Bro. Hex

Another book recommendation: The Secret Revelation of John [Hardcover] Karen L. King (Author) http://www.amazon.co...g/dp/0674019032 Publication Date: February 28, 2006 Lost in antiquity, rediscovered in 1896, and only recently accessible for study, The Secret Revelation of John offers a firsthand look into the diversity of Christianity before the establishment of canon and creed. Karen L. King offers an illuminating reading of this ancient text--a narrative of the creation of the universe and humanity and a guide to justice and salvation, said to be Christ's revelation to his disciple John. Freeing the Revelation from the category of "Gnosticism" to which such accounts were relegated, King shows how the Biblical text could be read by early Christians in radical and revisionary ways. By placing the Revelation in its social and intellectual milieu, she revises our understanding of early Christianity and, more generally, religious thought in the ancient Mediterranean world. Her work helps the modern reader through many intriguing--but confusing--ideas in the text: for example, that the creator god of Genesis, a self-described jealous and exclusive god, is not the true Deity but a kind of fallen angel; or, in an overt critique of patriarchy unique in ancient literature, the declaration that the subordination of woman to man was an ignorant act in direct violation of the "holy height." In King's analysis, the Revelation becomes not strange but a comprehensible religious vision--and a window on the religious culture of the Roman Empire. A translation of the complete Secret RevelationMore book recommendations later.

That is hilarious! Somewhat akin to people actually celebrating Festivus as a holiday. as a side-effect of a Jerry Seinfeld Show episode about "an alternative to Christmas". BTW, I am glad that you mentioned"other emanations of the deities that were themselves divine" (as well as Blake and Swedenborg!). There were many powerful entities, that seem to me to be quasi-divine, that are referred to only as "The Aeons", and still others, which are clearly NOT divine (but still powerful) who are referred to as "the Archons", and whose role is similar to that of "lesser devils". These entities "proceed from" the Demiurge (the deformed and ignorant creator of "matter", and the physical universe). Now, as for Blake and Swedenborg, they are both spiritually inclined writers that appear to me (also) to have been influenced by the suppressed early Christian scriptures as well as Hermetic and Platonic works. They are clearly "in the same spiritual ballpark" with the unknown authors of many of these works.

Found it! Here it is: "Then the female spiritual principle came in the snake, the instructor; and it taught them, saying, "What did he say to you? Was it, 'From every tree in the garden shall you eat; yet - from the tree of recognizing good and evil do not eat'?" The carnal woman said, "Not only did he say 'Do not eat', but even 'Do not touch it; for the day you eat from it, with death you are going to die.'" And the snake, the instructor, said, "With death you shall not die; for it was out of jealousy that he said this to you. Rather your eyes shall open and you shall come to be like gods, recognizing evil and good." And the female instructing principle was taken away from the snake, and she left it behind, merely a thing of the earth." Source: Hypostasis of the Archons (P/O the Nag Hammadi Library) http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/hypostas.html

I am taking things in reverse order, Rattler, old boy, The book that I would recommend is not so much a book on the theory or history of emanation christology, but a modern-day devotional for use by the "solitary practitioner" (someone who is working on-his-own). There are lots of modern-day quacks out there who will try to sell you hogwash, and tack the word "gnostic" (or even worse, "gnosticism") onto their selection of snake oils. Jeremy Puma is NOT one of those jerks. He is a careful student of ancient scriptures , in particular the scriptures known as the Nag Hammadi Library, and has done a thoughtful job of reinterpreting ancient Gnostic Christian scriptures, in a way to enhance their relevance in the 21st century . There is NO WAY to recapture the understanding of these scriptures that obtained in the 3rd and 4th centuries C.E. ,but that does not mean that they have nothing left to reveal to the modern eye. Now, the book: http://www.amazon.co.../dp/1470025167/ I agree with you, Rattler, that there are two separate and conflicting accounts of creation in Genesis. each of which is traceable to even older, but separate and distinct cultural traditions. And your question, "Can God lie?" is very apt, as it is just the sort of question that led the original Sethians (they called themselves "the children of Seth", a linage of descent from Adam that did not run through Cain) to doubt the account contained within Genesis, and to retell that story from an alternative POV. I am looking for a reference to that account, because I think that many here will find it "interesting" (if nothing else). I hope to post it here soon. It is an ancient version of the Genesis creation story "according to the snake"

