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

[1 flew over]

1 flew over, I personally don't feel those gnostic texts add anything to our understanding of the historical Jesus. And just as an aside, the Canon was set by earlier, smaller African councils (Niceae only confirmed the ruling of those councils.) Either way, my point is that if we are weighing historical value, the NT literature blows the gnostic writings out of the water.

Apteka

I’ll start with a direct question: Have you read the rest of this thread and perhaps watched the video links to get an idea as to what this thread has already covered?

There has never been any credible link that I have ever seen that verifies that any of the “approved” main writings were written before the Gospels of Thomas, Mary Magdalene, Judas or Peter other than by different religious sects following the RC Church that had the Canon selectively compiled. Biblical scholars and theologians often have widely different viewpoints from the churches but they are not vested as much in the outcome of specific teachings. As I mentioned these folk were Apostles who lived and traveled with Yesua just like the ones who were chosen at the Council of Nicea. It is just that there viewpoints didn't fit as to what was being used to shape things to Constantine’s purposes. The RC Church wanted to emphasize gospels from people who feared and followed a man who they said was God. They excluded and attempted to burn all copies of Gospels that were written by people who understood, admired and loved an enlightened man that said that he was a son of God as they were sons and daughters of God and they were capable of things greater than he.

In my oh so humble opinion, if you exclude the Gospels of the other Apostles you are favoring the traditional church teachings but significantly cutting yourself off from some beautiful teachings of those who were with him and truly loved and understood him.

I understand the direction of the teachings of the Christian Bible. I used to be a Christian, my entire family still is. I follow and pursue what I believe is what Yesua was about, not the teachings of The Church. I have no consideration that my God will make me burn in hell for all of eternity because of it either. I follow a fair and loving God. Your mileage may vary.

May your God be with You
1 Flew Over

[Apteka]

Posted by 1 flew over (here)
Apteka

I’ll start with a direct question: Have you read the rest of this thread and perhaps watched the video links to get an idea as to what this thread has already covered?

1 flew over,

In the interest of time I have not been able to read this entire thread. If there is a particular post of interest I'll certainly consider reading it. And let me just add that you and I are two independent human beings seeking truth. I respect where you're coming from despite disagreeing with you. I'm not particularly religious although I do come from a Papist background, and although there is deserved criticism of the Church there is a lot that is undeserved as well. My philosophy is to be honest and truthful, even towards people (or institutions) one may dislike So anyway my friend, let us engage in this discussion.

There has never been any credible link that I have ever seen that verifies that any of the “approved” main writings were written before the Gospels of Thomas, Mary Magdalene, Judas or Peter other than by different religious sects following the RC Church that had the Canon selectively compiled.

So you believe that the Gnostic writings were written as early, or perhaps earlier than the NT documents? That certainly does fly against scholarship which regards the NT literature as the *earliest* documents that we have. Most Gnostic writings are usually dated from mid 2nd century (earliest) to about 4th century, perhaps the Gospel of Thomas being the one exception. The basis for these dates is pretty complex, usually involving an analysis of the writing style, theology (a more developed theology is signs of later authorship), and other factors.

With regards to the Canon, it's unfortunate the boogeyman RC Church gets all the credit because it was not the sole arbiter in this matter. There existed some sense of what constituted the authoritative books long before any formal decision was set. Looking to the West, we see Hipolytus (170AD) accepting all four Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) as scripture, and also acknowledged the thirteen Pauline epistles, Acts, first epistle of Peter, first and second epistles of John, and Revelation as authentic. Ireneus (180AD) also provides a general list of what at least in his time was *established* as authentic, basically the current Canon with the four Gospels and epistles, but did not include Philemon, the second letter of Peter, the third letter of John, or Jude. Now if we move to the East (heavy emphasis: *outside* of *Roman* Church jurisdiction) we see a similar witness. Tatian's Diatessaron (~156AD) recognized the same four gospels as being the only authentic ones. Clement of Alexandria (180AD) quotes all books of the current Canon (and again, this includes the four Gospels) as authentic except Philemon, the epistle of James, second letter of Peter, and second and third letter of John.

So we see that very early on, there already was some sense of what constituted as authoritative. The definitive status of the canon was still open, but the important point is that the four gospels we have, and not the numerous gnostic gospels, were the sole four recognized as authentic. And again, if we accept contemporary scholarship's dating of these Gnostic works, the general consensus of the four Gospels was reached well before many of these Gnostic writings even came to being!

