We're welcoming back campers!

C.A.P.s to debunk the fable of your dust-man origin! (4)
Citation Application Possibilities! (New title instead of Warren’s Post Scripts)
from Cobbey Crisler and others for citations from the Christian Science Bible Lesson on
“Man”
for September2-8, 2019


CAP#1a—Treat yourself & all as “born from above” Cobbey Crisler on John 3:1-13, 27 and John1:12, 13 (RR, B10).
“John 3:1 begins with an introduction to "Nicodemus." Nicodemus was a rather cautious man that ran around back alleys after twilight. He didn't want to be seen by his daytime friends. Sort of like one of those captions in the Charlie Chaplin movie, where Charlie was a waiter during the day, but dressed up in the finest tuxedo at night. The caption simply said, "Charlie's friends of the evening didn't know Charlie's friends of the day." I think this is probably true of Nicodemus.

“John 3:2, "He comes to Jesus by night.” He's in a rather awkward position because he is a member of the Sanhedrin, the ruling body of Jews, that later convicts Jesus. If what he says is accurate, it is an unfortunate commentary on the motives that led to the crucifixion of Jesus. If he is really speaking for the Sanhedrin when he says, "We know that thou art a teacher came from God,” then that is a tremendous commitment. If we know that you are a teacher come from God, where is the evidence? What evidence do they use as proof? Such semeia, or signs, or significant results, can’t happen unless God is with you.

John 3:3, “Jesus makes this comment, unless a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” You know how popular that particular verse has become in our century. Yet it’s based on a misapprehension of the original word. We really don’t find John here using the Greek word “anothen” here in the sense of “again”. It can suggest the idea of “again.” But John uses it more in these terms, “from above."

"Anothen” means "from above." Now look at that statement that Jesus is making,

"Except a man be born from above, he cannot see the kingdom, or dominion, of God." (B10) This is a theological breakthrough that’s incalculable. You can’t see the kingdom, which, by the way, he told us was not only within, but here, right here. It wasn't a future far-off thing. "But to see it one must be born from above.” This is a definition of nativity which sounds totally impractical for us as human beings, and yet it's apparently something that Jesus based his whole theology upon. And he got the results from the concept that man is born from above.

“We ran into that in the first chapter of John, Verses 12 and 13, when he said, "We all, if we will receive it, have the authority to become the sons of God.”[RR] But to be God's son means you've got to cut the animal connection, those links or roots in "blood, will of the flesh, and will of man.” Sever those links.

“A nativity higher, is that practical?

“John 3:4. Nicodemus wonders about that himself. He even goes to the extreme of saying, "How do you do that? Do you climb back into your mother’s womb, and get born all over again?” This is obviously a negatively impossible event, so Nicodemus is somewhat laughing up his sleeve.

John 3:5. Then Jesus says, "Except a man be born of water, which was the usual way by which children were born in the presence of water, "and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." The normal, natural biological birth is not going to do anything. In order to enter the kingdom or dominion of God, something about nativity has to be understood. A nativity that is higher and not tied into biology. Why?

“Because of John 3:6 one of the most practical statements ever made in the Bible, “That which is born of the flesh is flesh.” And it's not going to rise any high­er than its source. Should we be doing something about recognizing origin in Spirit? Is this what is behind the meaning, again, logos? Get to the meaning. Nativity in Spirit. "That which is born of the flesh is flesh.” It's never going to go anywhere else. That's pretty clear cut.

“We've got to get out of that concept of flesh. Again, is this really practical theology? Or is it, again, pie in the sky? If we have any concept of arising at some spiritual goal, then we've got to start as if we originated there.

John 3:9, "Nicodemus says, How can these things be?"

John 3:10, "Jesus said, You're a teacher in Israel, and you haven't grasped these things?" Think of the average point of view when you've been dealing with the Bible all your life. Then in John 3:13 he makes one of those magnificent statements that requires almost a lifetime search.

"No man hath ascended up to heaven." Isn't that what practically every religion puts in the heart of its communicants? Doesn't everybody want to get to a destination labeled heaven? "Ascended up to heaven," but no one gets there, except "he that came down from heaven.” The same thing, "That which is born of the Spirit is spirit," John 3:6. You can't get there via flesh.

