Gnosis: The Not-So Secret History of Jesus

[The Electric Jesus] • By popular request, I'm attempting to convert my Electric Jesus presentation into a book. Here's my first shot at the first chapter.
I always begin "The Electric Jesus" workshops with a simple, yet extremely revealing visualization about our life-long journey of acquiring knowledge in the West.
Let's start by taking a look back at your first day of school. Perhaps your parents packed you a sack lunch, tied your shoelaces, buttoned up that yellow rain jacket and then walked you to the bus or drove you to that strange large building with lots of windows. Remember your preschool or kindergarten teachers and how they trained you on the basics of the alphabet? You learned the fundamentals of reading, writing, and arithmetic. The stakes escalated as you went through each grade. There was telling time, cursive, the national anthem, fractals, history, even a little earth science. The hormones eventually kicked in at middle school or junior high and you embarked on new adventures involving facts, dates, and important events. Algebra turned into quadratic equations, which morphed into trigonometry and possibly calculus. Perhaps you went to college and sat through lectures, labs, novels, tests, papers, even a thesis or two. You might have gone on to do post-grad work acquiring various degrees and doctorates. And after years and years of study, from adolescence to adulthood, did a heroic teacher or professor ever set down the chalk or turn off the overhead projector, look your class square in the eye and say something like this?
"Look guys, we teach you all these things but none of us really have a clue what’s going on. Here we are, six billion humans, living on a bluish green sphere we call Earth. We’re a little speck spinning through an unimaginably vast cosmos, and none of us can even answer the most basic questions of our lives: Who are we? Where did we come from? Where we are going? And what is the purpose of this fourteen-billion-year experiment we call the universe?”
In my workshops, I’ll occasional hear tales of a Socratically wise teacher who had the gumption to admit that all we know is that we really know nothing. But by and large, there seemed to be a gaping blind spot, active denial, and severe intellectual arrogance with our educational systems and institutions towards understanding the actual world we live in every day. With all the cost, time, resources, and energy it takes to put our youth through this extended learning process, our students invariably come out of it full of information but knowing very little at all.
Fortunately, in our Western culture there is a Christian tradition (actually many diverse traditions, as we’ll soon learn) that believes it is our birthright to learn the answers to these crucial questions about our own existence. According to this tradition, we only need the perseverance, guidance, openness, love, and spirit (pneuma) to find the Truth we’ve always (although sometimes unknowingly) been looking for. From the evidence, it appears that they understood the most fundamental wisdom we could ever obtain in our lifetime -- knowing who we truly are! These wise spiritual seekers and teachers of have been called “The Gnostics.”
The word gnosis means "knowledge through direct experience or personal revelation." It’s not something you can be told from a teacher, minister, or politician, nor can it be learned from a newspaper or book, or even the global mind of the Internet. It’s something you must experience first hand. There’s nobody who can do it for you, and there’s absolutely no exception. For instance, I can tell you that Paris is the capital of France. It has a population of about ten million people. The city boasts wide attractive avenues with some classy old buildings. Its residents like croissants and cafes and they still generally smoke too much for their own good. I can tell you all these things but the only way to truly know Paris is to have actually been there and experienced it yourself. The same goes for higher states of consciousness, or "the kingdom of heaven," as Jesus would put it. And it’s the same for knowing ourselves and our own true nature.
In the Gospel of Mark, Jesus makes a rather remarkable promise: "There is nothing hidden that won’t be brought to light nor anything secret that won’t be revealed" (4:21). According to him, all the secrets and mysteries of God, the universe, and our own origins don’t have to be guessed at or alluded to, but will actually be known to us in time. And just as importantly, these mysteries would, quite literally I believe, be brought to "light," which is a concept we’ll be expanding on throughout this book.
According to the ancient Gnostics, nearly all of the citizens of "Spaceship Earth" have fallen into a chronic case of cosmic ignorance, which they described as "forgetfulness," "drunkenness," or "sleep." We are lost in the world of illusion and have forgotten our true origins beyond the material world. The Buddhists and Hindus called this the veil of Maya, Plato called this the shadows of the cave, and Neo mainstreamed the concept by calling it "The Matrix" on wide screen theaters around the world.
So who were these Gnostics, and how were they able to break through this veil to "wake up?" A mistake I often witness is that people tend to separate Christians from Gnostics, as if they were two distinct groups, but the evidence overwhelmingly shows that the earliest Christians were, indeed, Gnostics. They were one and the same. (In fact the label “Gnostic” was created by academics in the later part of the 20th Century.)
You don’t often hear this in Sunday school, but Christianity comes from a very deep spiritual lineage known as the mystery schools. These were ancient mystical initiatory religions where seekers would pass through various rites of passage as they matured on their spiritual path. At first, those on the outer circle would be taught that the religious stories they were told really happened, but as they progressed into the esoteric inner knowledge (gnosis), they would learn that these tales served as an allegory for their own spiritual journey and process, and mimicked the rites and rituals they’d encounter along the way. The most common rites of the mystery schools play out in the drama of Jesus’ own story. There’s a baptism (spiritual cleansing), a eucharist (communion), an anointing ("Christ" means "the anointed one"), and the death and resurrection ritual, something every mature initiate would eventually go through.
Jesus tells us himself about these secret teachings when talking to the disciples:
"You have been given the secret to heaven, but to those outside everything is presented in parables so that they may look with eyes wide open but never quite see, and may listen with ears attuned but never quite understand. Otherwise, they might turn around and find forgiveness" -- Mark 4:12.
As Jesus constantly reminds us, we are not witnessing the present moment correctly, because if we did, we would see through the fog of illusion, find forgiveness, and remember who we truly are. Those of us on the “outside” have not been adequately trained by the inner mysteries to see the greater reality around us, so we must learn through enigmatic allegories until we complete the various stages of gnosis. "Jesus said, 'It is to those who are worthy of my Mysteries that I tell my Mysteries'" (The Gospel of Thomas).
The mystery schools were strewn across the lands of the Mediterranean and are thought to have originated in Egypt centuries before Jesus made his messianic debut in Nazareth. Each of these schools prominently featured “a dying and resurrecting godman.” In Egypt they revered Osirus and Horus, in Greece it was Dionysus, in Syria Adonis, in Asia Minor Attis, in Persia (and later Rome) Mithras. The similarities amongst these mythic figures are uncanny. Most of them were born on December 25 (around the winter solstice) to a virgin in humble surroundings (a manger or a cave) with a star in the Eastern sky. They grew up to be spiritual masters with twelve disciples, performing miracles, turning water into wine, giving baptisms and communions, and then dying for three days before making a glorious comeback. Often, they were referred to as "the son of the lamb," "son of God," "king of kings," "the light of the world," and "the alpha and the omega." [1]
"Son of God" is actually derived from "sun of God," as the mystery schools carefully marked astrological events, especially the precession of the equinoxes. The twelve tribes represent the twelve constellations in the zodiac and Jesus, Mithras, Dionysus and the other "godmen" symbolize the sun, which eventually passes through each of the signs. On December 25, the brightest star in the night sky, Sirius, aligns with the three brightest stars in Orion's Belt, which are called "The Three Kings," pointing directly at the sunrise. The Virgin (Mary in our case) is the constellation Virgo, who was also referred to as "The House of Bread" (she holds a sheaf of wheat). She represents the autumn months, which diminish and later give birth to the sun's reawakening. The little legendary town of Bethlehem literally means "House of Bread."
As winter comes in, the sun falls further south in the horizon until reaching its lowest point at the winter solstice on December 22nd. There, it appears to die for three days (stops moving) directly under the Southern Cross constellation until it rises again on December 25, bringing in more light to our world each day. The sun’s resurrection wasn’t fully celebrated until it reached fruition during the spring equinox, or what we call Easter today. Those "crown of thorns" are thought to represent the sun's vibrant rays. Given the subtle, yet powerful spiritual/energy forces the mystery schools were working with (which we'll discuss in greater detail), it's no surprise that their spiritual heroes were symbolized by the continual nuclear fusion process of our glowing sun.
Different mystery school figures represent different ages of the Zodiac, each of which lasts about 2,150 years. Mithras kills the bull as we move away from Taurus into the age of Aries (the ram), then Jesus comes along with baskets full of fish to usher in the age of Pisces. When the disciples ask where the next Passover will be, Jesus says, “Behold, when ye are entered into the city, there shall a man meet you bearing a pitcher of water… Follow him into the house where he entereth in.” Any novice astrologer will recognize the water bearer as Aquarius. When we hear of “the end of the world” in the New Testament, it actually translates as “the end of the age,” which isn’t that terrifying when you realize that the authors are poetically marking the change in the star calendar, and perhaps new energies coming in and affecting our planet. [2]
Given the astrological significance of the southern cross, it’s not surprising that depictions of crucifixion were popular in the mystery schools. A famous second to third century talisman (see image above) depicts a figure that looks suspiciously like Jesus crucified on a cross, but is surprisingly labeled “Orpheus becomes a Bacchoi.” Orpheus was a prophet in the Dionysian mysteries and a Bocchoi was an enlightened disciple who had completed the stages of initiation. (The first depiction of Jesus on the cross wouldn’t show up until at least 200 years later.) Around the same time as the talisman, a Roman graffiti artist drew a bizarre picture on the back of a Roman pillar when the authorities weren’t looking. This ancient “tag” featured a donkey being crucified on the cross, symbolizing the rite of dying to one’s lower nature in order to ascend to the higher self. Bible students will immediately recognize this as being reminiscent of Jesus riding a donkey into Jerusalem, revealing in allegory how we can master our own animalistic nature.
