andrewcriddle

This is possibly a somewhat garbled version of the rewriting of the Genesis story found in some early Gnostic writings such as the Apocryphon of John the Hypostasis of the Archons and On the Origin of the World all found at Nag Hammadi.

Andrew Criddle

danrael

I see. So you are discrediting its authenticity, even though it makes far more spiritual sense than the so-called Christian account? The only "garbling" is in your own mind, as my message is as clear as a bell. Such a shame that you have missed the point entirely. You are, of course, assuming that the Christian account is the authentic version, but anyone having a lick of sense can see that it is inherently erroneous to begin with. If you knew anything at all about how the mind of God works, you would know immediatlely that the Christian story is the work of man, not God.

andrewcriddle

In the absence of any identifiable source for your account, there is little point in discussing its accuracy. The issue is not just how far you accurately remember what the radio station said, but how far the station accurately described the written sources involved and how reliable those sources were.

(I don't mean it isn't authentic just that there is little point in discussing the question.)

Andrew Criddle

gregor

Mr. Criddle
I commend you on a measured response to danrael's skreed. I doubt I could reply so gentlmanly (especially if I had the knowledge-base that you certainly do).

danrael

Ultimately, if you SEE the truth of what is being said, the documentation is secondary and, really, unimportant. The true source of this story is ONESELF, as the process of it's Realization occurs internally. The point is that this is not an intellectual or philosophical excercise. If I throw you into a cold mountain stream, you will know beyond the shadow of a doubt that it is cold: without words, without thought. The accuracy of the source is without question, again, since the source is YOU. You are nibbling around the edges of the real issue at hand, which is the essence and meaning of one story compared to the other. One story ends in divorce, the other in union. Which would you give more credence to in terms of achieving the desired goal. One is a shortcut home, the other the long way 'round. The point in discussing the story is that it sheds new light on the questions being presented in this forum regarding the topic at hand, which is the reason for my presenting it in the first place.

danrael

Did you say "possibly"? So you are conjecturing what the source might be, without knowing for certain. As you said to me:

"In the absence of any identifiable source for your account, there is little point in discussing its accuracy........I don't mean it isn't authentic just that there is little point in discussing the question."

danrael

This reminds me of a story I once heard: a man is shot with an arrow and is bleeding and in intense pain. He stops to ask: "What brand of arrow is it, and what is it's length, weight, color, etc.?"

danrael

Screed, you say? So you find the information I have presented as monotonous and drawn-out, the implication being that you are already so familiar with all of this in a jaded sort of way, and find no excitement in it whatsoever?. Is it that you just don't get it, or are you in such an enlightened state that you find this information repetitive and tedious, like so much minutiae? I had'nt realized that I was introducing material to this forum which everyone here already had neatly tucked under their belts. Duh!

danrael

Actually, the story is more accurately as follows:

"Imagine someone who gets shot with an arrow, and who is lying there mortally wounded, with the last moments of life ebbing away. A surgeon comes along to pull the arrow out, and the man weakly looks up at the surgeon and says: 'Before you pull the arrow out can you tell me to what clan belongs the person who shot this arrow? Would you find out for me, please, before you pull the arrow out, whether the person who shot me was a tall person or a short person? Would you mind inquiring, before you pull this arrow out, the colour of skin of this person: was it light skin, dark skin, medium skin? What was the profession of the person who shot this arrow? Could you tell me, please, was it an artisan, or a physician, or a scholar? And furthermore, what sort of arrow is this anyway? Was it made from
a cherry tree, or an oak tree, or a pine tree? And what about the feathers on the end of this arrow? Were they made from goose feathers, or are they eagle feathers, or vulture feathers? And what about the tip of the arrow, how is that made?'"
The Buddha said, "If the person who was shot were to seek the answers to all these questions, definitely, he would be dead before he found the answers to these questions."

The point is the same in both versions. Thank you.

danrael

I can just see it now. Jesus has just spoken to the throng gathered in a meadow, and someone in the crowd shouts out:

"In the absence of any identifiable source for your account, there is little point in discussing its accuracy. The issue is not just how far you accurately remember what your Father in Heaven said, but how far He accurately described the written sources involved and how reliable those sources were.
I don't mean it isn't authentic just that there is little point in discussing the question."

To which Jesus replies: "Well, I happened to leave the scriptures at home, since I thought you were all smarter than that. But, if you insist, let's gather at the temple tomorrow so we can pick it all apart, shall we?" Sorry you all did not understand the original message as spoken from my heart, but put more credence in a poorly written ambiguous facsimile. Duh."

It's like the woman who brought her newborn baby to the church meeting. After the services, the pastor commented: "My, what a beautiful baby!" to which the woman responds: "Oh, this is nothing! Wait until you see the PICTURES!"