Christ and the Kundalini - Long post :)

[Guest guest]

I guess I am sort of stradling the fence between the gnostic and traditional point of view. This is not from reading of the gnostics writings found, though. I have not read one yet where the main parts of the pages are missing. That just seems a little too convenient to me. Why would a person even considers these incomplete writings to be of more truth than what is in the bible. They just hint at this or that, but have no proof of anything as far as I can see. Just because they are old and speak of biblical characters doesn't mean they were a part of the very beginning church teachings.

All day yesterday I searched for some verse in the bible that would point to the feminine in the Godhead/trinity and could not find much, just little hints, here and there. What I said in the other post I made about seeing the Holy spirit as a hen gathering her chick, was not about the Holy Spirit, but was something Jesus said about himself. My bad... should have taken time to look it up in the bible before making that post, rather than relying on memory. @@@ (Matthew 23:37) Jesus did compare himself as to gathering chicks like a mother hen. "Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the killer of the prophets and stoner of those sent forth to her, oh how often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks together under her wings! " @@@

The bible does say that God and the Holy Spirit are of the Spirit realm and are not male or female, but only have characteristics of both. Jesus and the disciples both did refer to God and the Holy Spirit as male only. (Sounds like a screw up there to me or a tampering.) Most of the christian religions see God and the Holy Spirit as a being of the male gender, rather than a force/intelligence only. I have mostly thought of both God and the Holy Spirit as a loving creative energy force/intelligence, not really separate, but just espects of the one same principal/source.

I found this one the net:@@@ In the book of Genesis it is written: "So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them." We get our anthropomorphic images of God from this pivotal verse, in the knowledge that humans were created in God's image. Along the way, however, it seems the male image dominated and we've lost the image of the female in God. It is also important to examine the Hebrew in this phrase because it further fleshes out the original intent. The word used for "man" in this passage is adam, humankind. God created people, not just man but both man and woman in God's own "image" or tselem, a phantom, i.e. an illusion, resemblance. We are but a shadow of God, a refractory image that can only give a vague idea about the One whose image we reflect. This passage tells us distinctly that both man and woman are such shadows equally, that we, together and separately, represent and reveal facets and aspects of who God is. God contains male and female attributes and yet, not being male nor female, man nor woman, God is spirit and stands apart from gender and can be imaged from the whole range of human experience, both male and female experience, without elevating one over the other, without one detracting from the other. @@@

The third part of the trinity took physical form becoming both fully man and fully God in the being who was called Jesus , but had a different name in the beginning, because a "J " was not even in a language back then, that came 100's of years later. Just like his some of his teachings, even his name was changed by men. His real name is Yahshua, which means " God is Salvation" in Hebrew. It was changed to a Greek name "IE" a shortened from of Yah in Yahweh with "ous" added to denote the gender. The "ous" and the "us" ending in the Greek name "Iesous" and the Latin name "Iesus" respectively, denote the masculine singular gender in Greek and Latin respectively. Big difference in name meanings there. I personally like to think of him with his other name, Emmanuel (God with us). Yahshua being fully human and fully God would be both male/female and divine child. A trinity as mankind as well as a trinity as God?

These gnostic and Coptic sects of christianity, along with many others, existed long before the Catholics took over and then the Protestants, the Fundamentalist, the Pentecostals, the Christian Science, and Evangelicals, and seemingly endless list of other christian sects in this age. Who is to say which is the traditional one. You could not say Catholic, they were not the first, but only the first to make their form of christianity a national religion, they transformed it to fit their political views. To say traditional christian path is meaningless to me, because there are too many of them. Which one would be the traditional one? I personally do not follow any of them, I am miss non-denominational here. I do believe myself to be just as christian as any of them, though. The Preterist is the one I do follow where it comes to prophecies, but it is just as limiting as all the rest. I do not follow any of the religions sects to the tee, but take truths from the many that resonates with me that go along with my understanding of what Jesus taught from the bible. From the Pentecostal I take the outpouring of the Holy Spirit to be just as much for today as it was for the beginning church. I like the Christian Science because of the way they manifest by renewing their minds to be one with the mind of Christ. I would love to have my mind as Christ minded as Julie's. I love that about you Julie. I have come to like the catholic religion because they did not totally take the feminine out of their religion. They worship Mary as the Mother of God, even though they do not have her a part of the Godhead/trinity. Most all these religions, if not all, speak of the church as feminine. The church is the bride of Christ. The bride and the bridegroom are as one. So that would means there is the feminine espect in the trinity, after all. Hehe! ----------------As far as what was said about Nazareth in the article, there really was a small town by that name, even though atheists tried to prove it did not exist. Not to say it could not have more than one meaning, though. But biblically it means just what it says.

