The real Jesus, the real Mary, Gnosis, the Archons, and the world's first major smear campaign

[Bruce G Charlton]

@shaberon - "The Veda and Zoroaster are both doctrines of Heaven; Judaism and Christianity are both influenced to some degree by Zoroastrianism, There are arguments that Jesus's personal heritage was Persian etc... "

I think that to understand Christianity, as it was intended, one needs to see heaven as a cosmic event done by an unique being, that introduced an entirely new possibility.

So all the historical and genealogical stuff is (IMO) an unfortunate distraction! I really believe one needs to be able to imagine Christianity as a reality in a world where Jesus was completely forgotten, and there were no scriptures.

I am sure that God, as creator and loving us each as his children, would not contrive events such that accurate historical knowledge was necessary. On teh contrary; Christianity must therefore be able to be known by individual persons, directly and unmediated.

Some of this is built-in (innate), as evident among young children - whose animistic perspective (a world of many beings (some spirits), alive, purposive, conscious) - is, I belive, true innate knowledge - built-in by the Creator.

The mechanism for the necessary knowledge and guidance is given in the Fourth Gospel as the Holy Ghost; but the requisites for resurrection/ salvation need to be directly knowable by any individual, in any times or places, who desires it - without need for words or visions.

[shaberon]

Posted by Bruce G Charlton (here)
I think that to understand Christianity, as it was intended, one needs to see heaven as a cosmic event done by an unique being, that introduced an entirely new possibility.

Give an example what could possibly be new about it.

Removing the Order of Levi and replacing it with that of Melchizedek would be a restoration.

Perhaps by "Christianity", you mean the evolved panoply administered by followers? Or is it the sayings of Jesus? How would we determine which? It is now held that the library of Jerusalem--that of the "closest" followers--is that which was hidden in the "Essense" Qumran caves, so, they are not Essene documents, but Christian. Those are all Sayings Gospels with practically no biographical information at all, although they do reinforce the tradition of Melchizedek.

So, just like you pointed out...to understand anything, we must take into account the a priori definitions..."which" Christianity are you referring to?

In what way are resurrection and salvation synonyms?

The last line, as you put it, comes down to individual autonomy, with no need for intermediaries and their words, would seem to remove religion, Jesus, and Christianity. Yes, of course innate realization is viable, which has a very Gnostic edge to it, but again this is simply not accepted in most traditions.

Is there a name, book, school, or prophet of what you are trying to express?

[Bruce G Charlton]

@shaberon - A start might be the reference in my earlier post.

[arjunaloka_official]

Posted by shaberon (here)

Give an example what could possibly be new about it.

If I may chime in, I would say forgiveness is one of the main things Jesus stressed, compared to earlier religions, which focused more on balance (tit for tat)?

[Michel Leclerc]

Incarnation as divine love as creation as salvation.

And this indeed not through words or visions but through experience as conversion.

[shaberon]

Posted by arjunaloka_official (here)

Posted by shaberon (here)

Give an example what could possibly be new about it.

If I may chime in, I would say forgiveness is one of the main things Jesus stressed, compared to earlier religions, which focused more on balance (tit for tat)?

Yes, but that is just from the twenty or more parallel sayings:


Jesus: "If anyone strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also." Luke 6:29
Buddha: "If anyone should give you a blow with his hand, with a stick, or with a knife, you should abandon any desires and utter no evil words." Majjhima Nikaya 21:6


We can't say for sure if Jesus quoted Buddha, or if the redactors of the Gospels quoted Buddha, or, if it is mere coincidence, but it certainly would not be new, and certainly far smaller in terms of its early influence. Indians had permeated the middle east for over two thousand years before Jesus, and, in a sense, the favor was returned by Apostle Thomas.

The Mandeans definitely live that principle, they don't fight at all, which is why no one has ever heard of them...they just lack any objective proof that this was the status quo of Canaan and Aram at an early age. But then you are stuck explaining Melchizedek, who was, at one time, Shem. I have noticed the Jews claim to be Semites, and, I look through the scriptures and Shem is basically just mentioned and given the symbol of the Shepherd, whereas in Mandeism, he has a highly active role. Which version is more likely to be accurate? The one that is a note, or the one that is part of your life?

I think the Sermon on the Mounts might be great, not that there is anything original in it. It may have been "rebellious" in the sense that it was against the prevailing paradigm of the Levites, in which case I would be glad he did that.

[shaberon]

Posted by Michel Leclerc (here)
Incarnation as divine love as creation as salvation.

And this indeed not through words or visions but through experience as conversion.

That is a fairly close description of our Avalokiteshvara the Bodhisattva Mahasattva.

Who is also what we call "Sangha" or "spiritual community".


My understanding is that in Greek it is translated by the symbol:

=


The two lines representing:

Zoe

Ecclesia


which is remembered to some extent in Latinized spellings similar to "eglise", but, is actually removed and replaced by "church", which translates "circe" or "circle" and has to do with a building, an institution.

But, yes, as to the first point, that is why I would say we have something that is similar to Christianity, it's just not attached to any specific individual; it's generic; universal. That is the next main difference between us and what it appears it attributed to Jesus. If it's not attributed to one individual, and Heaven is impermanent, that may be the substantial difference in our doctrines.

[shaberon]

Posted by Bruce G Charlton (here)
@shaberon - A start might be the reference in my earlier post.

Ok, but that is a stack of ideas without any citations.

From some of the references, under the subject of "the real Jesus", I would deny there is such a thing as Apostle Paul.

What that means is, Paul never met Jesus, and, he was talking about something else, which, nevertheless, was a rebuke on the paradigm of then-current Jerusalem.

That's not my idea. I learned it by textual analysis. I have faith in it because I was convinced by an argument, not just because it was said to be so.


In another case, you referred to Ahriman.


We can criticize this out of a separate response to the same issue of common ground:

Some of the core Christian (and Islam) doctrines were borrowed from Zoroastrianism. It only appears in those parts of the Bible that were written after the Judahites’ fifty year captivity in Babylonia in the 6th century BCE and their exposure to Zoroastrianism.

That includes the myths, Genesis and Exodus.

Then there is the point that the first Jews were not really monotheists either:

The Israelite religion was essentially Canaanite polytheism until the reign of King Josiah in the 7th century BCE, when there was a drive, mostly for political reasons, towards monolatrism, which was the worship of a single god for the entire nation of Israel, while recognising the existence of other gods and the right of other nations to worship other gods.

