www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Eternally Both God and Man

etc...

If I took the time, I could give you many �fathers� who believed this (maybe not according to the way I explained it). For example both Justin and Irenaeus believed, wrote, and taught - that Jesus himself, in his resurrected body, appeared to Noah and in person - opened the door of the Ark after the flood. This based upon their knowledge of the Hebrew script. (A Study Of The Interpretation Of Noah And The Flood In Jewish And Christian Literature by Jack P, Lewis).

Before the 17th century and the rise of Protestantism and capitalism and science (I am not saying any of these are bad - I am giving them more for a social reference) there was common default belief in the ability of the Resurrected Jesus to have actually been presents at times throughout history - past and present. This fact (now a days we just believe in the ability but think he does not really use it) was not questioned and taken for granted as fact and has often happened.

For example�. Among the early Christians like Saint Paul, it was taken for granted that it was Christ himself who gave Moses the �Law� on Mount Sinai - and that when the disciples witnessed what we call the Transfiguration - this is what they saw . In other words, the event of Moses speaking with Christ on Mount Sinai was the same event as what took place in the Transfiguration. This certainly is what the Jews of the time understood to be the significance of the Transfiguration.

When Jesus was at trial, and was asked �I adjourn you - Are you the Son of the living God?� what Jesus replied is �I am.� Some English translations miss the mark here because they have Jesus reply �It is you who say that I am.� and that is very far off mark. Jesus answered in Hebrew - what he said was a solid affirmation, a �you bet!� kind of thing - and he also gave exactly who he was - when he said �I am� he used a reserved Hebrew word - it was reserved because it was the very name that God gave to Moses when Moses said �Who shall I tell them sent me - for the people will not believe me if I do not tell them your name.� (I do not have the Hebrew in front of me now so I will not take a shot at it from memory). IN the English we translate it as �I am who am� (but it is much wider than that). Eyhe-eyhe - or something like that (refer to Moses Maimonides - Guide For The Perplexed) It was the name (among many names given to God) which it was forbidden to speak. So when Christ said �You bet! I am.� he used that name - he identified himself as the very God who appeared to Moses, gave Moses the Law, AND, in so doing made clear his own supreme authority over the Sanhedrin court AND as the �boss� of the High Priest himself. That is why the court exploded in shock - and the High Priest had to quickly put a cork on it - so he ripped his robe at the �blasphemy� - and pronounced �death!�.

There are many things that the official church does not teach because that is not her mandate nor are these other things necessary for the faith. The official teachings of the church are actually very few (the Trinity, the sacraments, and a few more things) while church members are allowed to give opinion on other matters. St John Damsscene, in his early An Exposition Of The Orthodox Faith - says in his writings that the world is flat and that is taken for granted in his teaching about the Church. This is what they believed� and when they spoke about the world and such this is what they �taught� - but just because he is a saint and some consider him a father of the church - this does not mean he could not be in error. Among the early bishops and saints of the church �everyone� knew the world was flat and ended somewhere out there at the edge of the ocean seas - now just because this was included in so many sermons and writings of the fathers - this did not make �the world is flat� a doctrine of the church (although some thought that it did in the middle ages - even some bishops).
Actually, the official church documents say nothing as a �teaching� that the world is flat, round, or anything else - it is simply not her mandate. And it is the same with the question �Did Jesus Christ actually come in his resurrected body to the saints and prophets of the old dispensation?� - But (and this is not to discount the first) we also have so many of the early Church (including Paul himself) and so many saints, spiritual writers and theologians down through Christian history - who emphatically believed that Jesus Christ appeared - in person - in many of the events of the old Testament. Many of the early fathers believed (maybe because of Paul) that Melchesidek was Christ himself. And certainly as a fact, John in his vision - equates the introductory vision of Jesus (�and one appeared to me like the son of man� etc..) with the appearance of �one like a son of man� in the book of Daniel and Ezekiel. AND - the dress and actions of Jesus in the opening of the vision has him dressed in the attire of a high priest pouring out the blood of the sacrificed lamb upon the Ark in the holy of holies. It is clear that in John�s mind this action (of Christ as high priest pouring out the blood of sacrifice on the Day of Atonement) was the reality of what was taking place at the moment that the Temple curtain was ripped at the moment Christ died upon the cross and that this rip in the curtain is directly involved with his vision - John was allowed to see it. Of course all this makes no sense to someone who is insistent upon pinning God to the rules of sequential - time - and so they interpretate John vision as future geo-political events.. While John certainly takes the stance that the curtain was opened and what he saw WAS the real - reality - behind the veil of our physical senses. I, would go with John.

