Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Chili · 02-05-2012, 07:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

In other words the Alexandrian tradition believed that Plato and the Greeks copied the Jewish 'mysteries' of Moses. How is this possible? Perhaps he/they believed that the Jewish mysteries bear some connection with Egyptian religion? Notice Clement doesn't say 'Egyptians' or 'pagans' but 'the Greeks'

Yes, and Moses was wong to lead the children of Israel into the promised land by parting the water to get there. It is a beatifull allegory, yes it is, but totally wrong as it was the spiritually fornication of all those who followed and certainly not promotional material in Greek wisdom.

These things are fatal for you, and the school of thought you present us and advocate still is the greatest fear of Judaism today. And you right! Modern Christianity fell for it and made one of the greatest movies ever made to pomote the same idea but that movie should have been banned on opening day as well (unless classified as Horror Movie maybe

).

Chili · 02-05-2012, 11:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

The idea here of course is that there are strong parallels between Plutarch's Isis and Philo's Sophia. The important thing for this argument is that Jesus is also consistently identified by Clement (Philo's devoted posthumous disciple) as the Sophia of God.

Jesus the Sophia of God? And we walk all over him as the bare naked empty coccoon get get Mary on top?

Chili · 02-05-2012, 11:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

I think is it. This is the real deal. All other 'mythicism' is complete bullshit. This is the mythical origins of Jesus as a divinity. No malice. No veiled attempt to make fun of the religion. Jesus was the yesh. It explains everything especially if Jesus was conceived as being crucified in the form on the lower left (especially if a large stage held up the saltire cross thus forming a chresimon):

World Soul, baby.

No, I think they were just trying to make him do cartwheels so he would not have carry it maybe.

Actually, the soul is that part if us that we do not know, and in Buddhism it is the difference between Annata and Nairatmaya were Annata is as totally lost in maya (illusion) and do not even know that you have a soul, and in Nairat-maya you no longer have a soul because you know who you are . . . and thus no more maya. Very subtle concept and one word like that can say more than a whole library can.

stephan huller · 02-05-2012, 12:30 PM

I don't know I am engaging Chili-Pepper

There was no Mary originally. This is a later development. Jesus was the Sophia.

Chili · 02-05-2012, 05:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

are merely copying the original name of Jesus = יֵשׁ as it appeared in the original Aramaic manuscripts which are now lost. In other words Ἰησοῦς is universally acknowledged to be an expansion of what appears in the earliest manuscripts. I am suggesting that it might have been an innovation. The original texts NEVER read 'Jesus.' They were suggesting that the World Soul (= in Hebrew יֵשׁ) took the appearance of a human being in order to be crucified and manifest his presence in a familiar Platonic sign (= chi).

In short יֵשׁ = IC (iota-sigma) AND THAT'S ALL. Ἰησοῦς was an expansion of the original understanding, an innovation.

Eidos is the soul of which there is only one and thus no plural in Greek and an eidolon is an extraction from it.

Here is from Plato's the Seventh Epistle 341C that deals only with one such ousia that is equal to the eidolon as an extraction from our soul.

"An 'eidolon' [ousia, or eidetic image] emerges from the soul 'on a sudden' as an excerpt from much emergent 'dwelling and living' with the matter itself, as does something set alight by a leaping fire and forthwith nourishing itself -syn-ousia and sy-zen with the pragma [and so on to us]."

Elsewhere I have called this RNA that so is substance with matter but no DNA and is the embodiment of the Intelligent Design and She is the Woman in charge who presides over the TOL and Jesus here now is the winnowing fan left behind when "his time has come" and take the old Jew with him on the way out, as he is the reborn Joseph in this story.

This 'self nourishment' actually is where the sheep belonged to Joseph's shepherds, who in their turn were his eidolons by comprehension who so understood when the "shepherds looked in." It is a High Romance love story here no unfolding to understand and therefore wisdom is said to be a gift of God. This love, is not exactly the love that psychology can deal with and has a specific route elaborated on in his Syposium, I think, but yes, a very unselfish love it is with a kind of a Stoic passion perhaps, or that of the alchemists maybe.