It is not a big jump from monolatrism to monotheism (denying the existence of other gods), so it is possible that Judaism would have become monotheistic without the Zoroastrian influence. However, it is reasonable to think that Zoroastrianism was the final influence to make that jump, because Judaism became monotheistic shortly after the Babylonian captivity.

Good vs evil / God vs Satan:

In Zoroastrianism these two forces are the Supreme God Ahura Mazda and the evil spirit Angra Mainyu (Ahriman).

That is an error. Ahriman is not scriptural. In fact it is a change on the core theology. It changes the deities and begins something "new", a fixation on evil, or the devil, which had not been present before.

It may be a relative way of talking about how, on earth, we may eventually face those who are enemies. It may be a philosophical reality by way of necessity, but, not the natural order of things and what it is really about. Because this idea may be very late--a thousand years after Zoroaster, or, even into the Christian era, it may be a way of designating Jewish Yhwh. That's my personal idea. If it is not the sole inspiration, it is included in the collection. It would be hard to miss the monolatrous misadventures of the 600s B. C. E., which would have dislodged the Mandeans, whom the Persians equally assisted.


By the 300s, all three of these major religions are basically calling each other Satan. The point I am making is that "Zoroastrianism", which is really Mazdayasna or "Wisdom Religion", has itself been tampered with and, like Judaism, gone into the hands of institutionalized scribal priests. The New Testament is the same way, especially with respect to Paul.

As to the intellectual changes broadly:

Heaven and hell (including the word “paradise”):

In Zoroastrianism hell is a place of temporary torture after death by the evil spirit Ahriman and his associates, after which your soul will be cleansed and you will join the Supreme God Ahura Mazda in paradise.
Judaism has kept the Zoroastrian concept of hell as a temporary supernatural washing machine, although Judaism itself places much less emphasis on the afterlife than Christianity and Islam.
Islam and Christianity have subsequently changed the concept of hell into a place of permanent torture, which was a direct result of a competition 1400 years ago between the Catholics and the Muslims to see who could change their Satan into the biggest asshole and their hell into the scariest place.

The messiah/mashiach:

The Zoroastrian concept of Saoshyant (meaning “he who brings benefit”) is that of a great human leader.
Judaism has kept the Zoroastrian concept of the mashiach as that of a great human leader. The coming of a mashiach was prophesied for the first time in the book of Isaiah, which was written during or shortly after the Babylonian captivity.
Christianity has subsequently changed the Jewish concept of the human mashiach into that of a divine messiah.

In that case again, you can show the original Mazda Yasna has no such consideration about the end of time or final battle. It just has a Savior, to which other ideas are attached in far later texts.

The subject of multiple creations is given by the Veda. It describes a Deva Creation, that is, the manifestation of a Heaven of Divine Beings by Word out of primal unity, and another creation of the mortal realm. This:

The secondary creation involves Beings that are already free agents, and who know about other Beings; it involves making the choice of an eternal commitment to live harmoniously with other beings guided by, and in a condition of, mutual love.

approximately describes Dharma.

The Veda does not bother describing evil or hell, it only speaks of defeating it. Well, let me re-phrase that; it describes evil in a basic way, without a big obsessive show of it. There is no Ahriman in primitive Mazda Yasna, and there were no fire altars, which the Christians abhorred. In other words, Christianity never addressed the real inner workings of the original, it saw the Magi who arose independently in Media or West Persia around 750 B. C. E..

Consequently, Judaism split into various sects depending on how they reacted:

An interesting Biblical account of Zoroastrian-Jewish contact, as well as an early attestation of Middle Eastern petroleum,
appears in the Second Book of the Maccabees (which is not found in Jewish Bibles, only in Catholic Christian ones). This
document dates from about 124 BCE, which places it among the latest books of the Old Testament - so late that the Jewish canon
does not recognize it. In the first chapter of this book, there is a story of how the Jewish altar fire was restored to the Temple after
the Captivity. Jewish Temple practice required a continuously burning flame at the altar (Exodus 27:20) though this flame did not
have the special "iconic" quality of the Zoroastrian sacred fire. Nevertheless, during the restoration of the Jewish temple, this
story arose and is repeated in the Book of the Maccabees, four hundred years later: "When the matter (restoring the fire) became
known and the king of the Persians heard that in the place where the exiled priests had hidden the fire a liquid had appeared, with
which Nehemiah and his people had purified the materials of the sacrifice, the king, after verifying the facts, had the place
enclosed and pronounced sacred." (2 Maccabees 1:33-34) This shows that at least at the time of the composition of 2 Maccabees,
the Jewish writers were aware of the Zoroastrian reverence for fire - and also that, if the story is true, the Zoroastrians saw and
respected similarities in practice between their own religion and that of the Jews. The fiery liquid cited here is petroleum, called
"naphtha," a word which arises from a combination of Persian and Hebrew words

Again, that is simply "Magian", or later, and we just don't have any details on who they were or how they may have been different; but, popular Mazda Yasna went through some type of transitional era by absorbing the Magi, and by the Sassanian period, the focus is on evil, nearly a direct opposite of the original presentation. Notice this fire comes from "Exodus", i. e. a crafted work, not from the Psalms.

There is a Babylonian Jewish retort against the Magi in the 200s, before the Sassanian reforms. That is the first sign of friction I have been able to find between them. Until then the Persians had definitely been "tolerant", without necessarily knowing much about what they were tolerating.

There was accretion to the level that Deutero Isaiah copies Yasna 44 and that Asmodeus from the Book of Tobit is cognate to Aesma Daeva.


The idea of a "bridge" is inescapable, but, it is impossible to find out how it worked by mixing statements from inappropriate time frames. Many close looks have already been taken, such as J Heckert 2023 Thesis:


Chapter 1: Judaism as the bridge from which Zoroastrian ideas travel to become Christian ones 15

Chapter 2: Direct Transfers of Zoroastrian ideas to Christianity 33

In the sixth century BCE, the largest empire in the world at the time, the Persian Empire,
adopted a monotheistic religion that was based on the teachings of a prophet named
Zoroaster. As one of the world’s oldest religions, Zoroastrianism impacted the beliefs and
traditions of Judaism and early Christianity. Similarities among these religions include
the ideas of hierarchy among good and evil spirits, actions on earth determining one’s
place in an afterlife, apocalyptic themes, and dualism. Zoroastrian beliefs found their way
into early Christian culture. The remnants of Zoroastrianism in mainstream Christianity
underscores the influence of that ancient Persian faith.


or:

There are scholars who consider Zoroastrianism to be the mother religion of all the present day Western World’s faiths.