“Apparently this critical awareness of man's nativity as God's child free from "blood, will of flesh, lust of the will of man," is not just a nice theory. Jesus is introducing it as the prerequisite for comprehending the kingdom of God and seeing it here and now. The son of Man sees it humanly, "No man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the son of Man which is in heaven.” Is it possible for humanhood to experience the kind of harmony on earth as it is in heaven? There is the major challenge.

“It's almost the same question that God asks Job 38:33, after all the mental argument is through for forty chapters or so, when God says to Job, "Knowest thou the ordinances of heaven? canst thou set the dominion thereof in the earth?" Imagine being able to express the dominion of heaven right on earth. Is that possible for the son of Man? Or must we wait for some future event where we float up to the sky on a pink cloud somewhere with a harp from Angel Rent-A-Harp, Incorporated? That's a problem. We often try to rent a harp instead of earn it.

“How practical this is, "No man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man already there." Never moved. That claim, then, of heavenly nativity. It has to have something that is of major importance, John including it, and giving it so much space.”

In John 3:27, John the Baptist is confronted again. John, using communication terms, says, “A man can receive nothing, except it be given to him from heaven.” That’s almost the same concept in a way. Receptivity is what’s already been communicated to us. We’re not doing the communicating. We’re tuning in to what’s been communicated.”
“Book of John, A Walk with the Beloved Disciple,” by B. Cobbey Crisler**


CAP#1b—Get Nicodemus’s viewpoint in a poem by Ken Cooper (RR). A print version is Downloadable from upper right of CedarS webpages on this Christian Science Bible Lesson.
An audio version read by Ken is at https://youtu.be/yxFsPEg29GQ


CAP#2—Answer identity questions as dominion man not a dominated man! Cobbey Crisler on Psalms 8 (B1): “What is man?” (S1 also)
“Psalms 8, Verse 4. What is the presumption behind biblical therapy? What is its premise? We know it would be based on the question in verse 4 in part, “What is man?” That has been the most elusive answer to any question for the human race, except, perhaps, what is God? Who am I? The great unanswered question. Or does the Bible provide answers that fill that gap in thought, that vacuity? The answer given here biblically is “Thou madest him to have dominion.” (Ps. 8:6)
You need to have a premise on which to base the whole idea or concept of biblical healing or therapy. It’s based on the fact that man has dominion. Of course, that immediately recalls to us God’s pronouncement of that effect in Genesis 1 [Verse 26, B2]. If dominion is part of the nature of man, what does that say about man’s ability to get rid of disease? We can’t have dominion and be dominated simultaneously. The logic of that premise requires us to search out more deeply what the Bible is telling us about man’s nature as it relates to God because it’s on that basis that we are having these prescriptions filled…
If it’s God’s theology, according to the Bible, it works. God’s theology in the Bible can never be confined to theory. When God spake, what happened? It was done. That’s how quickly His medicine works…
“In biblical terms, [Psalms 8:6], “Thou makest him to have dominion.” What is there about this fact that we can apply? Are the Psalms, in part, the threshold of our discovery of this throughout the entire Bible?”
“Leaves of the Tree: Prescriptions from Psalms,” by B. Cobbey Crisler**


CAP#3—transcribed from W’s notes on Cobbey Crisler on the end of Genesis 1 (B2, S1, S2):
“Searching the scriptures does require scuba diving or at least snorkeling because there’s a need for both clear vision and inspiration.
Verse 26. Here in a book noted for its monotheism we find plural words relative to God. (“Let US make man in OUR likeness…”) Father-Mother (F-M) must be together indivisibly or we have more than one God. If there’s indivisibility in the original there must be indivisibility in the product.

Verse 27. To have Male-Female (M-F) in the product means that it’s in the original.
On IMAGE, Clemet of Alexandria wrote: “In our view, image of God is not an object of sense, but a mental object, perceived not by the senses, but by the mind.” But in Genesis 2:7 the mental model is dropped and in the material account of creation God forms man out of dust—the very OPPOSITE view.
This mimics the opposite view of male and female that is widely promoted in which sex promises us all satisfaction in physical unity—but does it deliver? The very definition of sex is division, not indivisibility. “The sensualist’s affections… and pleasures” would put one through lots of fitful, mental contortions that Mary Baker Eddy describes as “imaginary, whimsical, and unreal” (Science and Health, 241: 8).
(Transcribed from notes taken in margins of Warren Huff’s Bible during Cobbey Crisler talks.)