So now if you can understand that ousia's emerge from the soul that Plato called "from much emergent dwelling and living with matter itself" it is easy to see where he gets his Cave model from and so is also where Zamjatin in "We" gets his "form of cowardice" from.*

Here is an explantion form Wiki that tell more about it inner workings of an ousia but does not present the parousia either:

Quote:

"Plato's explanation of why the deepest truths cannot be expressed in written form is famously abstruse. Before one attains the "thing which is cognizable and true" (gnōston te kai alēthes), one must have apprehended the "name," "account" (logos), "image," and "knowledge" (epistēmē). Name and account are approached through verbal description, while sense perception perceives the image. One attains knowledge only from the combination of verbal description and sense perception, and one must have knowledge before one can attain the object of knowledge (which Plato calls simply "the Fifth," name, account, image, and knowledge being "the Four"). The Fifth, moreover, differs from what is sensible and verbal expressions of it. Name and account provide the "quality" of a thing (to poion), but not its "essence" or "being" (to on). They are, moreover, akin to sense perceptions in that they are ever shifting and relative, not fixed. As a result, the student who attempts to understand the Fifth through name, account, image, and knowledge is confused; he seeks the essence, but always finds the quality intruding. Only certain kinds of student can scrutinize the Four, and even then the vision of the Fifth comes by a sudden flash.

Since this is how philosophy is conducted, no serious person would ever attempt to teach serious philosophic doctrines in a book or to the public at large. Dionysius' motivation for having written a philosophic text must have been a desire for glory. Indeed, he had received only one lecture on metaphysics from Plato."

* "We" is said to be a 218 page poem that is very detailed in this kind of stuff. Here is from Record 8 second page bottom:

Quote:

"Oh, the true deuce of knowledge. Your much heralded knowledge is but a form of cowardice. It is a fact! Yes, you want to encircle the infinite with a wall, and you fear to cast a glance behind the wall. Yes, Sir! And if ever you should glance beyond the wall you would be dazzled and close your eyes --yes--" . . . "Walls are the foundation of every human." I began.

Same idea as the Cave . . . which can only be a Cave if there is a dazzling light beyond it and that is the light that 'par-ousia' delivers in the beatific vision and the prior 12 ousia's [visions] are extractions released from it by love ('dilligent pursuit of beauty' that is liberation in likeness, and therefore in opposite by attraction and here now in 'the rout' of Aristotle PA 100a12 ff is best to describe).

And so now because 'these shepherds' were prior 'extractions' from the vast pool of knowledge within, the Magi who came from that very pool of knowldge that we left behind and went West from East of Eden knew exactly where that emtpy stable was, now a cavity 'as void' so that 'illumination' would occur to prep the way for final ascension to the upper room. That is why the Gosples take place in Purgatory, or Galilee as they called it, and is not for believers who must go West further further to get lost themselves before anything good can [ever] happen to them as a person.

The distence of course is a matter of perception only and therefore is a long ways for those Magi to get there and more entropy in store for us when they do.

It was called Port Royal Logic wherein Royal is the fifth port for Royal induction, and that was more common before the Enlightenement came, I suppose.

Chili · 02-05-2012, 06:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Horatio Parker

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

I think is it. This is the real deal. All other 'mythicism' is complete bullshit. This is the mythical origins of Jesus as a divinity. No malice. No veiled attempt to make fun of the religion. Jesus was the yesh. It explains everything especially if Jesus was conceived as being crucified in the form on the lower left (especially if a large stage held up the saltire cross thus forming a chresimon):

Jesus represents the visible part of the invisible God.

Colossians 1:15

Quote:

The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.

If that's yesh, then OK.

Yes but Jesus was not the son. He said to his mother below: mother there son your son and son there is you mother.

Horatio Parker · 02-05-2012, 07:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chili

Quote:

Originally Posted by Horatio Parker

Jesus represents the visible part of the invisible God.

Colossians 1:15

If that's yesh, then OK.