The scholar Henry Cobin traces the pre-Biblical history of heaven as the final goal, to the paradise of Yima mentioned in Zoroastrian scriptures of ancient Iran.

Yima was the ruler of a heaven the son of the sun-god Vivanghant. He has two dogs that guard his abode.

From the Vedic texts, Yama is the son of the sun-god Vivasvat and in Mahabharat there are verses describing his assembly palace and realm as heavenly. He is a judge and punishes the sinful, he is the Lord of the Pitris, the departed souls who are pious people who enjoy their heavenly rewards after death. Yamaraja can send people to hellish regions or heavenly regions.

In Western religions there is God who judges and has control to send people to heavenly or hellish regions

Present also in Western religions is theodicy, the problem of evil. This problem is absent in Eastern religions. The concept of evil exists, but it is not a problem due to a fundamental difference in understanding of the nature of the Absolute Truth.

This difference of understanding can be traced largely to Zoroaster, who is the bridge between the ancient Vedic concepts and the Abrahamic concepts, and accounts for the fundamental differences.

In the great faiths of the West, there are three elements to religion. Love for God, knowledge of God and paradise (entry to heaven). When these three elements coexist it is called in Sanskrit viddhi-bhakti or mixed devotion. The worship is unquestionably an act of devotion but it is influenced by the desire for heaven.

While it is true the ambition for heaven is evident in Hinduism , the philosophical ambition—salvation through negation of the illusory personal self—is the final goal of Dharmic religions. Many Hindus believe that after negation something remains: the impersonal Brahman, which they conceive of as an ultimate light (param jyoti) and an eternal root sound (aum). Buddhists believe that after negation nothing remains but emptiness.

Yet David L. McKenna, president of Asbury Theological Seminary, cited in Celebration of Discipline by Richard J. Foster says:

“We are an indulgent people in a selfish age. Even as Christians we do not celebrate discipline, whether physical, intellectual, social, or spiritual.”

Why is this so? From the Vedic perspective, it seems it is due to the ancient distortion of the Vedic path of fruitive activities. The knowledge and ability to rise above the duality of good and bad has never been an option in Western religion, due to the influence of Zoroaster. The path of fruitive work is certainly present in the Vedas, but it is not an end itself. Karma yields no eternal gain. It’s a "carrot and stick" combination to encourage a person to move towards the mode of goodness, but does not result in a permanent solution to suffering.

No doubt the West has seen surges in devotion but they have been inextricably based on a body-based duality of good and evil that has rarely been questioned, and thus prefer indulgence over renunciation. The Zoroastrian connection is the clue that links and separates the Dharmic and Abrahamic understandings.

None of them asked about the Mandeans.

What we might call Big Evil is a new "trend" not really limited to one place; however, this one seems unique:

The long-standing orthodox Christian position on the resurrection of the body is succinctly stated by Macrina the Younger, a principle theologian of the early Greek church: “We assert that the same body again as before, composed of the same elements, is compacted around the soul.”

Questions about physical resurrection were heavily debated in the history of the Christian church, particularly in the fifth, twelfth and thirteenth centuries. Some theologians who defended a purely spiritual conception of resurrection—that a non-material body is raised—were condemned as heretics. The orthodox position was, “I am not ‘I’ if I rise in an aerial body” (Bynum, 60). Bynum comments on page 229, “materialistic conceptions of bodily resurrection were significant elements of the positions that triumphed as mainstream Christianity.”

In this new world mentioned above, the righteous will be immortal. But this is not a reversion to the original paradise; nothing in the past approaches its perfection. It is the End of Time. Those who await this End of Time expect to achieve eternal life in a resurrected body of glorified matter on a celestial earth cleansed of all evil. They expect, as human beings, to be "above even the gods, or at least their equal."

I have no idea how they got that or where it comes from.

[Bruce G Charlton]

@Shaberon - Thanks for going to so much effort! The problem is that I am arguing from a different set of fundamental (metaphysical) assumptions - which I try to make clear.

It is probably not worth your effort to try and get what I am saying, which amounts to a pretty comprehensive, albeit very simple, metaphysics and theology - but the only way this can be done is to try and understand it in its own terms (at least at first). Making comparisons, seeking supposed influences etc, will just block understanding.

What I am saying is too easy for many people to understand. This was also, I believe, the case for Jesus. What Jesus did is stated several times in the Fourth Gospel (the link is to a mini book I did on this subject), in several different ways - it is the offer of resurrected eternal life in Heaven. This any person may choose. Heaven is an opt-in situation.

That's it!... Although the potential implications are cosmic as well as relevant to every person, indeed every being.

But obviously the key terms need elucidation, which is what the rest of the gospel attempts.

Rather than ploughing through my stuff, you might try doing what I did - which is to focus on the Fourth Gospel as if it was the only thing we knew about Jesus. That is not as easily done as said - but the effect is remarkable.

[shaberon]

Posted by Bruce G Charlton (here)
Rather than ploughing through my stuff, you might try doing what I did - which is to focus on the Fourth Gospel as if it was the only thing we knew about Jesus. That is not as easily done as said - but the effect is remarkable.

Ok.

My limited exposure to Christian testimony outside of the Orthodox is due to Hermetism. The Christian aspect of Hermetics or Rosicrucianism takes as its heritage the First Gospel, Mark the Lion, in Africa and Alexandria. This gives us Sons and Daughters of the Desert Fathers which is still practiced as Hesychasm. So with Hermetics you have a Protestant-friendly way of tapping this same ethos.

Now, you have chosen the last one, the one most widely separated from historic events, and having a drastically different tone to it in many ways, such as "I Am" sayings and so forth.

For me, as a beholder, the worst thing to do would be to select one from many pieces of information as the "only" thing. I would tend to be more responsive towards something like "best written" or "clearest carrier of the message", maybe for a reason or two. It fits the concept of the thread, i. e. John is most accurate about the "real" Jesus, and there must be a "smear campaign" if I, an unbaptized heathen, am unaware of its virtues.