@@@ Nazareth was well known in Biblical times. In John's gospel, for example (John 1:45) , Philip, an apostle of Jesus, asks Nathaniel to come and see "Jesus of Nazareth, Son of Joseph". Nathaniel says to Philip "Can anything good come out of Nazareth?" suggesting that Nazareth was already well known as a town of some ill repute. Sadly, the denial of atheists in even believing Nazareth exists let alone Jesus himself, is all too common. Clutching at straws like this is reminiscent of Apollo conspiracy theorists citing any 'evidence' that man never went to the moon.

Dr. Strange, mentioned above, also points out that when Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans in 70AD that the priests whose temple service was no longer required were dispersed. A list has been discovered by archaeologists which lists the places where the 24 families or courses of priests went to. This list, written in Aramaic records that one family went to Nazareth, which, though small, certainly existed then.

In addition to this, many archaeological digs have uncovered tombs from the first century near the city limits of Nazareth, thus establishing the boundary, as bodies were required to be buried outside the city. Thus, once again, evidence previously undiscovered has confirmed a Biblical detail. @@@

Nazarene, biblically speaking, in Jesus time was synonym for despised, but Matthew's use of the word meant branch (Hebrew neser). Meaning Jesus was a root shooting up into a branch from king David's dynasty which fullfilled prophsecy.

Also, being that the church is spoken of as feminine, the Red Dragon could not mean the church, since the bible speaks of the red dragon as a male. The woman represented the believing messianic community, the 12 stars represented the 12 tribes of Israel. The red dragon represent the ruling power, an enemy of God. Seven heads symolizes univerisal wisdom, ten horn symbolizes great power. The male child symbolizes Jesus who was snatched up to God, his ascenion. If you go on to read in verse 9 it tells you the dragon was satan who was hurled down to earth to lead the whole world astray. Go on and read verse 13 and is says the dragon angered pursuses the woman to destroy her. This talking about what happened to the early church. Most of the book of Revelations tells about what took place in the time of Jesus and the beginning of the church. The destruction of the earthly Jerusalem and the temple happened in 70 A.D. Chapters 17, 18, 19 speaks of this. I see the thousand years in chapter 20 as an indefinite time. --------------------------

Excerpt from a sermon I found online titled, Holy Spirit, Mother of the Church:

Riviera United Church of Christ

@@@ The Pentecost story is all about that birth of the Body of Christ (the Church) through the Holy Spirit 's action in the followers of Jesus.

As I pointed out Peter puts in his sermon a note from the Old Testament book Joel (2:28-32) that God says "I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh."

Joel was originally written in Hebrew and the Hebrew word for spirit is "ruah"3 (roo-ack). Ruah is a feminine word expressing female gender. In English we don't ordinarily give genders to things, except sometimes in words ending in "ess," like actress, or better yet goddess. When we hear "ess" in these words we think female. That's similar to how feminine words are meant to be heard in Hebrew, So "ruah," Spirit, in the Old Testament conveys a female attribute to God.

There is, in fact, a growing body of scholarship which asserts that the early Christians also understood the Holy Spirit to have a feminine nature. 4 We know this not only because they started as a Jewish sect using Jewish texts and theologies, but, also because early Christian writers like Jerome in the fourth century claimed the Holy Spirit was expressed in feminine gender. 5 @@@

@@@In fact when God first appears giving birth to the earth in the Genesis 1 she appears in the female ruah – Spirit– form.

You can hear this particularly well in the King James version of Genesis 1:2 "And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit (ruah) of God moved upon the face of the waters." The Spirit of God is a like a mother eagle moving over the face of the waters.

It is natural to think of a female image of God at the birth of the world. It's natural also to think of the Spirit of God giving birth to the Church as female.@@@

It was too long to put it all here, if interested you can read it here and who gave the sermon. Even from one of the traditional churches.

http://rivieraucc.org/blogs/2008/05/11/holy-spirit-mother-of-the-church/

LOL! I have been working on this post all evening!

