Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Gnostic Gospels Chapter 1

Expand Messages
  • coolas25
    Where it is documented that the Church claims Peter to be the first witness, thus this being why he is successor? I guess I just want to see it for myself
    Message 1 of 15 , Jul 5, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Where it is documented that the Church claims Peter to be the "first
      witness," thus this being why he is successor? I guess I just want
      to see it for myself since I've been told so many times that Mary
      Magdaline is the first witness througout my life. I appreciate all
      the information everyones been giving. Thank you :)

      Colleen


      --- In gnosticism2@y..., ernststrohregenmantelrad <no_reply@y...>
      wrote:
      > In a footnote to this. Even if Peter is the rightful succesor by
      the Apostlic
      > succession that doesn't mean Rome has the right to claim as such.
      >
      > In fact, the first Patriarch of Antioch is Peter and Syriac
      Orthodox Church
      > could trace its Patriarch all the way down to Peter. The fact that
      the first
      > Christians are called as such in the city asserts that there were
      vital
      > Christian community in Antioch. Peter being the founder of the
      church in
      > Antioch is the more logical as being Patriach in Antioch then shaky
      legend
      > that is Roman church
      >
      > --- In gnosticism2@y..., coolas25 <no_reply@y...> wrote:
      > > Elaine Pagels says that "Even today the pope traces his--and the
      > > primacy he claims over the rest--to Peter himself, 'first of the
      > > apostles,' since he was 'first witness of the resurrection."
      Now,
      > > I've gone to Catholic school for about 12 years. We were always
      > > taught that Mary Magdaline was the first to see Jesus
      resurrected.
      > > So I guess my question is. Does the pope really believe that
      Peter
      > > was the "first witness of the resurrection"? If so, why is it
      taught
      > > in Catholic school that Mary was the first to witness Jesus
      > > resurrected?
      > >
      > > Thank you,
      > >
      > > Colleen
    • lady_caritas
      ... the first ... Hi, Colleen, Click on http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11744a.htm Then scroll down to The Risen Lord confirms Peter s precedence : To him
      Message 2 of 15 , Jul 6, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In gnosticism2@y..., coolas25 <no_reply@y...> wrote:
        > Where it is documented that the Church claims Peter to be
        the "first
        > witness," thus this being why he is successor? I guess I just want
        > to see it for myself since I've been told so many times that Mary
        > Magdaline is the first witness througout my life. I appreciate all
        > the information everyones been giving. Thank you :)
        >
        > Colleen


        Hi, Colleen,

        Click on
        http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11744a.htm

        Then scroll down to "The Risen Lord confirms Peter's precedence":

        "To him alone of the Apostles did Christ appear on the first day
        after the Resurrection (Luke, xxiv, 34; I Cor., xv, 5)."

        Note the scriptural references. But also note, as I mentioned
        before, that according to Catholics, Mary Magdalene was only
        considered to be an "apostle to the apostles." So, she wasn't in the
        running for leadership, even though no one will dispute that fact
        that she is cited elsewhere in the Bible as being the first one to
        witness the resurrection.

        Anyway, this seems to be the "official" Catholic view.

        Cari
      • coolas25
        Cari, Thank you so much for everything. Colleen ... want ... all ... the
        Message 3 of 15 , Jul 6, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          Cari,

          Thank you so much for everything.

          Colleen


          --- In gnosticism2@y..., lady_caritas <no_reply@y...> wrote:
          > --- In gnosticism2@y..., coolas25 <no_reply@y...> wrote:
          > > Where it is documented that the Church claims Peter to be
          > the "first
          > > witness," thus this being why he is successor? I guess I just
          want
          > > to see it for myself since I've been told so many times that Mary
          > > Magdaline is the first witness througout my life. I appreciate
          all
          > > the information everyones been giving. Thank you :)
          > >
          > > Colleen
          >
          >
          > Hi, Colleen,
          >
          > Click on
          > http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11744a.htm
          >
          > Then scroll down to "The Risen Lord confirms Peter's precedence":
          >
          > "To him alone of the Apostles did Christ appear on the first day
          > after the Resurrection (Luke, xxiv, 34; I Cor., xv, 5)."
          >
          > Note the scriptural references. But also note, as I mentioned
          > before, that according to Catholics, Mary Magdalene was only
          > considered to be an "apostle to the apostles." So, she wasn't in
          the
          > running for leadership, even though no one will dispute that fact
          > that she is cited elsewhere in the Bible as being the first one to
          > witness the resurrection.
          >
          > Anyway, this seems to be the "official" Catholic view.
          >
          > Cari
        • ernststrohregenmantelrad
          Let me put this thred together with the thred on Phillip K Dick. As you know everything in this world in some what related to one another or maybe human have a
          Message 4 of 15 , Jul 9, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            Let me put this thred together with the thred on Phillip K Dick. As you
            know everything in this world in some what related to one another or
            maybe human have a knack of drawing unrelated events as related....