[Bruce G Charlton]

@Shaberon - "Now, you have chosen the last one, the one most widely separated from historic events, and having a drastically different tone to it in many ways, such as "I Am" sayings and so forth."

If you take a look at the first section of my Lazarus Writes mini-book, you will see my rationale for "choosing" this (or, why it chose me):

I reach the above decisions on the basis of what could be termed intuition or discernment - as all such decisions must be and are inevitably made -- the difference being whether that knowledge of intuition is explicit, or denied; and with the conviction that explicit intuition is more reliably and powerfully discerning than is unconscious or denied intuition.

On this basis I regard the Fourth Gospel ('John's' Gospel - but when taken in isolation better called the Gospel of the Beloved Disciple, whom I will later identify as the resurrected Lazarus) as the heart of the Bible on the basis that it uniquely claims to be the work of one of Christ's disciples, whom Jesus particularly loved; and I believe these claims.

Then - on reading it (in the divinely-inspired Authorised Version or 'King James' translation); I find a work of the highest level of beauty, profundity and coherence - a work which when considered as literature surpasses any other in the language in terms of beauty, profundity and coherence.

So, I start with the Gospel of the Beloved Disciple, and with the conviction that this should be placed first in the Bible, first among the Gospels and should be at the heart of Christian understanding and life (all the rest being regarded in the light of this coherent work of genius and inspiration).

So, I understand the Fourth Gospel to be the only eye-witness account of Jesus, written by a disciple who Jesus especially loves, and (Chapters 1-20 where the original Gospel ends) shortly after Jesus's ascension; and the person entrusted with caring for Jesus's mother after his death.

I further argue from the text that the author was the resurrected Lazarus, who was Jesus's brother-in-law - Jesus having married Mary Magdalene/ Mary of Bethany - in the marriage at Cana.

I set out my assumptions. Of course, others will have other assumptions; but given these assumptions my understanding is coherent and makes sense of the bulk of the text - as well as showing where (in a few passages, and the 21st Chapter) the original text was added to or otherwise tampered with.

[shaberon]

Posted by Bruce G Charlton (here)
(in the divinely-inspired Authorised Version or 'King James' translation)

Is there a reason for this favoritism and are you aware what was done to the footnotes?

If I read it, I start with a Greek parallel text.


This is more personal and unique of a resolution:

So, I start with the Gospel of the Beloved Disciple, and with the conviction that this should be placed first in the Bible, first among the Gospels and should be at the heart of Christian understanding and life (all the rest being regarded in the light of this coherent work of genius and inspiration).

So, I understand the Fourth Gospel to be the only eye-witness account of Jesus, written by a disciple who Jesus especially loves, and (Chapters 1-20 where the original Gospel ends) shortly after Jesus's ascension; and the person entrusted with caring for Jesus's mother after his death.

I further argue from the text that the author was the resurrected Lazarus, who was Jesus's brother-in-law - Jesus having married Mary Magdalene/ Mary of Bethany - in the marriage at Cana.

Starting from a Greek bias, we get:


Eastern Orthodox tradition attributes all of the Johannine books to John the Apostle.



whereas in actuality:

Historical critics like H.P.V. Nunn, Reza Aslan and Bart Ehrman, believe with most modern scholars that the apostle John wrote none of these works.



Now it turns out that I must be purged in hyssop, clean as the driven snow because I was easily able to find a certain base for "Johannine Primacy", not in sequence but in importance -- and I am virgin innocent about this. There doesn't seem to be a name for it, but, there is a relatively abundant point of view that gives it this emphasis.

Some of it seems to disregard historicity or objectivity so much that it wouldn't matter if there ever was a Jesus. All that matters is this testimony.

It re-appears in a carefully-considered response from one of ours:

For years I agreed with him because I wanted to learn as much as I could about the historical Jesus. But much later I began to feel that it was more important to discover the nature of Jesus and that didn’t necessarily mean that the Gospel stories about him had to be factually correct.

The people who wrote John must have known people who knew Jesus, perhaps even some of the 12 disciples. These were people who had, I presume, a very deep understanding of the mission and nature of Christ. These men meditated, acted, evangelized and certainly, for many of them, faced death for their beliefs.

How they saw Jesus became more important to me, rather than to know as many credible facts about Him. For me, a Buddhist, the comparisons between John and advanced Mahayana teachings are very interesting as there are more similarities than differences. As well, the teachings of the Buddha were recorded at a time even more distant from his death than Christ’s followers recording him.

After viewing as many as a hundred Ehrman debates and reading a few of his books, I feel that his agnostic-atheist position has made his assessments of John less interesting. I don’t care if Christ may never have said something in particular, or not. What is important for me is to hear what those who knew him felt so powerfully.

John is for many people the essence of Christian teaching. I must say that I agree with this assessment.

That's kind of what we're interested in, the "closeness" aspect. The Orthodox response is that the closest person was James the Just, from whom there is no canonical Gospel. There have been ideas that various Apostles may have only had a "piece" of the transmission. James's problem was that he was martyred possibly as early as 44, whereas for John:


He was one of the original twelve apostles and is thought to be the only one to escape martyrdom.


By all accounts, he has also been believed to have lived a long time. According to the general scheme of things, that would effectively make him Melchizedek of Jesus.

John is Aquila the Eagle and placed last, is the end of a cycle, which represents the most matured and wisest outcome.

Placed first, it sounds like the rest of the material would not be needed.

The most skeptical angle to it is the difficulty that "Messiah" would have been understood as returning "soon, in this lifetime", and since that didn't happen, John may be an attempt at patching.

The main difficulty for the following's expansion was in finding *one* method of conversion that would work on both Jews and Greeks. There were so few Greeks, authorities simply considered it Judaism for a long time, efforts to change the message notwithstanding. And so there were reasons for a strategy of survival for "the group", which didn't have any property. We see one of the early differences of Rome is the acquisition of property as a church. I don't think it mattered where Peter had been, he wasn't there; that ascribing him a "Pillar" status would be a mistake.

I am not in a position to dispute that John was probably active in the same general area for a long time, which in turn is the position to be the most sincere, or to have plenty of time to learn to advertise. Dubiousness is nothing new:


Since at least the 2nd century AD, scholars have debated the authorship of the Johannine works...