Linda

, "novalees" <dhyana wrote:>> Hello Chrism,> > Most Christians in the Group are not Gnostic. Nor do> we believe blindly. This article will appeal to the > Gnostics, but those of us who follow the traditional> Christian Path are exploring how the Holy Fire unfolds> within our tradition. The Gnostic Christ and the> Biblical Christ are very different in how men portray> Him. The experience is also different. The understanding> of the Holy Spirit and the spiritual life is very different,> as well.> > I'm just posting this for balance and to validate the> experience of those of us who are not Gnostic, and do not> follow the Gnostic teachings.> > Love, dhyana> > > > , "chrism" > @ wrote:> >> > > > > > > > Contrary to popular Christian dogma, Christ did teach about Karma,> > reincarnation, self-realisation and the Divine Feminine as Holy > Ghost --> > God the Mother. Christ's teachings are more Eastern than the > Churches> > would have us believe or would like to admit.> >>

[Guest guest]

carl jung had the same battle.

 

paula

>

> " Linda " <crazycats711

> 2008/11/03 Mon AM 06:12:18 GMT

>

> Re: Christ and the Kundalini - Long

post

>

>

> I guess I am sort of stradling the fence between the gnostic and

> traditional point of view. This is not from reading of the gnostics

> writings found, though. I have not read one yet where the main parts of

> the pages are missing. That just seems a little too convenient to me.

> Why would a person even considers these incomplete writings to be of

> more truth than what is in the bible. They just hint at this or that,

> but have no proof of anything as far as I can see. Just because they are

> old and speak of biblical characters doesn't mean they were a part of

> the very beginning church teachings.

>

> All day yesterday I searched for some verse in the bible that would

> point to the feminine in the Godhead/trinity and could not find much,

> just little hints, here and there. What I said in the other post I made

> about seeing the Holy spirit as a hen gathering her chick, was not about

> the Holy Spirit, but was something Jesus said about himself. My bad...

> should have taken time to look it up in the bible before making that

> post, rather than relying on memory.

> @@@ (Matthew 23:37) Jesus did compare himself as to gathering chicks

> like a mother hen. " Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the killer of the prophets and

> stoner of those sent forth to her, oh how often I wanted to gather your

> children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks together under her

> wings! " @@@

>

> The bible does say that God and the Holy Spirit are of the Spirit realm

> and are not male or female, but only have characteristics of both.

> Jesus and the disciples both did refer to God and the Holy Spirit as

> male only. (Sounds like a screw up there to me or a tampering.)

> Most of the christian religions see God and the Holy Spirit as a being

> of the male gender, rather than a force/intelligence only. I have

> mostly thought of both God and the Holy Spirit as a loving creative

> energy force/intelligence, not really separate, but just espects of the

> one same principal/source.

>

> I found this one the net:

> @@@ In the book of Genesis it is written: " So God created man in His

> own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He

> created them. " We get our anthropomorphic images of God from this

> pivotal verse, in the knowledge that humans were created in God's image.

> Along the way, however, it seems the male image dominated and we've lost

> the image of the female in God. It is also important to examine the

> Hebrew in this phrase because it further fleshes out the original

> intent. The word used for " man " in this passage is adam, humankind. God

> created people, not just man but both man and woman in God's own " image "

> or tselem, a phantom, i.e. an illusion, resemblance. We are but a

> shadow of God, a refractory image that can only give a vague idea about

> the One whose image we reflect. This passage tells us distinctly that

> both man and woman are such shadows equally, that we, together and

> separately, represent and reveal facets and aspects of who God is. God

> contains male and female attributes and yet, not being male nor female,

> man nor woman, God is spirit and stands apart from gender and can be

> imaged from the whole range of human experience, both male and female

> experience, without elevating one over the other, without one detracting

> from the other. @@@

>

> The third part of the trinity took physical form becoming both fully man

> and fully God in the being who was called Jesus , but had a different

> name in the beginning, because a " J " was not even in a language back

> then, that came 100's of years later. Just like his some of his

> teachings, even his name was changed by men. His real name is Yahshua,

> which means " God is Salvation " in Hebrew. It was changed to a Greek

> name " IE " a shortened from of Yah in Yahweh with " ous " added to denote

> the gender. The " ous " and the " us " ending in the Greek name " Iesous "

> and the Latin name " Iesus " respectively, denote the masculine singular

> gender in Greek and Latin respectively. Big difference in name meanings

> there.

