The Reality of Henosis, of Oneness with every sexual partner.

I got so pissed when I found out my ex was sleeping with someone else. It’s like something invaded my space and I couldn’t see it, but I knew it had happened. My girlfriends all said I needed proof, but I didn’t need any – as women, we know what our bodies are capable of.

One night, my pussy twitched in the middle of the night and I woke up with a feeling that something was off. That’s when I knew for sure. I called him up and told him I knew what he was doing. He asked how I could possibly know, but I reminded him that we had been sleeping together for five years and there was so much of his DNA inside me, “I will never not know where the f*** you are. We are twins now twins.”

Some guys might be terrified by this revelation, but the fact is that if you sleep with a woman once, your memories are imprinted in her body forever. That’s just how our bodies work. And if we breastfeed, our nipples can even read the saliva and change vitamin levels to feed the baby. So men should be careful when lying to us – we always know.

http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/S/0004/S.0004.192501220007.html

Sir NUGENT EVERARD:

I cannot agree with the views expressed by the mover and the seconder of this amendment. The offence of keeping unlicensed bulls must be met by fines that will deter people from doing so. I would ask the Seanad to consider the case of a grazier whose practice has been to work what is called the springer trade and whose habit has been to get the cheapest bull he can for the purposes of using him with the heifers he purchases. He will probably get that bull for £10 or £15. Will any Senator tell me what deterrent is a fine of £5 to a man who knows that if he were to get a licensed bull he would probably have to pay from £40 to £50 for him? It is obvious that if it were discretionary, in levying a fine you must take into account extreme cases such as that. It is ridiculous, to my mind, to suppose that any person who occupies the position of being able to [99] impose a fine will think of putting on the maximum penalty on a small farmer. Such a thing is not likely to happen, as it would be a straining of justice which would certainly be over-ruled. It is not only that the grazier offender—the man who offends on a larger scale—can inflict injury upon himself, and upon those who purchase his stock, but there is also the injury the small farmer can do to his neighbours who may have heifers across the hedge. A scrub bull will break through any hedge, and what is to become of the progressive farmer who is doing his best by a selection of the best sires to improve his herd? They may be ruined in a day. I think this is an offence that ought to be met with suitable punishment and, unless the fine is a substantial one, I do not think this Bill will be of the slightest use.

Plural marriage breaks the one flesh relationship between a man and wife.

Response: People have misconceptions about the one flesh relationship, or the henosis, as it is said in the Greek. Henosis does not refer to the emotional attachment between a man and his wife. Men and women experience the sexual act differently. Women experience it as intimacy; men experience it as an achievement as part of their dominion task. Henosis refers to the union created by the transmission of the man’s seed. Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 6:18 that a one-time sexual encounter with a prostitute creates the one-flesh bond. Plural marriage creates more bonding, not less bonding. It is divorce which causes the breaking of the henosis.

8. `One flesh’, therefore, denotes the essential informing principle
   in marriage, the interior, ontological aspect of sexualunion. Every
   true institutional marriage is simply an embodiment or formal expres-
   sion of the mysterious henosis established by man and woman in consum-
   mation of their love. Between marriage and `one  flesh’ there is, and
   can be, no antagonism; they are distinct but not independent, insepa-
   rable but not synonymous, and only appear as conflicting concepts when
   attention is concentrated…upon the legal, institutional aspect of
   marriage to the virtual exclusion of the ontological. (p46)

41. This suggests, as does Scripture itself, that the true and pri-
    mary purpose of wedlock is simply that the two shall become one; and
    upon thishenosis, constituted responsibly in consideration of God’s
    will, and built up by perseverance through grace, the blessings im-
    plied by the causes may rightly be expected. (p200a)

42.  The priority of the unitive over other ends of marriage is cer-
tainly to be inferred from Ralph Cudworth’s treatise, The Union Of
Christ And The Church, in which he argued that the mystical symbolism
of wedlock is no mere accidental likeness or “bare similitude”, but
that the henosis of husband and wife is a divinely appointed image of
the heavenly, spiritual union – the couple are sponsus et sponsa
ectypi, as the celestial Bride and Bridegroom are sponsus et sponsa
archetypi. (p200b)

Bailey (1952) also distinguishes between marriage and the one flesh union:

From: http://www.tiu.edu/psychology/Twelker/BDFMChap5.htm

Every true institutional marriage is simply an embodiment or formal expression of the mysterious henosis established by man and woman in the consummation of their love. Between marriage and ‘one flesh’ there is, and can be, no antagonism; they are distinct but not independent, inseparable but not synonymous, and only appear as conflicting concepts when attention is concentrated (as it has been in the past) upon the legal, institutional aspect of marriage to the virtual exclusion of the ontological (Bailey, 1952, pg. 46).