Before the 17th century - Christians took it for granted that Christ himself is speaking in many of the psalms. Do I have particular names? Not really - because - just like the primacy of the pope - no one really felt the need to write about what every one simple knew and took for granted that everyone knew. The foundation of this lay in the Jews who had always known that God speaks in the psalms. We call them the �Psalms� while the original Jewish name is �The Book of the Oracles� - oracle means - �the god speaks�. As I said - many of the psalms are a two way dialog between the prophet or seer and God. It was not until after the 17th century that the psalms were regulated to �poetic� or �romantic� literature.

If one knows Hebrew customs - it is plain as day that - the (what is it - the 34th?) which begins �My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?� - is the actual words of Christ regarding his moments upon the cross (not to come into the time of history until a few hundred years later). Most surprisingly - I was alerted to this fact and belief - by members of the Jewish community - and was immediately reminded of so many fathers of the church who also believed this. This makes the words of Christ on the cross, in John�s gospel - absolutely - stunning. Also - the description of the suffering servant in Isaiah �he was not someone we would notice� and he is struck and spat upon (Isaiah 50: 5-6) when read in the Hebrew - is given as an actually eye witness account and in the Hebrew is even more fit to Jesus than the English translations are. Early Jews who joined the early church (really can be described as a small cult back then) did not break from the Temple (who hated the cult) and become under James and Peter - lightly. It means punishment and often death (witness Paul holding the coats while Stephen is stoned). They did not �convert� for �moral reasons� or just because they liked what the apostles were saying. Many of these early Jews recognized that Jesus was the actual person who appeared and spoke - to their fathers. THIS - was something to die for - and this was also what Jesus himself had claimed (which was why he was killed).

Off the top of my head I can name tow more places in the old Testament where it is Jesus himself speaking, clearly. One is where one of the prophets is told to hire out as a sheep herder and then let the sheep wander off - then go and demand to be paid. The prophet does as he is told and he is paid 30 pieces of silver.. To which God says to him �Throw it away! For it is the price which they paid for me!� (if you remember, Judas received 30 pieces of silver, the price of a slave, in return for giving Jesus up). And the second item I can note is in the psalms I think, where a son of man (a human) is seen with blood all over his robes �I have threshed the grapes alone. None could be found to stand with me. And in my wrath (fervent anger to accomplish a task) I have done it!� (paraphrased from the Hebrew). If one knows Hebrew he would certainly know that the speaker is speaking of making full payment to God for the sins of Israel and that these lines are the messiah speaking. The grapes are crushed, the blood of them is on his robes (priest?) and he had drunk the wine. To be crushed like a grape in a winepress was a common saying among the Jews - I think it is Simon who speaks of the crowd pressing in around Jesus one day and the phrase he uses means that they were in danger of being crushed like grapes in the winepress. This of course was not �poetic� and it indicated that, just like people are crushed to death in crowds today (soccer games and such) - the pressure of the crowds on Jesus that day was such that Simon and the other actually feared a bit for their lives.

OK.. I have really gotten far off the subject - but the bottom line is - that prior to the social changes that took place around the time of the 17th century - Christians took it for granted that it was Jesus Christ himself - speaking - and appearing - in much of the historical events of the old Testament.

We are all well and satisfied to read that some saint had a vision of Christ or heard his voice etc� - before the 17th century. If we hear of someone today - we think first �Oh boy - some nut.� (and I am not saying that we should believe someone like this). What this is all tied to - and all boils down to - is the social Christian loss of any depth of understanding in the doctrine of Providence - which the Church emphatically DOES teach.

One last note, regarding the presence of the humanity of Jesus in his state of death and resurrection at any other moment in historical time outside of 2000 years ago on a hill in Jerusalem. It is the Protestant view - that the sacrifice of the mass or Liturgy is a re-enactment... a doing-again of that which was done once and for all by Jesus 2000 years ago. It is emphatically the doctrine of the Catholic and Orthodox church, however, that the sacrifice that takes place at the mass/Liturgy IS that very self same sacrifice that took place 2000 years ago - taking place not-again - but we are now present to it as it is hapening 2000 years ago. A re-presented to the senses under bread and wine etc.. - and really present - to us - and we to it. The church tells us it is not another, or done again, nor it is just an act to remind us. It is not romatic, poetic, nor symbolic. It is the same, one, act, done 2000 years ago - present and happening with us in the present. A �portal in time� (if you will). A moment when eternity and time - touch - and all our belief in the rules of physics and time break down. So again, you can see, that this one act (death and resurrection) which took place in historic time 2000 years ago (as I said in my original post) has made a fool of - time. On one hand we swear we believe in the real presence of the body and blood humanity of Christ taking place on the altar (everyday for the Catholic and once a week for the Orthodox) and that presence of his humanity - in the state of his death and resurrection to boot! And we (all) have the shallowness to ask �How could the humanity of Christ been present in the events of the Old Testament??� No - it was the humanity of Christ himself - wounded and resurrected - that came to select prophets and such in the events of the Old Testament and said �I will be coming myself - in the mean time - I want you to do this� and tell them this�� setting humanity up for the crowning moment of creation which became to us in time - what it already was to God in eternity (the presence of all time) - the foundation of all creation past, present, and future.

RayK,

What an amazing post! Very interesting, very supported, and very thought provoking in a mystical kind of way.

I'm saving it in my computer as we speak!

ChristTeen287

"OK.. I have really gotten far off the subject - but the bottom line is - that prior to the social changes that took place around the time of the 17th century - Christians took it for granted that it was Jesus Christ himself - speaking - and appearing - in much of the historical events of the old Testament." -RayK

Dear RayK,
Ofcourse all the Apostolic Churches believe in what the Orthodox Study Bible refers to as "the preincarnate appearance of Christ." Reflecting upon these Old Testament Theophanies of Christ, I do see how one could interpret these to mean that He did these "in his resurrected body."

Again, I've never seen this explanation given before (which doesn't mean it is untrue). I don't think it necessarily follows that since Christ appeared in different forms in the OT that therefore His humanity must have no beginning. I have never took the Theophanies of the OT to mean this. Here are some reasons why:

The Theophany to Moses: Christ did not appear in human form but in the form of the "burning bush." (Exodus 3)

As for St. Paul, he doesn't say Christ appeared in his humanity but rather in a symbolic form, "for the rock was the Christ." (1 Cor. 10:4)

Now in the Theophany of Melchizedek (if we interpret this as a Theophany) he does appear in bodily form (Gen 14). One may point to this and say that he had to appear in the humanity he assumed in the womb of the Theotokos. But I don't think that this NECESSARILY follows (although it might indeed be true). Here's the reason why:

If we look at the story of the "Hospitality of Abraham" (Gen 18) the three visitors can be interpreted as a Theophany of the Holy Trinity. The "visitors" there also appeared in bodily form. Are we to assume that all three have eternal humanities too? Or, did all three appear in Christ's eternal humanity? Or, as I'm inclined to believe, did they just "appear" human-like as did the Archangel Raphael in his visit with young Tobias? (cf. Tobit 12:19). This is how I understand Christ's appearance or Theophany as Melkizedek.

So, again, I'm not denying the possibillity of what you are saying, namely that Christ's humanity is eternal (meaning without end or BEGINNING). But I have never heard this before in the Church's prayers nor the writing of the Saints and Fathers, nor any Councils. I know I do not have an exhaustive knowledge of these so, if briefly, you can point me to a few, I can then begin to study and understand what you are presenting to us.

Thank you for your time and ellucidations,

Trusting In Christ's Light,

William Der-Ghazarian

Jesus answered Pilate in Hebrew?

But I am not objecting to pre-Incarnational appearances of the Lord. There is an old tradition, that saw in the small cloud appearing to Elijah, as an "apparition" of the Mother of God. The cloud came before the rain and heralded the drought's end, while the Mother of God came before Christ, and bore the fountain of Salvation.

Has anyone ever been to Mon Reale, in Sicily, and seen the awesome mosaic icons of the creation of the world, the ordering of the universe, etc. etc., all accomplished by God? In the icons it is Christ. (...as opposed to the old man, of Michaelangelo's "creation".)