How about this honorific:


Freemasons celebrate this feast day, dating back to the 18th century when the Feast Day was used for the installation of Grand Masters.



Linking to the general view that there was a Johannine Community:

According to Attridge, this community of early followers of Jesus "defined themselves rather starkly against the Jewish milieu in which they arose, these believers cultivated an intense devotion to Jesus as the definitive revelation of God's salvific will. They understood themselves to be in intimate contact with him and with one another, under the guidance of the Spirit-Paraclete. They were conscious of their relationship to other believers with whom they hoped to be in eventual union.

Many of them attuned themselves to Orthodoxy, but there was a split:


Other representatives of Johannine Christianity, nurturing alternative strands of tradition, influenced various second-century movements, characterized by their opponents and much modern scholarship as 'Gnostic'.



That would be the Gnostic Christian argument, that, i. e. they were "Gnostics" or whatever before there was a church to call them heretics.

Orthodoxy stems from the fact that the community around James was knocked out of Jerusalem and had to re-group elsewhere, and did not re-appear in Jerusalem for sixty-five years. Undoubtedly, some of the followers of John came into agreement with them. I had not considered that most of the Gnostic authors might simply come from the lineage of John that did not agree with or join the church.

Chances are the followers of Joihn and of Paul would have been in conflict. For some reason, Paul could not be made to disappear, so he was included by what are considered to be fictions of the Bible.

It is not difficult to conceive there was a Johannine community, and, there is not enough in that Gospel by itself to establish Orthodoxy or not. Considering the "church universal" was like a collective compromise of many branches, I, at least, think the reason for the number of Gsopels being Four is so that they match the Fixed Cross, which symbolism would convey that John was the Wisest or the Most Melchizedek.

[Bruce G Charlton]

@Shaberon - What I am saying has (almost) nothing to do with Johannine Christianity. I fear you are wasting your time and creating confusions in trying to derive it from other lineages and sources.

One example: Johannine Christianity has been Neo-Platonic and focused on oneness and the spirit. By extreme contrast, I am not a monist but a pluralist, I regard the universe as ultimately consisting of many not one; and this many are (living, conscious, purposive) beings. That's my starting point for divine creation: many beings. Much like we thought it was, when we were young children.

Further: Johannine Christianity often regards pure spirit as the goal: I take the Fourth Gospel "literally" when it portrays resurrection. In other words: the goal is eternal incarnation. We began as immortal spirits, entered mortal incarnation; Jesus is making possible the transition from mortal incarnation to everlasting incarnation.

As I said before, you are probably best advised to ignore my ideas, considering that you (apparently) want something completely different from a religion.

But if you do wish to understand me, you will need to forget your considerable historical learning, and consider the ideas in their own terms, by (at least temporarily) accepting the same assumptions - and only after you have "got it" to go back and critique.

[onawah]

Gnosticism - The Gospel of Mary Magdalene - Salvation through Self-Knowledge of the Soul & Mind
ESOTERICA
777K subscribers
1,442,404 views
Oct 7, 2022

"The (gnostic?) Gospel of Mary provide us a glimpse into a radically alternative form of ancient Christianity. One where inner, spiritual knowledge is the key to salvation, where women and men have equal standing based on their understanding of the message of the Savior and one where the soul must rise above the demonic gatekeepers of the physical cosmos rather than to believe in credal formulas or even the salvific power of the death and resurrection of Jesus. In this Gospel, Mary Magdalene is the true inheritor of the spiritual Gospel of Christ rather than Peter who attacks her solely based on her gender, despite her profound relationship with the Savior and her understanding of his secret teachings."

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=I4GHrs5xAIk

The Gnostic Epic of Mary Magdalene and Pistis Sophia
ESOTERICA
777K subscribers
179,760 views Jul 12, 2024

"The Pistis Sophia is the most epic and obscure Gnostic Scripture to come down to us from antiquity. Seemingly a manual for initiation into the mysteries of an otherwise unknown gnostic sect, the Pistis Sophia is as magnificent as it is complex, lengthy and obscure. In it we find Jesus 11 years after his resurrection, gathered around him select disciples to reveal the true mysteries of salvation: a truly vast cosmology populated by a staggering range of regions and entities; the secret 4-fold baptisms reminiscent of Greco-Egyptian magical practice without which one was doomed to reincarnation; techniques of mystical ascent back to the ineffable, primordial light through heavenly citadels; all of which was most clearly comprehended not by the male apostles Peter or Paul but by Mary the Mother of Jesus, Martha and most especially Mary Magdalene."

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=FhaR6Q2M9Og

(I appreciate the heartfelt and sincere approach this scholar takes with his description of the role that Mary Magdalene played in the formation of the early Christian Church and the exploration of the teachings of Jesus. )

[shaberon]

Posted by Bruce G Charlton (here)
@Shaberon - What I am saying has (almost) nothing to do with Johannine Christianity. I fear you are wasting your time and creating confusions in trying to derive it from other lineages and sources.

I see.

Then it would be just your own idea.

As I said before, you are probably best advised to ignore my ideas, considering that you (apparently) want something completely different from a religion.

I have no religion.

I try to understand intellectual history and how people are working. How and why things change or stay the same. A new idea is not part of that; it hasn't happened yet on the world scene. But, that is almost the same as the one I posted, where a physical resurrection or "permanent incarnation" *is* a new kind of idea from early Christianity that is not present in original Zoroastrianism. To attempt to prove this idea to be true is not an effort I am prepared to make.


Unavoidably, I have to start dealing with the Gospel piecemeal as it *does* turn out to be influential -- and notably, the term Paraclete is only used in Johannine texts. It is a heavily Jewish word. It is not really a "name" for the Spirit, but a job. At the beginning of the Gospel of John, Jesus is the Paraclete, which he later says when he is gone, will return as the Spirit (Pneuma). It was not mentioned that "paraclete" is the opposite of "satan"; these are both Jewish terms for lawyers, one is the defender and one the accuser. It sounds like it comes in the strategy "conversion of Jews".


Well has this come up on the forum before -- barely. This is supposed to be the most influential Gospel in the world and it's never been discussed. It shows up as a tangent in the list of Messiahs:


* Montanus (135-177), he claimed to be the promised Paraclete in the mid 2nd century mentioned in Gospel of John 14:16 and would set up the New Jerusalem in the small town of Pepuza in Phrygia.