> I personally like to think of him with his other name, Emmanuel (God

> with us). Yahshua being fully human and fully God would be both

> male/female and divine child. A trinity as mankind as well as a trinity

> as God?

>

> These gnostic and Coptic sects of christianity, along with many others,

> existed long before the Catholics took over and then the Protestants,

> the Fundamentalist, the Pentecostals, the Christian Science, and

> Evangelicals, and seemingly endless list of other christian sects in

> this age. Who is to say which is the traditional one. You could not say

> Catholic, they were not the first, but only the first to make their form

> of christianity a national religion, they transformed it to fit their

> political views. To say traditional christian path is meaningless to

> me, because there are too many of them. Which one would be the

> traditional one? I personally do not follow any of them, I am miss

> non-denominational here. I do believe myself to be just as christian as

> any of them, though. The Preterist is the one I do follow where it

> comes to prophecies, but it is just as limiting as all the rest. I do

> not follow any of the religions sects to the tee, but take truths from

> the many that resonates with me that go along with my understanding of

> what Jesus taught from the bible. From the Pentecostal I take the

> outpouring of the Holy Spirit to be just as much for today as it was for

> the beginning church. I like the Christian Science because of the way

> they manifest by renewing their minds to be one with the mind of Christ.

> I would love to have my mind as Christ minded as Julie's. I love that

> about you Julie. I have come to like the catholic religion because they

> did not totally take the feminine out of their religion. They worship

> Mary as the Mother of God, even though they do not have her a part of

> the Godhead/trinity. Most all these religions, if not all, speak of the

> church as feminine. The church is the bride of Christ. The bride and

> the bridegroom are as one. So that would means there is the feminine

> espect in the trinity, after all. Hehe!

> ----------------

> As far as what was said about Nazareth in the article, there really was

> a small town by that name, even though atheists tried to prove it did

> not exist. Not to say it could not have more than one meaning, though.

> But biblically it means just what it says.

>

> @@@ Nazareth was well known in Biblical times. In John's gospel, for

> example (John 1:45) , Philip, an apostle of Jesus, asks Nathaniel to

> come and see " Jesus of Nazareth, Son of Joseph " . Nathaniel says to

> Philip " Can anything good come out of Nazareth? " suggesting that

> Nazareth was already well known as a town of some ill repute. Sadly, the

> denial of atheists in even believing Nazareth exists let alone Jesus

> himself, is all too common. Clutching at straws like this is reminiscent

> of Apollo conspiracy theorists citing any 'evidence' that man never went

> to the moon.

>

> Dr. Strange, mentioned above, also points out that when Jerusalem was

> destroyed by the Romans in 70AD that the priests whose temple service

> was no longer required were dispersed. A list has been discovered by

> archaeologists which lists the places where the 24 families or courses

> of priests went to. This list, written in Aramaic records that one

> family went to Nazareth, which, though small, certainly existed then.

>

> In addition to this, many archaeological digs have uncovered tombs from

> the first century near the city limits of Nazareth, thus establishing

> the boundary, as bodies were required to be buried outside the city.

> Thus, once again, evidence previously undiscovered has confirmed a

> Biblical detail. @@@

>

> Nazarene, biblically speaking, in Jesus time was synonym for despised,

> but Matthew's use of the word meant branch (Hebrew neser). Meaning Jesus

> was a root shooting up into a branch from king David's dynasty which

> fullfilled prophsecy.

>

> Also, being that the church is spoken of as feminine, the Red Dragon

> could not mean the church, since the bible speaks of the red dragon as a

> male. The woman represented the believing messianic community, the 12

> stars represented the 12 tribes of Israel. The red dragon represent the

> ruling power, an enemy of God. Seven heads symolizes univerisal wisdom,

> ten horn symbolizes great power. The male child symbolizes Jesus who was

> snatched up to God, his ascenion. If you go on to read in verse 9 it

> tells you the dragon was satan who was hurled down to earth to lead the

> whole world astray. Go on and read verse 13 and is says the dragon

> angered pursuses the woman to destroy her. This talking about what

> happened to the early church. Most of the book of Revelations tells

> about what took place in the time of Jesus and the beginning of the

> church. The destruction of the earthly Jerusalem and the temple

> happened in 70 A.D. Chapters 17, 18, 19 speaks of this. I see the

> thousand years in chapter 20 as an indefinite time.

