Dr. Levine, I am curious as to what you might think concerning NT concepts of god in relationship to the implications of the belief in resurrection. Jesus is quoted in Mark specifically in reference to abraham, isaac and jacob as saying that god is not the god of the dead but the god of the living. My question is do you think this relates to the notion that the words and acts of the "righteous" never die but live on inside others and if possibly so, how might this relate to the ancient concept of the "logos?"

Specifically reference: Mark 12:24-27

Sidebar: Jesus' view of resurrection seems starkly different to me as expressed in Mark compared to other places in the new testament, please comment.

HERE we have an esoteric question regarding "concepts of god" vis a vis "implications of the belief in resurrection".... by way of the pagan mystery religions' precept of "logos" or The Word.


I really don't think there is anything other than a convoluted esoteric "answer" to this stew of sophistry. SO let me address a more fundamental issue... not of the utter lack of historicity of a god-man jesus of the patchwork NT, but an analysis of the sheer fictional nation... the progressive literary embellishments of the NT accounts of the resurrection itself.

PWEHAPS most damning to literalists christians who maintain that jesus was the true "resurrected son of god" are the conflicted and clearly fictional accounts found in the canonical gospels. There are many parallels from the archetypal mythic dying and resurrected god-men of pagan traditions, as well as the granting of that status to Roman Emperors. The popular legend of Romulus and the story of Apollonios of Tyana cover the main points of the gospel accounts, including a solar eclipse and violent storms at the time of death, and resurrection appearances that are analgous to "Paul's vision" (road to Damascus) and the "doubting Thomas"... and their ascension to heaven as well.

TO illustrate christianity's transparent version of this often used mythical idiom, read this dissection:

"SO we start with Mark... everything after verse 16:8, does not actually exist in the earliest versions of that Gospel ... added some time late in the 2nd century or even later. ... his Gospel ended only with an empty tomb, and a pronouncement by a mysterious young man that Jesus would be seen in Galilee ... This was clearly unsatisfactory for the growing powerful arm of the Church a century later, which had staked its claim on a physical resurrection, against competing segments of the Church ... the Gnostics... So an ending was added that quickly pinned some physical appearances of Jesus onto the story... But when we consider the original story, it supports the notion that the original belief was of a spiritual rather than a physical event.

THE empty tomb for Mark was likely meant to be a symbol, not a historical reality, ... it was not unusual in the ancient world for the bodies of heroes who became gods to vanish from this world... and Mark's story ... would simply represent that expectation.

A decade or two passes, and then Matthew appears. As this Gospel tells it, there was a vast earthquake, and instead of a mere boy standing around beside an already-opened tomb, an angel--blazing like lightning--descended from the sky and paralyzed two guards that happened to be there, rolled away the stone single handedly before several witnesses--and then announced that Jesus will appear in Galilee. ... a clear case of legendary embellishment of the otherwise simple story in Mark. Then a report is given (similar to what was later added to Mark), where, contrary to the angel's announcement, Jesus immediately meets the women that attended to his grave and repeats what the angel said. Matthew is careful to add a hint that this was a physical Jesus, having the women grovel and grab his feet as he speaks. ...

LATER still, Luke appears, and suddenly what was a vague and perhaps symbolic allusion to an ascension in Mark has now become a bodily appearance, complete with a dramatic reenactment of Peter rushing to the tomb and seeing the empty death shroud for himself. As happened in Matthew, other details have grown. The one young man of Mark, which became a flying angel in Matthew, in this account has suddenly become two men, this time not merely in white, but in dazzling raiment. And to make the new story even more suspicious as a doctrinal invention, Jesus goes out of his way to say he is not a vision, ... asking the Disciples to touch him, and then by eating a fish. And though both Mark and Matthew said the visions would happen in Galilee, Luke changes the story, ... in the more populous and prestigious Jerusalem.