In a response to the non-Apostleship of Paul:

the Jews are under the intricate Jewish laws

not the Greeks not the Romans not any other nations not even Christians


Jesus who was a Jew of course observed the intricate Jewish laws

but the purpose of Jesus was to bring God to the gentiles

and every heart who will receive the Paraclete or Spirit of Truth

whom He would send to His Disciples and from there to the whole world after He ascended to heaven


"But I tell you the truth: it is expedient to you that I go: for if I go not, the Paraclete will not come to you; but if I go, I will send Him to you." - John 16:7


those who recieve the Holy Spirit are not under Jewish laws

but convicted and guided by the Spirit Himself



it is possible to grieve and ignore this Spirit of Truth for He is gentle and not forceful

but those who delights in His counsel are under guardian Grace and not laborers under Jewish laws

It's just being mentioned there, but, it perhaps is more relevant and influential in the story of Cathars. This was a form of Johannine Christianity that practically rejected Peter, and took in an extreme dualism that sounds Manichean. It springs from a Bogomil text which is entitled The Book of the Secret Supper where John interviews Jesus.

That may be considered a "form" of Gnosticism but it is not connected to anything I am talking about.


The "other" Paraclete being sent to later followers, is not just breath of life because it is "of truth":


ἀληθείας,
alētheia



Alethia was the personified spirit (daimona) of truth and sincerity. Her opposite number were Dolos (Trickery), Apate (Deception) and the Pseudologoi (Lies).


Well, the Jews knew the Greek language but probably not the pantheon very extensively. Nevertheless, this is what is sent forth and apparently being called "him".

That was incidental, but it must have been something like a keynote.




First promoting universal Resurrection:


The Christian writers Irenaeus and Justin Martyr, in the 2nd century, wrote against the idea that only the soul survived. (The word "soul" is unknown in the Aramaic; it entered Christian theology through the Greek.)


is not quite correct, unless it means "the Aramaic Bible", the soul is certainly known to Arameans.

The doctrine becomes mandatory in the Nicene Creed:


We acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins, [and] we look for the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come.


People like me have never paid any attention to this because:


André Dartigues has observed that especially "from the 17th to the 19th century, the language of popular piety no longer evoked the resurrection of the soul but everlasting life. Although theological textbooks still mentioned resurrection, they dealt with it as a speculative question more than as an existential problem."


It went quiet.

That evidently was a huge deal throughout all early Christianity, and, from their view, is one of the first ways of identifying a gnostic heretic, which is anyone who disagrees with this. It is Orthodox doctrine, bot not any focus of their general presentation.


What gets my attention is the followers were supposed to have received the Spirit:


The Holy Spirit has traditionally been a subject matter of strictly theological works focused on proving the central doctrines concerning the Holy Spirit, often as a response to arguments from religious groups who deny these beliefs.


I am at least willing to believe there was a moment like this of Hagia or Aletheia:







When I look around, I don't find that.

I don't know if that means they're doing it wrong.

I would say in the house where such iconography is abundant, it is closer. I'm mostly interested in seeing, if someone says this is good for you, then, let's see how is that working out for you. I'm not capable of taking an oath of faith in resurrection, but, at face value, this belief is more benign than that of Judaism. And so I'm looking for the way they make good quality people like the above, and I'm not getting it. My view is framed by what I am forced to translate as "Gnosis", which is an experience similar to the above, I have to treat everyone the same way, Christian or Islamic doesn't matter to me, only the capability to produce a higher grade of human being.

[shaberon]

My interest as an outsider is, I don't have a belief, I don't have a dog in this fight. I have an interest in validating what good may come of it. Otherwise my view would be too conditioned by crusades and other persecutions that have come from the source promoted by Bishops.


Now, if it is something simple, why would it take three hundred years to utter the Nicene Creed. That would seem unnecessary if it represented what everyone already said. And so for example if we look at Mark, that represents a whole lineage that has not been given this compulsory view. And there is another who is not represented by a Book:


Why was the book of Thomas removed from the Bible?

The Gospel of Thomas was not included in the Bible because it contains controversial material that Early Orthodox Christian leaders did not agree with, specifically the gnostic theme of knowledge in place of the traditional sacrament of baptism and Holy Communion.


It, or a "version" was found at Nag Hammadi. There certainly was such a person:

He started the Assyrian Church of the East in Ankawa, Assyria [Erbil] in Upper Mesopotamia, probably sometime between late AD 30's and AD 45, and spent many years evangelizing both Jews and pagans in the area before heading further east in the late AD 40's.


According to traditional accounts of the Saint Thomas Christians of India, the Apostle Thomas landed in Muziris (Cranganore) on the Kerala coast in AD 52 and was martyred in Mylapore, near Madras, Tamil Nadu in AD 72. He is believed by the Saint Thomas Christian tradition to have established seven churches (communities) in Kerala.

Let none read the gospel according to Thomas, for it is the work, not of one of the twelve apostles, but of one of Mani's three wicked disciples.

— Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechesis V (4th century)

It turns out the congregation of Thomas is still around in the 600s, and is mentioned by King Harsha in a colossal list of "devotees", along with Buddhists and all kinds of people, and, I think, animals are doing it. It's like a big jungle party where you can do whatever you want to, provided it is harmless. This is like an "invitation" because they could not have been present on the Pillars of Ashoka. In our view, there is sort of a Dark Age between these two kings.

Thomas was based from Edessa, which itself is heavily tied to both the issue of Jewish conversion, as well as being the trade route to India. What he was most likely doing was trying to convert the Cochin Jews, who had migrated along the same route quite possibly at a "pre-Orthodox" stage. Thomas may have gotten to Sri Lanka. The whole route had been plied by Arabs and Greeks and probably King Solomon. It's not really "India", because Buddhism tried a few missions there later maybe around the 200s, and never penetrated it, and it was not Brahminized until the eighth century. Thomas has at least made an "X" in intellectual and physical history that is unparalleled. This line is where the money was from about 1,300 B. C. E. -- 600 A. D.. Yet we are not supposed to have any personal statement from him.

The followers are called Nasrani and use an Aramaic liturgy, which as a language shows a continuous presence since the time of King Ashoka.