Biblical scholars and theologians often have widely different viewpoints from the churches but they are not vested as much in the outcome of specific teachings. As I mentioned these folk were Apostles who lived and traveled with Yesua just like the ones who were chosen at the Council of Nicea.

*Who* are these Apostolic folk you speak of? You seem to speak with great certainty that you know you have their writings as well, very interesting considering that would be a remarkable find!!

It is just that there viewpoints didn't fit as to what was being used to shape things to Constantine’s purposes. The RC Church wanted to emphasize gospels from people who feared and followed a man who they said was God. They excluded and attempted to burn all copies of Gospels that were written by people who understood, admired and loved an enlightened man that said that he was a son of God as they were sons and daughters of God and they were capable of things greater than he.

Again, I see all credit is given to the RC Church but it really was a minor player in all of this. As mentioned above, there already was a consensus on what Gospels were regarded as authentic and most of the other books regarded as canonical. It's not like Constantine sat down one day with the Pope and said, "Ok! Let's remake this new religion of Christ!" In fact, I challenge you to bring anything you feel was an innovation, and I am willing to bet I can find a precedence for it in early Christian writing. The more you read of these early writings the more you begin to see that the Council of Nicaea was not born in a vacuum, but instead was the product of a harmonious development leading to decisions that were the logical conclusion of beliefs already well established.

In my oh so humble opinion, if you exclude the Gospels of the other Apostles you are favoring the traditional church teachings but significantly cutting yourself off from some beautiful teachings of those who were with him and truly loved and understood him.

First, I don't see any evidence to suggest that these "Gospels" are of Apostolic origin. Instead, I see them as the products of later authors writing under the guise of Apostles. And just as an aside, have you ever paid attention to the names attributed to these Gnostic gospels? Interestingly enough one of the arguments for the authorship of the Canonical gospels is that these were rather obscure figures. If one is inventing a gospel, why put it under low line figures like Mark or Luke? Wouldn't it would sound more authoritative if we put them under the head apostle Peter?! Or a great apostle like Thomas! Or even the most renowned female believer, Mary! So just because an acclaimed gospel may have Thomas' name attached to it, we have be weary that it may not have been authored by him.

As for aesthetic, I personally don't find the Archons and Aeons, or a Demiurge particularly pleasing To me these are concepts outside of Judaism and Jesus was thoroughly Jewish, so even if one find them interesting they are outside of what the historical Jesus taught.

I understand the direction of the teachings of the Christian Bible. I used to be a Christian, my entire family still is. I follow and pursue what I believe is what Yesua was about, not the teachings of The Church. I have no consideration that my God will make me burn in hell for all of eternity because of it either. I follow a fair and loving God. Your mileage may vary.

We are two seekers of truth my friend, there are bound to be disagreements, but we can at least agree upon our sincerity and assist each other along the way.

May your God be with You
1 Flew Over

And may your God be with you

[1 flew over]

We are two seekers of truth my friend, there are bound to be disagreements, but we can at least agree upon our sincerity and assist each other along the way.

Aptica
I would like to start out by saying it is good to meet you. I always enjoy meeting people who have an informed opinion and are willing to discuss their differences. I’ll warn you right now that I think in story form, it allows my mind to gel things I have studied into a workable concept for me.

As you know the Gnostics were a philosophical group based on knowledge, philanthropy and “clean living” to help attain ascending or enlightenment. They believe that anyone can attain ascension, enlightenment or communion with God from their own study and work and do not need to be lead or driven there by priests, rabbis, ministers, monks etc. They are therefore considered heretical and dangerous by early traditionalists. They predate and postdate Yesua. Their main focus was on attainment of knowledge. They may or may not have been “Christians” but simply wanted to save the writings from being destroyed as was ordered. Hummm, someone says that these must be destroyed there must be a reason; I’ll hide them to protect them for the future. Bless them.

Given the works of Tom, Mary, Joshua and Philip(sounds like a sixties folk song group) all profess that man can advance and free himself without guidance and or approval from the priests it takes them out of the traditionalists structure, it does not surprise me at all that their writings would not be included it Orthodox works. Just the same as the works of Hugh Hefner would not be included in the New Fundamental American Bible not because what he published is not true but because it is not accepted.

