Amos

Whatever you do, Joel, please don't get angry if my adulating explications hit home.

When I read the bible not a single inconsistency or paradox remains unresolved. The problem is that I can not tell you about it all on one page.

The gospels do not write about purgatory because they take place in purgatory. Purgatory begins after we have entered the race and does not end until we have completed the race. We enter the race at rebirth and finish it at crucifixion after which time resurection must follow because it was our poor ego identity that was slain. To cite Mark Anthony (the true identity of Ceasar) after Ceasar was slain:
<strong>"O mighty Ceasar! dos't thou lie so low?
Are all thy conquests, glories, triumphs, spoils, shrunk to this little measure? Fare thee well! </strong>

Or James Joyce on the last page of his "Portrait:"
<strong>Old father, old artificer, stand me now and ever in good stead."</strong>

Notice that these words were spoken on April 27 on day 37 of a 40 day count-down towards resurrection that was to follow on May 1--which is the day that is symbolic for new life. I should add that Joyce had his Beatific Vision on page 171 (Pinguin)
<strong> "A girl stood before him in midstream, alone and still, gazing out into the sea. She seemed like one whom magic had changed into the likeness of a strange and beautiful seabird. Her long and slender legs were delicate as a crane's and pure save where an emerald trail of seaweed had fashioned itself as a sign upon the flesh."</strong>

The "sign upon the flesh" depicted by the seaweed was that of a defeated serpent. The girl was Mary here shown victorious in the battle with the lesser serpent now at her feet, which is a necessary condition for crucifixion to occur and resurrection to follow.

In my interpretation the gospels begin with the rebirth of Joseph and end with the return of the Jesus image to Joseph who buried it in his own tomb.

The imagery of the stake is a direct result of our failure to as much as take Jesus down from the cross and place ourselves upon it. Instead we whine and wail at the foot of the cross and die nonetheless with the burning desire to ascend. It is just imagery again and I think it is about time that this message comes across to those who are willing to suffer at the foot of the cross and die with the paradox sinful yet saved (go see some religious boards if you don't believe me). So why would the Church do me any harm?

My bible burning idea is a bit harsh because they should spare the ones in the Catholic Churches.

Celsus

Amos,

Don't worry, I'm not the slightest bit angry, mostly bemused. Your take is very interesting, and I suppose it's the first time I've ever had conversation with a neo-Gnostic (say it out loud ). If you're capable of handling Joyce, then you have my utmost respect. I had enough problems with Portrait....

But back to the Bible:
I'm a bit confused. We are clearly past the point of the flesh in this account of yours, right? How then are you sure about the certainty of this event? Is it certain because it has to be?

Where do you get this from? The Gospel according to Joyce? I don't think you're actually gleaming any literal truths from the Bible. You're gleaming them from your own understanding of literature, and that's why most people probably don't understand what the hell you're going on about. (I'm trying but you keep jumping all over the place)

On a more general point, you said something along the lines that the Biblical authors' minds did not really matter - what was important was the final product? That's probably the most obvious clue to your approach. But I think it does matter on whether we can judge it to be inerrant or universal, or positive.

If we look at OT Judaism, which you unfortunately have not, the Biblical authors showed quite clearly that Yahweh was their God, and although some stories (e.g. Rahab, Ruth, Jonah) state otherwise, we have a God that has favourites. This is the idea of the chosen people I meant. I suppose it doesn't matter to you as long as you believe God reveals his gnosis to others. Would he have been happy if they called him Allah, Krishna or Satan?

The answer to that is why we have to look back at the authors and think what their "enlightened" minds must have thought. I would say that they would have excluded most peoples of the world, and contrary to however you wish to interpret the Bible, that becomes a problem for pagans. And I think, given the exclusive nature of Judaism at the time the OT was put together, we would not read a universal salvation message.

Secondly, you understand God to be revealing himself to all societies, and all places and times. May I ask what the purpose of the Bible, or Jesus or the Great Commission was?

Your interpretation of the Bible is very novel, even if I may not agree with it. However, the interpretation of other members of your sect is worrying and even threatening in some ways. So the final product, interpreted in two different ways, becomes a double-edged sword. Don't you think you should be reaching out to your fellow Christians and warning them of the dangers of literalism?

Joel

P.S. I'm enjoying this game of "Think as Amos does and see where we end up". I wouldn't dream of trying to deconvert you, that would be a travesty. BTW, I also think Jonah is quite a nice story, but I like Bel and the Dragon better since I'm such a slave to literalism. Oh yeah, 4 Maccabees would also be right up your alley.

Hawkingfan

Then may I ask you to resolve just ONE inconsistency for me that has been giving me some trouble? Matthew 1:6-7 states that Joseph was descended through the line of David through David's son Solomon. Luke 3:23-31 states that Joseph was descended through the line of David through David's son Nathan. That is an inconsistency, isn't it? And to make matters worse, I Chronicles 3:15 states that Solomon and Nathan were BROTHERS, so it is impossible for them to both be Joseph's ancestor. In fact, if you write Joseph's geneology in Matthew and his geneology in Luke, they do not match 100%, there are further inconsistencies in the Old Testament (I Ch 3). Could you please clear this up for me?