            But "Rome never died" is precicely the answer to why Peter is the first to
            witness the risen Lord (hense the leader of Christianity) instead of female
            like Mary Magdalene although the Gospel of John (20:11-18) and Mark
            (9:1) DO STATE that it was Mary who first saw the Lord.

            The original question was from the first chapter of Pagel's book "Gnostic
            Gospels", the chapter entitled "The Controversy over Christ's
            Resurrection". It basically states the literal interpretation of the
            resurrection is more based upon the political factor. Pagel reason that the
            emerging church turned to hierchy by stating the resurrectionn as the
            literal event. By interpreting the resurrection as the literal event it
            legitamized the authority who witnessed the resurrection namely those of
            Apostles especially Peter. What is more telling is what Pagel wrote in the
            second chapter of the book entitled "One God, One Bishop". Noteably the
            legemecy of the Apostles were handed over to bishops. It clearly means
            that the authority is in the hand of bishops; furthermore, a Roman bishop
            as the time went by. A curious fact I would think. In the second chapter
            Pagel mentions the Letter of Clement of Rome to Corinth. I think this
            letter is very telling. It is considered to be one of the oldest document of
            Christiandom outside of Canonical writings. In fact some Traditions
            notebly coptic and Syriac included in their Canon. If you read the Clement
            of Rome or read the explanation from the Pagel's book it basically advise
            the Corinthian church to submit to the proper authority .ie bishops. The
            reason for this is that the church in Corinth was over taken by "young"
            "radicals" who rebelled against the authority. You know I wonder? What
            do you all think? I find it funny that an upstart church in Rome all of suden
            has authority over older one like Corinth. And what was these young
            rebelling against? Why Rome? Because Peter is there? or was there? It's
            only a legend. But Clement of Rome is said to be a Pope right after or
            second after Peter. Who is this Clement? What is his background? Why his
            basically telling every Christians to submit to the church authority? And
            by doing that he's claiming the legacy of Peter.

            This is my speculation. Roman authorty took over the new cult for the
            reason we shall see later when Constantine took over. Nice controling
            device. Who is Clement? full of speculation but there is claim that
            Clement was a commom name for a army official at the time. Nah
            couldn't be I'm crazy right? lol. Sure these offical saw Christian martyrs
            and said to themself NOT "wow look at that faith of Christians" but "wow,
            look at zelotness and great mass control" Yes, I think Christianity was
            highjacked at that point. Irenaeus was just an icing on the cake to wipe out
            the desenters and rationalize the political action as theological one. It
            maybe a specualtion but several things stand out. One is the number of
            converts amoung the Roman elite as Christianity spred. The original
            Christian message was basically geared toward less fortunate (women,
            slaves, etc) Why all of sudden elite joining? Second, this is fact not
            speculation, after the fall of Rome many Roman elites (high class and
            nobilty) joined the monastic order or became a church official.

            Well, to sum it up "Rome never died.... it hijacked one Hellenistic mystey
            religion and live to this day exerting influence." Of course I don't hold out
            for the "evil' Vatican theory but there are secret Vatican origanization
            like Opus Dei, Knights of Malta. It is like any organized institution like US
            government. Its right hand doesn't know what its left hand is doing.
          • morphodyte
            Hello Ernst; Rome actually never did die - and I mean this quite literally; Rome just changed the form of governance. If we look at the papacy and epicopate of
            Message 5 of 15 , Jul 10, 2002
            • 0 Attachment
              Hello Ernst;

              Rome actually never did die - and I mean this quite literally;
              Rome just changed the form of governance.

              If we look at the papacy and epicopate of the Church hierarchy
              we see that they were organized as a part of the Imperial
              bureaucracy, just as was the military and the Imperium. In fact
              the bureaucratic divide of Rome into East and West suggests a
              decentralization of power in late antiquity to make the vast
              Empire more manageable.

              The bishops were an arm of the governement, something to
              replace the senate with something more suited to the Imperial
              command and which assumed the Imperial role of Pontifex
              maximus, so as to relieve the Emperor of religious duty to
              concentrate on secular and military matters.

              These aspects of the Empire functioned so well that when the
              Vandals sacked Rome, the religious arm of the Imperial
              government was able to survive and establish itself by the time
              of Charlemagne as a power functioning independently of the
              Constantinople government and its diaconate.

              This Roman Church, functioning as the last vestige of Roman
              imperial rule sought to establish new Roman authorities through
              Charlemagne and the Germanic kings of Vienna - with some
              limited success, but the Imperial function was never able to
              emerge from the feudal syatem imposed by the Goths and
              franks.