How many different NT Bibles are there? A second century Gnostic named Marcion produced one but has been stamped out. Then there was the Muratorian Canon. Probably the first sanctioned Bible was from Irenaeus of Lyon around mid 2nd century. Then early 4th century was Eusebius who listed most of what is accepted by the Orthodox/Catholic churches and is probably considered the first Christian Bible. Later in the century came the Synod and it was chiseled in stone and in early 5th century it was burned into titanium. In the tenth century the Greek Orthodox came up with their own version of the Bible. I don’t know about the Russian Orthodox Bible. The Syrian version only has 22 books in theirs. The Ethiopian and the Copts have 29 or 30 in their Bible.
Now we can start into the protestant era. Luther judged the gospels by their content. He found a number of books difficult to reconcile with what he understood of the Gospel--specifically, II Maccabees, Esther, James, Hebrews, and Revelation. As the Cambridge History of the Bible puts it, "The test was whether a book proclaimed Christ. 'That which does not preach Christ is not apostolic, though it be the work of Peter or Paul; and conversely, that which does teach Christ is apostolic even though it be written by Judas, Annas, Pilate, or Herod.'" Thus the differences between the Protestant and Catholic/Orthodox bibles.
The Puritans and the Presbyterians rejected the Apocrypha for their Bibles. The Anglicans accept it but the Westminster Confession rejects it so most American Protestants consider the Apocrypha as part of the Catholic Bible.
Then there is the Bible of the Mormons who have even more texts in their Bible and keep it open for more.

My overall point is that there is no one NT Bible so it is tough to say that since writings that are counter to the direction that it was being lead do not appear in something does not reduce their value or authenticity.

The Apostles were the followers of Yesua and were probably illiterate. More than likely so was Yesua. The Gospels were almost certainly written by scribes other than the Apostles and even the earliest estimates give the Gospel of Mark to be written around AD 70. No one knows who wrote the Gospels but it is almost certain that none of them were written by the Apostles themselves. That goes for the Gospels of Thomas, Judas, Mary M. and Philip. The writings of Peter were almost certainly not written by Peter but someone else. There is strong opinion that at least 6 of the 13 letters said to be written by Paul were not written by him but were added at a later date by someone else. The form and patter are different. The works by 1 Timothy were said to be written by Paul but they have been found to have been written after Paul died. Nice trick Paul.
As I stated earlier probably none or very little of the doctrines were written by the one that they are named after. It is by their content that anyone follows or does not follow anything or at least it should be. Since their discovery and translation, more and more people are starting to read and accept the Gospels of the Apostles Thomas, Mary M, Jonas and Philip as true Gospel in spite of attempts to destroy their existence.

One more then I need to get to bed. I personally believe that Yesua was enlightened and had lost the duality that most of us carry. I think that both Thomas and Mary and perhaps Judas understood him much better than the rest of the Disciples. When I studied especially the Gospel of Thomas while being helped to hold a single viewpoint many of his writings became simply brilliant. Yesua was way advanced and ahead of his time and Thomas understood him and most of the rest did not to that level. His writings confused and frightened the Orthodox leaders. Mary represented something that frightened the Orthodox to their bones that Jesus may have been human and have human emotions but that is for another outpouring.

I have not studied Archons and Aeons, or a Demiurge at all so I have no opinion as to what, when or why. I am not a real big fan of the Old Testament. That God is a very angry egotistical and vengeful a**hole as far as I am concerned. Factually I am not a big fan of the new testament either but at least it doesn’t read like a b-grade war movie. As I mentioned I do not consider myself a Christian even though the last 7 day workshop I did was called Meta Christ Consciousness. It had more to do with what may have been his knowledge rather than his history.

Have a great weekend. I’ll be out of town with friends for the next few days so I’ll be back in touch.

Be Well my Friend Hope I didn't bore you with my rambling.
1 Flew Over

[1 flew over]

Enough of these boring academic pontifications. Lets get on to some really important stuff like old scotch, fast motorcycles and intelligent women.
1 Flew Over

[Jeffrey]

If you're interested, visit the link below for a more user friendly index of the material (easier to navigate).

http://www.sacred-texts.com/gno/gar/index.htm

[Kalamos]

..........

[Kalamos]

..........