CAP#4—Find healing in this simple poem that debunks the fable of your dust-man origin! (B2, S1, S2, B6, S5-S10)

GENESIS 1 OR GENESIS 2

By Woodruff Smith

Where did it begin this idea called you?

In Genesis 1, or Genesis 2?

Which one of these concepts

Will prove to be true?

If you know what is what,

Do you know who is who?

In Genesis 1 in the 26th verse

There's a man with never a taint' of a curse.

But in Genesis 2 in verse number seven

There's a dust man conceived
He'll never see heaven.

So, it really comes down

To which one you will claim,
What thou see'st thou be'st

So, what is your name?

There they both stand.

Which one is you?

Is it immortal man one,
Or mortal man two?

If you're immortal man

You know what you're worth.

For according to law
You'll inherit the earth.
But if you're just a mortal
And made out of dust

Is there anything to you

That's worthy of trust?

No, the thing they call man

In Genesis 2

Is the dream of the dreamer.

It never was you.

So, know what you are.

Take your place in the sun,

You're the immortal man

Of Genesis 1.

TESTIMONY OF HEALING

I gave a testimony one night in our Golden, Colorado church based on the ideas from a poem I really liked, which said, "Which of these men do you think of as you, Genesis One or Genesis Two?"

A couple of weeks later a businessman, not knowing I was behind him, probably, testified that he had heard a rather banal, trite testimony a couple of weeks ago from someone who recited that line, "Which of these men do you think of as you, Genesis One or Genesis Two?" and he thought it was so trivial, so lightweight.

He went to a business meeting in Atlanta, Georgia after that and was in a hotel room in the middle of the night, sound asleep with his wife beside him, when he had a massive heart attack.

He said he wasn't naive, he knew what was happening, and he knew he was in a life-threatening situation. He was totally helpless, so helpless he could not even cry out to his wife for help, obviously could not call a practitioner, and he said for the first time in

his life he felt completely helpless. He tried to

repeat the Lord's Prayer, the 23rd Psalm, the Scientific Statement of Being, but he couldn't remember them, couldn't put them together.

He felt totally mentally jumbled and then he recalled a very simplistic statement…"Which of these men do you think of as you, Genesis One or Genesis Two?" and he realized that it wasn't so banal after all, that if he were a Genesis Two man he would probably not live through the night, but if he were a Genesis One man he could claim his dominion over

the "things of the flesh."

He did it. He said the pain lifted immediately and he felt whole and well. He decided the poem was OK after all.

–Lona lngwerson, CS


CAP#5—Get out of a limited, mortal shell! Cobbey Crisler on I Cor. 15:50 (previews B9)
“Another conclusion is coming through Paul’s receptivity. He presents two views, one with man within an egg origin, one out of an egg origin. A chicken takes 10,000 pecks to get out of its shell of limitation. Bible pioneers like Paul worked hard to get out of their limited, mortal shells and they communicated this to us. [Mary Baker Eddy says, “Mortals must emerge … They must peck open their shells with Christian Science…” (S&H 552:14, S6)

I Corinthians 15, verse 50 “…flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God.”
One might ask “Why are we trying to drag flesh along as if it’s a party?” [This relates to Mary Baker Eddy’s observation: “Being in sympathy with matter, the worldly man is at the beck and call of error, and will be attracted thitherward.” [S&H 21:25] Take up your bed and walk—Mind suddenly takes on the glow of our original glory.”
Transcribed from notes in the margins of Warren’s Bible from a talk given
by Cobbey Crisler


CAP#6—Focus on God to be changed into his likeness. Cobbey on II Cor. 3:18+ (B12) with open-faced, reflected inspiration and hope
“In Verse 13 it says that Moses had to “put a veil on his face,” because… they weren’t really ready to face the abolition of so much that we trust right now that doesn’t deserve our trust, so much that we depend upon, other than God.”

Instead of that veil, look what we must do in Verse 18, "We all, with," what? "Open face." Now here are the instructions; when in doubt, read the instructions. "We all, with open face," no veil, no mist. "Behold," how? "As in a glass." Immediately we're talking about what? Original and reflection. What are we supposed to look at? What's our model? "The glory of the Lord," and look what's going to happen.