Even if you’ve never been to church, I’m sure you’ll recognize the following inscription: “He who will not eat of my body and drink of my blood, so that he will be made one with me and I with him, the same shall not know salvation.” This familiar reference to the communion appears on a Mithraic temple. The mysteries of Mithra were around centuries before our favorite resurrecting “godman” hit the religious circuit in Galilee. Here’s a common prayer in Mithraic services: “Be good of cheer, sacred band of Initiates, your God has risen from the dead. His pains and sufferings shall be your salvation.” The Mithra mysteries were spread across the Roman Empire and you’ll find temples in London and up north at Hadrian’s Wall where Roman soldiers were stationed. The Vatican itself sits on top of a destroyed Mithraic temple, where initiates once shared a meal of wine and bread celebrating their redeemer, born on December 25th, who died for three days before coming back to life. [3]
While we're shedding light on forgotten history, I'd like to take a moment and make up for what I call "2,000 years of really bad translations." Let's start off with that all-important Christian word "savior." It's a Greek term, soter, meaning “bestower of health,” or even better, “one who makes whole.” Jesus heals throughout the New Testament but what are his miraculous techniques? Some evidence might be found when he comes across a woman "with a flow of 12 years" who reaches out and touches his garments. "The power drains out of him," for which Jesus turns around, gives the thumbs up, and says, "Your faith has healed you."
But how could the power drain out of Jesus? And what is this power? Could it be that he was using the same power that moves the whole cosmos? Was he vibrating at a higher level and like a supreme Reiki master, did he heal her by passing on these higher frequencies? Jesus constantly gives "hands-on healings" throughout the gospels, often telling us "be opened" when cleaning out the energy channels and clearing out sickness. As a true soter, Jesus actively utilizes the powerful healing properties of unconditional love and forgiveness to help make us whole with ourselves, one another, and the divine.
To continue our discussion of really bad translations, I'd like to tackle that extremely loaded word we call "sin." The term harmatia comes from Greek archery, and quite literally means “missing the mark.” But wait, you say, this word isn’t riddled with the shame and guilt that the televangelists lay on us before asking for our credit card information? You’re right, it's just a word describing our journey home. Sometimes we fall off target, then we have to realign and get on the road again. That's how we stumble through the darkness of illusion and eventually find our way back to the light.
So it seems highly unlikely that you would go to hell for "missing the mark," or at least not that place of eternal damnation that sidewalk preachers rage about. The translation for hell actually comes from the word Gehena, which was a place in Israel where trash was burned. A spiritual master like Jesus understood the laws of karma and knew that if you do bad things, you might, metaphorically speaking, end up in a trash dump for a while until you figure things out. How many of us have been in Gehena at some point in our lives? And I’m sure for some of us, it felt like an eternity. Of course, we could "repent" to improve our situation, especially since the Greek word metanoia simply means to "change one’s mind" or better yet, "to have a change of consciousness," which can happen quite easily when you meet a higher vibrational being like Jesus. I’ve had the fortune of meeting several fairly enlightened people in my lifetime, and can honestly say I left their presence with a changed sense of consciousness.
And what about that fabled goateed guy with the red pointy tail? The term "Satan" comes from the Hebrew word for "adversary." In our minds and mythologies, we’ve built Old Scratch up to be a wily demon tempting us into horrible corruption, but those on the path will recognize the real adversary to us reaching our destination of true knowing. It's the ego/personality attachment to this world of illusion, or as the Gnostics called it -- the eidolon, that we must overcome in order to experience our higher self. Once we've accomplished that through years of spiritual alchemy, we can then "resurrect" (anastasis), literally "rise from sleep," to become fully awake and aware beings in the cosmic dream.[4]
The Buddha's ears might be heating up right as you read this, as his name also means "The Awakened One." Could Jesus and Buddha be pointing towards the same direct experience? Might Jesus’ "Kindgom of Heaven" be the same as Buddha's "Ultimate Reality?" I had my suspicions.
During “The Electric Jesus” workshops, I always give a little pop quiz. And I admit it's a bit of a trick, but here it goes… What is the earliest Christian gospel that we know of?... Matthew perhaps? Even though it's placed first in the Bible, it wasn't written until 80 - 90 AD. Then how about Mark, you may ask? Good guess. It's the oldest of the canonical gospels (60 – 70 AD) but there’s another gospel even older than that and it happens to be one of the most poetic and compelling spiritual texts in the world, right on par with The Tao Te Ching and The Bhagavad Gita. We call it The Gospel of Thomas (40 AD). The text is known as a “secret sayings gospel” and you'll find many of these sayings conveniently inserted into the narrative of the canonical scriptures.
This gospel starts off with a startling, jaw-dropping promise: "Whoever discovers the interpretation of these sayings will not taste death." You only have to read a few lines further down to find another impossible line: “Heaven is inside and outside you. When you know yourselves, then you will be known, and you will understand that you are children of the living father."
Once again, forgiveness, heaven, and knowledge of our true self does not exist in cloud nine far above; it's right here inside us and around us, just waiting to be explored. Jesus goes on to tell Thomas, "I am not your teacher. Because you have drunk, you have become intoxicated from the bubbling spring that I have tended." Could it be that Thomas obtained a similar spiritual mastery as Jesus, and might that "bubbling spring" refer to waves of energy that were passed from teacher to initiate in energetic transmissions that maintained the spiritual lineage of these esoteric traditions? Moving water has often been a symbol of energetic waves or transmission. Just look at the rite of baptism, which Jesus executes with "fire and spirit."
Perhaps the most mystically complex saying in the whole gospel is the following lines: "When you make the two into one, and when you make the inner like the outer and the outer like the inner, and the upper like the lower, and when you make male and female into a single one… then you will enter the kingdom of heaven." In this passage, Jesus becomes a yogic guru, advising us in a spiritual alchemy that unites the polarities and duality of the universe in order to discover our divine origins and go back home. It's a mastery that seems logically impossible, and only the magic of divine gnosis can bring us to this kind of realization.
Along with Thomas, an enormously diverse number of Gnostic gospels and sacred texts flowed through the numerous Christian mystery schools, some of which can still be ready today. There’s The Gospel of Mary, Philip, Judas, Secret James, Secret John, The Gospel of Truth, Act of Peter, Pistis Sophia, Dialogue of the Savior, Tripartite Tractate, and the lists goes on and on. If you’re curious about the best way to sink your teeth into these vast tomes, I’d start with Thomas for the wealth of sayings, then Philip for the sacred rites and rituals of the Christian initiates, then Mary to prove that a girl can do everything Jesus can. If you'd like to bone up on the basic history and beliefs of the Gnostics, I highly recommend starting off with Elaine Pagels' concise academic study in The Gnostic Gospels, then delve into the rich and expansive The Jesus Mysteries by Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy.
If early Christianity was extremely diverse with dozens of gospels and various Gnostic traditions spread across the Middle East, you might be asking yourself, “What happened to change all this?” Like most of the problems in history, we may be able to pin this one to the horrors of war. With the Roman Empire smashing Jerusalem and its Second Temple in 70 AD, the whole region was in violent tumult. The Romans considered secret or hidden societies dangerous hotbeds of rebellion and Christians, with their radical hero figure, found themselves at the top of this list. Members of the Christian mysteries joined the mass exodus out of the country to avoid persecution while many of the initiation schools fractured into pieces. (A similar tragic situation is happening to the Mandeans, the last remaining Gnostic lineage, who are being persecuted due to the war in Iraq.)
Initiates were spread far and wide and those who no longer could experience the deeper mysteries and inner gnosis started up “Literalist Churches,” which taught the Jesus story as absolute historical fact rather than allegorical representation. The remaining Gnostic circles called these rigid churches “Imitation Churches,” as they did not teach the real meaning of the mystery traditions -- “the Christ within.” Literalist Christianity began to rise in places like Rome and France, where they encountered a good deal of persecution from the Roman power structure. But in a sad touch of historical irony, leaders of these new literalist churches became heretic hunters attacking those who still carried the inner teachings of their own religion.
In the second century AD, Irenaeus, the infamous bishop of Lyon, wrote the rather uptight Against Heresies to discredit those he saw as his Gnostic opponents. This work almost single-handedly shaped the Orthodox faith and set forth nearly 2,000 years of very lame behavior by what would become the Catholic hierarchy. Suddenly the word heresy (from the Greek haeresis, meaning “choosing”) was mainlined and used at will to attack and deny any teachings that did not fit in with the growing institutions of power. The drafting of Against Heresies was a serious turning point in the history of Christianity, the moment when the once more popular inner traditions lost traction to the growing Literalist Church. Irenaeus immediately began a crusade to narrow the diverse wealth of Christian texts to a paltry four stories. [5]
As the number of Christians multiplied in Roman lands, a power-hungry Emperor Constantine switched the state religion to this mass movement, uniting Rome under “one God, one religion,” and yes, one emperor. In 325 he oversaw the Council of Nicaea, where Literalist Church leaders completed Irenaeus' dull vision of wiping out all Christian written knowledge to a slim few texts. This is what we now call The New Testament.
Now imagine, this would be the equivalent of free-minded Americans handing over their Declaration of Independence, The Constitution, the Federalist Papers -- the whole basis of our civil liberties -- back to King George in England and saying, “Hey, could you edit these and get back to us?” Of course, many of the most inspiring, liberating, and empowering spiritual texts never saw the light of day in the “old boys club” back in Nicaea. And after completing his long business trip, the now Christian ruler Constantine celebrated his return home by immediately killing both his wife and son. He then remained unbaptized until his deathbed so that he could continue his murderous ways and still secure box seats in heaven.
In 391 Emperor Theodosius passed an edict to close all “pagan” temples and burn their books. Christians hordes set out on murderous rampages smashing all traces of the spiritual traditions from which their religion had blossomed. The last of the Gnostic circles were annihilated, as were libraries, temples, texts, and the spiritual gnosis that had been passed down throughout the ages. By 410 AD the Roman Empire had nearly torn itself apart and the Visigoths strolled in to finish the job. Only eighty-five years after the Council of Nicaea, the Dark Ages had begun.
But, as the old adage states, “Nothing lasts, but nothing is lost.” In December 1945, as the world was ending its darkest and most destructive period to date, an Egyptian peasant named Mohammed Ali Samman was digging for fertilizer around some limestone caves near the village of Nag Hammadi when he came across a sealed earthenware jar. He feared an evil djin (genie) might be inside, but eventually opened the jar in hopes to discover lost riches. Disappointment set in as twelve raggedy leather bound codices fell out of the jar. He had no idea of the priceless treasure laying at his feet. In its 1,200 pages, The Nag Hammadi Library, held dozens of sacred texts that had been hidden away for the last 1,600 years. In it were numerous Gnostic gospels and treatises that had been lost to the brutal dustbin of time. Mohammed brought them home where his mother stayed warm by feeding pages of those ancient texts to her fireplace.