[1 flew over]

When it comes to Christianity, it's really quite simple. The Bible is the WORD, and no matter who or what wrote and edited it, it IS what it IS as it IS, and there is much 'figurative', esoteric meaning and instruction to be had of it, for those who look DEEP into things.

Calamus

I absolutely agree that someone should be allowed to study and believe in anything that they want. Please remember that people followed Charles Manson, Jimmy Jones, and countless others that were sure that they were disciples of the Divine. (disclaimer here: I am not trying to say that Yesua was like them, OK?) Just trying to make a general point.

My personal pattern, habit, tendency, all right, compulsion is to study everything I can reasonably find about something that I have interest in, just ask my wife about that one. After turning from religion many years ago I have found myself recently deeply involved in spirituality and working on furthering my understanding of the Divine. I think that religion and spirituality are widely separated from each other. One area is oriented to growth as a spiritual entity the other area is not. IMO
I no longer even consider that the Bible is only the unconditional word of God unless he/she just cant make up his/her mind about some things.

As in my post above where I pointed out that there are dozens of bibles and even in the KJV the main folk disagree on what they say happened or what was said. The orthodox groups say that only 4 main works will be in the Bible and all those others including some from other Apostles will be stricken from the Canon and destroyed. Guess what, that is the first place that I am going to look and it has opened up a huge understanding about the man that they say that they are following. The orthodox churches forbade anything that says that there are any other ways to their version of salvation except through Yesua. The writings that are considered Gnostic say that that even Yesua said that there are other ways to experience and join with the divine and these writings were done by some who lived with Yesua. Do I take any of it as ultimate truth? Hell no, there is probably none of any of it that is currently available that was written by the actual person that lived and walked with Yesua. I personally think Gospel of Thomas was probably the closest to what Yesua was saying. The orthodox don’t like it but I don’t really care. I never was very good at following others just because I was told to, you can ask my wife about that one also.

I am pursuing what through the heart and not the mind feels like basic truths and something I want to pay attention to and possibly follow. I really don’t care about who said it and when. As I said I don’t claim to be a Christian, there are just way too many tentacles attached to the term. When I get the time I will probably read the Gospels of Thomas, Mary M, Judas and Phillip then will turn my attention to other great leaders that have walked the planet and move on in my spiritual pursuit.
Your mileage may vary.

Be Well
1 Flew Over

[Kalamos]

..........

[S-L]

Reading a chapter from Greater Community Spirituality, which I guess could be considered my "bible" of sorts, I was touched about the life of Jesus. I am not Christian, but I took to his life for inspiration. Who was Jesus? What did he contribute? How did he change the world? This short excerpt talks a bit about this. I was drawn to share it with you all - a gift.

-
Who Is Jesus?

Jesus represents a major figure in the evolution of the world, an initiator - one of the principle initiators of a great period that is now coming to a close in the world. Let us talk about Jesus within the context of the evolution of the world, for this will give you a greater understanding of his role and of the great results that have been demonstrated by his life and by the translation of Knowledge(Spirit) that he helped generate.

Jesus was sent into the world by his spiritual family to be one of the individuals who would inaugurate a new era in human development and evolution. We call this the era of civilization. The purpose of this era was to slowly take humanity from its tribal identity and tribal isolation towards an international and interracial involvement. This international and interracial involvement has been cataclysmic and very difficult, but it has led to humanity's becoming established in the world - not only in its tribal states, but in its larger states representing many races and cultures, ideas and beliefs.

Christianity and all the other major religions have fostered a bridge between cultures and between races. These are not simply religions of one tribe or of one group. They are religions for all of humanity. This is not to say that everyone can adhere to them, follow them or receive them, but they bridge the normal boundaries that seem to separate people and cast them apart. The religion of forgiveness, the religion of reunion with the Divine, the religion of human development, the religion of compassion - all of these tremendous movements in the evolution of religion in the world were fostered by the establishment of the world's religions, which have brought the world to its present state.

Perhaps you might think that the world is in a terrible state now and that not much has been done to bring humanity to a greater union. However, if you could understand how life was in your world twenty-five hundred years ago, you would see how very far you have come. You would see how much your races have intermingled and how much they have found a new basis and foundation for sharing their ideas and their deeper yearnings and inclinations.