              Nevertheless, Rome really never did die, and was in fact still
              powerful as a religious government until the time of the
              Reformation when it lost control of most of Germany as well as
              England. the next blow was the French Revolution and the loss
              of political power in France.

              You did mention Opus Dei and it is a well known secret that
              Cardinal Walensa was placed in the Papcy through the efforts
              and support of Opus Dei, and it is this Pope who was the moral
              force through the Solidarity movement which brough down Soviet
              Union.

              The Church continues to expand its base in Latin America, the
              Phillipines and in Africa - Opus Dei waiting in the wings.

              But Church aside - the United States is a reformulation of the
              Republican ideals of Rome; the legal and military systems are
              based on Roman models - the legislature owes much of its
              origins to Roman predecessors.

              Right now American republicanism (the USA is not a true
              democracy, contrary to popular belief) is threatened by the
              increasing powers of the Executive and its support from
              Christian extremists - much the same as in late antiquity.

              However, the system does have protections built in having
              installed a judiciary which acts independently - to a degree - of
              the Executive, to wit we have had some rather conroversial
              rulings like the recent one on the Plejaliejuntz.

              States also still exert some degree of autonomy, albeit much of
              that was dismantled by the despot Abraham Lincoln - yes I know
              he is a favorite for abolishing slavery, but his war against the
              South was disatrous and dismantled the federal rights of States.
              I suppose he was a Julius Caesar, we are simply awaiting our
              Constantine - perhaps he is already here.

              Morphodyte

              --- In gnosticism2@y..., ernststrohregenmantelrad
              <no_reply@y...> wrote:
              > Let me put this thred together with the thred on Phillip K Dick.
              As you
              > know everything in this world in some what related to one
              another or
              > maybe human have a knack of drawing unrelated events as
              related....
              >
              > But "Rome never died" is precicely the answer to why Peter is
              the first to
              > witness the risen Lord (hense the leader of Christianity)
              instead of female
              > like Mary Magdalene although the Gospel of John (20:11-18)
              and Mark
              > (9:1) DO STATE that it was Mary who first saw the Lord.
              >
            • Coraxo
              Sorry, This post was not overtly gnostic; let it suffice that the antinomian character of Gnosticism was regrded as a threat to the Emperor and the Romish
              Message 6 of 15 , Jul 10, 2002
              • 0 Attachment
                Re: [Gnosticism] Re: Gnostic Gospels Chapter 1 Sorry,

                This post was not overtly gnostic; let it suffice that the antinomian character of Gnosticism was regrded as a threat to the Emperor and the Romish bishop, enough to have had them suppressed.

                Fortunately our friends Irenaeus and Tertullian were kind enough to preserve som much gnostic teaching in their polemical writings that just as Rome is resurgent today, Gnosticism is likewise resurgent, something I think Philip K. Dick saw.

                BTW, "Radi Free Albemuth" is like a parallel gospel to "Valis". Is valis anagramic for Salvi?

                Corax


                From: "morphodyte" <morphodyte@...>
                Reply-To: gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com
                Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 14:59:12 -0000
                To: gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com
                Subject: [Gnosticism] Re: Gnostic Gospels Chapter 1


                Hello Ernst;

                Rome actually never did die - and I mean this quite literally;
                Rome just changed the form of governance.

                If we look at the papacy and epicopate of the Church hierarchy
                we see that they were organized as a part of the Imperial
                bureaucracy, just as was the military and the Imperium. In fact
                the bureaucratic divide of Rome into East and West suggests a
                decentralization of power in late antiquity to make the vast
                Empire more manageable.

                The bishops were an arm of the governement, something to
                replace the senate with something more suited to the Imperial
                command and which assumed the Imperial role of Pontifex
                maximus, so as to relieve the Emperor of religious duty to
                concentrate on secular and military matters.

                These aspects of the Empire functioned so well that when the
                Vandals sacked Rome, the religious arm of the Imperial
                government was able to survive and establish itself by the time
                of Charlemagne as a power functioning independently of the
                Constantinople government and its diaconate.

                This Roman Church, functioning as the last vestige of Roman
                imperial rule sought to establish new Roman authorities through
                Charlemagne and the Germanic kings of Vienna - with some
                limited success, but the Imperial function was never able to
                emerge from the feudal syatem imposed by the Goths and
                franks.

                Nevertheless, Rome really never did die, and was in fact still
                powerful as a religious government until the time of the
                Reformation when it lost control of most of Germany as well as
                England. the next blow was the French Revolution and the loss
                of political power in France.

