A Lay Speaker
I am not a Hungarian woman and, moreover, I am English and `belong` to the Hít Gyulakazet. Insofar as I have been a church member since my being born from the waters of the spirit, that is, full immersion baptism from the swimming pool in Debrecen in 1994, I have accepted the Holy Spirit (Szentlélek) and Jesus as the tanár (teacher) of my personality and soul.
I am a leszbika and I make no aplologies. I cannot be a pasztor but I can be a lay speaker. It is one thing to be pastored and it is another thing to be one. On occasion I have heard of a young woman being turned away from the Faith Church because she is a lesbian like myself. As a lay speaker I have something to contribute. I am only an English language teacher but I know a few Magyar betú. With these few letters I can communicate a little basic truth from the Bible.
`Male and female He created them both.` (Gen: 1.27) God created Adam who is Man and from Man God created Eve for Man to love. Therefore God incarnated as Woman for Man to love. It is a basic constructional principle (in some quarters) that, because Man is created in the image of God, men are God. But this is erroneous. God loves Man and God creates Woman for Man to love - as God (literally)!
God is simple because good. In Eden the fruit is good and Man and Woman, who are one creation in God, may eat all of it. Because God is good and the fruit is good also. In short, God is good. Noone wants to eat bad fruit, that is, noone would choose evil over good because it is death. It is a principle. God is superomnipotent good and who would reject it? It is good eating and not poison. The principle can be applied to everything; good sex, good living, good art, etc.
When the serpent in Eden offers Adam and Eve (the One creature in God) the apple, that is, the `Fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil` (Gen: 2. 16-18), we understand that it is poison because it is the boy/son (boys` sons) equation which connotes the `root of all evil` (Prov: 12.12). In other words, men are to be the `enemies of God` and this is, in Hungarian, the big difficulty or `nagy baj`.
.gif)
The serpent is an ambiguous symbol. On the one hand, it is the penis that produces the daughter, and as Jesus says in the New Testament: `I am the way and the truth and the life. Noone comes to the Father except through me.` (John: 14.6). Christ is, therefore, also the `narrow door`. (Luke: 13.24) A daughter may, perhaps more than a little linguistically, also be further understandable as a door to God – as we shall see. On the other hand, the boy/son thing is the tool of the boys` owners (poisoners), that is, the Evil One as the collective of men that is to follow from the Fall. Although the Forbidden fruit - as symbolic apple - is eaten by Adam and Eve, nevertheless it is implicit that they remain good though poisoned. (Gen: 3.6-7)
It is interesting that, in Judaism, one cannot be a Jew unless one`s mother is a Jewess, that is, a daughter of God, I am reminded of Meryl Streep in Sophie`s Choice (1982) where she has to give up either her boy or her daughter for extermination to the evil enemies of God, that is, the men as Nazis. It is a trauma but she obeys the precepts of her Creator and gives up the boy/son because her daughter is a mother and the child she gives up represents the poison (- whether redeemable or not). She therefore makes the only choice possible. As we saw at the outset, God is incarnated by God as Woman for Man to love, and the men do not want her. Therefore Sophie (symbol of Sophia [1 Cor: 2.7], the Wisdom of God) gives up the boy/son, that is, the poison, almost without a qualm.
The notion of the poisoner is important here. In the Middle East (Palestine and Jerusalem as well as Riyadh and Saudi Arabia) the poisoner of a well is the most evil personage it is possible to imagine. It may also be perceived as an analogy. A person who is well does not wish to be poisoned. Guests are always welcome but it is a heinous crime if the visitor poisons the well, as it were. Water is highly precious as the stuff of life and is even more valuable than oil because it is perceived to be so. Similarly, in the church the spirit of God is from the waters of baptism (Matt: 3-16) and the baptized is the vessel that now contains the power of the Holy Spirit, which is the Paraclete (John: 14.16) or spirit of Jesus as tanár that was left for one who embraces it upon the Earth by God as the gift to WoMan after the Ascension (Luke: 24.51) of Jesus to Heaven following the crucifixion (Matt: 27.50) and the emergence of the Lord from his tomb in a body `resurrected` (Cor: 15.3-5).
I have a friend in the church who often says `Be kind.` It is that she understands the concept `Mankind`, but men are not kind, that is, they have not accepted the tanár that is the teachings of the Bible through the power of Jesus that is the Holy Spirit. They are therefore unredeemed and doomed to unendurable eternal pain as it is the Will of God. And the Will of God shall prevail!
Men have had their chance at redemption. Jesus is the Son of Man (Matt: 17.9), that is, the Second Adam or of the One creature of God that is Adam and Eve (who effectively is the incarnate God, as we have seen), and the `Mother of God`, as she is called in Catholicism, that is, Mary (Jesus` mother) represents the unpoisoned `vessel` that is born from parthogenesis (Matt: 1.23) without first being broken into, as it were, by one who would create a boy/son (poison), and this is the denial of men as an influence upon the birth of Christ. It is therefore a separation engineered by God through means of the pure vessel that is the virgin. In other words, God becomes incarnate as Virgin Second Eve and the Virgin Christ is the One with God as his bride (Matt: 9.15) and Woman is to be understood as God who shall be God as Providence (Job: 10.12), that is, the eternal nurturing Mother who is his Woman as God. God is, then, the bride that the Son of Man shall have forever; thanks to God`s omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence, and omnipresence.