Are we going to be changed into shame? No, the more we look at our Original, the more we will be "changed." It's passive again; we're not doing the changing. Our focus on God changes us. The more light we face, the more transparent we become for that light. We "are changed into the same image."

Does it happen overnight, all at once? No, "from glory to glory." Here we have the word glory expressing the very steps of our way, not from crisis to crisis, but from "glory," that's victory. There is an identity that is showing its supremacy over everything that the world has calculated to suppress it. It's "from glory to glory" that we go down the way, making visible spiritual progress, because it's happening from "the Spirit of the Lord."

This verse has caused the “Interpreter's Bible Dictionary” to say that glory to Paul is "a partly fulfilled reality, although it is also a future expectation into which we enter by degrees."

We know when we've progressed just as we know when we've been inspired. We have already found glory palpable to our spiritual senses right here. Here is the link the human has with the divine, the link that we can tug on in the midst of all kinds of bad news. This is why the gospel, or good news, elevates, uplifts our human experience because it is linked to facts that are quite applicable now, even though only partly fulfilled, perhaps some even tenuously based on what we think is hope rather than present fulfillment.”
“Glory: Divine Nature in The Bible,” by B. Cobbey Crisler**


CAP#7—Accept Jesus’ virgin birth as prophesied. Cobbey on Matthew 1:18+ (B13) “virgin… with child”
“(Verse 18) … we find "the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise." The word "birth" in Greek is our word "genesis." Writing to a Jewish readership, there would seem to be very little question that Matthew was relating a new genesis here. The word would remind his readers of the opening book of the Bible. "The birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph." Our modem term "engagement" would probably best suit that. It was a period in which the couple would promise to one another. It was regarded with as much sanctity as the marriage-period itself. So that any violation of it morally was treated with the same severity as if it had been adultery during marriage.

“When the news reaches Joseph that Mary is ''with child," how do you think the average husband would greet that news? They aren't even married yet. The news comes to Joseph that his wife­to-be in this very sanctified period of promise is pregnant. Under the Jewish law, what would be the most severe measure that Joseph could take against Mary? Stoning. Publicly. He could have chosen and elected to have exposed Mary publicly and had her executed. But Joseph is as important an aspect of this great account of the introduction of Jesus humanly on earth as Mary. We get an insight into his thinking. Remember that Joseph is just you or I in the sense of going through the same reaction that one would have with this sort of news. This shows some of the quality and character of Joseph.

“(Verse 19), It says that "Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example." …

“(Matthew 1, Verse 20). "While he thought on these things." That isn't exactly Joseph being a philosopher. The Greek word suggests agony. "While he agonized about these things.'' It gives us a view of what was really going on in his thinking. At that point, "an angel of the Lord appears unto him." "Angel," actually comes from a Greek word, angelos. It means "messenger" and is virtually inseparable from the message that the messenger delivers. It is this inseparable message and messenger that comes to Joseph in what appears to him as “a dream," addressing him as the "son of David" and saying, "Forget what you're thinking," which was a normal conclusion any husband would come to, "Because Mary is with child but what is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost." How many husbands would exactly buy that? It really flies in the face of the entire biological history of man.

“(Verse 22). He explains that "all this was done." What is he talking about when he says "all this"? The virgin birth of Jesus. He is about to give us what he considers absolute proof that the virgin-birth occurred. It occurred as a result of prophecy. Does that tell us at what elevation Matthew holds in prophecy? If he's using this as proof of one of the most unbelievable, incredible, events recorded in the annals of man's history, then how does he view prophecy? Does he view prophecy as a man-product or as revelation from God?

