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

check

Expand Messages
  • Mark Swaney
    Hello SL list - is anyone out there?
    Message 1 of 12 , Jan 10, 2006
    • 0 Attachment

      Hello SL list – is anyone out there?

       

    • Khem Caigan
      ... Hi, Mark. I copy you solid. ~ Khem Caigan
      Message 2 of 12 , Jan 10, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        Mark Swaney writes:
        >
        > Hello SL list – is anyone out there?

        Hi, Mark. I copy you solid.


        ~ Khem Caigan
        <Khem@...>
      • Mark Swaney
        Khem and the crew, I was thinking that I couldn t post to the list but I decided to try again - and viola! I am still able to post. Interesting discussions -
        Message 3 of 12 , Jan 10, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          Khem and the crew,

          I was thinking that I couldn't post to the list but I decided to try again -
          and viola! I am still able to post.

          Interesting discussions - I have enjoyed reading them. In fact Mike has
          contributed to my self-knowledge by recommending the book "Doubt". I saw it
          at the bookstore over the holidays and I told my girlfriend about it and she
          liked it and bought the book.

          Later, I was looking through the beginning of the book and came across a
          questionnaire that is designed to measure the degree of your belief - how
          much you are a "believer" and how much you are not. I discovered - to my
          amazement - that I am a maximum doubter. In fact, based on my total of 18
          out of 18 "NO!" answers I am a "special kind of atheist" - a "rational
          materialist". Wooo. Sounds scary.

          I suspect that Mike is also a Rat-Mat. So that makes at least two of us on
          this list. I think that we are the only ones though, at least I haven't read
          any other posts by folks that give me the impression that they are even
          close to being Rat-Mats.

          Sing out if YOU are a rational materialist! We are outnumbered and need all
          the spiritual guidance and moral support that we can get. Rational
          materialists have feelings too you know - we get lonely and think that our
          friends don't understand us. We want to feel that we are as loved and
          accepted as anyone and that our lives have meaning and purpose and that we
          are OK people.

          Hug a rational materialist today!

          I am continuing to study Western history in detail. On the "standard line"
          of history I am up to about the 15th century - just got done with the
          Hundred Years War. Very, very interesting.

          As a hobby, I am making a total time line. That is, starting from the Big
          Bang (it happened right before the Big Cigarette . . .) and proceeding down
          through the First Three Minutes and then on to the formation of stars and
          galaxy's and then our solar system - the beginnings of Earth and on to the
          beginning of life (from totally physical causes of course!) and through the
          evolutionary record of life - single cell organisms, multi-celluar, lower
          forms, up through the reptiles and then the mammals - finally culminating in
          the primates and the great apes followed by the development (by purely
          physical means!) of human life and the beginning of Human History. Then
          things get really interesting because we can go into greater and greater
          detail as the time scales get closer to human scales of understanding. The
          "savage" phase (I've always envied savages somehow, its like I miss
          something by not killing my own food and eating it raw with the blood
          dripping down - oops, sorry) followed by the even more interesting
          "neolithic" phase followed by civilization and so on down through the
          ancient empires of Sumeria, Egypt, Babylon, Persia, and Greece. At last we
          arrive at the Biblical Era and there are a LOT of interesting things to know
          about that - more later - So now we can cover church history and the end of
          the Roman Empire (if it really is ended, and I have my doubts) then there is
          the Age of the Barbarians - otherwise known as European History.
          Eventually, I get to my own personal "Ancestor Horizon" (my own term - I
          make 'em up if I don't already know a handy phrase for what I'm thinking
          about) I calculate it at about the 15th century. Before that, I have no
          unique ancestors and before then your ancestors (if you are Caucasian) are
          the same as mine. From there on in to the glorious present time we are on
          firmer and firmer ground and I start to include my own family history
          beginning with Lord Thomas Almoreen Beckwith in the late 17th century in
          Northumberland and then on down to, well, ME!

          Odd hobbies, huh?

          Just for grins the other day my girlfriend and I researched the so-called
          "grail family" of Holy Blood Holy Grail (HBHG). I wanted to find out if
          there are known descendants of the Grail Family - IF one ASSUMED that the
          entire HBHG hypothesis is actually correct as presented in the book. That
          led to some interesting results that are too detailed to get into right now,
          but very interesting stuff.

          Before I close for now I wanted to throw out an interesting question to
          everyone to see what folks think about it.

