Dragons? What Dragons?

by AGuest 44 Replies latest jw friends

  • AGuest
    AGuest

    To the Household of God, Israel, and those who go with... may you all have peace!

    To try and perhaps help "calm" some of the rhetoric and propaganda on the board lately regarding what I've posted as to the apperance of spirit being, the following are links to threads/posts that contain some information regarding their appearance and nature. For those who haven't read of such before, they are not "men", as in human... nor do they appear as human unless they put on the appearance of an "able-bodied" (vs. disabled) man. Otherwise, they appear as they are: seraphs... which are fiery (Numbers 21:8; Psalm 104:4),flying (Psalm 18:10), flesh-eating (i.e., the flesh of Christ, the "manna"/bread from heaven - Psalm 78:25; John 6:48), serpents (Genesis 3:1; Exodus 7:10; John 3:17; Revelation 12:9; 20:12) - See footnote as to "saraph", Numbers 21:8, NWT Ref. Bible.

    http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/jw/friends/188766/1/Apparently-Im-Not-Alone-in-My-Vision

    http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/jw/friends/188823/1/Okay-Theres-More-of-Pyramids-Quetzalcoatl-and-Sacrifices

    http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/jw/friends/189247/1/Of-Dragon-Tales-and-Other-Things-Well-Dragon-ish

    The "fire" is that which comes from JAH Himself, His "glory", that appears as a "white light" around them... but because that light IS Light... and so alive... and thus in motion... it looks like some kind of fire.

    They have wings, although not wings like a bird (unless one counts a pterydactyl as a bird) because their wings are more like that of a bat: web-ish and not feathered (they have scales, not feathers).

    They eat "flesh"... not meat, but bread: manna. The flesh of Christ, which is the "bread from heaven," which is the "leaves" the TREE of Life... he that IS the Life... the Root of Jesse... the TRUE Vine... Sprout!" (John 14:6; 15:1; Revelation 22:1, 2 - note, there is only one tree, not trees, as falsely taught by the WTBTS. See footnote, Rev. 22:2, NWT Ref. Bible).

    They are "serpents"... which are not snakes, but beings of a reptilian type. Sorry, but that's the best I can explain it - they're not reptiles, though, not at all... so, gargoyle-ish might be a better word. They are "drakos/dracon"... serpents (seraphs) )... that stand upright like men, but have wings... and can see all, except that which is hidden from them (like the seed of the Woman). Hence, they are "dragons", the English rendering of the word.

    The reason man likens them to snakes is:

    1. Our Adversary, the arkaic serpent, BeliJahel, known as "Satan", was restricted from using his wings and so must now crawl. He is a "creeping" thing... in that he can no longer STAND... so as not to be able to stand before the throne of JAH, which is a privilege state. He must now ALWAYS enter in a cowering, slave position... with his face to the ground; so...

    2. If one pictures a dragon (as we know them)... withouth wings... one will "see" a lizard. If one removes the legs from that lizard one has... a snake. And so, many picture the Adversary as a snake. He is NOT a snake, though: he is a seraph that cannot no longer fly... or stand. Not because he doesn't HAVE wings or legs... but because he is no longer able to USE them in the way that other seraphs can.

    Christ's appearance is very similar to these, but not exactly. His head (and not just his hair) is white... and his eyes are orange (fire-colored). His "skin" (which is actually scales) is a bronze/copper color. He is probably the MOST unattractive of them (excluding JAH Himself)... with Mischa'el and Beli·Jah'el being the most attractive (exquisitely beautiful, actually).

    Contrary to what some may believe... and wish you to believe... I don't see "Barney" of "Puff, the Magic" or "Knights of the Roundtable" type beings. Those are mythical beings patterned after what those who have NOT seen THOUGHT those who have meant when describing these. The myths, however, relegate spirit beings to mere beasts... which they absolutely are not. Excluding God and Christ, they are a "higher" life form than we... for now. Time will come, though, when [some of us] are granted to be "higher" life forms than they, subject only to God and Christ.

    Anyway, I hope this helps those who are truly curious and want to know what this is all about, whether AGuest actually believes in "dragons" (I do) and whether such "dragons" are as men depicts in his myths and tales (they are not; not even close).

    Again, peace to you... and may YOU be given eyes to see... if you truly wish them!