                You did mention Opus Dei and it is a well known secret that
                Cardinal Walensa was placed in the Papcy through the efforts
                and support of Opus Dei, and it is this Pope who was the moral
                force through the Solidarity movement which brough down Soviet
                Union.

                The Church continues to expand its base in Latin America, the
                Phillipines and in Africa - Opus Dei waiting in the wings.

                But Church aside - the United States is a reformulation of the
                Republican ideals of Rome; the legal and military systems are
                based on Roman models - the legislature owes much of its
                origins to Roman predecessors.

                Right now American republicanism  (the USA is not a true
                democracy, contrary to popular belief) is threatened by the
                increasing powers of the Executive and its support from
                Christian extremists - much the same as in late antiquity.

                However, the system does have protections built in having
                installed a judiciary which acts independently - to a degree - of
                the Executive, to wit we have had some rather conroversial
                rulings like the recent one on the Plejaliejuntz.

                States also still exert some degree of autonomy, albeit much of
                that was dismantled by the despot Abraham Lincoln - yes I know
                he is a favorite for abolishing slavery, but his war against the
                South was disatrous and dismantled the federal rights of States.
                I suppose he was a Julius Caesar, we are simply awaiting our
                Constantine - perhaps he is already here.

                Morphodyte

                --- In gnosticism2@y..., ernststrohregenmantelrad
                <no_reply@y...> wrote:
                > Let me put this thred together with the thred on Phillip K Dick.
                As you
                > know everything in this world in some what related to one
                another or
                > maybe human have a knack of drawing unrelated events as
                related....
                >
                > But "Rome never died" is precicely the answer to why Peter is
                the first to
                > witness the risen Lord (hense the leader of Christianity)
                instead of female
                > like Mary Magdalene although the Gospel of John (20:11-18)
                and Mark
                > (9:1) DO STATE that it was Mary who first saw the Lord.
                >


                To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                gnosticism2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



                Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .

              • eris never died.
                ... morph s post seemed pretty gnostic to me, since it dealt with oppressive powers on our Earth which try to stifle the freedom of people and keep them asleep
                Message 7 of 15 , Jul 11, 2002
                • 0 Attachment
                  On Wed, 10 Jul 2002, Coraxo wrote:

                  > Sorry,
                  >
                  > This post was not overtly gnostic; let it suffice that the antinomian
                  > character of Gnosticism was regrded as a threat to the Emperor and the
                  > Romish bishop, enough to have had them suppressed.
                  >
                  > Fortunately our friends Irenaeus and Tertullian were kind enough to preserve
                  > som much gnostic teaching in their polemical writings that just as Rome is
                  > resurgent today, Gnosticism is likewise resurgent, something I think Philip
                  > K. Dick saw.
                  >
                  > BTW, "Radi Free Albemuth" is like a parallel gospel to "Valis". Is valis
                  > anagramic for Salvi?
                  >

                  morph's post seemed pretty gnostic to me, since it dealt with oppressive
                  powers on our Earth which try to stifle the freedom of people and keep
                  them asleep and unconscious (maybe if he had thrown in the word Demiurge a
                  few times it would be properly gnostified? :)

                  the last few days i've been reading Philip K. Dick's "The Divine
                  Invasion" which is part two of the trilogy that started with "VALIS" and
                  ends with "The Transmigration of Timothy Archer". after spending the last
                  month reading through more or less stale and boring works like Hans Jonas'
                  "The Gnostic Religion" this book shows a more exciting, interesting, and
                  living form of gnostic worldview to me. without having read the standard
                  works on gnosticism, i might have missed a lot of themes in PKD, so it was
                  beneficial. the best part, so far, is how he updated many symbols, or
                  created his own, which are still connected to the symbols of classical
                  gnosticism. one example is how the "exiles" from the planet Earth live in
                  isolated domes on the surface of a dead planet called CY30, where other
                  humans do live, but they are so cut off and it is such a hassle to
                  interact with another. the themes of isolation and alienation are there,
                  but in sci-fi context instead of spirit-soul-body imagery. the Demiurge in
                  his story seems to be a combination of the Catholic-Islamic Church and the
                  Communist Party, rather than some Yahwehmonster. i'm not finished with the
                  book yet, so my comments are premature, but i do recommend this to anyone
                  who wants to see a more modern gnostic writing.

                  john.
                • regeneratia
                  Cari, How are you? As always, I am amazed at your knowledge base. I have been brainstorming on gnosticism in real life. I have not been on the boards much. It
                  Message 8 of 15 , Jul 11, 2002
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Cari,

                    How are you?
                    As always, I am amazed at your knowledge base.
                    I have been brainstorming on gnosticism in real life. I have not
                    been on the boards much.
                    It is good to see you here. Keep up the good light.

