gurugeorge

I seem to vaguely remember some MJ-er here a wee while ago mentioning they had a theory that Kata Sarka, En Sarka, etc., might have actually referred initially (e.g. in Paul and some of the earliest Christian writings) to "Christ in you", i.e. to the fact that the Lord inhabits (as it were) everyone, and is crucified in the flesh right here and now in you and me. (This, as opposed to referring to an actual one-off incarnation in a single historical human being.)

If whoever it was reads this, can they expand on it, or if anybody else could expatiate on this from whatever angle, I'd be much obliged. This interpretation of "in the flesh" certainly makes a lot of sense from a Gnostic or mystical angle, and would fit in with Paul being a sort of proto-Gnostic, but I wonder if it's got scholarly legs, or is just a non-starter.

Jabu Khan

The Gospel of Timothy jumps out at me not sure why it was a long time ago that I read of it. Try Elaine Paigels, Ryan Eisler and Nigel Pennick they seem to write about that line of reasoning a lot.

Iasion

Greetings gurugeorge,

I have expressed such an idea, but I never worked it through in detail.

When Paul says "Christ in you, the hope of Glory", I think he means that Christ is within us all, perhaps somewhat as we see a "soul" now.

I suspect that Paul is using allegories like so :

* Christ = soul in all of us
* crucifixion = incarnation in a physical body
* cross = body, or the physical plane, or further, the passions of the physical (?)


I note this fascinating comment by ClementA :

' "For the minds of those even who are deemed grave, pleasure makes waxen," according to Plato; since "each pleasure and pain nails to the body the soul" of the man, that does not sever and crucify himself from the passions. "He that loses his life," says the Lord, "shall save it;" either giving it up by exposing it to danger for the Lord's sake, as He did for us, or loosing it from fellowship with its habitual life. For if you would loose, and withdraw, and separate (for this is what the cross means) your soul from the delight and pleasure that is in this life, you will possess it, found and resting in the looked-for hope '

Here we see the allegory that passions "nail" the "soul" to the body, and that "the cross" means to separate from the passions of this life.


And this interesting comment by Heracleon :

' The “child” “in Capernaun” is one who is in the lower part of the Middle (i.e. of animate substance), which lies near the sea, that is, which is linked with matter. he child’s proper person was sick, that is, in a condition not in accordance with the child’s proper nature, in ignorance and sins. ' and ' The words, "After this he went down to Capernaum," indicate the beginning of a new dispensation, for "he went down" is not said idly. Capernaum, means these farthest-out parts of the world, the material realm into which he descended. '

Here we see the idea that the Christ descended down into the physical world.

I will see if I can follow this idea a bit further (but rather busy here currently.)


Iasion

Clivedurdle

http://www.gnostic-jesus.com/

There must have been something very interesting about my classic pentecostal - aog, apostolic, elim - upbringing, because the above verse, and the links to the concept of emmanual, were very common themes, with Hebrews.

I am very puzzled that these ideas are somehow not understood and are resisted, resulting in the construction of a very unsatifying psychologically set of religious beliefs in a historical jesus.

but the protestant, working class Welsh chapels I was brought up in, with "priesthood of all believers" would side strongly with these gnostic ideas and the idea in Acts of holding everything in common.

The Quakers reinvented these ideas.

Xianity has always had a strong belief in Christ with us, and the social construction of a historical jesus was an attempt to humanise this messiah.

gurugeorge

It's a rollicking good yarn, that's captivated millions, and in the symbolism and myth of Christianity, it sort of keeps the letter, so people can rediscover the essence for themselves.

The Quakers, I think, are among those few traditional Christian sects who I think got it about right. Sitting quietly is a time-honoured means of Attainment throughout all humanity - you don't have to go to Japan!

mountainman

Quoted from the same article:

Modern historians generally report that Constantine personally
appointed each of his bishops. Go figure.



Pete Brown

Clivedurdle

Pete, how do you define Pagels gnostic xians, described above by Iraneus?

This gnostic democratic way of doing religion has been replicated around the planet - especially by Quakers, Zen Buddhism and Taoism. It may be very ancient with shamanistic roots.

The heirarchical versus democratic way of doing things is also very ancient - the books of Samuel and Kings are exactly about this, the Greeks and the Persians at Marathon were also about proto-democracy versus imperial heirarchical ways.

Constantine definitely imperialised this superstitio, but the point is he built on pre existing ideas, rituals and beliefs, that are sufficiently different to be labelled xianity.