    Servant to the Household of God, Israel, and those who go with,

    SA

  • frankiespeakin
    frankiespeakin

    Hi Shelby,

    I will comment after I read it and think about it. I'm not sure when everybodies coming my fiance son is going thru the customary Brahman right of passage today so not sure what time I will have.

  • frankiespeakin
    frankiespeakin

    BTW it sounds like a geuine "religious" expereince for lack of a better word.

    To me,,in my veiw the unconscious is "God" or the "Self" and visions, along with dreams are a communication from the unconscious and to understand them is of great benifit. The need for objectivity(for lack of a better word) is very important. I think you have an important vision here,,and time will give you a better understanding of it,, best wishes.

  • cofty
  • Phizzy
    Phizzy

    Thanks Cofty, that cheered me up ! and I would rather see Dragon Poo than WT Bulls**t anyday !

  • poopsiecakes
  • frankiespeakin
    frankiespeakin

    Here's a little somthin somthin on dragons and a uniting of opposites in the psyche:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology_and_Alchemy

    When the alchemist speaks of Mercurius, on the face of it he means quicksilver (mercury), but inwardly he means the world-creating spirit concealed or imprisoned in matter. The dragon is probably the oldest pictoral symbol in alchemy of which we have documentary evidence. It appears as the Ouroboros, the tail-eater, in the Codex Marcianus, which dates from the tenth or eleventh century, together with the legend 'the One, the All'. Time and again the alchemists reiterate that the opus proceeds from the one and leads back to the one, that it is a sort of circle like a dragon biting its own tail. For this reason the opus was often called circulare (circular) or else rota (the wheel). Mercurius stands at the beginning and end of the work: he is the prima materia, the caput corvi, the nigredo; as dragon he devours himself and as dragon he dies, to rise again in the lapis. He is the play of colours in the cauda pavonis and the division into the four elements. He is the hermaphrodite that was in the beginning, that splits into the classical brother-sister duality and is reunited in the coniunctio, to appear once again at the end in the radiant form of the lumen novum, the stone. He is metallic yet liquid, matter yet spirit, cold yet fiery, poison and yet healing draught - a symbol uniting all the opposites." (Part 3, Chapter 3.1).

    "Now, all these myth-pictures represent a drama of the human psyche on the further side of consciousness, showing man as both the one to be redeemed and the redeemer. The first formulation is Christian, the second alchemical. In the first case man attributes the need of redemption to himself and leaves the work of redemption, the actual opus, to the autonomous divine figure; in the latter case man takes upon himself the duty of carrying out the redeeming opus, and attributes the state of suffering and consequent need of redemption to the anima mundi imprisoned in matter. In both cases redemption is a work. In Christianity it is the life and death of the God-man which, by a unique sacrifice, bring about the reconciliation of man, who craves redemption and is sunk in materiality, with God. The mystical effect of the God-man's self-sacrifice extends, broadly speaking, to all men, though it is efficacious only for those who submit through faith or are chosen by divine grace; but in the Pauline acceptance it acts as an apocatastasis and extends also to non-human creation in general, which, in its imperfect state, awaits redemption like the merely natural man." (Part 3, Chapter 3.3).

    "From this point of view, alchemy seems like a continuation of Christian mysticism carried on in the subterranean darkness of the unconscious.... But this unconscious continuation never reached the surface, where the conscious mind could have dealt with it. All that appeared in consciousness were the symbolic symptoms of the unconscious process. Had the alchemist succeeded in forming any concrete idea of his unconscious contents, he would have been obliged to recognize that he had taken the place of Christ - or, to be more exact, that he, regarded not as ego but as self, had taken over the work of redeeming not man but God. He would then have had to recognize not only himself as the equivalent of Christ, but Christ as a symbol of the self. This tremendous conclusion failed to dawn on the medieval mind." (Part 3, Chapter 5.1).

  • AGuest
    AGuest

    From a "Myth-Dream'Symbols" site referred to by dear Frankie (peace to you!) on another thread, which I would like to respond to (I've nothing better to do, right now, so).

