely on the realm of secular science to fully explain our universe.

    I would like to add that I do not engage in this sort of debate in order to puff myself up, or simply “win a fight.” I do so because I believe conversations such as this are worthwhile, even necessary if we are to remain true to God’s Word. Thus I appreciate your continuing to respond to my posts, and thank you for your willingness to engage in logical discussion.

  12. thegodguy says:

    Dear Oldschool,

    I will not allow you to frame the debate. I maintain that Scripture contains higher levels of meaning within its literal sense. You agree that at least a part of Scripture has symbolic content. You also admit to having no cognitive access to this inner content.

    I am simply saying that the science of correspondences holds the key to unlocking the meaning of this mysterious form of communication between God and man. These higher meanings are not man-made because they reveal more profound doctrines concerning the Lord God and His glorification.

    One of the purposes of this blog is to make a case for deeper meanings within the architecture of Scripture. I have been making this case with dozens and dozens of posts for almost a year, and, which address this issue from many angles.

    You have stumbled upon this blog without having benefit of my previous and numerous explanations which present the logic of my untraditional assertions.

    Do you think God gave Ezekiel his strange visions just to play with his head? Wouldn’t such fantastic visions be a slap in the face to Paul and his colleagues to set forth the truth “plainly?”

    The Lord told his disciples that He had more things to explain to them but that “they could not bear these things now.” What kind of INFORMATION do you think humans might not be able to bear?

    Higher meanings perhaps?

    Spiritually yours,
    TheGodGuy

    P.S. By the way, I think the Greeks also referred to the word LOGOS as RATIO – for rational or logical. All things in the universe represent mathematical ratios. And John 1:1-3 states that everything that was made in the universe was made from the Word. Did Jesus make the universe? I though orthodox Christianity maintained that the Father was the Creator? So your “old school” explanations actually obscure these topics rather than offer clarity!

  13. OldSchool36 says:

    What debate do you refer to? I find it interesting that you ask questions of me in an attempt to prove a point, and when you receive clear and simple answers, you abandon the approach and try a new tack. This is not a debate, this is hit and run.

    John 1:1-3 poses no threat to orthodox Christianity. Read the passage again. “The Word was with God, and the Word *was* God.” God created. Jesus created. The Father and Son are one. The doctrine of the Trinity, last time I checked, is considered pretty orthodox. And yes, “old school”/OldSchool36. I get it. Except that it’s not a statement about my theology. It’s from my videography enterprise.

    Since I have already pointed out that this is not a debate and you continue to refuse to abide by any rule of reason, this will be my last post. Reply if you must; I feel no need to have the last word.

  14. thegodguy says:

    Dear Oldschool,

    Sorry that you have left the discussion. What I mean by your changing the frame of the debate (and it is a debate since you are challenging my premise) is that you are relying on the literal words of Scripture to disprove that these words can be only be understood literally.

    What rule of reason do you have in mind when it comes to understanding how God created Eve from a “rib bone” or that she conversed with a “talking” reptile. Have you lost your marbles?

    You show no interest in gaining insights even to the symbolic language that you admit is used in Scripture. What are you afraid of?

    Just in case you are taking a “peek” at my last response to you, let me give you a very simple example of correspondences that can be most helpful. Lets look at Rev. 21:23 concerning the New Jerusalem.

    “The city hath no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it; for the glory of God doth lighten and the lamb is the lamp thereof.”

    Obviously this passage refers to qualities of God as providing the light by which men and women will go about their lives in this Holy City. God’s TRUTH lets us SEE!

    The word “enlightenment” shows that humans have an instinctive ability to elevate the term “light” to its psycho-spiritual equivalent, which is “truth.” Being enlightened is the ability to see things from the point of view of truth. There is a real correspondence between light and truth!

    The purpose of this blog is to show that correspondences apply to ALL the terms and narratives of the Lord’s true Holy Word. Without the knowledge of correspondences theology will be inadequate for the challenges of today’s world and unable to respond to the New Physics.

    Spiritually yours,
    TheGodGuy

  15. Don Brandis says:

    Godguy: It is a pleasure to hear someone who has come to hear the Word in the Writings and can speak from it clearly. I will read the rest of your blog. Thanks.

    -gegenschein

  16. thegodguy says:

    Dear Don,

    Thanks for your words of support. I will try not to let you down.

    Spiritually yours,
    TheGodGuy

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s