Cedar Camps

Metaphysical Ideas

Search Metaphysicals
 

Metaphysical Newsletters

The weekly Metaphysical Newsletter is provided to campers, staff, alumni, friends and the CedarS family at no charge however contributions help defray the costs of running this service.

Click here for more about how you can provide support!
 

Delivered to You FREE!

Available in five languages, get it delivered to your inbox weekly!

Subscribe Now!

Enjoy CC & other Insights on select citations on “Mortals and Immortals” (the Christian Science Bible Lesson for November 12, 2017)

Warren Huff (with insights from Cobbey Crisler)
Posted Sunday, November 5th, 2017

To go with this week's CedarS "Met" Application Ideas, I put together a few insights
from Cobbey Crisler and others on select citations from
the Christian Science Bible Lesson on
“Mortals and Immortals" for November 12, 2017.
Hope you enjoy them! Warren Huff

Warren’s (W’s) PS#1—Cobbey Crisler insights on the Golden Text, Matt. 25:34:
“Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world” was what Jesus said he would say to the righteous (sheep) on the right side of the throne of glory. [This fulfills the prophesy of Ps. 78:2 as mentioned in Matt. 13:35.]
“From the foundation of the world” refers of course to Genesis 1 and the dominion man who was to appear on earth as in heaven with immense implications and healing results [as in Matthew 14:36 and 15:38.]

Jesus states that the reason the righteous are to inherit the dominion-man “kingdom prepared for them from the foundation of the world” is that when they saw the most marginalized and least favored members of humanity—the homeless, wretched, imprisoned and sick— they reached out to them and fed them and their “famished affections” and cared for them like a good shepherd would—and in so doing also did so for Christ Jesus. By saying this Jesus takes the self-satisfied in his audiences and stretches them to another place by really shooting the bar up.”

Transcribed from notes in the margins of Warren’s Bible from a talk by Cobbey Crisler

W’s PS#2 —Cobbey Crisler insights on the correlative Scripture (to the Scientific Statement of Being) according I John 3:2 (in the Responsive Reading)

I John 3, verse 2 starts in such a tender way—“Beloved”—and gives the present time—“now”! It is also all gender-inclusive since the Greek word that the King James Version translates “sons of God” really should be “children of God.” … “he (God) shall appear we shall be like him (his likeness as in Genesis 1); for we shall see him as he is. (the Greek word translated see here carries the meaning of recognize mentally or perceive spiritually.”

Transcribed from notes in the margins of Warren’s Bible from a talk by B. Cobbey Crisler on The Church: Its Scriptural Continuity]

W’s PS#3 —Cobbey Crisler insights on citation B1, John 1:1-3: “In the beginning”

“John 1:1. John starts off unlike any of the preceding gospels. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He starts off, as a matter of fact, as only one other book of the Bible begins. Notice Genesis 1:1: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” Do you think the early readers of his gospel would have recognized that? Do you think that was John's intent? That it should be recognized?

“There is something that is a major clue to studying the Bible. That is, when you get the remotest hint of an Old Testament verse in the New Testament, don't ignore it or put it aside. It’s there for a very deep reason. It probably holds the key to the meaning of the New Testament event, or the author would not have included it. By no means make the mistake which Professor Davies, Professor Dodd, Professor Albright and many others of our top New Testament scholars say we often make. That is, when you find a verse in the New Testament which comes from the Old Testament, either an exact quote or a paraphrase, don’t just go back to that verse. Read the context around it. Study the environment; get deeply involved in the thought and intent of the Old Testament passage. You may be more closely at-one with what the author in the New Testament means. In other words, what do you have? You have a blend of the whole Bible that way. You find that Old and New Testaments become inseparable, which is virtually the view, I think, that the authors of the New Testament take. The account of the "Walk to Emmaus" in Luke 24: 13-35 shows how much Jesus and the apostles used the Old Testament to show how much the New Testament fulfills Old Testament prophecies.

“It also seems clear to me that Jesus, in his approach to mankind, from his outlook, his acts, his attitudes, his words as well as works, embraced universal humanity. You'll find hints of it passed down from his early students to their students, and so forth. But more than this, Jesus of Nazareth was a Bible student to surpass all Bible students. Therefore, if he knew in his own thought when an event affecting him or others of his period were the fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecy, or a lesson should be learned from a new/old truth that came out of the reservoir of the Scriptures, then he would so state it.

“But sometimes he allowed it to remain hidden. It would force his hearers, as well as his readers in this century, to become Bible students with him if they wanted to understand what he was saying. He embraces universal humanity. He addresses and communicates particularly to Bible students. As far as Jesus' comprehension of the word "Christian" is concerned, it probably would be fair to say that he would insist that Christians become Bible students just to comprehend what the word meant. What does that say to us today? Does that mean we should be reading these books, this collection, this library called the Bible? Specifically, our focus today is on the New Testament and one of the gospels? Should we be reading it as if it were a novel? Is that how Jesus felt his life and mission should be conveyed?