Amos

Without making a study of this I would say that that is very easy to solve. Matthew is the Jewish perspective and they look at Solomon the Jew while Luke is the omniscient perspective that maybe looks at Nathan the man. Hence the brother image. This is the same with "Jesus the Jew" and "Christ the man" when the Jews convicted Jesus and Pilate saw nothing wrong with the man. The dual nature of human and man is equal to human and God because man is equal to God in that man is in the image of God and our human nature is our second nature. So Solomon may have been the ego identity of Nathan or Nathan may have been like Peter in the Gospels.

Remember here that in my perspective the apostels in the Gospels were eidetic images (qualities) of Joseph the Jew.

Notice that the NT was written for a new religion to become grounded in truth. Matthew was given to base this new religion on Judaism from the line of David to "Jesus who is called the messiah" (but really was the ego to be crucified), and Luke goes from Jesus who was--supposed to have been--the son of Joseph back to Adam, to God. To Adam to God is past David and therefore taken from Judaism to be grounded in thruth.

The phrases "who was called the messiah" and "supposed to have been" used to introduce the geneologies are there to serve as a parable alert.

Hawkingfan

This conclusion is not based on scripture. Why do you make god so confusing? This kind of ridiculous thinking is supposed to be preached to all the people of the world? Do you really think the average person could understand this?

The context of the scripture I quoted is clearly the "perspective" of factual geneology and is MEANT TO MEAN EXACTLY WHAT IT SAYS (imagine that!). It does not say "the Jew" or "the man" anywhere in the lists. You are adding interpretations to a family tree! Your conclusion has provided everyone with a good laugh though. Would you be saying the same illogical and prolix statement if we were only given one of the geneologies? Are we suppose to use this argument ONLY for the names that do not match in the lists (Nathan and Solomon are not the only ones), but are to overlook this interpretation on the names that do?
Semen is semen, and it had to have come from ONE human being whether a Jew is looking at him, or whether a Gentile is looking at him. That human being had a name. Certainly, if this was not the case, an explanation was called for, for such an important subject.

[/QB][/QUOTE]So Solomon may have been the ego identity of Nathan or Nathan may have been like Peter in the Gospels.[/QB][/QUOTE]

This is so far fetched it boggles the mind.

[/QB][/QUOTE]Remember here that in my perspective the apostels in the Gospels were eidetic images (qualities) of Joseph the Jew.[/QB][/QUOTE]

It seems that you have to do a lot of warping in your "perspective" in order to believe this nonsense.

[/QB][/QUOTE]Notice that the NT was written for a new religion to become grounded in truth. Matthew was given to base this new religion on Judaism from the line of David to "Jesus who is called the messiah" (but really was the ego to be crucified), and Luke goes from Jesus who was--supposed to have been--the son of Joseph back to Adam, to God. To Adam to God is past David and therefore taken from Judaism to be grounded in thruth.[/QB][/QUOTE]

Yes, it is said Jesus is the son of Joseph, but Joseph did not impregnate Mary. How could Jesus be considered from the line of David? Mary was of the tribe of Levi.

[/QB][/QUOTE]The phrases "who was called the messiah" and "supposed to have been" used to introduce the geneologies are there to serve as a parable alert.[/QB][/QUOTE]

So a family tree can be a parable? I would think they would just list "so and so was the father of so and so". But I guess when someone is caught lying, the family tree all of a sudden becomes a "parable".

Hawkingfan

When I was a Christian for over twenty years, I was always taught in sunday school, sermons, and in Bible Class at a private Christian School that the stopping of the sun was literal, therefore physical. Maybe all those people did not have the Holy Spirit in them? Why does the nature of the Bible lead to so many varying interpretations even among believers who are supposed to have the knowledge of the Holy Spirit? Couldn't the Bible make itself more clear? Why is a vivid imagination and a gift for understanding subtexts a prerequisite? Not everyone can do that, you know.

Amos

</strong>
================================================
"Old father, old artificer, stand me now and ever in good stead."

Notice that these words were spoken on April 27 on day 37 of a 40 day count-down towards resurrection that was to follow on May 1--which is the day that is symbolic for new life. I should add that Joyce had his Beatific Vision on page 171 (Pinguin)
================================================
Yes it was the Gospel according to Joyce. Earlier I have stated that the Gospels can be prior to us by nature and that is what his Portrait was all about.

You'll have to admid that "Old father, old artificer, stand me now and ever in good stead" echo the words of Jesus "Father into thy hands I commit my spirit" which is equal to "why has't thou forsaken me" because it was the persona here being crucified and hence the faculty of reason forsaken.