          Know how that with computer programs using known principals of authorship it
          is possible to tell whether or not the same person wrote two separate works?

          Well, ever wonder what would happen if you applied that well-known and
          well-attested method used in respectable research to the New Testament?

          Well, I never did either until I started this research, but it turns out
          (according to one book I read) that the letters of Paul in the NT aren't
          written by the same author - there were TWO of them. We can't tell which
          letters were written by the real Paul (or if either of the two authors are
          actually the Apostle) but assuming that most of the letters were written by
          the Apostle - that leaves Seven that weren't. They are forgeries. And the
          result of the forgeries is not unimportant to church history.

          What say you to that?

          Mark
        • A. Hawk
          First of all, the differences in languages in the Pauline scriptures is more logically attributed to his known habit of accessing an amanuensis to complete and
          Message 4 of 12 , Jan 12, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            First of all, the differences in languages in the Pauline scriptures is
            more logically attributed to his known habit of accessing an amanuensis
            to complete and to transmit his rough drafts. Certain letters even have
            references to his attaching an appendix in his own hand to confirm the
            letter ....
            I'm not familiar with the arguments in the book to which you all refer,
            but is also know that St. Paul also underwent at least two periods when
            he changed his basic message content and format to fit his expanded
            understanding or the developing situation. So which seven are
            supposedly forgeries?
            BTW, if the list includes "Hebrews" it should be noted that no scholar
            of the history of the N.T. ever considered Hebrews to be St. Paul's
            actual work. Its inclusion in the canon is one of the more peculiar
            elements.

            Secondarily, last year a fairly extensive critique of that parallels to
            Jesus list appeared somewhere ... I'll need to dig around to find
            somebody who has it.
            But, frankly, given that these sort of events are the kinds of events
            which folks who encounter an incarnation expect to happen, it does not
            seem all that improbable that they would necessarily be resonances with
            the primal event in the incarnation of ultimate Deity ... such as
            Christians claim Jesus to to be! LOL

            Be Blest,
            Ambrose Hawk
            --
            IN HOC MODO MILLIS FRANGITVR .
          • Mark Swaney
            Ambrose, I will have to get the book back from the library - but I know where it is in the stacks and I can check. The book made reference to specific studies
            Message 5 of 12 , Jan 13, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              Ambrose,

              I will have to get the book back from the library - but I know where it is
              in the stacks and I can check. The book made reference to specific studies
              that I want to get anyway.

              The book that refers to the differences between the two sets of letters was
              examining the nature of Paul's ideas with regard to Gnosticism. The theory
              put forward is that in spite of several very Gnostic ideas that Paul is
              credited with in his letters, in other places Paul condemns the Gnostics.
              The book claimed that 7 of the letters of Paul were written much later by
              another author and attributed to Paul so that the later orthodoxy of the
              Fourth century Roman church would not be disturbed by pro-gnostic statements
              made by Paul in the first century.

              In other books as well as this one I have come across the problem of
              determining the actual attitude of Paul toward the Gnostics.

              I'm interested in the Gnostics because they were purged from the church in
              the fourth century, but before that were very active and had a large
              following. They may have had access to traditions about the mystical
              writings in the NT - they certainly claimed that they did.

              Generally, I'm interested in all of the early Christians - that is, before
              the time of Constantine. Especially the ones that didn't make the cut. We
              know what the Roman Catholics thought - they survived to tell us - but their
              competition did not.

              If there is any solution to the mystery of NT Gematria it is likely not to
              be found in the orthodox above-ground teachings of the Romans, but rather
              will be rooted in the beliefs of the first century proto-Christians such as
              the Ebionites and the Gnostics.

              Mark


              -----Original Message-----
              From: sacredlandscapelist@yahoogroups.com
              [mailto:sacredlandscapelist@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of A. Hawk
              Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2006 5:01 PM
              To: sacredlandscapelist@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: [sl] Re: Life, History, Belief, Ancestors and the Bible

              First of all, the differences in languages in the Pauline scriptures is
              more logically attributed to his known habit of accessing an amanuensis
              to complete and to transmit his rough drafts. Certain letters even have
              references to his attaching an appendix in his own hand to confirm the
              letter ....
              I'm not familiar with the arguments in the book to which you all refer,
              but is also know that St. Paul also underwent at least two periods when
              he changed his basic message content and format to fit his expanded
              understanding or the developing situation. So which seven are
              supposedly forgeries?
              BTW, if the list includes "Hebrews" it should be noted that no scholar
              of the history of the N.T. ever considered Hebrews to be St. Paul's
              actual work. Its inclusion in the canon is one of the more peculiar
              elements.