“Should we weep real tears because of the suffering and the lack of understanding and the persecution that occurred to him? And then wipe our eyes and go about our business because we've read a very deeply moving story, as we might have turned on a televisions set? Is that the kind of surface research that Jesus expected of his followers? When he said in John 5:39, "search the Scriptures,” I doubt you could ever apply that to television. Who wants to search television? There is obviously an object in view which Jesus knew would not benefit him, but would be enormously rewarding. The yield on that kind of investment would leap out of the page into the lives of those who did it. Therefore, "the word would be made flesh,” (John 1:14).

“John 1:1 starts his gospel off, "In the beginning was the Word.” The Greek is, en arche hin ho logos. Does arche look familiar to you? It is the root word in "archeology." It's an exciting word. It doesn't just mean when things begin or when they have started in a human way, so much as, translated by some scholars, as "the first principle" of things.

“For instance, when Jerome, in about 400 A.D. translates the Greek Bible into Latin, here’s how he does those opening words. "In principio," which, of course, is our root of our word "principle," in principio. He could have used another Latin expression which is "ab initio, " which would have meant at the initial phases of things, but instead he chooses a Latin word which has a dual meaning which could be "principle," the first principle, the origin, the basis of things.

“If we choose that particular Greek meaning for the opening of both Genesis and John, then it gives it an entirely different connotation. If, in principle, God created the heaven and the earth, or in principle, was the word, it starts out like many mathematical or scientific textbooks which start out with the statement of principle. Everything else derives from it.

“But then we come to a word which John uses in the first chapter and uses again in successive chapters but never with the same connotation. It stands out in its uniqueness and it is so emphatically important to the author that we have to just dwell on it somewhat and see what it might mean.

“Let me give you a partial history of the word. What automatically occurs to you as the meaning of logos? We take this word, "Word," and identify it with logos. This is likely being written at some point during the 1st century A.D. Way back in the 6th century B.C., Heraclitus at Ephesus was attempting philosophically to explain continuity amid all the flux around him. He resorted to logos as the eternal principle of order in the universe, the kind of reliable, unchanging law and order. This is several centuries prior to John's use of it. (Interestingly enough, people think that the Gospel of John may have been written there.)

“From that period we can trace the word logos through many, many different concepts. Zeno (of Elea, c 490 - c 430 B.C.), a Greek philosopher used it in the connotation of right reason, of reality within the mind, pure thought. Which leads me to what Professor Dodd has said, "It is only in Greek that a term is available which means both thought and word, and that's logos." Only in Greek have you that term that can convey both thought and word. So, when you’re talking about logos, even from the standpoint of word, if we are not giving to it what really is behind it, we're losing something of the message, aren't we?

“Why does the additional concentration on thought add to the definition of word? When you go behind the word to the thought, you're dealing with ideas, concepts, and the meaning. It is where all human languages finally give up their fragmentation and meet, and become one, in a Pentecostal day of infinite communication. The "word" is but an instrument which we must meet at the thought or at the meaning. Then, no barriers, especially language barriers, can stand between us and comprehension of one another, of the universe, its laws, and the source of those laws.

“Dodd continues: "In Origen’s commentary on the 4th gospel which is being written, again very early in the history of the Christian church. In reading Origen's commentary, there are interpretations in there, in the Greek that he's writing, which absolutely depend upon taking logos not only in the sense of word, but it alternates without warning with the other sense of rational principles. So, the continual indication of this word principle is something that is significant."

“Do you know where we use logos in the English language? Biology, physiology. Logos is the one that has been used to define the sciences in the English language. This was the comprehension at least of the lexicographers who developed our own language of the Greek term. Look how it's lasted even in our language. We use it all the time without realizing it, taking it for granted. Is there a scientific connotation, then, that "In the beginning,” "In the first principle of things,” there is a scientific unvarying, inalienable, order that's ruling. And that it's not only being uttered as an expression or word, but behind it is the immense thought that also must be based on the same principle. Notice in Verse 1of Chapter 1 that it all related with and to God.

“John 1:3 continues with a statement that is quite absolute, "All things were made by him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. " Is there any reservation for qualifications? "All things were made by him. That is [an] enormous commitment to make at the beginning of a book. The theology of this book is therefore committed right squarely on what principle if we're now defining the theological principle on which the Bible is based? Not only oneness of God, but the fact He's one, also means He's all. "All things were made by Him.” Everything is created by Him. That also poses problems, because all we have to do is open our eyes and look around us. And what we see, we'd rather not think was created by God. But as of now, we've just started the book. So, let's see what the style of the author is and his theological commitments. "All things were made by Him.”