FINALLY along comes John, ... the legend has grown full flower, and instead of one boy, or two men, or one angel, now we have two angels at the empty tomb. And outdoing Luke in style, John has Jesus prove he is solid by showing his wounds, and breathing on people, and even obliging the Doubting Thomas... Like Luke, the most grandiose appearances to the Disciples happen in Jerusalem, not Galilee ... In all, John devotes more space and detail than either Luke or Matthew to demonstrations of the physicality of the resurrection, details nowhere present or even implied in Mark. It is obvious that John is trying very hard to create proof that the resurrection was the physical raising of a corpse, and at the end of a steady growth of fable, he takes license to make up a lot of details." -Richard Carrier, classical historian, philosopher and author of "Sense and Goodness Without God: A Defense of Metaphysical Naturalism" (Authorhouse, 2005), [edited for brevity].

AMUSING... IS IT NOT?

I've enjoyed your response, however take exception to your insinuation of sophistry on my part. It is not my purpose to decieve but to ask an honest question of the Dr. I don't think that it's unreasonable to question how exactly the variety of ideas or concepts of resurrection may have been viewed. How exactly was I being dishonest or disingenuous? Actually I think you have provided an excellent framework for my question.

AHAmagi: perhaps "sophistical" was not the best word to describe a convoluted question... i think "sophomoric" may have been closer to the mark.

LET's dissect it, shall we?

WHAT in fact do you mean exactly when you refer to "NT concepts of god"? PRECISELY what defines a supernatural god for you anyway? A creator entity... that, like the proverbial "watchmaker" made his 14 BILLION year old evolving, expanding universe, and fled the scene o' the crime... or some reflection of men, but with supernatural powers?

DO you really think that "in relationship to the implications of the belief" is anything other than obtuse verbosity and occluded thinking?

PLEASE explain your bizarro hypothesis that "the notion that the words and acts of the "righteous" never die but live on inside others". AND exactly what qualifies one as "The Righteous"? OH, let me guess the circular logic here... uh... would that be the god in your mind? CAN a severly afflicted autistic be "righteous"? CAN a paranoid schizophrenic? A child chronically mentally, physically, and sexually abused... whose adult behavior is self-destructive and often criminal and has lost the capacity for empathy? SPECIFICALLY who is NOT righteous, and why... and whose fault is it anyway... genes... parents... bad luck?



NOW, having said all of that, you clearly have potential. TELL me how my illustration of the literary fiction of a bodily resurrection found in the NT... which just happens to be the "thin ice" the House of Christian Cards is tetering upon, "frames your question"? WHAT that analysis reveals is that the early concepts of the god-man jesus were more attuned to the Gnostic sensibility of an allegorical jesus, like the cults of Osiris and Dionysus that prefigured jesus.


ANYWAY, peace on your gnosis quest... may your questions be answered.

Bhavishya Maha Purana
The words of the 'wise teacher' Is he Jesus?

"...One day, Shalivahan, the chief ot the Sakyas, went into the Himalayas. There, in the Land of the Hun (Ladakh, a part of the Kushan empire), the powerful king saw a man sitting on a mountain, who seemed to promise auspiciousness. His skin was fair and he wore white garments.

"The king asked the holy man who he was. The other replied: 'I am called a son of God, born of a virgin, minister of the non-believers, relentless in search of the truth.' The king then asked him: 'What is your religion?' The other replied, 'O great king, I come from a foreign country, where there is no longer truth and where evil knows no bounds. In the land of the non-believers, I appeared as the Messiah. But the demon Ihamasi of the barbarians (dasyu) manifested herself in a terrible form; I was delivered unto her in the manner of the non-believers and ended in Ihamasi's realm.'

"'O king, lend your ear to the religion that I brought unto the non-believers: after the purification of the essence and the impure body and after seeking refuge in the prayers of the Naigama, man will pray to the Eternal. Through justice, truth, meditation and unity of spirit, man will find his way to Isa in the center of light. God, as firm as the sun, will finally unite the spirit of all wandering beings in himself. Thus, O king, Ihamasi will be destroyed; and the blissful image if Isa, the giver of happiness, will remain forever in the heart; and I was called Isa-Masih.' After the king heard these words, he took the teacher of the non-believers and sent him to their pitiless land."