              Secondarily, last year a fairly extensive critique of that parallels to
              Jesus list appeared somewhere ... I'll need to dig around to find
              somebody who has it.
              But, frankly, given that these sort of events are the kinds of events
              which folks who encounter an incarnation expect to happen, it does not
              seem all that improbable that they would necessarily be resonances with
              the primal event in the incarnation of ultimate Deity ... such as
              Christians claim Jesus to to be! LOL

              Be Blest,
              Ambrose Hawk
              --
              IN HOC MODO MILLIS FRANGITVR .





              Topics suitable for discussion in this e-list can be found at:
              http://www.luckymojo.com/sacredland.html

              To UNsubscribe, send email to:
              sacredlandscapelist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

              Yahoo! Groups Links
            • A. Hawk
              Okay, Mark, a few comments. First of all, the Pauline corpus was complete long before 200 AD ... pretty much as we have it now ... and before some of the texts
              Message 6 of 12 , Jan 14, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                Okay, Mark, a few comments.
                First of all, the Pauline corpus was complete long before 200 AD ...
                pretty much as we have it now ... and before some of the texts from the
                Nag Hammadi collection were written. The idea that they were compiled
                any later cannot be supported in the long run. It's been decades since
                I was studying these things professionally, but fairly certain that most
                of the corpus can be identified in quotes etc. from other documents of
                the period .... let alone the various lists as the canonicity of texts
                as "Scripture" (a very special designation ... a lot of stuff was
                accepted as good and valid in those days, but now as "Scripture") was
                debated.
                Secondarily, the writings of St. Paul clearly refer to "gnosis falsely
                so called" which would indicate to me that St. Paul was open to some
                sort of ideas of gnosis, but not the strain now associated with
                classical gnosticism. I've a file which discusses the difference
                between classic gnosticism and "orthodox" Christian Gnosticism which
                I'll post separately (it's rather long).
                Third, I tend to doubt that the various Gnostic cults ever approached
                the sheer numbers involved in the Apostolic traditions. By its very
                nature, Gnosticism is elitist and exclusive whereas the orthodox cults
                were extremely popular in the more numerous "women and slaves" portion
                of the populace.
                Fourth, the classical Gnostics subscribed to several competing and
                convoluted cosmologies which are also clearly non-Judaic in origin, thus
                necessarily tend to eliminate themselves from the concept of authentic
                teaching of even the Galilean school of Judaism ...
                Regards,
                Ambrose

                --
                IN HOC MODO MILLIS FRANGITVR .
              • danw888
                ... AD ... ... from the ... compiled ... since ... that most ... documents of ... texts ... was ... falsely ... some ... which ... approached ... very ...
                Message 7 of 12 , Jan 15, 2006
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In sacredlandscapelist@yahoogroups.com, "A. Hawk" <ahawk@c...>
                  wrote:
                  >
                  > Okay, Mark, a few comments.
                  > First of all, the Pauline corpus was complete long before 200
                  AD ...
                  > pretty much as we have it now ... and before some of the texts
                  from the
                  > Nag Hammadi collection were written. The idea that they were
                  compiled
                  > any later cannot be supported in the long run. It's been decades
                  since
                  > I was studying these things professionally, but fairly certain
                  that most
                  > of the corpus can be identified in quotes etc. from other
                  documents of
                  > the period .... let alone the various lists as the canonicity of
                  texts
                  > as "Scripture" (a very special designation ... a lot of stuff was
                  > accepted as good and valid in those days, but now as "Scripture")
                  was
                  > debated.
                  > Secondarily, the writings of St. Paul clearly refer to "gnosis
                  falsely
                  > so called" which would indicate to me that St. Paul was open to
                  some
                  > sort of ideas of gnosis, but not the strain now associated with
                  > classical gnosticism. I've a file which discusses the difference
                  > between classic gnosticism and "orthodox" Christian Gnosticism
                  which
                  > I'll post separately (it's rather long).
                  > Third, I tend to doubt that the various Gnostic cults ever
                  approached
                  > the sheer numbers involved in the Apostolic traditions. By its
                  very
                  > nature, Gnosticism is elitist and exclusive whereas the orthodox
                  cults
                  > were extremely popular in the more numerous "women and slaves"
                  portion
                  > of the populace.
                  > Fourth, the classical Gnostics subscribed to several competing and
                  > convoluted cosmologies which are also clearly non-Judaic in
                  origin, thus
                  > necessarily tend to eliminate themselves from the concept of
                  authentic
                  > teaching of even the Galilean school of Judaism ...
                  > Regards,
                  > Ambrose
                  >
                  > --
                  > IN HOC MODO MILLIS FRANGITVR .
                  >