Fortunately, they didn't all get burned into ash and these lost texts can now be enjoyed by anyone with access to Wikipedia, Amazon.com, or a local bookstore: There’s fifty-two in all including: The Gospel of Thomas, Secret James, The Gospel of Philip, The Origin of the World, The Gospel of Truth, The Exegesis on the Soul, Secret John, The Three Steles of Seth, The Gospel of the Egyptians, The Prayer of the Apostle Paul, The Tripartite Tractate, and The Sophia of Jesus. As you can see from these numerous titles, early Christianity was an extremely rich, open, and inclusive tradition when it came to gnosis. The Nag Hammadi Library even includes texts from the Corpus Hermeticum and Plato’s Republic.
To conclude, I have to say that I’ve been absolutely amazed by how many people are awakening to a greater vision themselves and the cosmos, whether through spontaneous openings or engaging in serious spiritual endeavors. Mass transformation of human consciousness seems to be increasing exponentially all around us as record numbers of seekers practice the techniques of yoga, Reiki, Thai Chi, meditation, and much more. While we embark on this noble journey, it's important to integrate the traditions we grew up with and not just push them away, especially if we want to become whole. As Jesus says in The Gospel of Thomas, "If you bring forth what is within you, what you bring forth will save you. If you do not bring forth what is within you, what you do not bring forth will destroy you."
Regardless of your religious upbringing or current practices, Christianity is within all of us. It's in our language, our laws, our mores, our sexuality, even our calendar, deeply influencing our entire perspective on the world. The gnosis of these newly discovered texts provide a mystical bridge between our own unfolding personal transformation and the cultural forces that ground us and identify us in our shared reality. They offer a place to heal, forgive, and embrace our religious traditions while clearing up the mistranslations and misunderstandings of the past. We no longer are limited to looking toward the exotic East for knowledge of the deeper mysteries in life. Like Dorothy, we can click our heels three times, and discover we've actually been there all along.
1. Timothy Freke & Peter Gandy, The Jesus Mysteries (New York: Three Rivers Press, 1999), 1-26
2. Peter Joseph, Zeitgeist: The Movie (2007), http://zeitgeistmovie.com, Part 2
1. Timothy Freke & Peter Gandy, The Jesus Mysteries (New York: Three Rivers Press, 1999), 1-3
4. Richard Smoley, Inner Christianity: A Guide to the Esoteric Tradition (Monterey, MA: Bma Studios), Discs 1-2 on audio-book
5. J. Michael Matkin, The Complete Idiot's Guide to The Gnostic Gospels (Indianapolis: Watermill Books, 2005) 23-24)
Tweet- 4-25-08
- Talat Jonathan Phillips's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- Printer-friendly version










Comments
You make a good point, zezt.
Steady, steady
A lot of valuable information and interesting points. But the 'map' build up from this looks as premature, dogmatic and unverified as most other belief-systems in circulation. Do I detect a 'gurutrip' as a motivating factor?
Personally I prefer to make a critical examination of ALL the postulated 'facts', before I would make a finished 'map'. It's tempting to make a belief-system based on a certain amount of sound information, and then by retorical force sneak less obvious parts into it. Filling out the 'white spots' of the map with fundamentalistic assumptions.
Having a leaning towards an intellectual PAGAN gnosticism (and a good practical knowledge of applied 'walking the territory') I find the Jesus-parts far too indigestable. And some of the symbolic interpretations also seem questionable.
When meeting white spots on the map, some Agnosticism maybe would be more suitable, instead of a mixed Jesus, astrology and new-age spirituality approach.
YES!
Christianity as Other
In this growing community of ours, I've met a few people who react to Christianity as the Other--they immediately polarize upon hearing the word. The terrible truth is that Christianity is deep within all raised in the Western world (as you noted, it is in our language, our grammar, our scientific models), and our adverse response reflects a reluctance to face the inescapable world inside us.
Thank you for the reminder that we can learn from that worldview, if we sort through to the deeper universal truths deliberately hidden in the Gospels, both Orthodox and Gnostic. Christianity is a huge stone in our bellies, and we must transform that stone if we want to rid ourselves of its painful weight. The beautiful point is that Christianity itself offers the keys to such a transformation, as given in the quotes you've presented.
This is an old blog post of mine, but I think it's appropriate and points at the importance of confronting Christianity, not as adversaries or believers, but as independent seekers, to discover what lurks in the secret heart of a picture that came to dominate the Western imagination:
The establishment knows only to handle subversion by incorporating it. We've centered Western Civilization on a man famous for saying, This is not my Kingdom. At the heart of our culture is a contradiction we can confront only with great courage and patience. The root of everything we know whispers, Everything you know is a lie.
'Everything you know is a lie.'
everything beyond everything
my post was utterly incomplete without your final phrase. I could've left it with your words, which corrected and swallowed me and others I'm sure, but I want to express my gratitude, this feeling of expansion, for your reminder, your calling my mind back to the only thing beyond everything. You must be an angel, if I can make use of the Christian cosmology. Thank you.
And thank you, Jonathan Phillips! This is a spectacular article, and I'm sure the book will be illuminating.
"The beautiful point is
"The beautiful point is that Christianity itself offers the keys to such a transformation, as given in the quotes you've presented."
Thanks, Michael for your thoughtful insights. And we'll get more ito the "keys of transformation" further along. This first chapter is just a taste to give some of the background history that many people aren't aware of. We'll be diving in to the actual "codes" of Christian and other spiritual traditions across the planet to show how they might be revealing messages to us about our own personal, and global, transformation.
Interesting article and a great start to the book
Jonathan, I really enjoyed reading this.
One question I have for you, though. Weren´t there a variety of gnostic schools that weren´t necessarily in agreement about some of the stickier issues---whether or not Jesus rose from the dead literally, whether or not the flesh is evil, various degrees of extreme asceticism, etc?
I could almost swear I remember reading, at some point, that many gnostics thought that the body was evil. I can´t resonate with that idea so much. The body, to me, seems a glorious part of evolution---perhaps less painful manifestations of consciousness are out there. Maybe.
But why sweat it while we´re still in the body?
I loved the part about the Council of Nicea.....a very very important point to make! Thanks for this great project.
And, in response to Bogomil. I think that an important part of any spiritual discipline is the idea that you are a reflection of your own vision and judgment.
If you see wishy-washy in gnosticism, then it might be important to examine the ways in which this vision is a reflection of your own journey or state of being.
There was a tone of cynicism or annoyance in your voice that I detected, but maybe I´m wrong.
Another thought.
Maybe gathering all of the facts is only necessary for someone who is attempting to answer a truth that is exhaustible, intellectually. Perhaps the truth of gnosis is not exhaustible? Experience of gnosis is the only true knowledge of gnosis, I think.
Also, a map does not walk the journey for us. A map, like the stars, CAN, but doesn´t always, illuminate the path.
Adam Elenbaas
Nice Question: Not an easy answer
Adam, this is a great question and not so easy to answer in a quick response in the comments section, nor in a one chapter summary about gnosticism. Early Christianity was thought to be extremely diverse, judging from the number of varying texts and schools (ie: Sethian, Valentinian, Syrian, Basildes, Maricion, etc), just as the variety of Mysteries schools were also very diverse.
As for the case of if Jesus literally or metaphorically rose from the dead, different circles seemed to have a varying spectrum of views, but what we often run into is the sense of possibilities for these, or seeing everything as archetypal energies/qualities. Perhaps that's why Jung was such a big fan of the Gnostics. Also, what has interested me more than the history is how the modern day Gnostics I know and often practice with don't seem to get hung up on wondering if Jesus was real or a "download" from some other place, or simply a story. It's like deciding if light is a wave or a particle - why not hold all possibilites? The same goes for the resurrection.
As for seeing the flesh as "evil," there were definitely schools that saw the material word itself, as well as the flesh, as a source of great suffering. But others were also more sexually open (they had female priests after all), and sexual morality didn't matter so much once one had overcome the illusion of constructions of "right" and "wrong."
Perhaps my favorite quote on the flesh comes from The Gospel of Philip. "Fear not the flesh nor love it. If you fear it, it will gain mastery of you. If you love it (become to attached to it), it will swallow and paralyze you." That seems to be a nice middle path for one to follow.
And to be honest, that's the wonderful thing I'm seeing in Gnosticism today. People are finding what works for them in these sacred texts and practices and updating them to our contemporary world.
Your response to Bogomil's comments match my own. The Electric Jesus will admittedly not serve as The Complete Guide to Gnosticism. I encourage him to read a number of the tomes out there on this vast subject. What I'm doing here is laying out the bare basics of the Christian Mystery tradition that we can use as springboard to show how the Christian traditions (like many religions across the planet) may have known about energy and its role in personal/global transformation of consciousness.
wonderful
Accolades
Johnny, My ears have been perked towards Gnostic ideas since you first brought them up to me. Thank you for taking the time and energy to compile all of this information. Looking forward to delving into this line of ideology.
Fascinating Stuff!
Hi Jonathan,
Glad you're undertaking a book on this subject! I haven't delved into the Gnostic gospels yet, so I look forward to getting your full perspective. Between this posting and Adam Elenbaas's piece on "Exorcising Christ", there's a lot of fascinating ideas to mull over.
I am curious, though, if you have done much research into the claims made in Zeitgeist, Part One, which you've incorporated into your chapter here? When I was researching the Zeitgeist movie for Reality Sandwich, I came across a lot of conflicting information for many of the film's claims of Jesus's similarities to other deities/figures, the astrological connections, etc. It seems that Peter Joseph sourced the majority of this from a book called The Christ Conspiracy by Acharya S., and this book has been very controversial and critically examined itself. (Also, Acharya's guiding premise is that Jesus never existed, which I'm not sure you'd concur with.)
In the end, I didn't go through and fact-check each claim, but I encountered enough contradictory material to find Zeitgeist's neat and tidy Christian-astrological theorizing suspect. If you've gone through and found other supporting sources for this material, I'd be eager to look into them to satisfy my mind on it.
Keep up the good work and please continue posting your chapters as you go!