It was "connected", i. e. everything on this route is Nicene, but they are not Chalcedonian. So we have to consider a two-hundred year breathing room for whatever was going on, before this, so to speak, was "centralized" by a specific canon and doctrines.


Well, I turn to the complete text and a representation of something Apostle Thomas could not have had.

What is being taught here in scripture that might result in communion with some kind of Spirit. Well, whatever it may have "grown" to, it is generally held that this would be publicly the first coherent statement:

We know that Isaiah 61:1-2 is not the very first sermon that Jesus preached, but it is His first recorded reading and preaching of the Scripture in a Church setting.

That's significant, probably important.

The linked page is going to teach us about this, and it uses Luke and boldfaces the quote in red:


[18] The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, [19] To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.


So, the last third of the Book of Isaiah is a redaction from the Babylonian Captivity. Jesus quoted a Greek scroll of it. The commentary goes on to tell us about "repentance", but, this is out of context. This is the same problem with America. The "liberty" is Greek Aphesis, which is debt cancellation, and the next line refers to Jubilee. Although this is a "political principle", if he installed it, that means he would be king. That would not threaten the Roman Empire, but it would certainly trouble the local authorities. Curiously, it is tied to Spirit on a personal level.


Does it go much further than this?

The response given in the standard commentary echoes "What is the message?" when answered most directly from the Synoptics:

Mark 1:15 - and saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.”
Matt 4:17 - From that time on Jesus began to preach, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near.”
Matt 10:7, 8 - And proclaim as you go, saying, ‘The kingdom of heaven is at hand.’ Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, drive out demons. Freely you have received; freely give.
Luke 9:2 - And He sent them out to proclaim the kingdom of God and to heal the sick.

Thus, Jesus preached a message of repentance and healing, both physical and spiritual.

Doing the same thing, we find the following Greek vocabulary in Luke 9:



Daimon


therapeuein


basileian is the "kingdom".


It is the kingdom of Theos, which, until a moment ago, was qualitatively the same as Theoi and Daimonia. The usage of "Daimon" in the Bible has lost the specificity of "kakodaimon", which is the only way it would make sense. Moreover, the art of healing *is* the proper administration of theoi and daimonia. This expression being given to us as "demon" has no precursor or parallel that I am aware of. It is difficult to say what has happened to the language. Eudaimonia is the normal expression for "divine happiness".





On the art of healing, the reason that Mark has a particularly visible position in the scheme of things is because he traveled to Alexandria of the Therapeutae.

It is their "Mecca", of persons who inhabit all of the Greek and all of the "barbarian" world. They are not said to have a religion, although the basic meaning is "follower, servant (of a deity)", and in the 400s, Pseudo-Dionysus describes them as "monks". So it describes monastics of any religion, having a particular interest in healing. And of course this has been suggested as the environment of the "lost years" of Jesus prior to preaching. Hesychasm is its remainder.

"Theos" is exactly what is focused in Theurgy.

Everything indicates there was a multi-lingual conjunction of practices based in healing and white magic. Hesychasm is perhaps the "tolerated" form of it.



If we return where Jesus takes his "Spirit" quote from, Isaiah apparently only makes warnings, and the back half of his book is by two others which would constitute the beginning of Babylonian Talmudic Jewry:

Isaiah 44:6 contains the first clear statement of Yahwist monotheism: "I am the first and I am the last; beside me there is no God". In Isaiah 44:09–20, this develops into a satire on the making and worship of idols, mocking the foolishness of the carpenter who worships the idol that he himself has carved. While Yahweh had shown his superiority to other gods before, in Second Isaiah he becomes the sole God of the world. This model of monotheism became the defining characteristic of post-Exilic Judaism and provided the basis for Christianity and for Islam.

The book can be read as an extended meditation on the destiny of Jerusalem into and after the Exile. The Deutero-Isaian part of the book describes how God will make Jerusalem the centre of his worldwide rule through a royal saviour (a messiah) who will destroy the oppressor (Babylon); this messiah is the Persian king Cyrus the Great, who is merely the agent who brings about Yahweh's kingship. Isaiah speaks out against corrupt leaders and for the disadvantaged, and roots righteousness in God's holiness rather than in Israel's covenant.

In other words, that would be a Babylonian change to the Monolatry of Yhwh.

And in this neighborhood of monotheism is where we get a near-copy of the Avesta.

Is. 40:

Who has measured the waters in the hollow of his hand, or with the breadth of his hand marked off the heavens? Who has held the dust of the earth in a basket, or weighed the mountains on the scales and the hills in a balance? Who can fathom the Spirit[d] of the Lord, or instruct the Lord as his counselor? Whom did the Lord consult to enlighten him, and who taught him the right way? Who was it that taught him knowledge, or showed him the path of understanding?understanding?

Y.44 (one of the Gathas, hymns usually thought to have been composed by Zoroaster himself in about 1300 BC):

This I ask Thee, tell me truly, Ahura. Who is by generation the Father of Right, at the first? Who determined the path of sun and stars? Who is it by whom the moon waxes and wanes again? This, O Mazda, and yet more, I am fain to know.

This I ask Thee, tell me truly, Ahura. Who upholds the earth beneath and the firmament from falling? Who the waters and the plants? Who yoked swiftness to winds and clouds? Who is, O Mazda, creator of Good Thought?

This I ask Thee, tell me truly, Ahura. What artist made light and darkness? What artist made sleep and waking? Who made morning, noon, and night, that call the understanding man to his duty?

This I ask Thee, tell me truly, Ahura. Who created together with Dominion the precious Piety? Who made by wisdom the son obedient to his father? I strive to recognize by these things thee, O Mazda, creator of all things through the holy spirit.

And this from Isaiah 42:

This is what God the Lord says—the Creator of the heavens, who stretches them out, who spreads out the earth with all that springs from it, who gives breath to its people, and life to those who walk on it:

with this Achaemenid stock phrase:

Great is the god Ahuramazda, who created the heavens, who created the earth, who created man, who created happiness for man...

Whereas the Abrahamic scriptures don't tell me much about Spirit, the Avesta does.

I would probably go along with something that as the basics has debt relief as an outer program, and raising a healing spirit as an inner program. This however becomes less clear every step of the way as soon as the issue is raised. Many sayings attributed to Jesus are quite similar to those found in Theravada Buddhism. But not everything attributed to Jesus is in the Bible. The Melchizedek text at Qumran is dated to around 100 B. C. E.. A later one from Nag Hammadi is virtually a gnostic Melchizedek-as-Jesus Gospel.