To Spin-no-za:

You make many fallacious assumptions in your analysis of my question. Most glaring being your assupmtion that I am referring to God as a supernatural being. perhaps my questions make too many assumptions as to someones knowledge of OT and NT writings and concepts and is worded poorly, forgive my ignorance. Now let's see if i can frame this in a manner that you will understand.
Think of the struggle in history that men have had in trying to survive while trying to make sense of the all, the nature of god and just trying to figure out who they are and why they should exist, desperately searching for purpose and meaning in a world that has none.
The ancient Hebrew concept of god in my mind was simple, God is not a being, but rather god is being, god would not have left his creation since we are the very being and life of god, God is Life. we are the image of that life if you will. For the ancient Hebrews to say that God is One was like saying All Life is One. They believed that we All breath the same air (breath and spirit was used interchangably) and of the same spirit. This concept that we are the image of god was a main concept advanced by the early jesus movement, so that how we reflected god's image to our neighbor was how god reflected back to us, a mirror kind of thing, the idea of the tyrant king that put himself above others, out of the pride of thinking himself better or more favored by god or usually in ancient times by claiming to be god was rejected by these ancient people, they were to be a nation of kings, where all men were considered as the kings of the nation. ani amarti elohim atem, in hebrew: "I have said you are gods" and all of you are the children of the most high. < (highest ideal was that of unity and oneness for the ancient hebrew nation) Psalms.
Sorry for rambling but this is difficult to explain due to so many preconceptions that people have.
So if we forgot the poor and the needy and the widow and treated others badly, god was angry with us. (try to divorce yourself from seeing god as something seperate from the people here.) simply put if we were cruel, merciless and unjust in our judgment toward others then we had mocked god by reflecting his image as cruel and merciless and unjust and had sinned against god and man and in need of reconciliation, usually through offerings made to the community by way of peace offerings or sin offerings, (realize that the end result of an offering was generally what we might call a cook out, lol. a communal meal.) remember the goal was for the nation to live as ONE and to the promulgation of the "spirit of oneness." (not a disembodied spirit reference but attitudinal)
as far as the words of the righteous never die, have you not ever read anything that inspired you, the words of someone perhaps long dead and those concepts that they left, live on in you and are as real to you as to the person that inspired them, and so you try and pass that "value" down to your children or others...that kind of thing, simple really. Now as far as who is righteous that's obvious enough, you know when you've hurt people, you know if what you are seeking is to do the right thing and hope against hope for everyones benefit, i think it's the book of Micah, that says what does Life require of you, but to DO Justice, LOVE Mercy and Walk Humbly with your fellow-man. In this concept of God there is no Us and Them, there is ONLY US. You know if what you seek to do is build people up and not tear them down.
I hope this wasn't too convuluted and random, i'm not as good at phrasing things as you are.

Oh and it frames my question because i am talking about the implications of the resurrection not being physical.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: ahamagi,

spin-no-za, sorry i know there was alot of errors in that but, i was writing on the fly and i didn't address everything that you spoke about, but hopefully you kinda get the idea???

Peace, One Love, I'm out. My brain is starting to shut off and my bed is calling

Oh by the way calling someone immature and silly (sophmoric) without understanding what they are trying to say first or out of misunderstanding what they are saying is not very endearing, lol. insulting someones intelligence just isn't very nice truthfully speaking. a mature person would in fact seek to understand first before he judged someone, don't you think?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: ahamagi,

amy, its a shame discussions get a life of their own and folk jump in to your turf without your direct input, since these queries are supposed to request your input and edification. I attempt to address this in every thread and topic I post to avoid any personal aggrandizement.

Ahamagi and I sort of agree to disagree due to subtle differences based on how we approach a topic under discussion, in this instance I not only know where ahamagi is coming from I see him being more focused as to what the topic implies, spinoza, and this is strictly from observation of his writing style is into gain saying mode that is the hallmark of the gnostic crowds approach to these sorts of topics. Ahamagi got sidetracked into a tangent spinoza needs to be able to get in his gnostic input. Spinoza lost his intellectual integrity status when he resorted to crass snobism which is not why I join these boards.

Now to get the topic back to where Aha left off, his query as I understand it is searching for that elusive something described as being enlightened, or the situation when the Holy Spirit descended in the form of tongues of fire to infuse these hunted down despised malcreants who disturbed that Passover. What happened afterwards to these super-energized disciples is they manage to pass on this inner mystique to their followers down to this day. An interesting personage to illustrate this concept is Catherine Emmerich, a German stigmatist mystic ecstatic who was blessed with the privilege of being a 'eye witness' to events 2,000 years ago in Jerusalem. Mel Gibson read her account and was able to make his Passion movie.