;)
st
Astrology & More
Hi ST,
Zeitgeist isn't known to be the most factual resource, but I thought they put most of the basic astrology together well and I was happy to see this finally mainstreamed. The relationship between Christmas, the soulstice, and the southern cross is pretty well known - the same with the precession of the equinoxes.
You can find the solstice info and correlation between the other mystery traditions in The Jesus Mysteries, which is a wonderful book (with a few flaws here and there). Also, "The Mysteries of Mithras: The Pagan Belief that Shaped the Christian World" by Payam Nabarz covers this in some detail.
I had problems with other bits of the movie, especially how they seemed to ignore the actual significance and importance of the initiation process within the mystery schools. I don't believe this is simply about astrology. The mystery schools seem to offer a process with very sacred rites (read the Gospel of Philip for this) that can lead to quite extraordinary states of consciousness. Beyond the historical errors, I felt the absence of this wisdom was the great missing element of the movie. But maybe Zeitgeist II or III will cover this. I hope so.
Gnostics not necessarily Christian...
I have recently finished the book "Not In His Image" by our own John Lamb Lash. One of the main revelations I gained from his scholarship is that Gnostics were adamantly ANTI -Christian.... I let him speak in his own words from one of his posts here on RS. http://www.realitysandwich.com/roots_our_gnostalgia
Worth a re-read for all who are interested...
"Responses to my previous post, "The Trap of Simulation," raise the tricky subject of "anti-cosmism." This is scholar's jargon for the presumed Gnostic view that matter is evil, the product of an inferior deity, and the human soul is a "divine spark" imprisoned in a mortal carcass. In this view, the aim of spirituality is to free the soul from material confinement so that it can return to a disembodied state in the Pleroma, the realm of the gods. In Gnostic-Christian syncretism, Jesus Christ is the central agent in this redemptive drama of escapism." "I say "presumed" view because an increasing number of scholars now regard Gnostic anti-cosmism as disinformation, and seriously wrong. This is not what the pagan mystics thought, but what was attributed to them by their Christian adversaries, themselves known for their hatred of this world, their fear of nature, and their loathing of the female sex. In other words, Gnostic rejection of the body and the sensuous world is a projection of misogynist world-hatred originating with the Church Fathers who condemned the pagan visionaries as heretics, and strove to eliminate them. Which they did, almost without a trace."
He finished his post with a great point: "Gnostalgia immerses us in the murk of old theological quandaries full of contradictions, stated in corrupt syntax. The viable path of Gnosis for today leads to knowing Gaia, because Gaia, the name we give to the living intelligence of the earth, is identical with Sophia, the fallen goddess of Gnostic mythology. Rather than indulge in Gnostalgia, how can we enter the co-evolutionary path blazed by those ancient seers? Rather than bicker about what Gnostics said, when do we begin to practice our own Gnosis? It's a question those of us who are seriously attracted to Gnosticism all have to face, sooner or later."
One way or another - I wanted to add to the conversation.
Bottom line - the only thing we really need to focus on is practicing Gnosis, here and now!
Practicing Gnosis Here & Now
"Bottom line - the only thing we really need to focus on is practicing Gnosis, here and now!"
Totally agree with you on that. And I'm sure John Lamb Lash would as well. He has a very controversial and unique take on Gnosticism. Sophia is almost universally thought to be a female emanation from the divine realms. She's in the heavenly aeons and falls from grace to the material world. His view of her as a Gaia consciousness seems to contradict the view in this tale that the material world (and even earth itself) is lost in illusion and suffering (often created from Sophia's own mistakes). But she is a heavenly essence, the divine spark (or energy as I would say) that brings her/us back home.
I admire JLL's take on Gnosticism, mainly because he views it in his own contemporary eyes and reconstructs it to his own personal gnosis that he can share with us. I'll be doing the same, but this will be focused on how Jesus knew all about spiritual energy. I'm not sure this has been done before but it's another attempt to "practice Gnosis here and now."
muddy waters
Hi Adam E, you write: "If you see wishy-washy in gnosticism, then it might be important to examine the ways in which this vision is a reflection of your own journey or state of being.
There was a tone of cynicism or annoyance in your voice that I detected, but maybe I´m wrong."
Maybe I didn't make myself clear, but I AM partly gnostic, at least intellectually. So I do not find it wishy-washy. But you got the annoyance right. What I see here, is another example of christianity's standard approach of annecting an autonomous religion, making this other "pagan" religion a part of christianity. After which everything can be arranged according to christian doctrine and conditions.
Being in the position, that I want to find a 'spiritual' reality, as little hampered by official dogmas as possible, I distance myself from organised religion's uncompromising attitudes.
You are quite right, that there existed many gnostic varieties. Some of them older than christianity. In many of these variations of gnosticism, you would find a strong dualistic element concerning the quality of physical existence. These gnostics found universal existence a hoax, as parts of buddhism do (and as I do).
To return to the original article. If anyone actively starts giving out opinions, statements, information or postulates, s/he must be prepared to get a critical examination of 1/ the face-value of the opinions/statements made, 2/ the basic assumptions and methods used for arriving at such statements and 3/ the motives for giving them out publicly.
I personally question 1/ the value of the conclusions of the article. To make gnosticism and christianity meet more or less as one, a total redefinition of some of the most central theological points in both religions must be done. In this case it means that the result would be neither christianity, nor gnosticism, but some 'wishy-washy' hybrid. 2/ The epistemological part of getting to conclusions. Why in the name of the (un)intelligent designer should logic/intelligence be excluded from the process of staking out a map? Intelligence is neither better nor worse than any other of our methods for relating to life. It has its function, as emotions and body have theirs. That the final "being there" experience is not an intellectual experience goes without saying. 3/ As to the motives for putting out this article, I can't help noticing a strong missionary attitude. And I have a strong allergy reaction to missionaries. You never know, when they start pulling out their flaming swords to smite the ungodly.
The next post refering to John Lash is an example of how it is possible to have different opinions on a subject, but still have a meaningful communication. While my own search for a map/walking the territory doesn't give John's Gaia theory the same importance as he does, it is nonetheless a pleasure to read his opinions. I only have respect for his knowledge and his way of exposing it in an intelligent and constructive way. There's no 'soap-box' oration in his writings and he inspires to critical self-examination.
Lost in translation
there is a wealth of good
Thorns and nice, warm fires.
It's no wonder, that this subject is a little touchy. The steps between individual choice of religion, to missionaries and mad prophets to inquisitions, crusades and jihads are sometimes not so big.
I will not deny any person the right to an individual religion, or critizise her/his choice. But the organised abramic religions have a story of conquests, war and suppression behind them, so it's natural that we, who are sympathetic to gnosticism, are wary.
What the church did to the medieval gnostics, can easily be compared to what the nazis did to the jews. It was genocide, where people were tortured and burned. For their own sake ofcourse.
So when I meet religious enthusiasm, which is badly supported by the balancing influence of rational thinking, there's always the chance, that unbridled emotionalism will turn into fundamentalism, and such people will start looking for matches very quick.
The example isn't that unrealistic. We see religious fundamentalism running amok all the time.
Very few people with humanitarian ideals would be passive members of a nazi-organisation.
The same way persons with an abramic religion must be careful about, what they loan their name to. Even perform some self-criticism to see, if their attitudes could justify new intolerance.
bogomi..contd
Bogomil, Some good points. We must each choose which map we will use, if we use one. Scrutiny becomes important. But I really doubt that Jonathan is on any missionary trip. His intentions, to me, seem very loving and pure. I think it´s a little extreme to push the issue into any personal perceptions or another´s intentions. Such a miry muchole to gunk around in, right?
Being an ex fundamentalist-evangelical, I think it´s important to remember that even while I held very extreme, elitist ideas, I spent time purely loving the dying, the poor, and others, without any ulterior motive. We should try to see the texture in everything, right? We´re always more than our ideas.
Still. I like your point. Room for scrutiny is good.
Adam Elenbaas
Spreading the Good News
You know, I think Bogomil might be a little right about this piece having a "missionary" quality. As Jesus says, "spread the gospel ("good news") and to me that seems to be the not-so-secret meaning of universal love and transformation from this mystical tradition.
I come from the standpoint of an energy healer and when you see energetic blocks in a person, a community, or even a society, your compassion compels you to want to help. And I think many of us see there are some major blocks and deep wounds from the history and idealogy of certain Christian institutions. So when I found out about the orginal meaning and significance of these traditions, I wanted to come out and share that with people. And it has created quite a healing effect. In our Gnostic circle, I've seen former Fundamentalist or Catholic church members able to accept and open up to a part of their history that they had once been conflicted about.
The Good News: Logos, Word
The materialization or attempts to reduce the life and teaching of Jesus to a "historical" sense, rather than a living vibration that shatters the harshness of mere physical history, is what separates and disempowers the heterodoxy surrounding the "Christ" concept.
Soon you have the exact same thing happening amongst so-called "followers" of Jesus that transpired amongst the inheritors of the Mosaic or traditional "faith" of Moses.
It is possible to see the story of the error of Aaron and the forming of a "golden calf" as a polite or apologetic exegisis of a story of people forming a statue of Moses himself, Moses being the "cow of plenty", a traditional idea even extant at this day amongst Hindus and part of the Mother-Goddess cult of Maya and Laxmi. Perhaps they formed an image of Moses sitting on such a cow. Who knows. It would only be relevant to deep readers of all religious traditions and taking account of language itself.
But the idea is the basis of the word. Why should we feel resentment at the idea that a truth is born in the written word, without any connection to physical reality as such? The "voice" is recognisable. It is a tone and a feeling we can sympathize with, and recognise as our own, and something we can have faith in, because its directions are, when followed, conducive to good. To goodness.
The "gnostic" concept reflects an inner perception that is faithful to only one thing: inner connectivity or identification. No outer image or person can ever be anything but a neighbor or friend or family relation: read equal....ultimately.
The inner Self, I AM, is always IDEAL, stands back from personal choices that may be deemed by the world as mistake, but this I AM doesn't reject us. We come to think we rejected the ideal in favor of the outer "temptation" or trend of limited thinking and motive. It is a "refuge" because of restraint and disinterest. It is impersonal until communed with and adopted as the ideal of oneself. That is a pact, a kind of marriage. I believe this is the marriage meant by the word of Jesus as touching divorce. And furthermore, about "when two touching on any one thing agree, it will be done". It is the union of inner and outer. When the without is as the within, the kingdom is come.