    Dragons and Serpents

    Basic meaning : Unconscious fears that are repressed and need to be acknowledged

    Symbolism in Dreams

    The Jung/Freud Approach

    Dragon

    Dragon

    Dragon

    (1) Is thedragon guarding a treasure, or a cave which might contain treasure? Nope. Well, not usually. Two of them are guarding an entrace to a "garden" in which lies a "Tree", so that might be a "treasure." But I don't see them often. Rarely, in fact, and never in a dream. And another 12 are guarding the entrance to a "city"... in which lies the same "Tree" (because the 'garden' is in the 'City'). But other than that, no, and never in a dream. Even so, fourteen is way less than a fraction of a drop in the bucket as to the number of them... which I don't think I can even begin to count to, so... If so, the cave probably represents your unconscious, no cave... (dragons don't live in caves - LOL!) the treasure represents yourself I would love to consider myself the "treasure"... but the truth is that here, the "treasure", if there is such a thing... is my Lord, the Tree of Life, the dragon that stands between you and your true self But they DON'T stand between me and the "treasure." Indeed, I have full authority to enter and EAT represents the fearsomeness of the unconscious, for one who is still afraid of what may be lurking there. Well, it's a good thing I've actually been allowed to see what's "there"... because it really CAN be frightening. They are NOT pretty, as we describe "pretty", I promise you! This is a repression of the unconscious contents. Well, okay, then! But since most of the ones I've seen aren't guarding anything... and I have access beyond the ones that are, so that I don't actually see them "guarding" or acting as guards...
    (2) For Jung, the first stage of the individuation process is the conscious ego's heroic struggle {the hero/heroine journey of mythology} to lift itself out of the orginal all-encompassing unconsciousness and to establish control of unconscious forces. I don't even know what this means - LOLOLOL! No, seriously, I'm not trying to life myself out of anything. I GET lifted out, from time to time... but none of it is under my control, nor can it be. This finds symbolic representation in the legendary dragon-slayer, St George (St George = the ego; the dragon = the unconscious).
    Oh! If this were me, it would be me trying to "slay" "forces" that lie in my unconsciousness. I think? But I'm not trying to slay them - I LIKE them. They're actually very kind and loving... and quite tolerant of us humans. Most of them mean us absolutely NO harm, in fact, only want to minister to us. Those that do want to harm us do so because they consider us puny, weak, whiney, and contemptible.
    (3) The dragon may represent the devouring aspect of (your relationship with) your mother. 'Slaying the dragon' may therefore mean putting an end to whatever in your attachment to your mother is detrimental to the process of finding your own psychic individuality. Once the individual has achieved liberation from the 'dragon', the feminine side of the man's psyche and the masculine side of the woman's psyche will no longer appear in threatening form, but as an indispensable companion and guide in further stages of self-development.
    Thank goodness they say "may", here. LOLOLOL! I have no issues with my mother, none at all (she was a demi-goddess in my book when she was alive, and no, I don't "blame" her for dying. I was actually very glad for her that she was finally released from her suffering.). And I kinda like my "masculine" side. Not threatening to me at all, but actually quite wanted and welcome. I can be girly-girly... as well as not-so-much. I actually like the not-so-much "side" better. It's more... logical, rational, and practical... IMHO. MY masculine side; not everyone's...
    (4) A dragon may represent the generative power of (Mother) Nature; the unconscious, felt as womb pregnant with new possibilities of life. Ummmm... yeah, but no. Sounds like a bit of psychic "clutching at straws here," to me: ("I see a man... his name is Greg... no?... George... no? starts with a "g", right? No? Oh, it's Theordore? Okay, so I got the 'e...o...r...e' part, right..." LOLOLOL!
    (5) A winged dragon may symbolize some kind of transcendence, some passing from 'lower' to 'higher' level of personal maturity.
    Perhaps. Only thing is... they all have wings. There is no unwinged dragon (even the Adversary has wings - he just can't USE them).
    (6) A dragon may be a symbol for your sexuality, particularily if it - your sexuality - frightens you. LOLOLOLOLOL! Sorry, but that one's funny! Is your fear irrationsal; or does sexuality threaten to rule your life? LOLOLOLOLOL! I'm sorry... but you have to admit it's funny. I grew up during the days of "free love." NO one was "uptight" about sex. I didn't even understand uptightness about sex until I became a JW. Even then, all the hoopla about it belied the uptightness; rather, it lended to the existence of [major] repression. I taught both of my kids about it when they were like 4-5 years old... and reinforced their "education" each year. I gave each of them a condom at age 12 (had to attend a JC committee with a "sister" I confided in about that told her husband, who in turn told another, who in turn told another... and so on. Openly admitted it to the CO who asked me to go get it - yes, he did - and give it to him - yes, he did. I did... and just bought my girl another later). No, sorry, I don't have issues with... or about... sex. It's a physical function of the flesh... which can be coupled with emotion, affection, even love... as well as with hate, contempt, and dislike. It... is what it is.