Thinking out loud... is not Christ, the image of the Holy Trinity? The image of the invisible God? Surely those Old Testament theophanies were encounters with the Holy Trinity, God. God was creating, walking in the Garden, in the burning bush, giving the tablets of the Law... etc.

If the true icon of God the Holy Trinity, is Christ, the image of the invisible God, it is a Theophany of Christ, only in this sense? (Do you not know, he who has seen me, has seen the Father.)

In those Old Testament events, when we say they were encounters with Christ, does it mean that the Eternal Word, the 2nd person of the Holy Trinity, acted uniquely at these events, in a similar way as only he was incarnate, made man, suffered in the flesh etc.?

I'm going to Sicily during Spring Break so I'll be sure to drag my family along to see the mosaics!

ChristTeen287

It is a 'must' visit. You can take a city bus from downtown Palermo, it only takes about a half hour, if I remember correctly. The Church is awesome, with mosaics to rival any anywhere.

Be sure to read up about it ahead of time, if you can. There are whole books on the Church in Mon Reale. But a good guidebook, will give you something. I used the "Blue Guide" to Sicily, which was 1st class. I know you will appreciate it even more, if you do you homework ahead of time. (...a sort of pre-incarnational excercise, before the fact.)

Allow plenty of time in the Church, so you are not rushed. Enjoy the visit!

Who is the moderator of this area of the forum! Hieromonk Elias is off topic...

oops. It is me. I am the moderator of East & West. Sorry all for my digression!

Thank you for your digression. May all digressions be so good at pointing us toward the glorious art inspired by God.

Most definitely, just as he spoke to Saul from within the blinding light on the road to Damascus - in High Hebrew (pure Temple Hebrew).

Although the common everyday language was a loose and common Hebrew (had taken on Latin, Greek, Aramaic, Persian .. Etc.. words through day to day common commerce of interaction with these cultures) Hebrew was still Hebrew. It was not Aramaic, as opposed to Hebrew, any more than the it could be said that American English is not English because it is not exactly the same as it was 200 years ago (The King�s English).

Common Hebrew had evolved some from its original form - but far less than American English because it was, from the time of the Babylonian Exile onward, the religious duty of the Temple priesthood to preserve as pure - the original holy language that the Law was written in. Having almost lost it once (the Exile in Babylon) it had been codified and became religious duty to preserve it. What ever language was spoken and written by the Hebrews upon returning to Jerusalem after the Babylonian captivity - THAT language WAS Hebrew for the simple fact that it was the official language of the Law, The Temple, and the Hebrew people. And it certainly had major roots in pre-Babylonian Hebrew. This is simple.

Pure and High Hebrew, Temple Hebrew as taught to Paul by Gamelian(sp) - was the holy and official language of Temple, Law, and Jerusalem (the last bastion of pure Hebrew culture). If you ask Jewish scholars if there was ever a time in which Hebrew was not spoken or written - they will tell you that the language had some serious danger of being lost only once, with European Jews in the years between WWI and WWII (I believe) so that great effort had to be put into its restoration. They may be referring to Yiddish - I am not certain. There exists an unbroken line of material written in Hebrew (document proof) stretching from the years before Jesus to well after the dispersion cause by the sake of Jerusalem. Hebrew had not stopped nor disappeared, its use was uninterrupted and its center was Jerusalem. There also does exist today some difference in Israel between what is considered pure Hebrew and common Hebrew - but this exists with any language.

In Jerusalem, at the time of Christ, speaking another language other than Hebrew on a day to day level - was considered something akin to treason - and if you could not speak Hebrew then YOU were THE problem and part of the very reason why God had brought so much trouble to the Jews and allowed Roman to occupy Jerusalem - for you had forsaken Moses and the Law and were an apostate.

The Hebrew speakers of Jerusalem looked down on all Jews who did not know Hebrew as well as they did - or who spoke it with accent. The Jews of Galilee were considered so Greek-ized that it was no longer considered a part of Israel. They rarely came down to Jerusalem and Temple or paid taxes. It was when Peter spoke - that the servant girl said �You were with him - you are a Galilean� which made Peter a prime suspect as a member of this potential revolt which would place Jesus on the throne. Galilean - scum - very questionable allegiance to Israel as the Temple kept it..