Over the centuries, the Church was been blessed with scores of these super-energized enlightened folk who burn with the desire to serve Jesus just like those Disciples who received the original infusion.
This 'indwelling' of the spirit is somewhat different from those folk who want to arrive at this state of ecstasy on their own without this Divine input, if that can happen is up for debate.

Since Aha and Spinoza don't outrightly say they adhere to any Catholic or charasmatic Christian viewpoint its hard for me to discern how they connect their take on this topic to Cameron's dog and pony show. Cameron's thing seems to be, no resurrection here, ergo, Jesus was just another itinerant preacher, let's keeping rummaging thru these tombs and ossuaries.

Hi Jake The "Tanget" we got off on only indirectly relates to the implications of the resurrection as not being physical and the possibility that at one time it may have been understood by some of the "major players" within the early movement much differently than what we've inherited by way of "tradition."

This message has been edited. Last edited by: ahamagi,

AHAmagi: since you addressed another rambling post on this thread to me... i took the time to analyze and dissect it in detail.

UNFORTUNATELY, this forum's server has some major glitches, and it failed to post my sincere response, and only registered an error message.

BRIEFLY though, i did read your post and found your god-construct somewhat schizophrenic, alternating between a reasonable pantheism versus anthropomorphic musings of mortals, desiring demigod status in a world overseen by a fatherly "most high" figure.

YOUR post ends ironically with a bedrock Secular Humanist ethos... as "god" becomes utterly irrelevant in your correct observation "there is only us". HOWEVER, if you de-emphsize the "only" and replace it with a celebratory sentiment, as a testamony to our evolved place in the Cosmos, you would have hit the proverbial nail on the head.

AS a pantheist... a scientific and SPIRITUAL naturalist... i embrace the "god" of Spinoza... of Einstein, Sagan and many who honestly reflect upon the Edifice of Nature as revealed by science, and the reality of their existence... and most awe-inspiring and fulfilling, our sublimely ineffable and profound connection to the Universe, from which our very atoms came... and unto which, they will surely return.

DEUS sive NATURA... "god or nature", it matters not.


CHEERS.

It has been suggested here that the symbol on the lost tomb is the upright version of the fish or the all-seeing eye. I would like to suggest another possible meaning from the perspective of the early Christian. The resurrection of Lazarus is the most common symbol found in early Christian tombs. It was signified by a picture of Lazarus wrapped in cloth in a tomb with a circle under the roof. If you look closely at the lost tomb of Jesus, you will notice that there is another inverted chevron under the circle. The blast from the dynamite or 2,000 of wear and tear may have destroyed the original cover underneath the symbol. This may have been the top of the sarcophagus of Lazarus.

If it had been a triangle with a circle, we would feel more inclined towards the all seeing eye. If it were two chevrons, one facing up and one down and a circle, then the pagan symbols for male and female might come to mind. The symbol for the fish pointing upwards is a very common early Christian symbol and must be considered. Then the eye is that of the fish in this case.

However, I feel that the symbol of resurrection is more to the point of what the early Chirstians were practicing. This symbol works for either the spiritual resurrection or the literal resurrection depending on which camp you belong to. If you read the Gnostic gospels, there is a discussion about the resurrection of Lazarus. Lazarus joyfully offers to be the first to go into the tomb for three days. After Christ resurrects him, the other disciples say "I want to be next, please pick me!" I believe that Lazarus was an in-law to Jesus. That is why he got to go first. While he was in the tomb he had no food or water. He started hallucinating and experienced his own death without actually dying. There can be no stronger way to deal with the fear of death. His resurrection is a form of rebirth. It is a spiritual resurrection like no other.

I tried this myself for one night by sleeping in a small tomblike cave wrapped in my sleeping bag with a stone at my head (I was trying to stay warm by going in there). It was a profound feeling to witness your own death and funeral. Some of my worst fears surfaced. I was able to understand hidden feelings about my grandmother's death. It was an awakening to say the least.