> --------------------------

>

> Excerpt from a sermon I found online titled, Holy Spirit, Mother of the

> Church:

>

> Riviera United Church of Christ <http://rivieraucc.org/blogs/>

>

> @@@ The Pentecost story is all about that birth of the Body of Christ

> (the Church) through the Holy Spirit 's action in the followers of

> Jesus.

>

> As I pointed out Peter puts in his sermon a note from the Old Testament

> book Joel (2:28-32) that God says " I will pour out my Spirit upon all

> flesh. "

>

> Joel was originally written in Hebrew and the Hebrew word for spirit is

> " ruah " 3 (roo-ack). Ruah is a feminine word expressing female gender. In

> English we don't ordinarily give genders to things, except sometimes in

> words ending in " ess, " like actress, or better yet goddess. When we hear

> " ess " in these words we think female. That's similar to how feminine

> words are meant to be heard in Hebrew, So " ruah, " Spirit, in the Old

> Testament conveys a female attribute to God.

>

> There is, in fact, a growing body of scholarship which asserts that the

> early Christians also understood the Holy Spirit to have a feminine

> nature. 4 We know this not only because they started as a Jewish sect

> using Jewish texts and theologies, but, also because early Christian

> writers like Jerome in the fourth century claimed the Holy Spirit was

> expressed in feminine gender. 5 @@@

>

> @@@In fact when God first appears giving birth to the earth in the

> Genesis 1 she appears in the female ruah – Spirit– form.

>

> You can hear this particularly well in the King James version of Genesis

> 1:2 " And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon

> the face of the deep. And the Spirit (ruah) of God moved upon the face

> of the waters. " The Spirit of God is a like a mother eagle moving

> over the face of the waters.

>

> It is natural to think of a female image of God at the birth of the

> world. It's natural also to think of the Spirit of God giving birth

> to the Church as female.@@@

>

> It was too long to put it all here, if interested you can read it here

> and who gave the sermon. Even from one of the traditional churches.

>

> http://rivieraucc.org/blogs/2008/05/11/holy-spirit-mother-of-the-church/

> <http://rivieraucc.org/blogs/2008/05/11/holy-spirit-mother-of-the-church\

> />

>

> LOL! I have been working on this post all evening!

>

> Linda

>

>

> , " novalees "

> <dhyana wrote:

> >

> > Hello Chrism,

> >

> > Most Christians in the Group are not Gnostic. Nor do

> > we believe blindly. This article will appeal to the

> > Gnostics, but those of us who follow the traditional

> > Christian Path are exploring how the Holy Fire unfolds

> > within our tradition. The Gnostic Christ and the

> > Biblical Christ are very different in how men portray

> > Him. The experience is also different. The understanding

> > of the Holy Spirit and the spiritual life is very different,

> > as well.

> >

> > I'm just posting this for balance and to validate the

> > experience of those of us who are not Gnostic, and do not

> > follow the Gnostic teachings.

> >

> > Love, dhyana

> >

> >

> >

> > , " chrism "

> > @ wrote:

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Contrary to popular Christian dogma, Christ did teach about Karma,

> > > reincarnation, self-realisation and the Divine Feminine as Holy

> > Ghost --

> > > God the Mother. Christ's teachings are more Eastern than the

> > Churches

> > > would have us believe or would like to admit.

> > >

> >

>

>

>

>

 

--------

Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email

Virus-checked using McAfee® Software and scanned for spam

[Guest guest]

Thanks for the post Linda! It must have taken you forever. Some good stuff there to chew on.

Sarita

, "Linda" <crazycats711 wrote:>> > I guess I am sort of stradling the fence between the gnostic and> traditional point of view. This is not from reading of the gnostics> writings found, though. I have not read one yet where the main parts of> the pages are missing. That just seems a little too convenient to me.> Why would a person even considers these incomplete writings to be of> more truth than what is in the bible. They just hint at this or that,> but have no proof of anything as far as I can see. Just because they are> old and speak of biblical characters doesn't mean they were a part of> the very beginning church teachings.