                    I believe that the beloveddisciple.org will help in your discussion.

                    regeneratia


                    --- In gnosticism2@y..., lady_caritas <no_reply@y...> wrote:
                    > --- In gnosticism2@y..., coolas25 <no_reply@y...> wrote:
                    > > Where it is documented that the Church claims Peter to be
                    > the "first
                    > > witness," thus this being why he is successor? I guess I just
                    want
                    > > to see it for myself since I've been told so many times that
                    Mary
                    > > Magdaline is the first witness througout my life. I appreciate
                    all
                    > > the information everyones been giving. Thank you :)
                    > >
                    > > Colleen
                    >
                    >
                    > Hi, Colleen,
                    >
                    > Click on
                    > http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11744a.htm
                    >
                    > Then scroll down to "The Risen Lord confirms Peter's
                    precedence":
                    >
                    > "To him alone of the Apostles did Christ appear on the first day
                    > after the Resurrection (Luke, xxiv, 34; I Cor., xv, 5)."
                    >
                    > Note the scriptural references. But also note, as I mentioned
                    > before, that according to Catholics, Mary Magdalene was only
                    > considered to be an "apostle to the apostles." So, she wasn't
                    in the
                    > running for leadership, even though no one will dispute that
                    fact
                    > that she is cited elsewhere in the Bible as being the first one to
                    > witness the resurrection.
                    >
                    > Anyway, this seems to be the "official" Catholic view.
                    >
                    > Cari
                  • lady_caritas
                    ... regeneratia, I m just fine, thank you. What a delight to see you! And how are you? I know you re a busy mom (love the recent pic), but I hope you find
                    Message 9 of 15 , Jul 11, 2002
                    • 0 Attachment
                      --- In gnosticism2@y..., regeneratia <no_reply@y...> wrote:
                      > Cari,
                      >
                      > How are you?
                      > As always, I am amazed at your knowledge base.
                      > I have been brainstorming on gnosticism in real life. I have not
                      > been on the boards much.
                      > It is good to see you here. Keep up the good light.
                      >
                      > I believe that the beloveddisciple.org will help in your discussion.
                      >
                      > regeneratia
                      >

                      regeneratia, I'm just fine, thank you. What a delight to see you!
                      And how are you? I know you're a busy mom (love the recent pic), but
                      I hope you find time to post some more over here.

                      Also, thanks for the link. You reminded me of another site (where
                      that article is also located) that might interest Colleen regarding
                      Mary Magdalene ~
                      http://magdalene.org/

                      Cari
                    • ernststrohregenmantelrad
                      Dear Morphodyte. I really commend you on your knowledge on the subject. I really apreciate your input. a few comments on your post and perhaps you or others
                      Message 10 of 15 , Jul 12, 2002
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Dear Morphodyte. I really commend you on your knowledge on the
                        subject. I really apreciate your input.

                        a few comments on your post and perhaps you or others could comment
                        back on mine.


                        > If we look at the papacy and epicopate of the Church hierarchy
                        > we see that they were organized as a part of the Imperial
                        > bureaucracy, just as was the military and the Imperium. In fact
                        > the bureaucratic divide of Rome into East and West suggests a
                        > decentralization of power in late antiquity to make the vast
                        > Empire more manageable.
                        >

                        On the side note to this the line that separates the East and West
                        Empire is STILL there. If you notice the western side is Roman
                        Catholism and the the eastern side is Orthodox. This in turn affected
                        the form of writing as well as the West uses the Latin alpahbet and
                        the East (with the exception of Rumania and Albenia) uses Cyrillic
                        alphabet. One clear example of this is seen in the fomar Yugoslavia
                        where the line between the west and the east cuts right through the
                        middle. Serbs and Croats are basically same language meaning they are
                        basically same people. In fact the language is termed Serbo-Croatian.
                        What is the difference is that Serbs are Orthodox and uses Cyrillic
                        alphabet whereas Croats are Roman Catholic and uses Latin alphabet.
                        and now they hate each other. But that is well known. but there is
                        more on this line that divids the East and the West. As you know the
                        Roman Empire included Africa and that line is also visible. However,
                        it is not clearly distingishable unless you know something about
                        Arabic dialects. Arabic dialects could be divided into East and West
                        too and percise there that line falls in somewhere west of Eygypt. For
                        the dialects of Maghreb and that of Egypt and vastly different. Ok I
                        guess I ventured into off topic here.