As we have said repeatedly, religion must serve the world in its current state of evolution. The world's major religions have all evolved the race towards a greater interaction between different peoples. This is especially true of Christianity, which has been your globe and now connects people who may otherwise have no association with one another. Now they have a common faith. Now they have common rituals and common observances. This is a remarkable accomplishment in a world that is still deeply mired in tribal identities.

The teaching of compassion, forgiveness, and devotion and the example of Jesus all serve to unite people across these great and difficult gaps of separation. Jesus' accomplishment, then, was to help usher in the age of civilization. Civilization in this age is distinct from earlier civilizations which were primarily tribal civilizations. In your current age, civilizations involve not only one tribe and one language, one group or one family, but bridge far beyond these boundaries. And though humanity has quarreled and struggled with itself through all of these transitions and developments, a greater foundation nonetheless has been established for human experience beyond tribal custom and identity.

At the time that Christianity was introduced, it was revolutionary. Its emphasis was to spread its message amongst nations and amongst different peoples. It was not only meant for one group or one locale. It was not only meant for one tribe or one nation. Its emphasis was to bridge the gap between different cultures and different nations, to bond people together through a higher association in life and to create a greater foundation for recognition, communication and cooperation. Humanity has been struggling with this challenge ever since, but much progress has been made.

Jesus set into motion a direct relationship with the Divine through the intermediary of the Holy Spirit, which in Greater Community understanding would be defined as Knowledge itself. This relationship emphasized the divine reality within each person and the possibility for personal revelation and spiritual development. Humanity has been struggling with this ever since, yet it is a remarkable achievement that Christianity is present in the world and that it is accepted by millions of people in different countries, from different cultures and backgrounds. This is a religion for international civilization, as is true of many of the other religious movements that were initiated in the world and that have advanced into a more modern age.

To understand Jesus's contribution, we must look back and see what has occurred. Wisdom indeed can be gained in hindsight here. Life before Jesus and life after Jesus are different. There has been a remarkable change. This change took centuries to take full effect, but it did take full effect. In many instances, the spread of Christianity was destructive and immoral. However, it was following an evolutionary track. It had to happen. Just as the world is now preparing to emerge into the Greater Community, nations in centuries past were destined to interact with each other, to confront each other, to dominate each other and to spread their cultures around the world. This has happened to a very large degree.

Now we have world religions rather than simply tribal religions. Given the evolutionary process of cultural and social development in the world, and given the progress and evolution of religious and spiritual understanding, you can see that this has been a great step forward. Religion must always keep pace with the evolution of the race which it is intended to serve. Its ability to do this or its inability to do this will determine how beneficial it will be and how great a service it will render.

[Bright Garlick]

Jane Robert's Seth had a very interesting and unique perspective on Jesus and the Christ entity, as did the 2800 year old man of Ben Abba's Secret's of an Immortal. Both sources worth exploring.

[CD7]

I have a question regarding Jesus's sacrifice...


It comes up from time to time and im wondering if this has ever crossed anyone's mind...speaking of crosses!

Jesus died for all of us and this was supposed to be a major sacrifice. I know its been stated that God gave his son for the sacrifice, but I am to understand we are all gods children? Yes

So to me when I think of a "sacrifice" being put to death, to me, doesn't sound like much of a sacrifice but more of a reward. ONE death to save the world?---How many of you would do that?---if I was told only I would have to die to effect the world in a positive way, it almost seems to easy! I want to leave this place anyway so to me that would be like a bonus---I am being serious here

Because as I contemplate this, I wonder if/what the sacrifice may have been in addition to what we have been told or if its just lies anyway?

If I were told I need to come back here--THAT TO ME IS A SACRIFICE and perhaps that is part of it too. Also living a long life of suffrage would be more of a price to me. It just seems the only focus is tht he was killed on a cross and this was the major sacrifice? I mean how many of us are sacrificed-judged and punished for JUST GOING AGAINST OPPRESSION? Killed, slaughtered? WE ARE sacrificed all the time all over the globe.

[Kalamos]

..........

[dpwishy]

Posted by CD7 (here)
I have a question regarding Jesus's sacrifice...


It comes up from time to time and im wondering if this has ever crossed anyone's mind...speaking of crosses!

