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

9222Theos-World Re: God as "A Being" versus God as "No-being"

Expand Messages
  • Steve Stubbs
    Nov 25, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      In theos?talk@y..., samblo@c... wrote:
      > Well, you have delved in Catholicism where I have not search that
      > deeply.

      I never really thought of it as that, since it has nothing to do with
      the modern religion (except inasmuch as the modern religion is an
      exoteric husk of the original.)

      One
      > monitor of mine was the consideration that many of the high
      potentates of
      > the Church
      > were literally Franchises and Fiefdoms of men who for the
      requisite fee
      > purchased
      > the office, stature and mantle

      Well, yes, I am not going to defend the catholic church. It is a
      fact that the original sect was rooted in Kabbalism, specifically the
      Merkabah and Yetzireh schools of first century Jewish mysticism.
      Mead refers to this briefly in his book on the Jewish traditions
      about Jesus. The story of the "Temptation," for example, is very
      characteristic of first century Jewish mystical thinking, and
      includes veiled references to an amazing assortment of ideas which
      are altogether unknown to most moderns.

      > I would like and appreciate a view from your perspective of
      > which you came
      > to consider as expressly "Initiate" by name and why as this would
      be a
      > stimulating
      > sharing.

      Irenaeus says in his book that he took pains to get initiated into
      the Valentinian school, and that he had long discussions with their
      students and read their books. According to Tertuliian Valentinus
      was an up-and-coming priest with considerable potential who went to
      Rome during the time of Hyginus and expected to swiftly advance in
      the hierarchy. He was passed over, became furious, and started his
      own organization in Egypt in which he taught the esoteric teaching of
      Paul, which was handed down orally from mouth to ear, but never set
      into writing before his time. Naturally his peers were furious and
      set out to condemn him as a humbug while secretly studying his
      stuff. Ambrose was one of his students, but Irenaeus was the one who
      left the most extensive account of it, suitably obfuscated.
      Naturally Irenaeus called it all horseshit while at the same time
      going to considerable trouble to learn and write about it. His book
      is pretty essential before tackling the primary Valentinian sources
      in the Nag Hammadi manuscripts, which are also written to be
      inscrutable to non initiates. Unfortunately, you have to throw out
      all the garbage when reading Irenaeus, then rearrange the resulting
      fragments and get rid of all the synonyms. That defeats his effort
      to make himself inscrutable while at the same time preserving these
      teachings. It also helps to keep in mind the history of Gnosticism,
      in which Valentinus' school lef to all sorts of derivatives. This
      can be confusing if you don't keep in mind that they were just
      changing the original system around and repackaging it.

      That Paul had a secret teaching is documented by Blavatsky in Isis
      Unveiled, but she did not say what it consisted of.

      Basilides claimed his initiatic lineage went back to "the secret
      discourses of Matthias," by which I take it he meant the apostle
      Matthew, and Glaucias, the interpreter of Peter. His school
      therefore went back to JC himself. As we know from Blavatsky, there
      was a war between Peter and Paul (she wrote about that in Isis) and
      there were disagreements between these two esoteric schools on some
      matters. It appears the "abrogation of the Law" actually originated
      within the Basilidean lineage and that Paul did not originate it but
      rather moderated it. The "abrogation of the law" also had an
      esoteric significance which made its way into Theosophy, although
      Blavatsky does not make a point of drawing the reader's attention to
      that fact.

      The writer of Revelation was a Merkabah mystic, as his book makes
      clear. There are all sorts of esoteric notions referred to in there,
      but without studying Merkabah mysticism you will not get any of
      them. The writer is believed to have been the apostle John, whose
      lineage goes back to JC again. The gospel which bears his name was
      written at Ephesus by a student of his who had a much better command
      of literary Greek. It alludes to Merkabah mysticism throughout.
      This book was a textbook with the Valentinian school, and Mead says,
      inaccurately, I believe, that it originated within the Valentinian
      circles. John disputed with the Basilidean lineage on certain
      matters which points to an early schism not otherwise documented.
      According to Clement of Alexandria, in addition to Merkabah methods
      he used fasting and chanting for purpose of stilling the mind and
      bringing about the visions recorded in his book. That is referred to
      in his essay about whether or not the rich man can be "saved." As
      Annie Besant points out in Esoteric Christianity, Polycarp was one of
      John's disciples, and also a student of Merkabah mysticism, although
      Besant knew very little about it and her book is almost worthless.
      She quotes Polycarp on hs esoteric studies vut does not know what he
      was talking about. There are two interesting chapters in Besant's
      book in which she quotes various early authors to the effect that
      there was an esoteric Christianity, but she did not know what it
      consisted of. That is true of almost all the books written to
      explain esoteric Christianity. The information I have uncovered is
      not in any published book of which I am aware, or is not assembled so
      that people can see what it means, anyway. It is scattered through
      dozens of ancient documents.

      According to the Secret Gospel of Mark, discovered by Morton Smith,
      the apostle Mark was also an initiate. It appears that it was
      through him that esoteric teaching went to Clement of Alexandria and
      especially Origen, who touches on numerous esoteric points in his
      book CONTRA CELSUM. None of these authors make it clear, but it can
      be shown that their inheritance consisted largely of the use of
      divine names for mystical purposes, which was the interest of the
      Yetzireh school. Dionysius the Areopagite, who was the most explicit
      writer on esoteric subjects, left an essay called "Divine Names." He
      makes it clear that the ultimate reality in the esoteric school was
      not personal, as did Basilides and Valentinus.

      That does not of course scratch the surface. I have been working
      this puzzle for about 40 years, and especially for the past 11
      years. There is something hidden under almost every word. It is
      simply amazing the way they concealed their esoterica in writings
      which are everywhere today. And then you have all these jokers
      running around quoting this stuff with no idea what it really means.
      It is almost laughable to see ignorant people pompously quoting "the
      bible" with no comprehension of the concealed meaning.

      This should not be confused with any of the modern religious cults
      which use the christian name for a franchise. It is quite certain
      that ignorant television preachers know nothing of this. Blavatsky
      and others insisted the catholic hierarchy knows all about it, but
      the evidence that this is true is scant. The keys are in the Ante
      Nicene Fathers and the NT if you are an intrepid and I do mean
      intrepid reader. That is why I prefer the online documents to the
      printed versions. I can use an editor to throw out the chaff and
      leave the wheat. Then I can rearrange the wheat so the meaning
      becomes clear. You also have to study Jewish ideas, especially
      Kaplan's writings.

      > I might ask as regards Mead and a system whether you read or
      have his
      > "Orpheus"
      > in which he delineates the Orphic Theogony with many schematic
      inserts?

      Yes, it has been ages, but I have seen it. Very good book.
    • Show all 15 messages in this topic