schilling.klaus

Jesus is something that always lives (in the idealist metaphysical sense) but never lived (in the vulgar biological sense).
It is the Logos of Hellenic philosophy, first formulated by Heracleitos,
but present in the collective unconscious since mankind lives, and extant even without any mankind to be perceived by.

Klaus Schilling

Chili

and nothing has changed since or here would be a newer testament with saints in heaven. Sure we have the Latterday Saits but they all want to die before get to heaven while judgement takes place after the first death so that heaven can be a place on earth until the second death do us part.

Christ and Jesus are not the same and so it is wrong to say that fuzzy inner feelings have anything to do with Jesus because he left, remember? and would come back to show us the way whenever we are ready to separate chaff from wheat or fuzzy feelings from truth . . . with beauty being the continuity of truth and therefore co-redeemer in the beauty of truth which has fuck all to do with Jesus who is the cocoon stage of self discovery and therefore the (fore)skin to be abandonned = the cross on which he died so that the inner man can be free indeed.

So what is wrong with that?

Chili

Jesus is dead until we hit meno-pause which is the transformation period from earth to heaven (MENO is "I remain" as in "I [become] eternal" which is a state of mind and no more).

Your "always lives" is true in that metamorphosis is native to mankind but specifically as the way is what make Jesus religion specific and here Catholic by method and that is concealed in their mystery of faith.

The collective consciousness is the way indeed (if it works for one it must work for others) but to have Jesus on board is a protestant idea that shorted the way and caused an everlasting fire instead. Zamjatin called it "Transavenue 49" in WE which there is a shortcut to the cross where the saved sinner burns for life and will sing patient endurance songs when evening follows that day, yet once again.

JohnG

My latin stinkus maximus. But I am surprised that an important historical timeline such as that has yet to be translated.

I am going to search for that thread and see what IIDBers came up with. That is a piece of history I am very interested in as I am currently reading some books on the Roman empire.

I just finished a book by Norman F Cantor called Antiquity (or via: amazon.co.uk), and he has an interesting chapter called "Christian Thought" that is in the form of dialogue between St. Augustine and a Donatist priest. It discusses the political role of the church.

Solitary Man

It has been translated, it's just still under copyright.

mountainman

Hi wordy,

I too contemplate this most important question.
I cannot call myself an atheist, since I believe
that the universe itself is alive. However, having
said this, I have also contemplated this Christ
now (as distinct from the HJ/FJ enigma).

My opinion is that we will not understand this
Christ until we understand ourselves, at which
time the idea of religion, of race and nationality,
of me and you, of us and them, of his and hers,
etc, etc, etc all falls away from our "mind".

The path of the ascetic is directly relevant to
this process of self-realisation IMO. I have tried
to write a little about this in an article called
"The Hymn of the Pearl" as an ascetic allegory.

The word "Christos" and "Chrestos" are BCE terminolgies
extracted from the gradations of (ascetic) temple worship.
Asceticism was regarded as the ancient authority.
Nothing has changed IMO. The academics have
nothing on the yogis of Tibet, for example.


Cool Yoda is.

The evidence is not static, but dynamic.
More of it is turning up each day and the
technology for making greater sense of the
remains is increasing by leaps and bounds.

We live in an intriguing time of change.
Who knows what may surface tomorrow.
Making sense of change is challenging.
Forever the same nothing stays.



Best wishes,


Pete Brown

mountainman

Hey Dorje,

DO you think this unknown ancient author slipped
his work of fiction into circulation at the local Roman
or Jerusalem markets, where they grew by popularity
until they had focussed a cult of adherents, who's
descendans in turn attracted the sponsorship of
Constantine for the publication of the source fiction?

I am just trying to work the idea a little. If FICTION
is indeed the category of the genre in which Jesus
first appeared, how are we to explain the emergence
of the fiction story as a fully blown state religion by
the time of the fourth century?

Best wishes,

Pete Brown

mountainman

So who is Shiva?


Best wishes,


Pete Brown

premjan

Shiva is the contemplative face of the Logos.

Solitary Man

Not historically, since ὁ λογος wasn't a term past the Ganges, as far as I know. Am I mistaken? (I could be!)