I see this predeliction for heirarchical or democratic ways of doing things - formal priesthood versus priesthood of all believers, do we really need Saul to be our King, to be in many ways personal psychological choices to do with comfort with others - are we willing to muddle along with others or do we need to control others? The church structures and societies we grow up in mould us towards one or other of these viewpoints.

A central creator God is a result of heirarchical ways of thinking.

Back to the OP "in the flesh" is classic gnostic mystical speak.

mountainman

I have attempted some discussion on this interesting subject
earlier in a thread entitled: gnosticism and neo-pythagoreanism.

The best definition was actually IMO (but perhaps unintentionally)
by Peter Kirby, or perhaps a paraphrase of his objections ...
"Shear a gnostic of christianity and you have a neopythagorean"

Gnostics were neopythagoreans (and also neoplatonists, dependent
upon your definitions) until the fourth century, at which time a great
fabrication of literature made some of these writings gnostic, by adding
some key references to "christianity".

Agree with all the above.

And I believe he deliberately and fraudulently perverted the preservation
of knowledge as is acknowledged in the heritage of destruction which
issues forth from the Council of Nicaea, a la V.Rasias' Demolish Them".

We have to know what was pre-existing and what was not.
And again, we come back to an assumed reliance upon Eusebian chronology.


We need to understand why he was targetting Apollonius through
his propaganda, even though it would appear he was successful
in preventing the preservation of the writings of Apollonius to this
present day, and these writings were substantial, and would have
been available to these neopythagoreans and neoplotinists in the
second and third centuries.

There was no "TF" until the fourth century IMO, and moreover
there were no gnostic texts, which were prepared by mixing a
few christian ideas into a pot of neopythagorean texts.

We must understand the possibility that the new testament was
4th century Constantinian propaganda, and that its fabricated history
needs to be exposed for the perversion that it is, with respect to
the history of (our common) antiquity 0-300 CE.



Best wishes,




Pete

Clivedurdle

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianism

I understand Arianism is clearly identifiable pre Constantine and that in fact Constantine was an Arian. Would he have cared about these theological distinctions?

Constantine wanted a religion for his empire - he believed a wargod jesus had won a battle for him so he supported the jesus followers. One lot - the trinitarians - offered a more imperialist version.

It was not new out of whole cloth, it evolved.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantine_I_(emperor)

mountainman

How do you personally identify Arianism before Arius?
Arianism only became important after the words of Arius.
We are told that these words of Arius arose c.317 CE in the eastern
part of the ROman empire, which was then not held by Constantine.
How can these words of Arius be pre Constantine?

Furthermore, what is clear is that in fact Constantine called
the Council of Nicaea on account of the words of Arius.

You understanding that "Arianism" is pre Constantine cannot be supported.

IMO, of course not. He knew that the words of Arius were a reaction
against his insistence for the period from 313-317, of sending his own
religious propaganda (eg: Edict of Milan) into the eastern empire.

IMO Constantine (and Eusebius, and perhaps other "expendables")
were the only ones who needed to have known that the new Roman
religious order was "an invention". To everyone else, it had what
appeared to be a "respectable history". Thus Constantine and Eusebius
already knew that a controversy was going to arise at its implementation.

They decided to call it "The Arian Controversy", after Arius.

This epic battle of Constantine in much overplayed. Essentially after
being made Augustus in Britain, under the full-support of Germanic kings
(who were "supporting his father Constantius) he retired to Trier 306 CE.

He simply waited until the existing imperial mafia thugs had beaten each
other up, and moved in when the opposition was on the hop. When he
took Rome, he has an army which was measured to be overly large, and
full of the Germaic barbarian tribesman with whom he had been hanging
out (probably related -- as his was the grandson of a goat herder
from the Danube lands). With the size of his army he knew, and the
state of his opposition, Constantine knew he was going to win.

He had no need for any war god.
He was a mocker, not a flatterer.
He mocked belief by ascribing to a new god.
He never lost a battle in 30 years.
This is not luck. It is tactics and strategy.



At the council of Nicaea he accepted signatures AGAINST ARIUS.
All signatures were therefore towards his new Roman catholic religion
by default, irrespective of what imaginary doctrine would evolve.

The package of the new testamanent was new and strange.
It was fabricated out of the whole cloth by wicked men bent on destruction and plunder of the ancient traditional wealth.

The ancient traditions, like the millenial standing Obelisk of Karnak
were torn from their foundations by Constantine and his henchmen.
A new order was set in place, based upon imperially inspired fiction,
which would service the Byzantine empire for a thousand years, and
after that, other empires of the modern era, as a method of control
and administration of mankind.




Pete Brown