The early Christian religion borrowed from the much older pagan religion of the dying God. A male sacrifice was picked from the village and tied to a cross in the middle of the fields like a scarecrow. His blood then fertilized the crops to make them grow the next spring. The practice of breaking bread and drinking wine that symbolizes blood is also part of these early rituals (and much healthier).

The idea of resurrection is very ancient and not unique to Christianity. Both the Greeks and the Egyptians have resurrection stories. The Eleusinian Mysteries of Greece involve a female trinity and a female Christ figure. In a nutshell Demeter Goddess of the Harvest (read Earth Mother) has a daughter named Persephone who is very beautiful. None of the other Goddesses are interested in Hades because he is God of the Underworld (read boring and dark). So Hades kidnaps Persephone and forces her to become his wife. Demeter becomes destraught and the planet is thrown into winter. Hades is forced to release Persephone for part of the year hence spring arrives again and everything is reborn when she surfaces.

The Eleusinian rites were practiced for 2,000 years. Female pilgrims would come from all over Greece to this city and temple in order to be lowered into a cave in the earth and experience a spiritual death. After three days they would come out and honey cakes and wine would be served to celebrate the resurrection. I promised a female trinity. Rhea the mother of Demeter and a Titaness was part of this trinity (see the Chalice and the Blade for more info).

I was delighted to see that the ossuairy that may have belonged to Mary Magdalene was inscribed "Mariamne the Mara" or "Mariam the Master". This would signify that she was a great teacher. Mary died in 68 AD after much travel and preaching about Christianity. I have believed that she was the wife of Christ ever since the "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" days. Then the wedding at Cana makes more sense as Jesus's marriage to Magdalene. The Logos and the Sophia joined. Adam and Eve both redeemed.

It also makes sense that a Rabbi like Jesus was, would by Rabbinic law need to be married at that time. He would have had children too. Judas was one of His favorite disciples, so naming that son Judah would make sense too. It was all part of the plan that Jesus would make a claim to the throne and overthrow the Romans. It just took his death and about 300 years more to accomplish this.

Just as a reminder, almost the whole archaeological community is rejecting this as anything other than a fictional movie for profit. I hope everyone would share that same level of skepticism since this "Jesus tomb" assertion has about as much proof as Bigfoot, UFOs, and telekinesis.

Here (http://www.joezias.com/tomb.html) Joe Zias indicates many of the problems he has with this concoction by Simcha et al.

spin-no-za, i would like to address the fact that what i was discussing was how the concepts that are expressed in the bible were viewed by ancient people. but thanks for your ad hoc diagnosis of schizophrenia, i'll see if i can get some meds, sheez. ROFL.
i think you might need to read it again, i thought i was clear about the relationship between how they saw people and how they saw god, the stark split between the two concepts did not exist as it's seen today. today's theistic concept of god is rather schizophrenic admittedly, but they seem to have had a more monistic view. at least in much of the writing. so of course their construct was anthropomorphic, but their relationship to "being" was not as seperate as you'd suppose. By the way if you think modern concepts are new, such as what you termed an admix of secular humanism, you'd be rather surprised to know that they are not and were expressed by ancient peoples, all be it in a different context. Not much new under the sun actually, just our understanding of them that evolves and takes on different forms of reference.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: ahamagi,

amy, would you tolerate immature outburts of the sort spi-oza makes in your classes? Would you tolerate his,'I gotta put folk in their place at all costs' attitude in your classes as well. I worked in psych medicine for years, Aha is too coherent to ever get that classification. He may tend to write as he thinks and forgets to re-edit, but that sort of phenomenon happens to anybody trying to jump from topic to topic on these forums. I usually ask Aha to re-phrase his topic or thread so that he can re-formulate what he is actually trying to achieve. I hope spin-oza has the requisite documentation and credentialling to make such a determination. Spin-oza comes across like borderline patients on the verge of a psychotic break if their internal rage control mechanism fails to keep them under control, in his situation only time will tell. Spin-oza should review the way Freud classifies neurotic behavior and reflect on his own postings as to which clasification Freud would assess him, since spin-oza is into self-diagnosis mode.