The gsopels tell us that the young man Jesus was brought to the Temple to pass questioning on the Law and the Hebrew which could not be seperated from it - and Jesus astounded the teachers and began to teach them corrections. The bar-mizva of the Orthodox Jews today has its roots in this religious ceremony where proficency in Hebrew and the Law of scriptures has to be shown. If Jesus had to be arguing points of the Law to such a degree as to be astounding the teachers - then his mastery of Hebrew was equalt to or surpast the teachers involved. Any exposiontion of the Law involves discussing the roots and meaning of the Hebrew words.

Let us put it this way - if you were an American who speaks American English - and you wrote something you intended other Americans to read - would you write in American English or would you write in Greek? I think you would select to write in the language you knew best which was also the universal language for those you intended to reach. The apostles were charged to spread the gospel - first - to the Jews - and only later (after a bit of hesitation) was the gospel extended to gentiles who began to be known to have received the Holy Spirit. Jerusalem - was the primary and sole center of apostolic activity for many years with little or no thought given to Greek or any other language. For a long time, converts were expected to dress, eat, and learn� Jewish culture and Mosaic Laws (in a word - to become Jews). Only when Paul (because of gentile response) AND the needs of outlaying Jewish communities who knew Greek better than they knew Hebrew - were the gospels copied to Greek and sent out. Yet - the main body of original apostles remained in Jerusalem in Jewish way - attending Temple and fulfilling Jewish customs.

Mark, Mathew and John were written in Hebrew (by Hebrews for Hebrews) while Luke was written in Greek (by a Greek for Greek readers). The Hebrew gospels were later copied into Greek in order to be sent out from Jerusalem to outlying Jewish communities who knew the universal Greek better than they knew the Hebrew that was used in Jerusalem. Just the same - it was in the Jewish community of Alexandria Egypt - where the Jewish scriptures were translated into Septuagint Greek because the Jewish community there was more at home with Greek than Hebrew. It is probable that the original Hebrew gospels were lost in the burning of Jerusalem by the Romans. It is reliably recorded that Mark had a Hebrew gospel with him in Alexandria - but only quoted fragments remain.

Temple Services were never preformed in Greek, Aramaic, Roman, Latin, or any other language but Pure Temple Hebrew (called High Hebrew) and legal proceedings (a function of the Temple as government) were held in Hebrew.

Definitely - the proceedings of the Sanhedrin were done in Hebrew - and Jesus stunned them when he named himself as Yahweh - the very God that they were supposed to be serving - now standing there in person.

While the shell of the existing Greek gospels is Greek words - the underlying mind set, social beliefs, and traditions which they tell of - are emphatically Hebrew. That left them with only two choices - recognize him as Yahweh and his right as High Priest and King - or kill him as a blasphemer. The High Priest had to move quickly because if they believed Jesus - then he, and all Herod�s family, would have to step down and be brought to justice for all the bleeding the people for taxes, corrupting the Temple, not being of the line of David (the only legitimate heirs to the throne must be from the line of David) - and having no Providential right to throne or priesthood!

The mistake, that Jesus and his disciples spoke Aramaic as their normal language (first proposed at about the same time as the mistake of Jehovah instead of Yahweh) is perpetuates in some circles as sacrosanct and I would guess you have to embrace it to get your doctorate. I am not sure if this is still the case across the board. It seems to me to have arisen from mistaking the Greek gospels as the originals because no Hebrew manuscripts could be found. Just like the J and P sources theory for Genesis it was dreamed up to explain something they could not understand (the struture of a cosmogony) and moved to undisputable fact and an indispensable part of the foundation of modern credentials.

This is my general opinion and it is shared by some scholars. It is not necessary to the faith but may help by giving a more accurate context to some things.

I will probably not be back here for a time.

Fascinating post Rayk,

Thank you for this valuable information. I learned a lot. By the way, what do you make of all of that JPED stuff?

Wm.

JPED (assuming this is the current J and P sources designation)� poppy-cock� but it is quite understandable how scholars (who did not know how to read what they were looking at) would come up with a theory to explain it. Don�t we all do the same thing? They were expecting history as they would have written it and had no idea what a cosmogony was.

Jewish fathers and the early Chritian fathers believed and so taught - that Genesis was written in its entirety by Moses alone (dictation accepted). For that fact to be so easily tossed out by modern scholars - shows you how little they understand or value - acient sources (so much closer to the actual fact).