“If he's writing this book for the Jews, it shows he is bringing in his big guns right from the beginning to show his Jewish readers that this is it! We can be fairly assured that he felt that what he is about to say would not be disputed, or at least be a matter of severe controversy in his audience. His famous statement which he says so often "that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet." … “Matthew… is definitely convinced that early Old Testament prophesy is a prediction of a virgin conceiving.”
“Book of Matthew, Auditing the Master” by B. Cobbey Crisler**


CAP#8—Increase your love for God & man to increase your favor with them. Cobbey on Luke 2:52 (B14)
…Verse 52 tells us Jesus “increased in wisdom and in stature and in favour” (or grace) “with God and man.” Kay Kyser once pointed out in a talk that when it states that Jesus increased in favor with God and man, that it implies that Jesus grew in keep both of the Commandments that he later summarized for us, love for God and love for man.”
“Luke the Researcher,”
by B. Cobbey Crisler**


CAP#9a—Live in Oneness! Cobbey on “I and my Father are one.” John 10:30 (B17, S17, S22)

“In John 10:30, Jesus’ great statement, “I and my Father are one.” If this is from the Aramaic, then, the Aramaic word would give the meaning, “I and my Father are in accord.”
“Book of John, A Walk with the Beloved Disciple,”
B. Cobbey Crisler**

CAP#9b— Find “healing and joy in your heavenly home!” a line from “I and my Father are one” Music Video on YouTube (B17, S17 (315), S22 ( 361)
Here’s a link to an inspiring song by CedarS mom and award-winning Country Music artist, Cherie Brennan. It builds upon this week’s Bible Lesson citations B7, S8 & S11. Enjoy! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZMNlpZavkA

You can learn more about Cherie and buy her CD “You are Loved” (where “I and my Father are one” is the 4th song) on her website through Spotify at: https://open.spotify.com/album/3Ii5CBrdNs6f8Y3t4l5XHl

Or CAP#9c—On Watchfire Music by Christian Science friend, Peter Link, —LISTEN TO A SAMPLE of “I and my Father are one” SUNG by Mindy Jostyn and BUY IT and the SHEET MUSIC for SOLOISTS at: https://watchfiremusic.com/shop/recordings/songs/i-and-my-father-are-one-2/


CAP#10—Show contempt for the dust man that Does Not Apply and wash it off!
Cobbey Crisler’s on John 9:1-7 (citation B18)

“John 9:2. “who did sin? (A) This fellow over here? Or (B) his parents?”
John 9:3. Jesus had that paper before him as in the examination room on that point many times before. “He says, (C), none of the above… [Or as Warren proposes (D) DNA (DeoxyriboNucleic Acid (DNA) the molecule that supposedly carries encoded genetic instructions Does Not Apply!)] Neither hath this man sinned or his parents.” What’s that saying about origin? Where is that man? His roots are not in parents or in some reincarnated experience…”
Notice what he does in John 9:6 and what it may remind you of. “He spat on the ground, made clay of the spittle.” That reminds you of man being made of the dust in the Second Chapter of Genesis Verse 6 and 7, doesn’t it? Would Jesus ever [by spitting show contempt for or] mock God if he considered that was the real way that creation occurred? Yet, it almost looks like a mockery of that. He’s taking on that concept of the man of dust. He’s spitting on that ground, into the dust, making clay of it, and slapping it on the eyes of the blind man.
John 9:7. The man goes to the pool of Siloam. He can’t see his way there. He’s got mud all over his face. He doesn’t go seeing. He comes seeing.” He comes only after he has washed off that symbolic making or formation of man out of the dust.
In a way, it might even give us a greater hint on what the true meaning of baptism is, the immersion in Spirit, nativity, and washing off every trace of the dust man.”
“Book of John, A Walk with the Beloved Disciple,”
by B. Cobbey Crisler**


**You can buy your own transcripts of most of Cobbey Crisler’s 28 talks at this website: www.crislerlibrary.co.uk Email your order or inquiry to office@crislerlibrary.co.uk, or directly to Janet Crisler, at janetcrisler7@gmail.com

As a weekly “email Met” subscribers, YOU are considered part of CedarS family and so are entitled to know the password [CedarS] that will enable you to catch some “glorious glimpses of… the divine nature, the essence of Love” (SH 333:24) poured into CedarS 2019 Sessions 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 cabin groups and activities! (Here’s a link to search past sessions, back to 1962!!)

American Camp Association

MAIN OFFICE
(November - May)
410 Sovereign Court #8
Ballwin, MO 63011
(636) 394-6162

CAMP OFFICE
(Memorial Day Weekend - October)
19772 Sugar Dr.
Lebanon, MO 65536
(417) 532-6699

Welcome back, campers! Spaces are still available.

CedarS Camps

Back
to top