This thread originated elsewhere (in "Lies, Truths And Knowledge" in Philosophical Talk) when Jon asked the following question: Jonathan H. B. Lobl, on 28 April 2012 - 06:45 PM, said: "Emanationist?" What an interesting word. Is it standard? This is my first encounter with it. I know that's not your point. I got distracted. No problem, Jon. I am glad you asked. Not all Christians "believe" in the story of creation as it is told in Genesis. Among the earliest Christian variants that challenged the Genesis account were the Sethians. Many religious scholars today consider the Sethians to have been "the original Gnostics" (The Valentinians, who were also Emanationists, came a bit later). The predominant Gnostic view of "the spiritual universe"... the pantheon of divine beings ...(you can encounter this world-view in an ancient text called "the Pistis Sophia", if you are interested in a bit of research), features a Godhead (the Supreme Divine Being) sometimes referred to as "the Father", from whom other divine beings "emanate" ("pour forth" in a manner somewhat analogous to "radiation"). The First among these Divine Emanations is Barbelo (sometimes called THE Barbelo,) who, being the First Emanation of the Father, is second only to the Father in Her power and majesty. The second emanation is called "the Christ" (in case you haven't notices, you have just read the origin-story for what would eventually become "trinitarian" theology). Thereafter follows numerous other divine beings, the last of which, and therefore the youngest, was "the divine Sophia" (the "Wisdom of God"). The entire pantheon of these Divine Beings is often referred to as "The All" and/or "the Fullness". Skipping over many important but complicated details, we come to the "material universe" that you and I occupy. According to Emanationist (Gnostic) Christianity, the material world WAS created, but it was created "in error", and it was created by a deformed and lesser being who had "stolen" certain powers from the youngest of the Gods (Sophia). This "lesser being", usually identified as Yaldabaoth, was the offspring of Sophia, a being that she generated without the complicity of her Divine Consort (the Christ). In human biological terms we would say that Yaldabaoth had "only one parent"... a biological impossibility for humans (at least, so far).. Yaldabaoth, who was generated without the permission of the more senior Gods, and without the complicity of Sophia's Consort, (and who is frequently referred to as "an abortion") used the stolen Power, which he did not understand (something like the Sorcerer's Apprentice) to create the material world (including ..."us"). But the Divine Beings (the Father, The Barbelo and The Christ) want nothing to do with material reality, the defective creation of a deformed and mentally deficient "creator". And that defective, deficient creator is "to blame" for all that is wrong with this broken and imperfect world... NOT "Original Sin".

I think, Brother Thorn, that both Fawzo and I drew the same (wrong) conclusion. After learning that you "made a clock", when we next learned that you created a (very intriguing) "pendulum"..... we both mistakenly concluded that this pendulum was "part of a clock". Feathers on "clock pendulum" would pose an accuracy problem... theoretically. But now I (we?) understand that this particular "pendulum" has more in common with a Ouija Board or a Divining Rod than it has with with a clock!

I think that you are "right on the mark" with this, Jonathan, and not being able to "say exactly what they are" is the same way that I would refer to "God" (or "the gods", if you prefer). I do not doubt the reality, but am not able to qualify it.

I like this, Peter, very much my own thinking on this subject.

Stormy, are there any Episcopal churches nearby? They are very "catholic" in their practices, and an Episcopal priest would definitely be able to anoint with oil. There used to be quite a few Episcopal churches in VA.

Daddy never sleeps at night, right ?? ;>)

I found it! For anyone else wanting to do this, it's simple: You have to click on your own name in the upper right-hand corner (to the left of "sign-out") Then just click on "Manage Ignore Prefs" and then specify whose posts you don't want to even see! Thanks Mark!

LOL!!

Where is it, please?