Now to the topic at hand, Aha still has the original topic in focus when he is attempting to cope with toxic tangentiality. I raised my viewpoint solely to elicit from Aha if he was seeking that form of enlightenment. Gnostics don't own the enlightenment biz do they? In order to get to the point of the resurrection one has to resolve why the resurrection was necessary for the purpose of redemption.

I will make a scientific analogy solely for the edification of gnostics who demand something cognitive to chew on. In biology and medicine there is the concept of the obligate parasite, fungi, viri(plural of virus), cancer depend on it for their survival. Cancer celled persons can't replicate a viable cancer celled person the way normal folk reproduce. I see gnosticism as this cancer that depends upon rock solid Christianity to survive. Gnostics had 2,000 years to create their own viable, self-sustaining society and failed to produce one. There isn't a single nation or society on earth composed solely of gnostics. Jesus came to earth to redeem the world from a very serious spiritual cancer, the apostasy from the original sin that infected every following generation. Jesus by His suffering cleansed us from this cancer so that we are now able to enter Heaven. where is the gnostic super-duper cancer cleaner to perform this vital task.

If gnostics don't want this redemption and cancer cleansing they should tell Jesus to take it away from them and let gnostics produce their own cancer eradicator.

JAKEabf:

IT seems you're on a pathetic crusade of desparation on virtually every thread that disagrees with your fundamentalist mentality. SINCE you are not in possession of the facts, and cannot post any rebuttal to the substance of the numerous issues I've raised, you must therefore resort to childish personal slurs.


LOOK up the words:

1. petty
2. inimical
3. vindictive

THEN, look in the mirror.

IF you wish to post a rebuttal to the proverbial mountain of evidence that reveals the bible to be a literary fiction and an illusive god-man an illusion ... or if you doubt the historicity of a suppressive, authoritarian literalist "early christian church" who only rose to prominece among diverse "christian" sects by using oppressive "ends justify the means" tactics, and whose legacy has been perpetuated in spades by the RCC and "christ's vicar", then proceed with your proofs.

OTHERWISE, why don't you stop embarassing yourself on thread after thread, whining like a spoiled child to the moderator to censor opposing views.

AS i said to your sidekick, LINGAL, you would both make excellent Grand Inquisitors... to bad the Dark Ages of superstition ended before your times.

AS for my psychological well-being, as a practicing physician, not only is it fine... but i suspect my knowledge of medicine, like most subjects, clearly surpasses your rather narrow and limited grasp.

The New testament books that talk of a physical resurrection are all from questionable sources. If you look at A few of the books from the Nag Hammadi Library. (not saying all of them) one will find evedence from the disiples that it was a spirital resurrection. I don't believe the evidence will implicate any religion, but it will make everyone search harder and become more educated with several different sources before making a blind leap of faith. Yahushua wasn't even a Christian, so who knows it should be a mandate of sociatey to make all findings public knowledge, so people can make descisions for themselves.

Spin-oza, I mentioned before all these references of your inferiority complex manifesting itself as erudite sophistry don't impress me much. This petulancy of yours, this incessant whining you afflict folk with will never change one basic fact, true believing Christians don't believe 'cuz you gave them your blessing to do so, that is called blasphemy in my my book. That is also called a delusional state. I don't criticize a gnostic for wanting to dwell with their own kind I do lament the fact gnostics have to be parasites, they have failed to create their own perfect society where impressing folk with their shallow personalities is de rigeur. I don't need gnosticism to survive, but gnostics need rock solid Christians to attack 'cuz they know their feller traveling gnostics can be compared to effluvia flushed down the drain to be separated at a sewage treatment plant so that life giving water can be re-cycled and life threatening gnostic effluvia can be eliminated. There is no life giving message anywhere on the gnostic spectrum. Gnostics pretend to be meek and mild while they spew out their venom, just read your own posts. Why would a reasonable person want to sell their soul to the devil for the sole purpose of adhering to a philosophy that offers nothing eternally life sustaining in return?

I did not initiate these self effacing attacks of Christian believers, its you with your illusions of intellectual superiority that needs an ego boost fix. If you call yourself a physician with your demonstrated loving, empathetic, caring demeanor as evidenced by your posts, do you have any patients left in your practice?