                  Pre-christian gnosticism is a foggy area, denied by many scholars.
                  Scholem has a very interesting book on Jewish gnositicism and
                  merkabah mysticism, which basically says that there was an esoteric
                  judaism that got used by early christianity and shows up most
                  strongly in christian gnosticism. Gnosticism is a wastebasket
                  category. You are really not talking about anything real until you
                  strart specifying the details of what the different sects believed.
                  The gnosis falsely so called ref by Paul may have nothing to do with
                  whatever the word gnosticism calls up in your mind.

                  See my paper on the Hidden Wisdom in early christianity.

                  Dan
                • Chris
                  Hi Gene, ... Interesting. Thanks for the heads up. ... True enough. ... I think you make a good point. But the argument runs the risk of the whole initiate
                  Message 8 of 12 , Jan 18, 2006
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Hi Gene,


                    >
                    > You can add Simon Magus who was a contemprary of Jesus and more of
                    > a 'miracle worker' than was Jesus to your list. Simon Magus has been
                    > refered to by some as the "Second Messiah."

                    Interesting. Thanks for the heads up.
                    >
                    > It is disturbing to believers when they are made aware of the many
                    > other "Jesus Look-Alikes". The typical reaction is probably a form
                    > of denial, like that of your friend. Denial is one of our most used
                    > and effective 'defense' mechanisms.

                    True enough.
                    >
                    > I think it is possible to get an understanding of this if you can
                    > accept the notion of there being an 'esoteric' and an 'exoteric'
                    > interpretation of religious scripture. If we stick to the assertion
                    > that religious scripture is literally true then you have hit
                    > an 'immovable object', something has to give - either you deny the
                    > facts of the many "Jesus Look Alikes" and go around the object and on
                    > your way or you accept the facts and become an unbeliever. (
                    > Unbeliever in the historical uniqueness of Jesus Christ as the one
                    > and only appearance of Christ, which is a Christian basic. )
                    >
                    > On the other hand, from an esoteric point of view, there is
                    > an 'archetypal realm/dimension', which is the Source of manifested
                    > souls, angelic forms, gods, in the physical plane. According to
                    > esoteric teaching there is indeed One Christ, spiritually, but He has
                    > incarnated many times and places. In India there are the Avatars.
                    > But, even from a purely 'exoteric' interpretation, there was only one
                    > historical Jesus Christ. This is true. However, it is that it was
                    > one Jesus, fulfilling the 'office' of Christ.

                    I think you make a good point. But the argument runs the risk of the whole
                    "initiate" B.S. I just can't stand. Just another way of propping up one's
                    ego. Better to go the Buddhist route, in my opinion, and just treat it as so
                    many varieties of (one's) self.

                    >
                    > Regarding the number 153. I suppose you have read Mitchell's
                    > interpretation in "City of Revelation"?
                    >
                    > He says the "key is the number 1224, which is the value by gematria
                    > of both (the Greek ) 'net', and the (Greek ) 'fishes'. 1224 is equal
                    > to 8 times 153, and 153 is the sum of the number 1 - 17..."
                    >
                    > Best Regards, Gene J

                    Okay, thanks. I don't put much stock in Mitchell, personally, but noted.
                    Cheers.

                    -Chris
                  • Chris
                    Ambrose, ... I hardly think people expect these sorts of events to happen: when would Dec 25 be expected over any other time of year? Spring makes more sense
                    Message 9 of 12 , Jan 18, 2006
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Ambrose,

                      >
                      > Secondarily, last year a fairly extensive critique of that parallels to
                      > Jesus list appeared somewhere ... I'll need to dig around to find
                      > somebody who has it.
                      > But, frankly, given that these sort of events are the kinds of events
                      > which folks who encounter an incarnation expect to happen, it does not
                      > seem all that improbable that they would necessarily be resonances with
                      > the primal event in the incarnation of ultimate Deity ... such as
                      > Christians claim Jesus to to be! LOL

                      I hardly think people expect "these sorts of events" to happen: when would
                      Dec 25 be expected over any other time of year? Spring makes more sense to
                      me; or why male? A goddess makes sense when I think of the earth; or why
                      virgin? This automatically proves non-earthly origin?