In the case of the New Testament, even were there to be a Marcionite primacy meaning Paul was not actually involved, in turn, his subject would more likely have been Serapis of the Therapeutae. And then we soon find the Serapeum of Alexandria is closed in 325. The acts of Jesus were against the local Pharisees and Saducees (Edomites), but he imported Babylonian politics. At that time the Jews of Babylon were politically virtually identical to the Persian Empire. It is not clear that any prior kingdoms of Judea had a Jubilee. That would be a Babylonian tradition, qua Monotheism compared to Monolatry.

But then I am able to find Spirit employed in the gnostic works, but otherwise it is very hollow, is like a picture of a Dove or a salutory remark tacked on, does not come across as a vividly lived experience. Not from the readings or encounters I have had, or services attended. Instead we get giant institutionalized religions who say each other is going to hell -- such becomes the state of "international affairs".


I would like to be able to find something like personal experiences of meditatively arousing Spirit that has a healing nature, at which point it could be established as a parallel where the Veda and Avesta are identical.

[triquetra]

Posted by shaberon (here)
I would like to be able to find something like personal experiences of meditatively arousing Spirit that has a healing nature, at which point it could be established as a parallel where the Veda and Avesta are identical.

Something like that did come up in the Magdalen Manuscript, so much information was scrubbed historically but you get a very different (and more plausible) account from this channelled information. It did make sense that Jesus was part of a mystery school with origins in Egypt, and it did make sense that he had someone by his side who helped to prepare him for what he would have to endure.

Recently I had been developing a diagram that started after an RV session, and in the last iteration it got to the point where I realized there would be a "spiritually scientific" basis for what the experience of Jesus may have done for humanity - coming from so high up (spiritually) and having the most base physical experience, before departing again, he energetically chiselled a path for the rest of humanity to follow - the Middle Path.

He left the door open for the rest of us to follow that path as well, since it drove a wall between the Upper and Lower Astral planes, meaning that though we would still be threading the needle, with hands grasping at us from either side as we walked along the path, still there would be a way to do it.

It seemed we would have to wait another few thousand years for the Kali Yuga cycle to complete itself before we had the opportunity, and even then, the Luciferic and Ahrimanic forces would be still strong enough that the Middle Path would be very much obscured and not easy to find or follow.

As someone who has had the Nag Hammadi scriptures in my bookshelf for many years, but who hasn't made much of a dent in it yet, I realized recently I very much needed this context to read it and understand it properly. It seemed there was a better understanding of the three-fold nature of the paths back then, and that all got scrubbed and replaced by a two-fold path argument, of simply "good vs evil".

It would seem that that was the way of possibly keeping humanity trapped, but if we were to remember instead that we needed to run the gauntlet and maintain the Middle Path by not being lured to the extremes of either the Left-Hand or Right-Hand path, then no force would be strong enough to keep us trapped after all. We would simultaneously honour our material existence, and also the transition from it to the spiritual plane beyond the astral, all at once (just as other prophets had done).

[shaberon]

Posted by triquetra (here)
As someone who has had the Nag Hammadi scriptures in my bookshelf for many years, but who hasn't made much of a dent in it yet, I realized recently I very much needed this context to read it and understand it properly. It seemed there was a better understanding of the three-fold nature of the paths back then, and that all got scrubbed and replaced by a two-fold path argument, of simply "good vs evil".

Well, there was...Pistis Sophia and related texts, and the Kabala, would be the only "path" in this ethos. I'm not sure they are three-fold. You can progress on it or not.

Which means there isn't one in scripture. What you seem to be referring to is what I surmise as "binary state of grace" which seems to constitute that belief. At the extreme, this perhaps is represented by Constantine converting shortly before death -- I say these magic words, and presto, I have grace, nothing to worry about. But if you are like me, then you are kicked out forever.

It's about the same as someone going around saying "this is right, that is wrong", and if you ask what do you mean "right", you are treated as if insane. Zion would be the premier example of that which is called "right". I don't understand it, but that's how it started.

I would certainly agree that the religious institutions are "replacements" of the lineages of their figureheads. If this is about communion with Spirit, in any language, in any way man could accomplish this, why do I not hear about this part? It seems fantastically absent from the whole world, minus those who are over-excited about it, that I don't trust either. If the tradition is guilty of reducing it to a word and an assumption, a million words and an assumption is not much better. As a person who would claim such communion, yes I think a "middle" form of expression would be most comfortable here. I don't go strolling around pushing an imbalanced obsession. I would be happy to find anybody who would at least say it is more important than dumb stuff. But it's turned off.

[Michel Leclerc]

Posted by shaberon (here)

Posted by Michel Leclerc (here)
Incarnation as divine love as creation as salvation.

(...)

Ecclesia


which is remembered to some extent in Latinized spellings similar to "eglise", but, is actually removed and replaced by "church", which translates "circe" or "circle" and has to do with a building, an institution.

(...)

(Sigh). I had vowed I would no longer intervene when a forum member failed in another attempt at linguistic factuality – considering that my professional remarks are not really "understood" or welcomed – but – and thank you Shaberon for your appreciation of the content of what I wrote – "church", or its other Germanic cognates Dutch kerk, Sottish kirk, German Kirche, Swedish kyrka do not at all originate from "circe" or "circle" but from the Greek kuriakè (κυριακη), meaning "the Lord’s”, “pertaining to the Lord": hè kuriakè ekklèsia meaning “the Lord’s congregation” – which last word, ekklèsia (at least if we believe in the value of linguistic (and not fantastic) etymology) literally means "the called forth (entity)", the group called (klè) out of (ek).. wherever they were enclosed in, locked up in. The Lord calling his disciples forth out of the societal corral they were penned up in before he called them.

[Strat]

Posted by Michel Leclerc (here)
(Sigh). I had vowed I would no longer intervene when a forum member failed in another attempt at linguistic factuality – considering that my professional remarks are not really "understood" or welcomed

I love it! I find it fascinating. Pure raw data is my thing (which often makes me an outcast! ).

It's interesting to learn the origin of that word, iglesia is Spanish for church. Very interesting, learn something every day.