Fundamentalist will tell you it is historical fact to be blindly believed in a material and literal way - and scholars will tell you it is lengend and fable and myth from childlike minds.

The Catholic church recognises it as a cosmogony... but feels no need to deliberate on it in anything more than its minor relation to the living faith which contiues in the Chruch. It is secondary to the Catholic faith and is not the foundation nor the source - of that faith. The foundation of the Chruch is not the bible but is the living spirit of the mystical prensence of Christ, invested in and guarenteed to those members of his church which are in union with the ecclesia he appointed (despite thier own human errors). Keep in mind that even individual members of the ecclesia are free to leave that governmental union, that one body, and Providential care does not cease for separated members (it is just no longer guaranteed in the same way).

Genesis is a cosmogony. As such it is not history as we would write it or read it. The irregularities we find in it - were well known by the earliest Christians, especially within Alexandria (where Mark established the first school of catechism.

Genesis is neither historical fact in the way we today would write history - nor is it fable. It is - cosmology - while even in the history of ancient cosmologies - it stands far above others.

One must keep in mind that before the Exodus - there was no such thing as �Hebrews�. Those who became the Hebrews - were essentially wandering immigrants who came to Egypt and its Nile - and they had no common roots, history or God. They were alien laborers who mostly did menial tasks of construction or services. The only language they had in common was what they had to learn of the employers language (Egyptian). The tern �Hebrew� comes from an Egyptian designation meaning �wandering and homeless immigrant� and the original copies of �The Ten Commandments� chiseled into stone slabs - were actually the first four stories of Genesis written in the demotic text of the time (you wanted your people to be able to read it - right?) - these original stones were booty for Babylon when it conquered and looted the First Temple - and were subsequently lost or broken up for the value of the stone (a quart-like and bluish topaz like material that was highly polished and reminded one of looking at water) after spending years in the Babylonian storage of looted treasures. What we have today (their written form) is Chaldean (Babylonian) script - which rightly today is called �Hebrew�. Faithful reproductions of these stones exist in Ethiopia of today and are known there as �The Ark of The Covenant� or Ark �container� of the governing agreement between the King and the people governed. In the case of Israel it was an agreement between a human king and his people but between a living Providence and his adopted people.

Moses himself (not a proper name but rather means �taken from the waters�) was the son, an Egyptian prince, of the Pharaohs daughter. She was selected by Pharaoh as �Queen Mother� which meant her son would be the next Pharaoh - so the traditional ceremony of �finding the child in the water� was done. No princess of Egypt bathed in the Nile - it just was not done (for several reasons). To be in a public place naked and to risk the Nile parasites? No - she walked down to the waters edge and washed her hands (as the ceremony goes) to be �surprised� to find the child - supposedly put there by the gods who were giving him to mankind to be their next king. That ceremony was done long before Moses and continued well after Moses. As it has often happened in human affairs - her relatives already in power - were not willing to step down when the Pharaoh died - so political intrigues took place and the real Son of Pharaoh (who we call Moses) was disposed before ascending the throne - and banished from Egypt and his Egyptian name was also erased from the records. Officially - he had never existed. (he went to live with a relative who ran the Median Temple).

The �form� of these things - are nothing unusual from surrounding cultures of the time. What IS unusual is the cosmogony itself (we call Genesis). These narratives are a mosaic formed along an ennead structure (now that was common) but their depth and perfection of inner relation (so far beyond others) seems to indicate that the whole thing (the first four narrations) were give to the seer�s senses during an ecstatic state (a �vision� which included all the senses). And for the first time the �view� that the cosmogony is written from is not one from the stance of man trying to understand the gods (or god - as Moses was not the first monotheism) but rather the narrations are written from the perspective of God - viewing man. In this way these tablets which contained the narrations in ten section - claimed to be revealed (give by the God himself - to the seer while in ecstatic state) - and this had never happened before nor after Moses in the anneals of cosmogony. All other cosmogonies can be read like the current vehicles of philosophy and theoplogy - which they were.

http://www.thegenesisletters.com

and here is facinating research done on Moses http://www.moses-egypt.net/default.asp of which I can personallly vouch for the accruracy of his research and conculsions regarding who the historical Moses was. His books are not yet available in English.

May I remind you that the subjects discussed above - are incidential to Church doctrine and this message only reflects my own understanding.