…the elaboration of religious and civil forms by which the community in question seeks to ascertain the bona fides of the parties, and signifies its approval and recognition of the union they contemplate…do not establish the henosis; only the man and the woman themselves can do that (Bailey, 1952, pg. 68).

Nestorius (381-451 AD)

Another early Catholic theologian who served as the bishop of Constantinople, did not see a real union of the two natures in Christ. To him, there was only a “moral” union between the Word and the human. He considered Jesus to be a “mere human being in whom the Son of God was present as in a house.” There was a synatheia (“conjunction”) of the two natures, but not a real henosis (“union”), an enoikesis (“indwelling”) of the man Jesus by the Word. While Nestorius believed that Christ was “morally” one Person, he believed that in reality there were “two persons” and that a “strict distinction” had to be made between the two (persons).

Nestorianiam (from Nestorius, patriarch of Constantinople, d. in exile 440; see NESTORIUS) admitted the full deity and the full humanity of Christ, but put them into loose mechanical conjunction, or affinity (Gk. synapheia ), rather than a vital and personal union (henosis); and hence it objected to the unscriptural term ” mother of God ” (Gk. theotokos , Lat. Deipara ), as applied to the Virgin Mary, while willing to call her ” mother of Christ ” ( Christotokos ).

Everything Plotinus says – points to a crowning experience, what he termed ‘henosis’ – realising a state of ‘at-onement.’

E.g. Ephrem of Antioch reports that S. Peter of Alexandria, S. Chrysostom, S. Basil, S. Gregory Nazianzen, &c. acknowledge the doctrine of “the union of two natures and one Subsistence and one Person.” ap. Phot. cod. 229. pp. 805-7. but Chrysostom, &c. uses the words and phrases, [henosis, sunapheia, hen ho theos logos kai he sarx];

Nestorianiam (from Nestorius, patriarch of Constantinople, d. in exile 440; see NESTORIUS) admitted the full deity and the full humanity of Christ, but put them into loose mechanical conjunction, or affinity (Gk. synapheia ), rather than a vital and personal union (henosis); and hence it objected to the unscriptural term ” mother of God ” (Gk. theotokos , Lat. Deipara ), as applied to the Virgin Mary, while willing to call her ” mother of Christ ” ( Christotokos ).

Valentinius Æons

According to Tertullians Quintus Septimius Florens Tertullian (b. ca. 150-160, d. ca. 220-240) is a highly ambivalent character in early Christianity.

On one hand, he was the first great writer of Latin Christianity. He was born, lived, wrote, and died in Carthage, in what is today Tunisia, and was one of the most notably grand and original writers of the early Church.

On the other hand, late in his life he left the orthodox catholic Church and joined the radical, millenialist cult of the Montanists, and was thus never declared a saint by any surviving Christian church.

….. Click the link for more information.  Against the Valentinians (latin: Adversus Valentinianos) chapter VII and VIII (and we only know the details of this system from its opponents), the gnostic Valentinius

….. Click the link for more information.  had 30 different æons which emanate each other in sequence. The first 8 of these (corresponding to generation one-four below) is referred to as the Ogdoad.

• First generation
• Bythos (the One) and Sige (Silence, Charis, Ennoea etc)
• Second generation
• Nous (Nus, Mind) and Aletheia (Veritas, Truth)
• Third generation, emanated from Nous and Aletheia
• Sermo (the Word) and Vita (the Life)
• Fourth generation, emanated from Sermo and Vita
• Anthropos (Homo, Man) and Ecclesia (Church)
• Fifth generation
• Emanated from Sermo and Vita:
• Bythios (Profound) and Mixis (Mixture)
• Ageratos (Never old) and Henosis (Union)
• Autophyes (Essential nature) and Hedone (Pleasure)
• Acinetos (Immoveable) and Syncrasis (Commixture)
• Monogenes (Only-begotten) and Macaria (Happiness)
• Emanated from Anthropos and Ecclesia
• Paracletus (Comforter) and Pistis (Faith)
• Patricas (Paternal) and Elpis (Hope)
• Metricos (Maternal) and Agape (Love)
• Ainos (Praise) and Synesis (Intelligence)
• Ecclesiasticus (Son of Ecclesia) and Macariotes (Blessedness)
• Theletus (Perfect) and Sophia (Wisdom)