                        > These aspects of the Empire functioned so well that when the
                        > Vandals sacked Rome, the religious arm of the Imperial
                        > government was able to survive and establish itself by the time
                        > of Charlemagne as a power functioning independently of the
                        > Constantinople government and its diaconate.
                        >
                        > This Roman Church, functioning as the last vestige of Roman
                        > imperial rule sought to establish new Roman authorities through
                        > Charlemagne and the Germanic kings of Vienna - with some
                        > limited success, but the Imperial function was never able to
                        > emerge from the feudal syatem imposed by the Goths and
                        > franks.
                        >

                        Funny, you brought in goths and vandals. aren't they adhered to
                        Arianism form of Christianity at first? Can we make some connection here?

                        > Nevertheless, Rome really never did die, and was in fact still
                        > powerful as a religious government until the time of the
                        > Reformation when it lost control of most of Germany as well as
                        > England. the next blow was the French Revolution and the loss
                        > of political power in France.
                        >


                        Those god damned revolutionaries!But in case of Germany I think thing
                        went peachy after the Bismarck's Kulturekampf. I think they made the
                        deal. As for England all is lost after the Jocabite Rebellion and they
                        still hate Cromwell. But then England is not a major power anymore so
                        who care's now?


                        > You did mention Opus Dei and it is a well known secret that
                        > Cardinal Walensa was placed in the Papcy through the efforts
                        > and support of Opus Dei, and it is this Pope who was the moral
                        > force through the Solidarity movement which brough down Soviet
                        > Union.
                        >

                        Ooooh now you are getting into to the meat of it. I would like to
                        mention them in relation to the Vatican bank scandal (money laudrying
                        with Italian and american mafias) and a bogus masonic lodge P-2 which
                        have great deal to do with the death of JP I (which became a sub-plot
                        for the movie "Godfather III") and shooting of the current Pope.

                        > The Church continues to expand its base in Latin America, the
                        > Phillipines and in Africa - Opus Dei waiting in the wings.

                        Yes, indeed but too but mother Theresa, the propagandaist for them
                        died. Who would they turn to now?
                        >

                        > But Church aside - the United States is a reformulation of the
                        > Republican ideals of Rome; the legal and military systems are
                        > based on Roman models - the legislature owes much of its
                        > origins to Roman predecessors.
                        >
                        And one more thing is the use of monetary system which is quiet liken
                        to that of Rome.

                        > Right now American republicanism (the USA is not a true
                        > democracy, contrary to popular belief) is threatened by the
                        > increasing powers of the Executive and its support from
                        > Christian extremists - much the same as in late antiquity.
                        >
                        It is disturbing that these people coupled with extreme zionists and
                        Islamists (Wahabism-Islamo-fascists) are getting control.


                        > However, the system does have protections built in having
                        > installed a judiciary which acts independently - to a degree - of
                        > the Executive,
                        >to wit we have had some rather conroversial
                        > rulings like the recent one on the Plejaliejuntz.
                        >
                        but thanks to the 9-11 Reichtag incidents the rights are slowly
                        striping away for the reason of National Security. So we must get
                        these terrorists, right? Like in rome we must protect from German
                        barbarians. but you know I think these barberians and roman officials
                        knew each other. hhhmmm I wonder bin Ladin and Bush .....

                        > States also still exert some degree of autonomy, albeit much of
                        > that was dismantled by the despot Abraham Lincoln - yes I know
                        > he is a favorite for abolishing slavery, but his war against the
                        > South was disatrous and dismantled the federal rights of States.
                        > I suppose he was a Julius Caesar, we are simply awaiting our
                        > Constantine - perhaps he is already here.
                        >

                        Hey, Lincoln didn't care for black slaves. His plan was to send them
                        all back to Africa. (Like Liberia which is what that nation was
                        created) And right it was the state rights that was lost in the
                        American Civil War. Too bad the issue that used in the state rights
                        was slavery which had moral consequeces. I think we could again insert
                        the state's rights this time by bringing up the medical marijana.


                        But the next Constantine well.... After Nero that is Shrub, I think it
                        could Hirary Rodem Clinton. So it could be she.
                      • ernststrohregenmantelrad
                        ... Demiurge a ... yeah, so in sum the more you know about these things. Everything you know is wrong like AIDS then you start to wonder. Who won the WWII.
                        Message 11 of 15 , Jul 12, 2002
                        • 0 Attachment
                          > morph's post seemed pretty gnostic to me, since it dealt with oppressive
                          > powers on our Earth which try to stifle the freedom of people and keep
                          > them asleep and unconscious (maybe if he had thrown in the word
                          Demiurge a
                          > few times it would be properly gnostified? :)
                          >


                          yeah, so in sum the more you know about these things. Everything you
                          know is wrong like AIDS then you start to wonder.