So therefore Joyce goes into the netherworld of his subconscious mind for three days to rise again on May 1. Obviously the 40 days are his Gethsemany.

(Notice that these words were spoken on April 27 on day 37 of a 40 day count-down towards resurrection that was to follow on May 1--which is the day that is symbolic for new life. I should add that Joyce had his Beatific Vision on page 171 (Pinguin)).

Why is that his Beatific Vision? Because his description matches that of the statue of Mary we call "Mary of Grace" (I think) who holds the serpent trampled under foot.

This same image re-occurs in literature with each author giving his own unique description which is therefore similar. So, I am not jumping all over the place but bringing in outside images to keep you from looking at the historical perspective. To me they are identical.
</strong>

The mythology is for the survival and prosperity of the tribe and their God was their God as presented to them in their myth. Their God was better because it was their God and if you want to lead a flock you can't have two shepards leading into different directions, nor can you have outsiders coming in to mislead your sheep.

I should add here that as followers of the myth we illuminate our own God through our own science, so it is not true that "God reveals his gnosis to others." Remember that I hold that we can be God, or at least can be the continuity of God to the same extent as we are 'who' we are in our soul nature (Mariology takes over here but not now). If we are the continuity of God we are also the continuity of Gods omniscience (sic) and so each God (man) is in the possession of his/her own omniscience that was put there by the science (lifestyle) of the previous generations (in our soul we are omniscient). From this omniscience we extrapolate the science needed to further the cause of our own good, and collectively for the good of the tribe.

So omniscience is not a databank wherein knowledge is stored as if it was a library. Omniscience is contained within the mind (soul) of the species and therefore, indeed, God reveals to all but does reveal the same information or evolution could not be possible. In other words, the Intelligent Desing is built into the species.
</strong>

Pagans have their own God and their own omniscience to draw from. They have salvation just like we do but because we create (color) our own heaven while on earth our heaven is different than theirs. To say that this is not true would mean that they cannot look for eternal bliss and eternal bliss is eternal bliss even without the mansions we built wherein we enjoy eternal bliss.
</strong>

"That we shall do greater things" and further the cause of the mythology/mankind on earth. This is obvious from the advancement of our mythology as compared with primitive mythologies. </strong>

I love the Church and would never write these things on a Catholic board (they'd call me a heretic and kick me of). It would be wrong because the mystery of faith must unfold on its own (if it is destined to be that way).
It is not my interest to teach you anything but if it causes you to take a second look that would be great.

Let's go to the land of Israel that lies between the two rivers of Egypt and Euphrates (was it?). This area describes the journey of man from "lost to found" in that Euphrates means bright mind and Egypt was the beginning of this journey.

It is based on Gen.2:10-14 wherein a river rises in Eden and divides to become 4 branches. The first rivers rises and reflects out time prior to our abandonment from Eden (happy-go-lucky childhood). It divideds into two branches that "wind throughout the entire land" as we journey through life in search of happiness after the division in our mind. We look for gold, good gold (lol), power and beauty to create our persona and are in search for more to quench the pains of alienation (in our temporal mind nothing can be eternally satisfying and so the opposites of power, wealth and beauty is the reason why the second river also winds throughout the land).

When we are fully West (end involution or yang period) we will see a third river rise in the East which is the place from where we first began our journey (East of Eden from where we must go West because it is impossible to East from East of Eden). We go for this river (purgatory) and end up in the Euphrates (bright mind) which just "is" is in "I am."

So the question becomes, why should there be any danger of war in Israel and why should the Americans be there unless they read the bible wrong? Israel is a state of mind and not a piece of land to fight over. In fact, Israel should never be a physical nation or the homecoming of a Jew is no longer equal to the homecoming into the mind of God.

Is Bel and the Dragon in the bible? and I look for 4 Meccabees on your advise.

Hawkingfan

I would agree that if you posted your interpretations on a Catholic (or any Christian) board, you would be hailed as a heretic. Saying that "the return of Christ is just a metaphor used for the renewal of our mind..." would be considered blasphemy in Christian churches. And saying that it was Christ's ego that was crucified (whatever that means) and not the actual man is blasphemous as well. If his ego was sacrificed, then why such a big deal about Christ's body "rising from the dead." Let me guess, another metaphor right? This is crazy. I'm out of this stupid board conversation, or is this just a "metaphor" for a conversation? Ooooowww. (scary, Twilight Zone music enters).

Amos

The bible must provide the stream of consciousness against which salvation is to be found. In other words, it must send you in the wrong direction to make metanoia possible while at the same time furthering the civilization for the benefit of mankind as a whole.

A clear bible would not serve a purpose at all because the end of our searching will be the end of the bible while in the mean time we will have colored our heaven. Without the bible we would not be searching for a heaven and so could not have colored one either. In heaven we are to enjoy the benefits from our good works (Rev.14:13).

Amos

The entire bible is parable unless otherwise indicated as in "my body is real food and my blood is real drink."