The stream of this idealism began to evolve in writings. It was born in the WORD, and the Word was good. It is a voice as we understand it even today in concepts of literature and style. It is unitary and unitive or conducive to a cognisanse of harmony and internal consistancy that overcomes by laws similar to those that inhere in the science of music. It is self-editing, and destroys those vibrations that, if carried forward, could only be counted as noise and anti-coherant.
I believe that Jesus did exist, and was one who experienced this concept personally and who actually had to learn, and had to reject much that had been imposed on his outer mind while he held to his own direct, first-hand experiences. Often with much resistance to those closest to him and whom he loved, but whose trend of thought tended to what he hated: limitation and death. He experienced the potency of the "sustain" peddle on a piano, and could see that some thoughts had to be sacrificed and fully rejected to fully experience the potency of other thoughts. The thoughts of his own soul, which he called his "Father".
I think it highly likely he chose to call this principle his "father" out of a real sense of loss and sadness from losing his "earthly" father. It was a compensatory thing, maybe even a kind of denial. But his aim was ultimately to save even the dead, the lost. He denied it as "permanent", but extolled the ideal: life, the individual is permanent and indestructible. There is only one thing to do: solve your personal problem here and now. You can put it off forever if you choose, but eventually you must tire of the same old same old and truly burdensome curse of a bad idea or ideal.
This makes such an one as a Jesus an exemplar par excellance, but not an object of worship. If there is internal consistancy in this mode of conduction of an ideal into the future as I see it, it is maintained in Revelations, in the last chapter, where Jesus is talking to the writer of that work, and this man begins to bow to "Jesus' Angel", which is what many today say is the same as "The Angel of Yahweh", meaning Jesus. Fine, if you think that way, then it was Jesus Himself who said: be sure you don't do that, for I am as you a brother and fellow seer.
And the entire language of that book and much of the scripture pertains to the nature of thought and sentiment and has no ligitimate place in literal thinking as in trying to visualize a building coming down from outer-space or the sudden translation of a segment of humanity because they "confessed" a spoken word or name.
I believe we have to approach these things philosophically and with faith in our own intelligence. And seeing that intelligence as a kind of cooperation between an inner and outer form, but not separate as what we distinguish between ourselves and another individual or neighbor or even family member. Our inner Voice sees with a vantage point that is as high above our outer voice as the stars are above the earth. This message was never intended, I believe, to convey that we cannot understand. The intent of that is to say what resource we have by coming to know and commune with that as our most intimate Friend. Our true "soul-mate". It is the Divine Marriage that is implied throughout the Gnostic texts, and even in the truly medial texts of the synoptics and John, especially. The message is about the potency of true co-operation and/or Union. True Yoke, or yoga.
It is the thing "closer than breathing, nearer than hands and feet" that Tennyson spoke of in The Higher Pantheism. The only lighter part of that rather dark poem. It is the only part of that poem that survives in general consciousness because it is the ascendant truth. That is what I deem as the definition of "transcendental". The truth begins as a pure stream but picks up pollutants on its path to the sea. This is the path of idea into human or practical awareness. Personal ideas, or relative interpretations are imposed upon this stream, and, though it emanates from all, and all know it, by outer and dominant individuals, the false parts are exalted as if equal with the truly higher or innermost part the child in us understands and loves and delights in. And that is the mortal part that dies, and goes away. In other words, these "words" decompose, they don't move forward. Fall out of usage. Become defunct. But we know what is meant by a 'clarion' voice. We hear it every day in the gleeful noise of children on a playground. It is a voice that hates death, old age, limitation.
So I despise the idea that Gnosticism means that the "upper chamber" meant only a higher function of the brain, and that Jesus never ate meat or lived amongst men and overcame physical death. The message of Jesus is so potent because it promises something beyond mere idealism in idea only. It must have translation into real effect or practical efficiency. It becomes onerus only when it becomes sequestered to some one person only, or some sect of followers of some one person, or is somehow not the potential of all and all one.
I see that as our true motto: all one. One for all, All for each or one, the individual. Otherwise, egoism becomes a real snake that tells the outer mind that the outer mind can rule the inner voice, and that one can live without a conscience. This is the material or mortal concept. Utterly dependent on the gross mechanisms of invention and marshalling of outer forces to personal will. And the most fierce will rule. Bad idea. The curse of the outer kingdom. Slavery. Mortal and ugly.
=========== Letter writing is still the most potent way to raise the consciousness of elected representatives: it's a record they cannot ignore and cannot say they were unawar
Beliefsystems
Adam E,
thanks for your comments, which I agree with. One of my mainpoints is, that even a passive beliefsystem, unsupported by a common ground for communication, very easily can turn into an intrusive attitude. If you go out with a 'message', you must be prepared to support it and accept criticism. Otherwise it's just another crusade (in the broadest sense of the word).
I can give a few examples from my own life, so as not to attack anybody.
I have been a moral vegetarian for more than 40 years, but I keep a distance from vegetarian organisations, which even passively would encourage militant vegans (they are doing some incredibly unintelligent things occasionally).
My political ideal is anarchy, but I doubt it would function practically at the present. It would probably be used as an excuse for some extremist economic ideology, where the aim is to grab, what you can. Or justifying the individual sociopath for ignoring all social decency. So I don't support anarchistic organisations.
My position here isn't to spread any gnostic, unsupported views. It is to defend a right to communication on equal and common grounds.
It's very easy to send out speculative or halfbaked ideologies. But it's not as if we're short of 'gurus', messiases, etc at the present. I don't feel the need of any more.
Maybe it's time for people to start thinking for themselves. Sometimes based on TWO-WAY communication processes.
The Narrow Way
Their names were Denny and Ben
On my mind was a fairway
Straight through
And I’d reach my destination
A wedge was grabbed my red bag
As a man in a cart wheeled past me
Denny asked if would like to play along
The man said he certainly would
A foursome was now complete
It happened on the third valley tee.
The man in the cart was heavy
He was bigger then plump
Dressed in all gray
He stood slumped
He had a long beard
That wired down just below
The top collar of his t-shirt collar
A one horn rhino printed on it’s front
In his hat was an American Flag
Pinned by the words Holy Cow
He said his name was Joe
What do you know
We shook hands
And then ready to go,
Denny then Ben teed off first
Ben was just shy of the green
Denny sliced his ball right clean
Ben’s went just to the left,
Mine went straight through
The narrow
Biting the green
It was a good shot for me
Denny and Ben gave congrats
Fat Joe said nothing
He only adjusted his ball
Then teed off
Slicing far-far too far to the right,
As he yelled loud an unholy curse
“God Dammit” he said
I began to walk forward
Straight through the fairway
Thinking about the narrow way
And the more I played the game
The more I learned from Joe that day
By what he thoughtlessly was saying
How awful he was playing
As he cursed every bad stroke
And talked as if war was a joke
As if flying body parts were funny
And he chattered so very much
You forgot what he was saying
And he kept us constantly waiting
As he searched for his lost causes
Like a fool in the tall weeds,
Screaming in the wide rough
”Hopeless! Absolutely hopeless!”
His luck only changing once
Landing him squarely on the fairway
But then he cheated for a better lie
And it went on like this
The whole time we played
Until Denny and Ben had enough of
The unholy cursing
And left after the sixth tee.
I just couldn’t leave
There was more to learn
And a better game I have never played
My mind focused through the blessed narrow
And I thought it’s all about pure attitude
And if you have it in you…
Your longitude will be in line
Your latitude less wider,
A destination is better reached
And not too far off par
If one wonders not far off a fair way
Smiling ended my game only six over
As I reached down to retrieve my best game ball ever
And glanced at Joe positioning on the last green
I quit following his game after to many cursed swings
And he was about to end without a score card score
As one piece of advice was given
“The only way to play, Joe, is in the narrow.”
I said as he was about to putt his last stroke
And he cursed again as his ball rolled past the hole
”In the narrow, Joe,
it’s the only way in life to also go.”
He didn’t even play out the game
Just picked up his kicked ball
Said goodbye and tanks
Hopped in his cart
And drove away.
Later, that evening
I wondered upon a star
It gives man direction
True and due north
It’s longitude is always in line
It’s latitude is never off course
Dwelling on my own life, I thought…
Fools live in the rough of impure cursing
The wise live in the way of pure blessing,
The narrow way -- the unchanging fair way,
happy are those who enter through it,
for they shall one day see The Maker
and their score joyfully read…
Didn’t Jesus say something like that?
Today is part of forever.
I'm almost there...
christianity vs. christ-like behavior
maps of maps
Human consciousness seems to be like a chinese box. Every time you open one box, a new one is inside.
We have on this thread been presented with various 'maps' (belief-systems), and I would like to open a new box and suggest still another level: A map of map-making.
I will do this by polarising two fundamental extremes of the existing maps.
One map goes: There is a benevolent designer of the universe, and his craftsmanship is fine. But sorry mate, the manual is classified ('god's secret plan'), so don't ask; just obey. Any problems you meet are your own fault (original sin, apple-eating, insufficient obedience etc).
The other extreme map is: The universe is a mess from the start; you didn't make it, maybe you didn't even ask to be here. Look for the manual and ask for answers, even if it's an uphill-job. At worst be prepared to be grilled for your questions.
Ofcourse all kinds of more or less successful hybrids have been made between these two extreme map-models.
Such maps permeate life and make impressions on every single aspect of it, from politics to individual psychology and spiritual orientation.
The daring explorer into the wonderful world of chinese boxes and map-making will from this point go one step further and ask: But we not only live inside a map, the map has gone inside us. We are the map. How can we find answers from this position? The generally suggested method is: Hightened awareness. As opposed to the routine, sleepwalker consciousness, most of us seem to live in.
The above is a suggestion and open for examination and critique. There are many specific implications, which I have not followed up here, because it would take up too much space.
PS I'm quite familiar with Robert Monroe, and find both his books and his audiotechniques very instructive.
Awareness Question Mark
Awareness is a sought-for truth. Yet those maps are very specific, and I feel there would be an infinite number of alternate maps that have nothing to do with those two.