“He doesn't leave it there. The very next sentence adds, “Without him was not any thing made that was made." Why is he saying that? Why y Him,” doesn’t that take care of the other part? What is the difference? What’s the distinction that he is implanting in his readers' thought right at the beginning of the book? "All things were made by Him.” What would you call that? That kind of statement is an absolute, but is it also an affirmation. It's a real solid plus. This is a plus of the theological view of John. "All things were made by Him."

“What have we got now? Denial. Here is how we're going to deal with the minus element. The minus element is without Him, "without him was not any thing made that was made.” Any hint of a minus existing after the all-things-were-made-by­ him being declared, is removed, because it is the other side of the same coin.

“The plus, the minus, the affirmation, the denial is a mathematical approach. Dealing with the plus, dealing with the minus and ending up with one, not dualism. One, so there’s no doubt that the key to the gospel is monotheism. It challenges the reader’s thought to see if he’s there at that altitude before he continues any further in the gospel. It forces the reader to get to that height in order to remotely communicate with what's in the gospel.”

Book of John, A Walk with the Beloved Disciple, by B. Cobbey Crisler.

W’s PS#4—Cobbey Crisler on I Corinthians 15:50 (B7)
“Another conclusion is coming through Paul’s receptivity. He presents two views, one with man within an egg origin, one out of an egg origin. A chicken takes 10,000 pecks to get out of its shell of limitation. Bible pioneers like Paul worked hard to get out of their limited, mortal shells and they communicated this to us.

I Corinthians 15, verse 50 “…flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God” One might ask Why are we trying to drag flesh along as it it’s a party? [This relates to Mary Baker Eddy’s observation: “Being in sympathy with matter, the worldly man is at the beck and call of error, and will be attracted thitherward.” [S&H 21:25 (S11)] Take up your bed and walk—Mind suddenly takes on the glow of our original glory.”
Transcribed from notes in the margins of Warren’s Bible from a talk by Cobbey Crisler

W’s PS#5—Cobbey Crisler on II Corinthians 5:1-6 (B8)
II Cor. 5, verse 1. Where we are now is a tabernacle, which if “dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens...” (We look out of heavenly consciousness—every window has a heavenly view. We worship where we live—Our bodies are our ultimate idols, if we are living there.

Verse 4. For we that are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened:” Jesus said take my yoke upon you for my yoke is easy and my burden light.”…

Verse 6. It’s not what we see but what we know that matters: “Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord.” This is one of the most radical statements in the whole Bible that virtually skated over.

It is foolhardy to adapt ourselves to live in corporeality. You are a tenant in a tomb if at home in the body. Why be so satisfied with data coming to us from the 5 channels of the corporeal senses?

Socrates said “The dead body will not be me. Don’t let him talk about burying Socrates. Say only that you are burying the body.”

Ishmael (In Moby Dick said “My body is but the lees of my better being.”
Transcribed from notes in the margins of Warren’s Bible from a talk by Cobbey Crisler

W’s PS#6—Cobbey Crisler on John 10 (B19): bring a shepherd’s care to all; be at one with God:
“Chapter 10. Not too many of us keep sheep anymore. So, this is a lost simile on the twentieth century. Should we be keeping sheep in the real meaning of it? What could you and I do more about our job, our home, our world, our political situation, our community, and church, if we introduced more of the shepherd motive into all of them?
John 10:13 shows the difference between the shepherd-motive and the hireling’s motive who was working just for pay. “The hireling fleeth, because that’s all he was working for is money.” Where’s the difference? “He doesn’t care.”
Let’s ask ourselves the question, do we care? If we care, that’s the shepherd motive. Jesus cared. He walked in the midst of the dissolute, the despairing, the injured, the grieved, and the broken in heart as well as in body. And nobody knew why he did it. The upper classes, those who didn’t have similar problems, wondered why he was with the publicans and sinners. But he said that “the whole didn’t need a physician” (Matt. 9:12; Mark 4:23; Luke 5:31).
He apparently contemplated an Israel in prophecy which the existing Israel, the establishment, had not remotely seen.
He saw the Israel in prophecy which is exactly in accord with Jeremiah’s prediction of the new covenant and Isaiah’s. The new Israel would be composed of those whose needs had been met, where the recipients were, no class, no mass, no private sector, no ghetto, but receptivity gathering the sons and daughters together. They are gathered to prove what is possible on earth as in heaven. The shepherd motive of caring brings us into that new Israel.”

