Editor’s note: I wrote the original draft of The Prisoner of 1967 in 2009, then went over it again in 2015, but I feel that it is time to actually post it (in 2020) because of the conditions around the world right now.
From this point onward in “Genesis” is Part 3 (Mary Baker Eddy does not assign part numbers to chapter fifteen) or the third section. The last BIBLE verse of Part 2 was Genesis 4:16 about Cain dwelling in the land of Nod (dreamland). Nod actually means “ashes” or “to incinerate”. So to me, the land of Nod could actually mean death. Is not mortal life said to begin with dust (nothingness)? Is this birth into ash or dust able to lead us anywhere but to death in dust or ashes? “Ashes to ashes, dust to dust” are the words used by some priests at funerals. Because Adam fell asleep and never woke up it is safe to say that his offspring of error, Cain, lives in dreamland (the land of Nod). I believe the land of Nod means ‘a place or consciousness of sleep or slumber’ because of the phrase “he nodded off”. It comes from the nod of one’s head. But, if we take the different meanings of nod and put them together, it could simply mean that the whole belief that you are born into matter and then die out of matter (ashes to ashes, dust to dust) is nothing but a big fat dream!
[Truth as Principle – Man’s oneness with God (Principle) is expressed in the wholeness of manhood and womanhood – one-in-all and all-in-one – and Soul as the Christ as the Christ within the Word as Christianity]
Genesis 1. 27. So God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him, male and female created He them.
Ideal man and woman
To emphasize this momentous thought, it is repeated that God made man in His own image, to reflect the divine Spirit. It follows that man is a generic term. Masculine, feminine, and neuter genders are human concepts. In one of the ancient languages the word for man is used also as the synonym of mind. This definition has been weakened by anthropomorphism, or a humanization of Deity. The word anthropomorphic, in such a phrase as “an anthropomorphic God,” is derived from two Greek words, signifying man and form, and may be defined as a mortally mental attempt to reduce Deity to corporeality. The life-giving quality of Mind is Spirit, not matter. The ideal man corresponds to creation, to intelligence, and to Truth. The ideal woman corresponds to Life and to Love. In divine Science, we have not as much authority for considering God masculine, as we have for considering Him feminine, for Love imparts the clearest idea of Deity.
[Think about it, if man is actually a synonym of mind then why are today’s Left (those who claim to be feminists or on the feminists’ side?) so against the word? Why do they think it is a horrible word and why do they sick the thought police on it and try to change words like manhole? I will go so far in saying that mentality could mean “mantality”. The reason why the Left is against the word has nothing to do with sexual inequality and everything to do with the anti-Christ.
“The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven, which a woman took, and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened.” “I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world.” (Matthew 13:33, 35)
In Bliss Knapp’s book Destiny of The Mother Church he tells us about how the parable of the woman, told to us by Jesus, was kept secret from the foundation of the world, that it “implies that she was no ordinary woman and that her mission must be unique” (Destiny, p. 185). His twelfth chapter (that seems to be in synch with Revelation’s twelfth chapter) is about Mary Baker Eddy and how she fulfilled Bible prophecy. And this is the reason why the Board of Directors did not want his book to be read by Christian Scientists in the late 1940’s and why they really did not want to publish it in the early 1990’s.
Helen Wright’s book STAR OF BOSTON The Life of Mary Baker Eddy has three sections to it. Part I is about Mary Baker Eddy fulfilling Isaiah 54, Part II is Atonement and Eucharist: the story of the Second Coming of the Christ as Revelation, and Part III is about Christ and Christmas, an illustrated poem by Mary Baker Eddy. And finally there is a Conclusion.
What I would like to talk to you about is Part III of her book. Helen uses quote excerpts from the writings of Alice Orgain and a manuscript attributed (but never confirmed) to Judge Septimus J. Hanna. When she quotes from this manuscript she places a question mark after Hanna’s name. She also gives us some ideas on the topic by John Pawlik, someone she knew. I have studied Christ and Christmas for years, and am not sure that I agree with everything that Alice Orgain writes upon the topic, but I am open to changing my mind. And I think that I have done so on Illustration 8 – TREATING THE SICK. It is explained in Helen’s book that every illustration points to a particular time in Mary Baker Eddy’s life, which is probably so, and so I will try and bring out that point to you, as I do not know if I have succeeded in my past posts on the topic in this respect (or on this topic). Part 1 is about how Christ and Christmas correlates with the symbols in The First Church of Christ Scientist in Boston. Parts 2 and 3 have to do with Sharon’s Rose Matrix and its alignment with WINDOW OF THE OPEN BOOK, a Rose Window on the South side of the little edifice in Boston.
Helen did not include the material written by Doris Grekel (from one of her biographies on Mary Baker Eddy and in some of her pamphlets she used to publish). This could be because Helen did not have room for everything out there written on Christ and Christmas, for her book is only 257 pages long and Alice Orgain’s two books are WAY bigger!
I do not know John Pawlik, so I will leave him out of my discussion, because what I want to explain, at this point, is the big difference between the Orgain, Hanna (?), and Grekel ideas on Christ and Christmas.
Recently the mainstream (Liberal) Media have tried to erase the word “mob” when used to describe leftist groups who are harassing Republicans or people they just plain do not like. One example: opinion news commentator Tucker Carlson. Just this week a Leftist group gathered around his house. His wife was the only one home, he was at work (which I bet they knew), and fortunately their children were not at home. Mrs. Carlson did not know what was going on but she did call 911 for help. These people (Antifa) were yelling out and trying to break down the front door. These people were not protesters, as they pretend to be or call themselves, no, they were vandals and they were also a MOB!
Let me go to the dictionary (Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary) to tell you what the word “mob” actually means – and let us see if the mainstream (Liberal-Socialist) Media actually is correct in trying to get people to stop using the word “mob”. Should they really be shushing their guests? Do not their guests have the “freedom of speech”?