For example, what if instead of a Creator Godhead, there existed an Originator Godhead, one that simply vibrates what already exists. That there is no question of "what came first" because the chicken and the egg were both there to begin with. This also gives new perspectives to artists and inspirational thinkers. That when a new poem is written, they are less "creating" it, and moreso "emanating" a form of what already exists. That also removes material ownership from the poem, reminding me of how Native Americans destroyed sandpaintings after creating them, relying on the "process" rather than the "product." Creation implies ownership, which I feel is false. I know this mostly semantics, but I do see it as a line to be drawn.
Your idea of an Originator
Your idea of an Originator rather than Creator is excellent, and especially fits with my experience of writing. I've always felt that the stories and better lines found me, to the point that they amaze and surprise me. Your words are a better description of the creative process. The greater works are beyond the artist; they are born through contact; the artist does not invent but becomes aware of the work: very gnostic.
Yet I think we can allow ourselves a humble pride, at least for our discovery. I would like to imagine an Originator who looked upon us with lovingly.
Indeed :)
Practical approach
Thanks Stephen.
My own career as a functional mystic is still too unfinished for me to publicly voice opinions on theological cosmogony and cosmology, so I leave such questions alone untill later, when I maybe have more experience.
If I understand you correctly, you say, that every map contains its own version of awareness and methods for finding it. And that the 'authorised' maps maybe aren't the correct ones. Please tell me, if I'm wrong. But it is important to use time an energy to find a good map to start from. There are functional methods for this map-seeking.
In any case I agree with you about processes being important. My own experience is, that when you start from a map (we all do at one point), every step must be verified by an actual 'territorial' (being there) experience. It's a constant interpolation, jumping back and forth between map and experience, and revising the map accordingly. A map's primary importance is actually only to ensure an entrance to the territory of 'reality' (expanded awareness, gnosis, nirvana, whatever it's called). After this a map is not needed or useful for further or deeper exploration.
The main risk is, that some maps can create a feeling of placebo awareness, if you're fundamentalistically and strongly caught up in that map's belief-system. (I refer to a former post, where Robert Monroe was mentioned by someone else).
I have no answers to that situation, never having tried it.
But for the openminded person, there should be no doubt, when 'reality' is approached. The experience is so clearcut, that you just KNOW, this is the real thing.
Communication ABOUT reality-experience is possible between those who have experienced it, independant of their map or ideological startingpoint. This gives a kind of objectivity to it.
one unfinished mystic to another
Well put. There is always no doubt once any layer of awareness has been experienced. Perhaps the answer is that there are an infinite number of answers--complimenting an infinite number of "maps"--pertaining more to each individual journey--that the best you can do is find an ideal answer to your own. Exciting.
Creating to share or possess
The transfer of energy seems to me the politics of spirit in a sense. Politics being a valve between haves and have nots. -Polis/police being the wall/safeguard around the city regulates that energy/liberty expansion according to popular appetite. When enough of us get hungry enough for truth it will come.
Is quantciousness a word yet?
Live well. be free
Oh yeah...share or possess
Politics tax the spirit to possess the energy of the creator driving that entity to the smoldering trash heep only to rise as the phoenix to the mountaintop to be redeemed by a seeker of clarity.
Create to purge not demiurge.
Live well. be free
noosphere?
...leading to a higher leadership?
'When enough of us get hungry enough for truth it will come.'
Higher leadership
My feeling is that the highest leadership is personal responsibility. I look at this life as an opportunity for individuals to seek our common source and use intention (thanks Wayne Dyer) to live as well as we can together.
Something that helps me is time alone in the forest. There is more than oxygen coming out of them plants, I swear. Be still and know...
One thing we must do before it's too late is unplug the fan. Gas prices might help us settle our, um...s-elves down a bit.
Live well. be free
??
zimij, would you translate please.
Sorry, but I didn't quite understand you.
It seems to me...
...we are in a zoo attempting to become angels at least animals evolving in spirit through chemistry. From what I've gleened, chemistry is determined by resonance, emotions driven by external factors trigger changes within us, good and bad.
Most people get stuck in cycles living within cultural norms to remain comfortable and safe. Pioneers bump our heads from time to time just to feel alive. According to Andrew Weil it's normal to seek something beyond the mundane. Joseph Campbell said it's time for a new myth.
I'm doing what I can to realize my part in this thing by following my bliss and reading books by Pinchbeck, Grof, McKenna, Strassman, as well as Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. I'm nearly convinced by the "stoned ape" theory, or it could be an old stratagy designed to deal with lost sheep.
Rulers will tax, harass, and place sanctions on perceived threats putting them though hell. Occasionally these perceived threats are knowledge of corruption and the like that are picked up by a new generation and the cycle continues. Wisdom, I suppose, is knowing when to tick and when to kick.
Seeing the American Dream as the world's nightmare is one way to wake up. I guess it's about time we see what the World's Dream is. That might be something to sleep on. Conclusions are premature, cycles are what we've got to rely on.
As for Jesus, as a child I relied on a belief that he was with me. At 46 I think John Allegro's work was pushed aside because the powers that be were not prepared for it, or they were testing the waters. What do I know I nearly dropped out of high school.
wary of new dogmas
Hi Jonathan,
Thanks for posting this. I see that you are creating a tone and friendly style that can help bridge this Gnostic material to a larger audience. I think that’s a great goal. However, I admit that I had some real problems with the tone of this piece and your methodology. It seemed like there were a lot of assumptions and declarations made in the piece, and I found that those had the opposite effect than intended - they made me suspicious of the authorial intent (in some ways my criticisms are similar to Bogomil's).
The use of the “we” seemed to be winking at the reader, somehow insinuating the author was not part of the “we” but knew better. I don’t think you should use “we” unless you truly mean "you" as part of that "we." Otherwise it is a bit patronizing.
I felt a slight sense of superiority in this piece, as if the author knows the true secrets about Jesus and Gnostic illumination, and is doing us the favor of sharing them with us. If you feel you know them, you might say how (psychedelic plants, perchance?).
I would recommend keeping the approachable and friendly tone of this (but avoid cliche turns of phrase like "throwing a bone" etc) but writing in such a way that you are being clear about your methodology, while separating what you actually “know” (or think you “know”) and what is supposition, conjecture, wish, and possibility. Such a methodology would seem more trustworthy and more reliable to a reader like me (maybe I am not your audience, however).
I prefer that the author invite the reader on a shared investigation into that which is truly unknown to us, at this point, and maybe forever. While I may fail my own standards and come off as know-it-all in my work, I try to remain aware that I truly don’t know anything. I often reiterate that something is my "thought experiment" or a "hypothesis," not "Gospel truth."
How do you know that Jesus even existed? The fact is, you don’t. Nobody does.
Jp: “A mistake I often witness is that people tend to separate Christians from Gnostics, as if they were two distinct groups, but the evidence overwhelmingly shows that the earliest Christians were, indeed, Gnostics.”
What about Lash’s perspective that the earliest Christians were Gnostics, but the Gnostics actually predated Christianity and were the holders of an older Mystery tradition that included Eleusis, etc? He discusses Hypatia’s murder and argues that Gnostics saw Christianity as a dangerous deviation from a truer path, and tried to sound the alarm, and were martyred because of this.
Jp: “Christianity comes from a very deep spiritual lineage known as the mystery schools…” It might be more accurate to say that “Christianity” as it developed was a perversion of Mystery traditions in order to impose hierarchical authority. When was the term “Christianity” first used, and in what context?
JP: “we are not witnessing the present moment correctly…”
I would be careful about generalizing with the “we”. Who do you mean by this “we”? Do you mean yourself? It almost sounds like you are winking to your audience, suggesting by using this “we” that you are not part of it. The subtle suggestion of the “we” is that you have “seen the light,” but some generalized group of others called “we” have not.
JP: “The similarities amongst these mythic figures are uncanny. Most of them were born on December 25 (around the winter solstice) to a virgin in humble surroundings (a manger or a cave) with a star in the Eastern sky.”
This is the same data presented in Zeitgeist, but I was irked that it wasn’t fully and exactly sourced in the film. I think it is best to provide sources, direct quotes from scholarship, or more footnotes to support crucial generalizations such as this one. I am still curious to know the source of these references. Did Dionysius have twelve disciples, for instance? Was Osiris born on 12/25? If so, I would like to know the direct references.
JP: "Son of God" is actually derived from "sun of God,"
Here I am confused because the language of the Bible was Greek, and then Latin. Do “sun” and “son” sound the same in those languages like they do in ours? And if they are not homophones in Greek and Latin, then what do you mean by this?
JP: “Those "crown of thorns" are thought to represent the sun's vibrant rays.”
According to what source?
JP: “While we're shedding light on forgotten history, I'd like to take a moment and make up for what I call "2,000 years of really bad translations."”
I think you have to establish your position before you make a statement like this. Do you know the Greek yourself? If not, how can you state this so confidently? If it is based on your study of secondary sources, you probably need to reference them. Why should I trust that your guesses are not equally “bad translations”?
JP: “As a true soter, Jesus actively utilizes the powerful healing properties of unconditional love and forgiveness to help make us whole with ourselves, one another, and the divine.”
This feels far too declarative to me. I could be equally persuaded that Jesus was a complete invention, a sneaky deviation (see John Lash’s work), an amanita mushroom (as John Allegro thought), or one of many similar magicians (like Simon Magus) practicing at that time.
“Sometimes we fall off target, then we have to realign and get on the road again. That's how we stumble through the darkness of illusion and eventually find our way back to the light.”
This sounds like preaching. I would be wary of this tone – also I don’t know who the “we” is. Most people stumble in illusion for their whole lives.
JP: “Jesus goes on to tell Thomas, "I am not your teacher. Because you have drunk, you have become intoxicated from the bubbling spring that I have tended." Could it be that Thomas obtained a similar spiritual mastery as Jesus, and might that "bubbling spring" refer to waves of energy that were passed from teacher to initiate in energetic transmissions that maintained the spiritual lineage of these esoteric traditions?”
That’s one possible interpretation. Personally, I think the “bubbling spring” refers to the Logos, and I would recommend an excellent book by Georg Kuhlewinder (sp?), “Becoming Aware of the Logos”, in the Anthroposophic tradition, that discusses this.
