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

Re: Gnostic Gospels Chapter 1

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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.