    In either case, don't kill the 'dragon'; if necessary tame it. This actually makes me blush, like I'm 13 and seeing a kissing scene for the first time - LOLOLOLOL! If it ain't broke... don't TAME it! LOLOLOLOL!

    (In China, 'chi' is good, life-giving energy and the channels it runs along are called 'dragon-lines', which are said to follow underground water and underground magnetic fields). Because the Chinese, indeed, most Asians, don't see dragons as a threat (which the Anglo world did/does... which is why their "views" of them are, traditionally, as something that needs to be "slayed"... but that's changing,praise JAH!)... but rather as a natural part of the existence of man... indeed, co-existers. They're not wrong, although they're "view" might be slightly skewed.

    In Revelation 12, the major opponent of the church is also exposed. He is the terrifying red dragon with seven heads, ten horns and seven crowns on his head. Revelation clearly identifies the dragon or monster. He is "that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray" (12:9, with 20:2). Actually, he is that "dragon, the "arkaic" seraph. Not "archaic" as in "old"... but "arkaic" as in "of the Ark." And not "serpent" as in snake, but as in "seraph". (Ezekiel 28:14)
    Satan's earthly proxy — the beast from the sea — also has seven heads and ten horns, and he is scarlet in color as well (13:1; 17:3). Satan's character is mirrored in his earthly representatives. The dragon personifies evil. This isn't accurate. The dragon that is "Satan" personifies evil. Because he is evil. But ALL dragons are not (Psalm 18:6, 8) Since ancient mythology had many references to dragons, John's audience would have understood that the dragon of Revelation 13 represented a cosmic enemy. He did; that enemy was and is real, however, and is a spirit. Perhaps that's what the author meant by "cosmic"; however, the "cosmos" is with reference to the physical universe, and he is not "of" the physical realm, but the spirit realm.
    Exactly what the dragon's seven heads represent is not immediately clear. However, given John's use of seven as a numerical symbol of completeness, perhaps this suggests the universal nature of Satan's power and that he completely embodies within himself all evil. Actually what they represent IS clear, particularly as to one "head" - the one that received a death-stroke that got healed. This is Israel (particularly Judah) Jeremiah 14:19; 15:18, 19; 30:15-17; 33:6-8; Psalm 103:3; Lamentations 2:13; Revelation 13:3, 14). I won't go into the identity of the other six "heads"... or who the wild beast that has 2 horns "makes an image to the [wild beast] that received a death stroke." Another thread, that.

    The dragon also has seven diadems or royal crowns on his heads. They could represent Satan's spurious claim against Christ. As theLord of Lords, it is to Jesus that all crowns of authority belong. He is the one who will be crowned with many diadems (19:12, 16). This is with reference to the "kings of the earth" who "fornicate" with the Harlot, Babylong the Great (Revelation 17:9-18)
    We are told the dragon had "swept a third of the stars out of the sky and flung them to earth" (12:4). This fraction is used several times in Revelation. Perhaps we should interpret it as meaning a significant minority. Now THAT is accurate.

    So, okay, this was "fun", actually. I hope it helps those who think that perhaps I'm "dreaming" these things understand that I am not. I do realize that some will want to believe that, regardless, though, and they have that right, inaccurate though their assumptions may be.

    Again, peace to you all!

    A slave of Christ,

    SA

  • AGuest
    AGuest

    Cool, dear Frankie (again, peace to you!). "See" you later. In the meantime, please know that while your information is interesting, it just doesn't fit what I'm speaking of, sorry. Enjoy your day and son's event!

    CUTE photo, dear Poops (peace to you, as well!).

    Again, peace to you!

    Your servant and a slave of Christ,

    SA

  • frankiespeakin
    frankiespeakin

    Aguest,

    Well if I come up with anything else I will post it. Time to go out.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit