Random Thoughts, strictly Text

petosiris

Banned
Ruth is a fun book. It was the first book I read, when I was a child. The High Priestess in tarot comes to mind. Sitting between the 2 pillars B and J, Boaz is one, standing for strength. When reading the book of Ruth though, she is the strength. :smile:

Well, the book is around 3000 years old, while the Tarot is a few hundred. But the pillars are named after the pillars that stood at the entrance of The First Temple - 1 Kings 7:21. Is the second card with a high priestess a play or blasphemy on the Word of God? I don't know, but it seems like it.
 

Opal

Premium Member
Well, the book is around 3000 years old, while the Tarot is a few hundred. But the pillars are named after the pillars that stood at the entrance of The First Temple - 1 Kings 7:21. Is the second card with a high priestess a play or blasphemy on the Word of God? I don't know, but it seems like it.

I know, the tarot is relatively new. I find it odd also that Between the Pillars of Solomon's Temple, she sits. She sits.

I do not see it as a blasphemy on God. If God is the all, then God is all masculine and feminine.

One pillar has the earth globe atop it, the other a celestial globe. It is said that the original pillars had astrological data written on them. Technically that would make God, the supreme astrologer.:whistling:
.
 

petosiris

Banned
I do not see it as a blasphemy on God. If God is the all, then God is all masculine and feminine.

God is invisible, incorporeal and immortal. He is not a man.

The God who guided the construction of the most magnificent temple ever constructed commanded that the priests and high priests who served at that temple be patrilineally descending from Aaron from the tribe of Levi. So it is blasphemous, especially with the foreign symbols on the top of her head and at her feet.

The original card (a popess) was blasphemous towards the Catholic Church.
 
Last edited:

petosiris

Banned

Gerald Massey [1828 – 1907 AD] in his Lectures [published privately c1900 AD, but written over several decades prior to this], described many of the concepts we now associate with an Astrological Age [though the concept had yet to be given this name] some forty years before Jung first writes on the subject.

He describes the effect of Precession as moving the Vernal Equinox into the Sign of the Fishes, whereas it had previously been in the Sign of the Bull. He uses 2155 years for the length of what we would now call a 'Platonic' Month. He looks forward to a new Messiah, "when the Equinox enters the Sign of the Waterman about the end of this century", [which for him would be the end of the nineteenth century] i.e. the start of what we would now call the Age of Aquarius.

Interesting who this new guy is going to be. Perhaps he is the guy that Jesus will overthrow with the breath of his mouth and destroy by the splendor of his coming?
 

david starling

Well-known member
Interesting who this new guy is going to be. Perhaps he is the guy that Jesus will overthrow with the breath of his mouth and destroy by the splendor of his coming?

Jung secularized it, and made it important at the risk of his reputation. He was the first to actually name it "the Aquarian Age". Without his publication of the concept, it never would have become famous.

I'm using the secularized version myself, and noting the correlations to cultural developments, including the form of religious beliefs throughout history. Comparative religion is a touchy subject regarding CURRENT major religions, and past religious beliefs are usually referred to as "mythology". I like Jung's term "archetypes" because it's basically neutral.
 

petosiris

Banned
Are you really asking why a high priestess with symbols from the rites of foreign goddesses standing at the supposed entrance of the First Temple is blasphemous? How is this internal truth and access to divine knowledge is beyond me.
 
Top