Jp: “In this passage, Jesus becomes a yogic guru …”
To me it sounds much more like hermetic alchemist than “yogic guru”. “As Above, So Below”, union of opposites. Etc.
I see our forum as a public think tank to refine our conceptual maps and discipline our methodology, so I decided to make these thoughts public rather than sharing them with you privately. I hope that is okay?
Yours,
Daniel
"Will the transformation."-Rilke
'While I may fail my own
'While I may fail my own standards and come off as know-it-all in my work, I try to remain aware that I truly don’t know anything. I often reiterate that something is my "thought experiment" or a "hypothesis," not "Gospel truth." '
Actually I think this comes across very clearly in your interviews, it's as if you are thinking about the processes of thinking, as well as the thoughts themselves.
-
'(((((DO YOU KNOW GNOSIS< LIKE I KNOW GNOSIS))) '
I don't gnosis.
A Question of tone
Good points, Daniel. And this is why this chapter is an experiment. It seems my openness from the presentations is somewhat lost in translation into the text through the tone. I will rework the chapter to integrate these comments and will incorporate them in the next chapter as well.
I often think it's easier for me to get across ideas like this in a fun way through the spoken word rather than in writing, where I'm a little clunkier. In the workshops, this never seems to be an issue but I can see there are some things to work on here. I'll cite sources more, show where things are conjecture as we're talking about murky history of 2,000 years ago, as well as open up the tone. As for the language questions on the meaning of "sin," "repent," etc, they are really just an Oxford Dictionary or Wikipedia away.
Clarity
Nice Daniel,
I would have taken up some of your questions, but as I already have implied them before, I was afraid of repeating myself. And anyway you did it better. But there are three points, which I would like to emphasize, because they are essential to the whole debate.
1/ The theological differences between the christian and gnostic cosmogonies (without forgetting John's Gaia-theory, I will for a moment put it aside).
In christianity the creator, Jahve, is benevolent and omnipotent; his creation, the universe, is functional. Any dysfunction originates from human error.
In pagan, pre-christian (and in some later post-christian) gnosticism, the creator is tyranical and incompetent. His creation is a mess. Humans have no responsiblity for this and are here involentary.
As can be seen, these two cosmogonies are TOTALLY opposite, and in my opinion TOTALLY incompatible. I have not heard a word of explanation for this paradox, and can only take it as a completely unsupported fabulation.
2/ Why isn't pagan, pre-christian, gnosticism mentioned at all? The article gives the impression, that it is a fact, that gnosticism and christianity in some way co-developed. Another fabulation.
3/ Exactly what aspects of mainstream christianity is involved in this hypothetical christian gnosticism? a/The whole bible or only parts? b/Any specific individuals? c/Any specific sects? d/Any specific church-organisations?
All the sweeping generalisations in the original article depends on answers to these questions. Otherwise the whole thing can be reduced to missionary, retorical tactics.
Great chapter
Life-sustaining force
Hi Layne,
Thanks for your wonderful insights. Sometimes I find the self-righteousness of atheist figures like Richard Dawkins just as rigid and as dogmatic as the fundamentalists that they are criticizing. I'm much more interesting in those creating a bridge for all of us to gather, pass on information and insight, and grow. Rob Bell is one of my favorites on this as he'll talk to mainstream Christian audiences about string theory and the possibility of many more dimensions in the universe.
As for "a deeper understanding of spirit as energy," I'll talk more about that in Chapter 3, "Climbing the Tree of Life," where we'll see the Christian/Gnostic concept of pneuma is very much like that of prana, ruah, mana, and other words you find in diverse cultures that describe a "life-sustaining force" or "energy."
Wish I Knew Greek
ain’t goin’ nowhere so who cares,
it don’t matter to me,
I already have a big ol’ boat,
maybe sail away, why not?
Nobody cares no how,
like a train that ran off the track,
ain’t coming back until the sun starts to shine,
or someone lays a hammer down,
going to keep my pants pulled up,
What do you care it’s all golden anyway,
on your side of the fence.
Mother Mary don’t come to me, I gotta go there,
Makes it hard to figure it all out,
for a little man who relies on big faith,
can’t see a thing,
only nothing when I pray,
Sometimes I do just the two straight-line thing,
tapping my shoulders then I’m through,
No justice there,
just me and my prayers,
bet you don't really care,
who does?
That’s why we’re in the fix we’re in,
everybody only wants to see the green,
it buys them things,
makes um feel important,
to their imagination,
which is free,
just used improperly,
damn shame if you ask me,
time, time ain’t nothing to the ghetto kids,
guess they may have figured it all sometimes,
don't run around doing something someone wants them to do,
think I gotta find out what they got,
a revolution that’s nothing but a puffed up balloon,
guns big ones belong to the big brother,
and he don’t give a damn about nothing but oil and energy,
drug money first goes through the fingers of the big boys,
before it slips down to those with little ounces,
from cars that stop by and then go back
to their lost little party to fry their problems and pain.
Man, this world is all shook up,
gotta write non-stop,
let it all pour out on the computer screen,
think your smart,
no never did,
just thought I had something to say,
thought I’d share it,
let those that have some authority try to figure out
even those that think they’re smart
what they do might be wrong or right,
think it helped?
think I might of made people chuckle,
might have made one person think,
some might have even pissed their pants,
don’t care it don’t matter,
death comes to all of us,
the earth is dirt and we become that again sooner or latter,
just for now we got to feel that we ain’t that way,
got to feel that we’re part of the stars,
make you feel good, stars
they glitter and glisten in the night
telling us to make a wish on a ball of hydrogen,
ain’t ever gonna touch a star,
dirt now dirt I touch everyday,
it feels good like a lost wish,
one that could have been used planting potatoes
to make potato chips, nice and salty,
or just to sit back and cut tuna fish sandwiches in little triangles
and stack um up high,
or to look out the window and watch the snow fall,
or to have the house clean,
don’t have to do a thing,
dad ain’t yelling,
just gonna leave me alone,
peace that's real,
and the tuna fish is best with miracle whip,
tuna is oil free now,
packed all in spring water,
call it progress,
wish I could catch my own tuna,
think it would make me feel better but,
their ain’t no oceans in Cincinnati,
just a river,
no tuna there,
man I wish there was something better,
I wish the people could just see and agree with the snap of my finger,
all is just to hard,
just to hard to find peace,
gets me lost and I wonder “if” to often,
but no one to listen no how,
maybe they’ll listen now,
but I won’t count on it,
to many people talking,
and they all think they got the answer,
but they don’t walk the street,
but a little friar man does,
every Saturday he picks up the empty cans,
says they’re worth a penny each,
he says hi to me and we talk for a little while
mostly about that person or this one,
but if they died tomorrow I wouldn’t care just go on,
go back home and think about what the world is doing,
think about how important people should think I am,
think about all the poets that never get their due,
and get tossed out to find somewhere else to lay their letters down,
it don’t matter to me but sometimes I think it does,
I think I’ll keep going,
hell nowhere for me to go anyway,
no one visits but I’ll keep dreaming that one day someone will,
but that don’t matter either because my kids they come home every day,
and even though they don’t say it,
I think they like me,
might think I’m strange but they like me,
and with that I find a certain form of peace,
guess it’s the only one that really matters when all you are is dirt.
Now what was that about the “son” vs. “sun” thing?
Maybe Jesus was really a greek.
Today is part of forever.
An unwritten history of Jesus?
There is a real genius in non-resistance, as we know today from Ghandi to King.
Jesus altered the order of things. He said that the "sabbath" was man made, and that man was not made to worship a sabbath or even an idea of "god". He was hated for this, because he put the responsibility for goodness and truth squarely on the shoulders of each individual, not in some outside source or some outer authority. He openly mocked the "traditions" of the priestcraft. According to their version of the "LAW", divorce was permitted by I AM, God. But he said that this was an idea made up by Moses because of the hardness of the hearts of the people. But the scripture could not be broken according to these priests. To do so was sacrilege, worthy of death. The scripture thereby was shown by Jesus to be imperfect, and could not be trusted, being written by men. One can see in the evolution of the books, a change from strict outer ceremony to advocation of a strict adherance to a heart of "lovingkindness" and "mercy". Isaiah would have been stoned by the priests of Jesus time. Jermemiah laid it out very clearly: the Christ is one who takes no pride in power or wealth, but in being lovingkind, just and righteous. This is what knowing "I AM" meant for Jeremiah. One can see in the prophets a real change from outer thinking to the order of things common to any normal, healthy famiay: mutual love and a wish for good for that and the neighbor. Jesus dealt the deathblow to the organized religion idea. He took "God" out of the skies, and put it in the body of each one, first putting it into his body. After the resurrection, he saw it wasn't only him, so he said: my God, and your God, my Father and your Father (probably Father-Mother), and put it back in the family, not the priest- craft, not in the state. And overcoming death took the fear of both away. In so doing, the "sin" imposed by both was taken away: there is no separation between oneself and the life. Losing sight of what gives the family life: love, is what destroys the body and the family. As I wrote before, we are given to believe that Jesus advocated hate of the family, and worship and adherance to him above all. I believe this was an insertion for very obvious reasons. "A house divided against itself cannot stand". The state used Jesus' own words against those who were inclined to try to think and live as he thought and lived: by their own conscience and consciousness. But the state would find utility in dividing sons and daughters from their parents. And extant words of Jesus warned about this, that we would be divided, father against son, mother against daughter, and the people of one's own house would be ones betrayers in his name. He obviously detested the idea of the ideal being lost to personality worship. And so he also said people would come to him and say they were his worshippers and he would say "I don't know you", because they were religionists, not real people. They were dicks, not loving and kind people. Today we can see how government has used this same tactic. The psychology cult promulgates the idea that the family is the problem, and the state is the solution. The very basis of modern law is the ten commandments and the "golden rule". But precedent law has overtaken it, through arcane volumes of words and what they got away with before to reach the ends favorable to a state, but not of the family, not of humankindness and mercy. What if the "commandments" are out of order? Jesus never mentions the first through fourth commandments, except to say, the sabbath is made for man, not man for the sabbath. Most people don't pay much attention to this, but it implies something very profound in regard to theism or worship of some "god". The scripture pays much matter to how ignoring the sabbath results in dire consequences. But Jesus just brushes it off as of not much consequence. To say nothing about the "taking the Name in vain" or the making of images, or worshiping any other than "I AM". Rather, he says, honor Father and Mother, Love I AM, love your neighbor as you love yourself. Where is there any mention of "love of self"? Evidently, "I AM" is the self. But that is not as important, to Jesus as "honoring father and mother". In family love, consciousness is wholey involved. One can then take the other tablet of the "Law" and also reverse it, going from the least of "sins" to the greatest, meaning: murder. But in the extant order, and one which Jesus disregarded, this order is reversed. It is also interesting to note, that the "tables" are not equal. Why only four commandments for the relation to I AM, but 6 for man? Is it possible that the commandment that lead the 10 was: worship your parents as God, as the Hindus do to this day? Jesus put adultery before murder. He took pains to maintain the family, but you will note, the societal trend by law is to acquiesce to the psychology of the state that it is more profitable to maintain courts, law enforcement and injection of the state in all private affairs than to see ways and means of helping father and mother, son and daughter and by extension, community and neigbhorhood. The error of this way has involved the development of a large and costly extension of force so that even in the smallest cities, government money is devoted to allow them to have "SWAT" teams. They build their buildings like bunkers and resistant to bombs and all out of fear of the People. Because they have realized the state can never be a substitute for mom and dad, brother and sister and a happy neighborhood. They see their sham crumbling. But the truth is dawning, I think. They see people not on the verge of tax-revolt and riot and revenge on government, but care about the planet, the plants, animals, the poor. Let's hope they shrug, and we will begin to see a dismantling of this martial concept, and the need for lies. =========== :Letter writing is still the most potent way to raise the consciousness of elected representatives: it's a record they cannot ignore and cannot say they were unaware. Writ
Jesus' "footnotes"?