                      I grant you that "rose from the dead" is a compelling expectation but the
                      others less so.

                      -Chris
                    • Chris
                      Hi Dan, ... Possibly. But this merely begs the question, in my view. Dante all over again. ... Not sure where this is directed: myself or Gene? It was I that
                      Message 10 of 12 , Jan 18, 2006
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Hi Dan,


                        > I think the traditional church reply to the jesus look alikes was
                        > that the demons enacted these false appearances before christ to
                        > cast doubt on the real appearance of christ.

                        Possibly. But this merely begs the question, in my view. Dante all over
                        again.
                        >
                        > So what's with the jesus look alikes are we talking diffusion,
                        > archetype, similarity of the one spiritual paths, etc.? You seem to
                        > be voting for a multiple projection of one truth from the realm of
                        > the gods and angels.

                        Not sure where this is directed: myself or Gene? It was I that brought forth
                        the examples. But if you mean the esoteric argument...it would be along the
                        lines of Swedenborg's "correspondences". Jung's archetypes are not that far
                        off from this line of thought, when you think about: repeating patterns are
                        common enough in nature, so why not in though, dream, and yes myth.

                        >
                        > I did some research on 153 years ago and, if I remember correctly,
                        > it is the number of the mother of Jesus, Mary. Since 153 is
                        > associated with the vesica and the vesica is the shape of the female
                        > vulva -- remember that christ appears in the vesica in the medieval
                        > cathedrals which were dedicated to notre dame, our mother, Mary --
                        > the symbolism as I read it is that 153, the fish, means the mother
                        > of Jesus, in the sense that jesus is the entrance of the divine into
                        > physical reality. Hence Mary is the mother of all the faithful into
                        > whom is born the spirit of the divine.

                        Beautiful, Dan. Thanks for mentioning this.

                        -Chris
                      • Chris
                        Hi Gene, ... The source I gave was Patrick Campbell. The list comes from http://www.relgioustolerance.org. Why do you think it comes from Graves? Never heard
                        Message 11 of 12 , Jan 18, 2006
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Hi Gene,

                          >
                          > Chris's information regarding historical Jesus Look-A-Likes perhaps
                          > comes either directly or indirectly from Graves's book.

                          The source I gave was Patrick Campbell. The list comes from
                          http://www.relgioustolerance.org Why do you think it comes from Graves?

                          Never heard of Graves or Carrier. But I'm willing to wager we poster-people
                          for esochris here at SL would lay money on less than 16 and more than 2.

                          If I had the inclination I could back up the list I gave. The two that are
                          suspect are:

                          I suspect Campbell has stretched the known facts with these three: Hercules,
                          Hermes, Prometheus,.

                          Very certainly Jesus *was* Bacchus and Osiris (in the "correspondence" sense
                          of being); I do not understand why Carrier is so dismissive of this myth.

                          Mithras and Horus are likely given the Mithraism threat to early
                          Christianity and the direct importation of icons from Egyptian religion.

                          As for Perseus, one should never underestimate the power of his myth.
                          Bottomless.

                          -Chris

                          >Carrier says
                          > he has been reseaching this subject for 10 years and says he finds no
                          > substantial evidence to support Graves' claims of sixteen crucified,
                          > resurrected saviors that can be comapred to Jesus Christ. Carrier
                          > says that there are actually only two 'gods' that can be accurately
                          > compared to Jesus Christ - Zalmoxis ( Thracian god also known as
                          > Salmoxis or Gebele'izis ) and Inanna.
                          >
                          > Carrier says that most the other so-called "crucified/resurrected"
                          > saviors are actually agricultural dieties that dramatize the seasonal
                          > birth and death theme - dying, going into the Underworld and
                          > returning to renew the earth, etc. These gods were Demeter,
                          > Dionysis, Persephone, Castor and Pollox, Isis and Osiris and Cybele
                          > and Attis.
                          >
                          > Gene J
                          >
                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.