I, like other well meaning believing Christians bother to interact with gnostics at all is due to the fact we are civilized, until, as Merle Haggard says, your are walking on the fighting side of me. My fight is with satan and evil, unless you feel these entities need help and you decided to ally with them, that is your problem to deal with, not mine, nor any other believing Christian you terrorize with your pompous faux-arrogance. You see me as an irritant and I view your gainsaying as howling at a full moon, you can redicule all you want, but believers will always consider the source of the howling and the howler.

Now, how does all that tie in with the resurrection, let's put another analogy together here. Spin-oza is now ruler of the cosmos but he has a problem, his cosmos has been infiltrated by invaders from another unknown time dimension, he knows of their presence but he can't detect them with the best hi-tech at his disposal. Spin-oza rallies his minions to root out this invader. The problem is he don't know if the invader is benign or malign. Spin-oza starts losing loyalty of his subjects but he can't pinpoint the source of where this disaffection comes from. He threatens to eliminate everybody who don't support him, ala Bush, even though he has no 1st hand knowledge as to what the message is his subjects are getting so that they lose confidence in Spin-oza. Along comes a meek and mild philosopher who promises to rid this cosmos of this unknown threat yet Spin-oza is suspicious that he is being set up. Miraculously the undetectable threat is neutralized and to show appreciation for the inputs of the meek and mild philosopher Spin-oza has him executed, but now there is a new problem, after the execution the body of the philosopher reappears in his previous state and encourages folk of the cosmos to overthrow Spin-oza's dictatorial reign and start afresh with a new paradigm....

Does this scenario sound familiar? do you like being the token bad guy bully? did you prevent this resurrection? There is a whole litany of what gnostics failed to do over these 2,000 years, so why should anybody bother listening to your senseless prattling now?

odenwalt thank you for your post. could you be so kind as to suggest what books in the Nag Hammadi Library i might see this view? or provide me with a few other sources i might take a look at? thank you.

Jake and Spin please re-read the visitor agreement. thank you.

Oh yeah Spin, Carl Sagan said something akin to what i'm very poorly trying to reference as far as ancient god concepts are concerned. "In a way, We are the universe knowing itself," can't find the exact quote but that is very close. I very much admire and respect Carl Sagan and Einstein, only somewhat familiar with Spinoza, but from what i know of him i think he might would get what i was talking about and might even would offer me a better way to say it, lol.

odenwalt as far as those other books of questionable source, i don't think we should necessarily "throw the baby out with the bath water," if you know what i mean. there definitely seems to be examples of re-wording and interpolation in those books in an effort to make them a more cohesive whole. Personally i feel there is still in them very valuable information for re-constructing an ancient mileau, even the interpolations themselves can provide a valuable resource for studying and formulating theories about this ancient culture. It's too bad that among the variety of suggestions about the proverbial "baby and the bath water"... it seems we have some saying we should toss them both and others suggesting we throw the baby out and drink the bath water, lol. :-D

This message has been edited. Last edited by: ahamagi,

MAGIaHA:


YES... but you have a very convoluted way of coming to a panentheistic, ontological POV... via the proverbial backdoor!

ALTHOUGH i don't directly go down that path... i certainly respect it and could only wish that more people adopted that sensibility.

AS a one whose life experiences and studies has led to the only position i can justify, scientific Naturalism... and a pantheistic ontology... it is but a very short step to a universe that has inexorably evolved to consciousness... and "is looking back upon itself".

IT is fact that the particular universe we inhabit is one that is absolutely determined... and causal, and thus, our very existence, and the fact of our conscious awareness of the Cosmos, was present from the very singularity... and has always existed.

OUR deep connection to Nature, which bore and sustains us, is unassailable, as is our far more profound connection to the Cosmos itself.

SPINOZA was a monist... ONE substance from which all emanates... and an utter determinist to be sure.

DEUS sive NATURA was Spinoza's liberating distillation of ultimate reality... god or nature, it matters not... and really, what more god do you really need?

CHEERS.

Well you know spin sometimes the "preachers" are so busy guarding the gates to make sure noone gets in that they forget to lock the back door, lol.