I don't know what 'at a crossroads' is supposed to mean, or how I'm supposed to take your summation of my remarks in saying something about a "chocoloate" or "licorice" flavor. I suppose that is an offhanded dismissal of what I've opined.
Well forget all that. Let's just go with your supposition Jesus, if he existed at all in your view, "left no footnotes".
If Jesus 'wrote nothing', then how do we know what he said to "Satan" in the wilderness? Or what he said to Nicodemus, or the Samaritan woman at the well? Or what he prayed when his "students/disciples" were asleep and he groaned in Gesthemane about his plan to give his body to the cross?
Some may take these examples as proof that the entire story is just that: a story or maybe a "genre" of speculative fiction about what the "savior" spoken of repeatedly in the above-mentioned "Old Testament" chronology "might say" and do.
It goes beyond the pale that a writer would derive from the odds and ends of phrases in the "prophets" to construct a life-path that comes out as the admittedly partial form we call the "gospels". The gospels don't agree with each other, and they have obvious insertions and extrapolations from other sources to complete their imperfect continuity. But I find it highly improbable that they are emanations of something invented out of whole cloth.
By wide reading and comparison, there is a definite theme to this man's life. And I obviously don't conclude it comes down to a need for all to live by "vicarious atonement" or a need to worship the man as the source of life for everyone. I.E.: God Almighty. I see a desperation in such, just as any other hero-worshippers see in the life of Crazy Horse and many other noble lives that seem to end in ignominious failure. As mere human beings, we can see in such lives a desperate form of love for others inexpressible in other ways.
These types of "Cruci-fictions" you say. I tend to agree with what I take as what you are tired of. I don't understand why the "cross" is the predomenant image attached to the life of Jesus. If he conquered death, accentuation of the cross seems like a "red herring" away from some other principle by which he lived. Maybe accentuating the "cross" event is a way to keep people from seeing something Jesus used to wield power for life and wholeness. Well, perhaps that principle is un-accentuated on merely "practial" grounds while another is accentuated in which "doctors" and "priests" have their living?
As I recall, Jesus mocked the "priests" and "doctors" and directly contradicted their dogmas as so much "whitewashing" and "hiding the keys". These "experts" 'wash the outside of the vessel', but don't talk about cleaning the inside of the vessel. Well, "cleaning" or "purification" as to inner-held concepts might be what was intended, a filtering out of half-baked received "truths" that were not truths at all.
This pertains to intent and "show" materials. Yet, the promise is in that by ascribing "power and authority" to the inner stuff, married to the example of kindness and fairness and truth, all have all they need to be free from slavish dependence on 'authority', even Moses and the 'Law'. . . according to the life of Jesus as I read it.
Versions of the words of Jesus seem to tell us that "not one jot, or tittle of the Law" can be omitted, but it will be fulfilled. But the "footnotes" as to what Jesus meant by this, if he said it at all, is not provided. The extant records leave us to judge whether it possible Jesus called the golden rule the "Law" or maybe meant "Leviticus" with many cruel punishments for things the record of his life showed he found cause to forgive or even neglect as important. And how did Jesus order the "Golden Rule"? Any honest reading of the extant records seems to show he held "honoring mother and father" and "marriage" more important than the eight other "commandments".
Then he says: Love God, love the neighbor as you love thyself. Where is any remark made of love of self? Implied is that "Love of God (I AM or 'Yahweh') is love of self.
Maybe it is easily missed, but a syllogism is something that is presumed to be mathematically perfect or self- consistent. If Jesus never lived, didn't exist, the story can be understood to yield the same thing: a wholesome life yields life to the liver and those the liver loves. Even to the extent that it makes the body immortal, indestructible, and permanent. Is this a referrence to mere "fame" or written record? I think not. There are too many examples of men and women who "seem" to have overcome physical death and who did all that Jesus did.
I see the 'story' of the life as Jesus not centered on the cross, but on the resurrection as the result of a life well-lived on a principle that sees one definite fact or reality for all: we are all one. What I can do, you can do. The theme? Love, kindness, fairness, truth.
I think you may have tried to imply I'm just making a more "palatable" Jesus from out of my imagination in referring to a "chocolate" or "licorice" Jesus. I have the same sources everyone else does. I also have the ability to take the same information in hand and decide what I think is "doctrinal" or politically expedient insertions and what smacks of truth my gut tells me is so. It isn't just accomodation to my "fantasy", but recognition of a historic theme that is recurrent in all idealism and written literature: mortality sucks, meanness sucks, loss of loves sucks and the hope for a better way is NOT just a "pipe dream", but has some foundation in history as a reasonable hope.
Personally, I think that any life which results in such hope is "Christly". I might have used Semmelweis, or Chief Joseph, or Van Gogh or thousands of other examples of "sacrifice". A penetrating vision must exist that sees 'loss of body' as but a temporary loss. But if there is anything more ideal than one who not only gives up the body, but raises it again and eats food, and is touchable and says it is a thing all can do, that is, obviously, an ideal hero. I still won't worship such as an idol. I see it as typical, if we only will. <
Faith isn't enough for everybody, some of us can think.
Cit Jonathan:
"I come from the standpoint of an energy healer and when you see energetic blocks in a person....."
Since one of the arguments for christian gnosticism now seems to be energy healing, I can mention, that I myself am a reiki master (sorry about the 'master' part. It's the official description, but I take it as a joke).
I am not actively associated with any religion, and from my own experience I can see no reason whatsoever for using healing energy as a proof, or even an indication, of any kind of divine activity. It may just as well be an unknown aspect of natural laws in the universe. And in any case it functions independant of the healers possible religion.
I'm not an atheist, I'm only waiting for a religion or a god to turn up, where I don't have to turn myself into a moron to join.
I think it's time to get to essentials. What IS Jonathan's basis. Personally I couldn't care less about the historical background and scholar-opinions, if I just knew the exact content of the doctrines in this.
What I see now is a lot of unsupported postulates, put through a blender and out comes a new-age spiritual marmalade. There are hopefully more to it than that.
If anybody wants to worship a parsnip f.ex., without any other reason than faith. Let him do it.
But that's different from being missionary. A missionary must accept, that he'll be asked for more than a poorly constructed logic, with more holes than a swiss cheese.
The obsessional spiritual illness which besets christianity and islam, compelling them to spread their own faith at any price, is repulsive. It is nothing but a total disrespect for other people and an invasion of their inner lives.
cjmoore: I'm as far from being a missionary, as you can imagine. I'm an anti-missionary; I want to restore the right to live my own life without big brothers of any type. But go on, play more semantic games.
Had it started with silence, instead of ending with it..........
This is a public site, for public debate. I am part of the public, so what is put out here is directed at me (amongst others). So I have the possibility to comment subjects brought up here.
My present comment is an example of unexamined belief-systems:
When being exposed to f.ex. a christian, or christian-like, missionary, I often meet the following approach from the missionary: "We christians have the one and only truth". Question: "Why?". Answer: "The bible tells us the truth". Question: "Why does the bible tell the truth?". Answer: "Because it it is inspired by god". Question: "Who says it is inspired by god?" Answer: "We, the christians say so".
Such a form of circle-argumentation is ofcourse nonsense, but sadly it usually doen't stop the missionary from continuing with interminable citations from the bible, until the victim is paralysed from boredom.
Fortunately christianity's possibility for messing around with secular laws is over now in most countries, though this is not from lack of trying. In the country where I live, they were until recently grotesquely overrepresented in the political life. Being noisy as usual.
In a nearby, former catholic country, the church has made itself immensely impopular by being everywhere like grasshoppers, poking its nose into every conceivable place it could.
Christians; you have the right to your faith. Leave me alone with mine (or none, if I wish it). If you can't stop the compulsary need to save the world your special unattractive way, then I, as a victim, can choose MY ground on how to recieve it. Your faith in your bible, isn't my faith. For me it's just a silly book, presented with even sillier arguments.
If I, as a victim for your propaganda, want to use f.ex. my intellect to examine your postulates, this is my right, and the missionary's monomaniac insistence on going out publicly is meeting more and more active resistance this way. There are sites, where debates like this are going on with a considerably amount of open agression in form of swearwords and personal insults. This is what you will meet in the future.
Christians must more than anyone else learn the meekness they preach, but don't practise. Otherwise christianity will be drastically reduced in a few generations. These comments were general, not especially directed to anyone here, unless they wish.
Anyone wishing to practise mission on a site specially constructed for such, will meet no problems from me. Only those actively wanting to read about any missionary activity will go there. But this is public.