[Guest guest]

LOL! yeah it did take awhile, a couple of day actually. It takes

awhile looking up stuff and reading. Came across some interesting

things in the process though.

 

Linda

 

, " Sarita "

<sarita1969 wrote:

>

>

> Thanks for the post Linda! It must have taken you forever. Some

good

> stuff there to chew on.

>

> Sarita

>

>

> , " Linda "

> <crazycats711@> wrote:

> >

> >

> > I guess I am sort of stradling the fence between the gnostic and

> > traditional point of view. This is not from reading of the

gnostics

> > writings found, though. I have not read one yet where the main

parts

> of

> > the pages are missing. That just seems a little too convenient to

me.

> > Why would a person even considers these incomplete writings to be

of

> > more truth than what is in the bible. They just hint at this or

that,

> > but have no proof of anything as far as I can see. Just because

they

> are

> > old and speak of biblical characters doesn't mean they were a

part of

> > the very beginning church teachings.

>

[Guest guest]

What battle was that? I don't really know much about Jung, only read a

little here and there. I didn't know I spoke of any battle. What

battle? LOL!

 

Linda

 

, <ari.reza

wrote:

>

> carl jung had the same battle.

>

> paula

> >

> > " Linda " <crazycats711

> > 2008/11/03 Mon AM 06:12:18 GMT

> >

> > Re: Christ and the

Kundalini - Long post

> >

> >

> > I guess I am sort of stradling the fence between the gnostic and

> > traditional point of view. This is not from reading of the gnostics

>

[Guest guest]

I'll e-mail ya

paula

 

 

, " Linda "

<crazycats711 wrote:

>

> What battle was that? I don't really know much about Jung, only

read a

> little here and there. I didn't know I spoke of any battle. What

> battle? LOL!

>

> Linda

>

> , <ari.reza@>

> wrote:

> >

> > carl jung had the same battle.

> >

> > paula

> > >

> > > " Linda " <crazycats711@>

> > > 2008/11/03 Mon AM 06:12:18 GMT

> > >

> > > Re: Christ and the

> Kundalini - Long post

> > >

> > >

> > > I guess I am sort of stradling the fence between the gnostic and

> > > traditional point of view. This is not from reading of the

gnostics

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Paula,

 

Could you please email me about the battle as well and would

love to find out more about this battle regarding Jung.

 

Thank you! ~ Angelina

 

, " alayafire "

<ari.reza wrote:

>

> I'll e-mail ya

> paula

>

>

> , " Linda "

> <crazycats711@> wrote:

> >

> > What battle was that? I don't really know much about Jung, only

> read a

> > little here and there. I didn't know I spoke of any battle. What

> > battle? LOL!

> >

> > Linda

> >

> > , <ari.reza@>

> > wrote:

> > >

> > > carl jung had the same battle.

> > >

> > > paula

> > > >

> > > > " Linda " <crazycats711@>

> > > > 2008/11/03 Mon AM 06:12:18 GMT

> > > >

> > > > Re: Christ and the

> > Kundalini - Long post

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > I guess I am sort of stradling the fence between the gnostic and

> > > > traditional point of view. This is not from reading of the

> gnostics

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

ok

 

 

, " gypsyeyes_101 "

<gypsyeyes_101 wrote:

>

> Hi Paula,

>

> Could you please email me about the battle as well and would

> love to find out more about this battle regarding Jung.

>

> Thank you! ~ Angelina

>

> , " alayafire "

> <ari.reza@> wrote:

> >

> > I'll e-mail ya

> > paula

> >

> >

> > , " Linda "

> > <crazycats711@> wrote:

> > >

> > > What battle was that? I don't really know much about Jung, only

> > read a

> > > little here and there. I didn't know I spoke of any battle.

What

> > > battle? LOL!

> > >

> > > Linda

> > >

> > > ,

<ari.reza@>

> > > wrote:

> > > >

> > > > carl jung had the same battle.

> > > >

> > > > paula

> > > > >

> > > > > " Linda " <crazycats711@>

> > > > > 2008/11/03 Mon AM 06:12:18 GMT

> > > > >

> > > > > Re: Christ and the

> > > Kundalini - Long post

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > I guess I am sort of stradling the fence between the

gnostic and

> > > > > traditional point of view. This is not from reading of the

> > gnostics

> > > >

> > >

> >

>