Yes but Jesus was not the son. He said to his mother below: mother there son your son and son there is you mother.

The not-son talking to his (not)mother?

This stuff is abstract, but that one lost me.

Chili · 02-05-2012, 09:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Horatio Parker

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chili

Quote:

Originally Posted by Horatio Parker

Jesus represents the visible part of the invisible God.

Colossians 1:15

If that's yesh, then OK.

Yes but Jesus was not the son. He said to his mother below: mother there son your son and son there is you mother.

The not-son talking to his (not)mother?

This stuff is abstract, but that one lost me.

Just before he died on the cross in John 19:26. Of course the guy in Matthew goes to hell and in Mark too.

He was set free under Bar-abbas = son of the father too. Jesus is just the way. Christ was born, and they called him Jesus and what is this mysterious name change all about? . . . would be a good question to ask and here we see why!!!!!!!!!

Chili · 02-05-2012, 09:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

The idea that started the thread = were the Arians arguing that Jesus was a distinct being from the Son, the “substance” of the Father (the Father was before substance)

Not even close to that. John was substance and Jesus just the conscious mind to be added and for that he needed to die.

Edit to add that it was just the persona or mask they crucified because that was added as 'first Adam' when they first realized that they were naked in Gen.3:7, to be compared with "no shame" in Gen 2:25 and here now 'the man' is set free again by the 'second Adam' still an illusion.

Chili · 02-06-2012, 07:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chili

[

Quote:

"Plato's explanation of why the deepest truths cannot be expressed in written form is famously abstruse. Before one attains the "thing which is cognizable and true" (gnōston te kai alēthes), one must have apprehended the "name," "account" (logos), "image," and "knowledge" (epistēmē). Name and account are approached through verbal description, while sense perception perceives the image. One attains knowledge only from the combination of verbal description and sense perception, and one must have knowledge before one can attain the object of knowledge (which Plato calls simply "the Fifth," name, account, image, and knowledge being "the Four"). The Fifth, moreover, differs from what is sensible and verbal expressions of it. Name and account provide the "quality" of a thing (to poion), but not its "essence" or "being" (to on). They are, moreover, akin to sense perceptions in that they are ever shifting and relative, not fixed. As a result, the student who attempts to understand the Fifth through name, account, image, and knowledge is confused; he seeks the essence, but always finds the quality intruding. Only certain kinds of student can scrutinize the Four, and even then the vision of the Fifth comes by a sudden flash. Bolding mine.

Since this is how philosophy is conducted, no serious person would ever attempt to teach serious philosophic doctrines in a book or to the public at large. Dionysius' motivation for having written a philosophic text must have been a desire for glory. Indeed, he had received only one lecture on metaphysics from Plato."

Well, since I am here alone again (sorry about the derail), let me point at this fire that burns within that is fueled by the infinite source of Plato's 7th Epistle 341 C cited here again:
"An 'eidolon' [ousia, or eidetic image] emerges from the soul 'on a sudden' as an excerpt from much emergent 'dwelling and living' with the matter itself, as does something set alight by a leaping fire and forthwith nourishing itself = syn-ousia and sy-zen with the pragma [and so on to us]."

. . . that so is available to all humans searching 'like a lone goose flying through the mist" and while crossing 'Flander's field' can smell the 'smoke of torment' rising up from down below, to be sure, and is attracted by this decoy and will get shot down by the preying evangelist in action. Such then is the nature of the second beast that will finally give this lone goose with a broken wing a candle to keep this flame alive and a bible as its source of daily inspiration.

I think this is called 'the wrath of God' as a reward to those with curious eyes who are misled by guilt for feeding the monster with their dollars even, and henceforth will unite to get it back and spend the nations fortune to get it back in the promise that they see (but despite all good intentions always seem to bomb the wrong nations and will stand united and wonder what is next for them).

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-05-2012, 12:30 PM	#24
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	I don't know I am engaging Chili-Pepper There was no Mary originally. This is a later development. Jesus was the Sophia.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.