                          Who won the WWII. That's right Nazis

                          Those things won me over to the Gnostic view.
                        • morphodyte
                          ... the ... Thank you Ernst, I also found a great deal interesting in your response. ( ...) ... suggests a ... West ... affected ... and ... Cyrillic ... Yes
                          Message 12 of 15 , Jul 13, 2002
                          • 0 Attachment
                            --- In gnosticism2@y..., ernststrohregenmantelrad
                            <no_reply@y...> wrote:
                            > Dear Morphodyte. I really commend you on your knowledge on
                            the
                            > subject. I really apreciate your input.
                            >

                            Thank you Ernst, I also found a great deal interesting in your
                            response.
                            ( ...)

                            > > the bureaucratic divide of Rome into East and West
                            suggests a
                            > > decentralization of power in late antiquity to make the vast
                            > > Empire more manageable.
                            > >
                            >
                            > On the side note to this the line that separates the East and
                            West
                            > Empire is STILL there. If you notice the western side is Roman
                            > Catholism and the the eastern side is Orthodox. This in turn
                            affected
                            > the form of writing as well as the West uses the Latin alpahbet
                            and
                            > the East (with the exception of Rumania and Albenia) uses
                            Cyrillic
                            > alphabet.

                            Yes the ancient hatreds with the Serbs and Croats reflect the
                            divide and animus between the Greek and Roma episcopate
                            after the decision of Rome to centralize all authority at the
                            Vatican. Given the recent wars started in Balkans, it is plain to
                            see that the ancient Roman interests STILL play out in our day -

                            Ernst is correct in saying that Rome never died -

                            and Philip K. Dick also wrote to the same effect in Radio Free
                            Albemuth when he also drew the parallel to the US and Soviet
                            Union dividing up the world between East and West like Rome
                            and Constantinople.

                            > Roman Empire included Africa and that line is also visible.
                            However,
                            > it is not clearly distingishable unless you know something
                            about
                            > Arabic dialects. Arabic dialects could be divided into East and
                            West
                            > too and percise there that line falls in somewhere west of
                            Eygypt. For
                            > the dialects of Maghreb and that of Egypt and vastly different.
                            Ok I
                            > guess I ventured into off topic here.
                            >

                            Actually this is interesting and may also be reflected in the types
                            of historical development we see in Islamic thought; just to
                            speculate, we see the establishment of the Umayyad califat in
                            Cordova and the Abbasid Baghdad califat in Babylon, again an
                            East-West divide with the dicision falling somewhere along
                            Tunis, until the formation of the Fatimid Califat for a period of two
                            hundred years, and the foundation of Cairo.

                            Similarly, the Califat in the Maghrib fell to the descendants of
                            those same Goths, Vandals and Sueves that formerly drove out
                            Rome. Like late Rome, the Califat of Cordova collapsed
                            because of internal rivalries, fundamentalist religious
                            movements ( Almohads and Murabitun) and disunited armies.

                            The Fatimid califat, a resurgence of Ptolemaic Egypt, along with
                            a variant form of Islam - Fatimid Ismailism and its neoplatonic
                            and Alexandrian influences.

                            >
                            > > These aspects of the Empire functioned so well that when
                            the
                            > > Vandals sacked Rome, the religious arm of the Imperial
                            > > government was able to survive and establish itself by the
                            time
                            > > of Charlemagne as a power functioning independently of the
                            > > Constantinople government and its diaconate.

                            And when Constantinople fell to the Turks, the Sultans only had
                            to step into a bureaucracy that continued to function and serve
                            the new Emperors, the Sultans who managed an empire which
                            conformed more of less to old Byzantium.

                            > Funny, you brought in goths and vandals. aren't they adhered to
                            > Arianism form of Christianity at first? Can we make some
                            connection here?
                            >

                            I have often wondered if the collapse of the West was due to
                            some resentment or rebellion among the Visigothic
                            commanders of Spain who continued to practice their Arian
                            religion and resented the imposition of Trinity by Nicea.

                            Also, Priscillianus of Avila was the first bishop of record
                            executed for heresy. It is rumored that his remains are those in
                            the pilgrimage spot of Santiago Camposella, not St. James.

                            > > England. the next blow was the French Revolution and the
                            loss
                            > > of political power in France.

                            (>>>)
                            (>>>)
                            > Ooooh now you are getting into to the meat of it. I would like to
                            > mention them in relation to the Vatican bank scandal (money
                            laudrying
                            > with Italian and american mafias) and a bogus masonic lodge
                            P-2 which
                            > have great deal to do with the death of JP I (which became a
                            sub-plot
                            > for the movie "Godfather III") and shooting of the current Pope.
                            >

                            Yes, JP-I seems to have been 'put to sleep' by those interested
                            in installing someone more attuned to regaining temporal power
                            after John XXIII managed to dismantle so much with Vatican 2.