It really is a "waste of my breath" responding to you. You don't answer my questions, and you deliberately do your damnedest to misrepresent my words. Life is too short for such game-playing. I simply cannot take your posts as an honest attempt at understanding the thoughts of another. So I see no reason to continue to treat your posts as being worthy of consideration or reply. I see them as only barely disguised attempts at ridicule and essentially dishonest. You really ought to find a better use of your time...imho..

Any realization that takes centuries to come to fruition is not normally described as "sudden", but if you really "like that word", then by all means...use it to your heart's content. Nobody asked YOU to acknowledge anything. You sure do like putting words into the mouths of others. Nobody said that either. The "darkness within" is only one part of the human story. If there is any "self loathing" going on around here, you must be doing it, because I am not. However, I will agree that there is a "pile of malarky" nearby...the malarky that you are proffering. It you choose to describe "acknowledging that there is a dark side to human nature" as "astronomical negativity",I am inclined to see you as someone who engages in "astronomical exaggeration".. It's not even religious! It is a matter of philosophy. to what "problem"??? What does government have to do with anything in this thread????? Wherever "I am going", it is apparent that "you aren't following me"....in every sense of that phrase.

Only the upright organ... ;>)

No..I don't think so either. Not at all. There was no "all of a sudden" to it. The only thing "that changed" in the last century or so is that "we" (as a species) have become aware of the darkness within... That darkness has always been there. And for a very long time we were able to (more-or-less) "deal with" that darkness by projecting it onto someone else. "As a species", we (many of us, anyway ) have become aware of the darkness within But perhaps you are "not there yet".

The guy does sorta' LOOK dead!

I really LIKE IT!!

I have a slightly different perspective on this observation: If one is in search of "facts", by all means, turn to science. I consider it foolish to ask theology for "facts" or to ask science to distinguish good poetry from bad. But theology (GOOD theology, that is,) provides Man with truth-laden metaphors for questions of the human heart and mind that lie beyond the realm of mere fact.

This is "just a suggestion", Sam. I think you (and your book) would benefit from doing some serious thinking about what your "beliefs" are, as separate from your "faith".

You misunderstand me. The foundation of my religious practice (which is different from my Faith) rests upon the "teachings of Jesus" as I have come to understand them... NOT upon the person of Jesus... not upon Jesus himself. The foundation of my Faith is my relationship with God..... something that I am unable to put into words.

Hermes Trismagistus was undoubtedly "fictional". That doesn't in any way detract from the power and truths found in Hermetic teachings. A truth is a truth, no matter who speaks it.

I am tempted to just give my "short answer"... "I believe nothing", and let it go at that. But that would be misleading, because I do believe quite a few things...tentatively. For example, I believe that milk is good for me, and cigarettes are bad. I believe a good night's sleep will prepare me for a busy day. I believe that the sun will rise tomorrow. There are many things of this type that, based upon scientific evidence or personal experience, or folk wisdom, I believe...sort of. These beliefs are not "cast in stone"... they are subject to revision, or outright rejection, if and when new information comes along. But that sort of thing really doesn't often apply to "religious belief". There isn't often "new information" brought to light that could have bearing upon a religious belief... because religious beliefs have little relation to "facts". And it is in the arena of religious belief that my original response (my short answer) of "I believe nothing" comes into play. I used to believe "lots of things" of a religious nature... things that many Christians today believe. I have come to a point in my life where I no longer feel the need... or desire... to believe. I have come to a point where Faith has supplanted Belief. It no longer matters to me whether Jesus was born of a virgin or whether he rose from the dead. It no longer matters to me whether Jesus actually ever lived. I still find the positive injunctions, attributed to Jesus, as to "how we should live" to be "helpful". My Faith is now rooted in Faith in Providence, and the beliefs most commonly associated with "typical Christianity"... beliefs that were part of my growing-up, I now understand "metaphorically".

Mark, I understand why this must be hard for you... even after years have passed. I am so sorry that you were treated so cruelly. You did not deserve that. Your mother was a very unhappy person. It is apparent that she wanted to make others unhappy, if she could. None of this was your fault. "The way we die" tells the world who we really are/were... it is not a reflection upon others. Your mother's death... the way she chose to die... was certainly no reflection on you. Just "let go of her", if you can. You are a good person. Try not to dwell in unhappy memories. your friend, Hex