It is noteworthy that, in Exodus (34), the Ten Commandments given to Moses by God begin with `Thou Shalt Not…` For me, this has always meant `You won`t have to…` Because I, God, shall provide for you. Mankind and men are therefore of necessarily different qualities. I have seen it written that `Man is the animal that kills for pleasure`.1 This is the difference between men and animals. It is a misconstruction based on what I call the `irreality principle`, that is, false premises constructing supposedly unassailably self-evident truths. God tells us in the Bible `Thou shalt not Kill.` It is not couched as an order. It is, rather, an observation. In other words, `Man` does not kill, because God does not allow it. Men do. Because they are evil. Man is saved because redeemed, that is, the poison cannot do permanent harm to Man but men are irremediably poisoned because they do not accept the tutelary spirit that is the Paraclete, the invisible (to men) guide sent by God to instruct men after the Resurrection of the Son of Man. Without acceptance they cannot be Resurrected by God.
Adam and Eve are redeemed as One creature by the redemptive knowledge of Jesus because it is Man (Adam and Eve – and all those who are like them as One) for whom are the teachings of Jesus. For Christians it is simple, accept that you are saved by Jesus who has redeemed you by means of the cross which he bore for your sake. Jesus was an apprentice carpenter who became a lay preacher instead (Matt: 13.55); therefore it was clearly the plan of men who are the evil enemies of God that the Messiah should be nailed hands and feet to two rough pieces of wood in the shape of a man with arms outstretched. In Catholicism the bread and the wine are symbols of the body and the blood of Jesus (1 Cor: 10-16), which is the Eucharist of the Mass in the ceremony known as Transubstantiation where bread and wine are consumed in acceptance of the power of the Holy Spirit to save. At the Hít Gyulakazet we know it as `washed in the blood of the lamb` (1 Peter 1: 18-20), which means that Jesus` bodily wounds from the cross are healed in the Resurrection and we also shall be saved by God.
The foregoing is important because the evil are unable to accept good. You have heard many times someone say: `That woman is too good for you.` What they mean is that it is impossible for them to allow you to have what is good and freely offered by God as good for you – even if it is the woman who is freely giving of herself in wedlock. They are also saying that she is `too good` for them insofar as good is anathema to them because they are evil and cannot abide with it. This is exactly what happens in Eden. God is incarnated as the Woman Eve and the boy/son thing, that is, the serpentine future of men as the viral penis that is them, is egotistically `too good` for Adam (who is also Eve – or any future woman - as God), by which is meant that it is the Evil One as the collective that is men.
But what is good is God and therefore it is not possible for anything to be `too good` for anyone. It is the work of the men as the boys` owners (poisoners) - or those who poison the boys to make them `men` - to say that they are (in their egotism) `too good` for others. It says in the Old Testament or Talmud ,`Thou Shalt Not Suffer A Poisoner to Live` (Exodus 22:18) and we may think of it as the eleventh commandment. Indeed, as the crucial one because it is in accordance with the basic principle of God in Eden; men who are to come will be evil: Man is not.
The symbol of the virgin is important too. Virgins are unbroken vessels and innocence is associated with them. Good is innocence and threatened innocence is the menace of rape. It is a raid upon her goodness by what would seek to poison her, which may be anything of her that is developmental of the good God that she represents. Men are the raids and the rapes that she seeks to avoid in her innocent works that she produces as a greater glory of the goodness of God that is in her. Whether she be Ashley Tisdale (1985-) or Victoria Osteen (1961-), she endeavours to be beautiful because she sees herself in the mirror and understands that God wants her to be so (and why should she not; is God not incarnate as her?). But men, in truth, are her aids and her apes, that is, AIDS monkeys. It is Revelation.
In The Book of the Revelation of St. John the Divine a New Redeemer is depicted as attendant upon the Woman `clothed with the sun and with the moon at her feet` (Rev: 12.1). The `child` of the `mother` is constantly under threat from devourment by a dragon (Rev: 12.4), described elsewhere as the multiplicitous `beast` (Rev: 13.11), which denotes men or the Evil One that directs their collectivity. Some have noted that this draco is associated with the number 666 (Rev: 13.18) and that 999 is the `police` in some nations, which suggests that the police are also the bullies, that is, the mafia, and the meaning is in the reversal of our expectations. Our perceived protectors are revealed as extermination camp guards in which WoMan is being murdered by men and the women who support them in such evil constructs as `snuff films`, for example.
The Hungarian word tanár is again important in terms of our understanding here. It is the principle that men are the `enemies of God` but that Mankind (WoMan) is redeemable if the Paraclete or `teacher` is heard. Man is One creature as Woman and Man in God. As it was in Eden. Or, as we have already seen it said in the Bible; `Male and female He created them both`. Might we not therefore expect a New Redeemer to be male (solar) and female (luna)? There are even such in the world. They are known as `futanari`. They have breasts, penis and vagina as the hermaphroditic alternative to reproduction with men, that is, they represent an alternative human species development. Mankind as One creature (Man and Woman combined in one form - and to combine with Woman) to go on in God without men who are the `evil enemies of God` because they have defined themselves as such and are therefore non-human exterminate (n.) - as the dictionary has it. Amen.
1 James Anthony Froude Oceana, or, England and Her Colonies (1886), C. Scribner`s Sons, 1972, 396 pp, p.67.