                            > > The Church continues to expand its base in Latin America,
                            the
                            > > Phillipines and in Africa - Opus Dei waiting in the wings.
                            >
                            > Yes, indeed but too but mother Theresa, the propagandaist for
                            them
                            > died. Who would they turn to now?
                            > >

                            Actually, their current Modus Operandi is to use 'liberation
                            theology' and community intervention in the form of health clinics,
                            pharmaceuticals and hospitals and schools- for example in
                            Guatemala where the Church has managed to play Government
                            against the indigenous Maya - offering the Maya safety if they
                            practice Catholic religion rather than the ancient Maya.
                            (>>>)
                            > And one more thing is the use of monetary system which is
                            quiet liken
                            > to that of Rome.
                            >

                            The coin of Caesar, I agree very much so.

                            > > Right now American republicanism (the USA is not a true
                            > > democracy, contrary to popular belief) is threatened by the
                            > > increasing powers of the Executive and its support from
                            > > Christian extremists - much the same as in late antiquity.
                            > >
                            > It is disturbing that these people coupled with extreme zionists
                            and
                            > Islamists (Wahabism-Islamo-fascists) are getting control.
                            >

                            Fundamentalism is a curious reaction to modernity, let us not
                            forget Americans are just as violently fundamentalist over two
                            main issues;

                            abortion

                            teaching evolution in schools.

                            These two issues alone have given what would otherwise be
                            regarded as backwater hicks a major control of American
                            politics.

                            recent comments by Southern baptist leadership calling
                            Muhammad a demonic pedophile bode ill for the couse of
                            American destiny; perhaps we will again see witch burnings if
                            these rabid bigots are not reigned in.

                            (>>>>)
                            > but thanks to the 9-11 Reichtag incidents the rights are slowly
                            > striping away for the reason of National Security. So we must
                            get
                            > these terrorists, right?

                            Like the Reichstag, the 9-11 has given the Brown Shirts in
                            American politics the rule of the day - anyone suspected of
                            'terrorism' can now be hauled off to tribunal without legal counsel
                            or due process - the "terrorists" have succeeded in ways most
                            Americans do not suspect; they have gotten us to destroy our
                            own freedoms. Now police, having been made into heroes by
                            sacrificing bodies at the Altar of 1 and 2 World Trade Center act
                            with impunity to beat up and harrass not "terrorists" but blacks,
                            hispanics, and people middle eastern descent - anyone with a
                            brown skin, because the now common perception is that they
                            are all heroes.

                            Homeland Security - Fatherland the resemblances are all to
                            scary.

                            >Like in rome we must protect from German
                            > barbarians. but you know I think these barberians and roman
                            officials
                            > knew each other. hhhmmm I wonder bin Ladin and Bush .....
                            >

                            yes, the Goth armies were in the employ of Rome, they grew the
                            wheat for Roman bread on the banks of Guadalquivir, citrus from
                            Valencia, wine from Seville, olive oil - hmmm. Now we get
                            petroleum oil from the very enemies we would protect our
                            empire from.
                            (>>>>)
                            > Hey, Lincoln didn't care for black slaves. His plan was to send
                            them
                            > all back to Africa. (Like Liberia which is what that nation was
                            > created) And right it was the state rights that was lost in the
                            > American Civil War.

                            Agreed, the emancipation was aimed only at the dismantling of
                            Southern agriculture and economy to favor polictical and
                            economic control by the industrialized North - get the black to
                            migrate North to work for low wage in the textile factories .

                            Too bad the issue that used in the state rights
                            > was slavery which had moral consequeces. I think we could
                            again insert
                            > the state's rights this time by bringing up the medical marijana.
                            >

                            The predecessor in the "War on Terror", the "War on Drugs" - say
                            goodbye to amendments 4, 5, 9, to protect us from the demon
                            weed and wage undeclared war on villagers in Mexico and the
                            Andes. The war on Drugs sets a bad precedent for the War on
                            Terror since they are both unspecified and undefined enemies;
                            no clear objectives or outcomes and terrorism like drug is a
                            matter of definition, someday refusing to say Pledge Allegiance
                            could get suspect of terrorist sympathy and jail - we live in
                            Orwellian times.

                            Terrorist, like Christian in the Colusseum - anyone suspected
                            can be fed to Lions, or in this case, the Police. Quickly our
                            country has forgotten the lessons of McCarthy era where anyone
                            could be suspect of Communism - and like a witch, only took the
                            suspicion to be accused and convicted.

                            The value of Gnosticism in our times cannot be understated
                            because it is of course a message of Freedom, not dogma or
                            doctrine nor Law nor State. The times we live in are an echo of
                            our ancestors, the Rome that never died.

                            Morph
                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.