[“Jesus says that he is the Shepherd and he also says he is the door. It may look like he is confused. Let me give you an example of how he isn’t. When my wife and I were in Israel, we stopped in a place between Jerusalem and Bethany. I saw what I thought was an unattended flock of sheep. There was also a rock wall with one door or gate. It was an almost complete square. As I wandered around, I was suddenly surprised by the shepherd whom I had disturbed. He rose up. He was stretched across that entry way, getting a few winks.
Right there I had illustrated what Jesus meant in John 10: 2, 11, 14, “I am the shepherd” and in John 10: 7, 9, “I am the door.” Now there was no confusion at all. With the sheep inside an enclosure and the only possible entrance of wild animals or thieves being that door, you had to get through the shepherd in order to get to the sheep. The shepherd was also the door.
In Mary Baker Eddy’s poem, “Feed My Sheep”, there is the statement, “I will listen for Thy voice.” [Hymn 304] While we were down in that area of Beersheba, we saw many sheep all mixed together. I said to Janet, ‘I wonder how the shepherd is ever going to sort out his sheep. They’re all just mingled together.’ … It wasn’t very long before our shepherd separated himself from the crowd, walked away never looked over his shoulder at the mixed up sheep, but made some kind of identifying click or clack of his tongue or voice.
“Do you know that every one of his sheep separated themselves from that flock and followed him? He never doubted. He never looked back. The sheep did their job.. The sheep knew his voice. “I will listen for Thy voice.” These lessons are things that in the busy moments of our own twentieth century we need to contemplate. They’re not just symbols. They’re not done just as ancient history. They’re attitudes. They’re states of mind and thought. This is something we often need to consider.” In John 10:30, Jesus’ great statement, “I and my Father are one.” If this is from the Aramaic, then, the Aramaic word would give the meaning, “I and my Father are in accord.”
Book of John, A Walk with the Beloved Disciple, B. Cobbey Crisler]

You can buy your own transcripts of most of Cobbey’s 28 talks at a new website: www.crislerlibrary.co.uk Please email your order or inquiry to office@crislerlibrary.co.uk, or directly to Janet Crisler, at janetcrisler7@gmail.com]

W’s PS#7 Here’s a link to an inspiring song by CedarS mom and award-winning Country Music artist, Cherie Brennan. It ties together quotes from this week’s Bible citations B19 and S29) Enjoy! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZMNlpZavkA

You can learn more about Cherie and buy her whole great CD “You are Loved” (and others!) directly from her website at: http://cheriebrennan.com/wp/?album=you-are-loved

W’s PS#8 with application ideas for Psalm 23 (B20)

“Psalm 23 and ME”

Claim these divine definitions and YOUR heritage in the TWENTY-THIRD PSALM!
It negates the supposed “23 and me” genetic domination of 23 pairs of ancestral
X-Y chromosomes and can prove that D.N.A. Does Not Apply!

[Bracketed substitutions from Mary Baker Eddy to show "the light which

Christian Science throws on the Scriptures" with an "incorporeal

or spiritual sense" of Love. (Science & Health 578)]

"[Divine Love] is my shepherd;" That’s MY RELATIONSHIP

"I shall not want." That’s MY SUPPLY!

"[Love] maketh me to lie down in green pastures:" That’s MY REST!

"[Love] leadeth me beside still waters." That’s MY REFRESHMENT!

"[Love] restoreth my soul [spiritual sense]:" That’s God’s HEALING & MINE!

"[Love] leadeth me in the paths of righteousness" That’s God’s GUIDANCE & MINE!

"For His name's sake." That’s MY PURPOSE!

"Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death," That’s MY TESTING!

"I will fear no evil:" That’s MY PROTECTION!

"For [Love] is with me;" That’s God’s FAITHFULNESS and MINE!

"[Love's] rod and [Love's] staff they comfort me." That’s God’s DISCIPLINE and MINE!

"[Love] prepareth a table before me in the presence of mine enemies:" That’s MY HOPE!

"[Love] anointeth my head with oil;" That’s God’s CONSECRATION and MINE!

"My cup runneth over." That’s God’s ABUNDANCE and MINE!

"Surely goodness & mercy shall follow me all the days of my life:" That’s God’s BLESSING & Mine!

"And I will dwell in the house [the consciousness] of [Love]" That’s MY SECURITY!

"forever." That’s God’s ETERNAL HERITAGE and MINE!

(partly penned by Ruth Huff, part by Warren Huff)

Metaphysical

Find out what it takes to follow the Master Christian! - We have to be willing to leave the...
Latest Lesson Application Idea

Newsletters

Get free weekly uplifting newsletters (available in English, Spanish, French, German and now in Portuguese!)
Subscribe or Update Subscription

Facebook

Find CedarS on Facebook for the latest news, heart-warming fruitage, facility upgrades and more!
Go to the CedarS' Facebook Page