Jesus died for all of us and this was supposed to be a major sacrifice. I know its been stated that God gave his son for the sacrifice, but I am to understand we are all gods children? Yes

So to me when I think of a "sacrifice" being put to death, to me, doesn't sound like much of a sacrifice but more of a reward. ONE death to save the world?---How many of you would do that?---if I was told only I would have to die to effect the world in a positive way, it almost seems to easy! I want to leave this place anyway so to me that would be like a bonus---I am being serious here

Because as I contemplate this, I wonder if/what the sacrifice may have been in addition to what we have been told or if its just lies anyway?

If I were told I need to come back here--THAT TO ME IS A SACRIFICE and perhaps that is part of it too. Also living a long life of suffrage would be more of a price to me. It just seems the only focus is tht he was killed on a cross and this was the major sacrifice? I mean how many of us are sacrificed-judged and punished for JUST GOING AGAINST OPPRESSION? Killed, slaughtered? WE ARE sacrificed all the time all over the globe.

If you read the Edgar Cayce material he claims that Jesus and Adam were the same Christ soul. That the life of Jesus, his mission and dying on the cross, was a clearing of his karmic debt by atoning the sins of Adam during the fall.

In divine friendship,
your brother,
-wishy

[CD7]

Thanks Calamus and Wishy...

The answer I got was that CHRIST took on the sins of the ['all mankind'].

Im just kicking around ideas...not saying anyone right or wrong..
but just trying to met out the logic of it all...because to me when I really think about whats been said, it doesn't make logical sense. If Jesus took on the sins of all mankind...why are we still suffering so much? If true, I suppose one could say well you have no idea how it was supposed to be in our world before he did this act?

If you read the Edgar Cayce material he claims that Jesus and Adam were the same Christ soul. That the life of Jesus, his mission and dying on the cross, was a clearing of his karmic debt by atoning the sins of Adam during the fall.

I have not heard this before...Adam being Christ also. If you take this statement of wht Edgar says...so he cleared his karmic debt for a fall in a previous life? In addition to ours?


I will say if such an event took place, it is true that no one really knows wht it was like 2000 + years ago...I mean in depth

It is a curious thing...but if Jesus did something to help us out and make our lives better....I SHUTTER to think what it would have been like if such a act was not done. Because we all pretty much live in hell now. All his teachings are not really the WAY OF THE WORLD at all. These kind of holes is what makes me feel SO MUCH is missing--left out and twisted

[dpwishy]

Posted by CD7 (here)
Thanks Calamus and Wishy...

It is a curious thing...but if Jesus did something to help us out and make our lives better....I SHUTTER to think what it would have been like if such a act was not done. Because we all pretty much live in hell now. All his teachings are not really the WAY OF THE WORLD at all. These kind of holes is what makes me feel SO MUCH is missing--left out and twisted

I think one of the greatest teachings that Christ taught was to reject the material and strive for the spiritual. Both exist at the same time. If you can only see the material, then yes, you will be in the hell that you describe. But there also exists "eden" sort to speak, it exists at the same time, superimposed. Christ asked for you to live there, not the material. For you will find "heaven" and not hell. The choice on what you see and where you "live" is up to you. My advice is to take your eyes off of hell and focus them where it matters

Blessing and light

In divine friendship,
your brother,
-wishy

[eric1]

Nice post, Bill. I like someone who ponders the deeper issues. As per the whole Jesus story, I found some highly credible channeled material some years back. It explains many of the issues you raise. I didn't read through all the replies so if someone already brought out this material, my apologies.

http://home.iae.nl/users/lightnet/creator/jesusmyth.htm

[CD7]

My advice is to take your eyes off of hell and focus them where it matters

Yes I understand wht your saying....when I say things like that im mainly referring to the whole world----everything is combined in my mind/heart. Its very trippy. So I rarely refer to my single little life when speaking--its about the whole
I know how to get to heaven from within--- When you have so many suffering NEEDLESSLY that is hell for me....however I NEVER lose sight of the HEAVEN we all can exist in.
If someone is ecstatic and gloriously happy...wealthy and living in their own 'heaven' IT really isn't heaven when the rest of your parts are living in the mud--then its an illusion.

[dpwishy]

Posted by CD7 (here)
If someone is ecstatic and gloriously happy...wealthy and living in their own 'heaven' IT really isn't heaven when the rest of your parts are living in the mud--then its an illusion.

You are right, it is an illusion. But the ones that are lost in the illusion are the ones living in the mud.....

In divine friendship,
your brother,
-wishy

[Kalamos]

..........