Laura's Book "From Paul to Mark" is out!!!! ... And in French too

[genero81]

Considering the definition of paleo, it fits well. But most Christians when seeing the term Paleo Christianity are like; "what is that?!"

The book could have been called, From Paul to Mark- Origins of Christianity, but then the Paleo bit signifies that this isn't going to be your usual book about Christianity.

Are far as things being "ripped off" it all gets back to the original world mythologies. Human beings trying to make sense of their reality from the beginning. The question is only what can be distilled that constitutes a path out of the "land of Oz" from the miasma of STO and STS mixed religious ideas, I think.

 

[manitoban]

The book arrived today!! Really excited about digging into this, I can see there is going to be a massive amount of information to take in. But how wonderful it is to have the TRUTH available to anyone who reads this, what a marvelous service to humanity this is. Thank you Laura!!

 

[Laura]

I agree almost entirely.

But what doesn't go mentioned is that the OT appears to be two books or two source materials.

We have the Youknowwhoish fairytales and the MO for this genocidal tribe of psychopaths laid out quite clearly in the Torah. Using usury, trickery and brutality, the Yahweh worshippers wreak a path of destruction and terror in the middle-east.

Now, from what we can tell, Levitical priests returning from the Babylonian captivity wrote the Torah and the subsequent Mosaic laws at about the same time. More and more scholarly material seems to indicate that they cribbed material for the story from the Greeks and other peoples and religions in the region to create it. They also inverted and corrupted as much as they pilfered the source material.

But this doesn't explain the books of the Prophets.

Here, I'd like to point out that whether or not we accept that the gospels detailing the life of Jesus Christ are fiction or not (it doesn't matter for the purposes of my argument, but I agree with Laura's conclusions), they are of a man hailing from a Greek region called Galilee (literally land of the Goys) whose apostles are all Greek, whose last name is a Greek metaphysical concept and who quotes a Greek text called the Septuagint and also speaks Koin Greek. This man is subsequently betrayed by a man known as Judas, who is the only non-Greek and who is from a southern kingdom of Judah, where the Jews have resettled.

The quotes that Jesus relies on are almost all references to the Prophets. This seems key.

If you compare the books of the prophets and the other parts of the Old Testament, its schizophrenic to say the least. Yahweh is materialistic and never mentions souls, heaven or rebirth. He is a jealous God that demands that the Jews simply submit to his will (interpreted by the priests, of course) and offers only material rewards for doing so. The Jews are set off on a murderous genocidal rampage, and Yahweh even punishes them for not being thorough enough.

But the books of the Prophets seem to spend an inordinate amount of time condemning the priest class. Furthermore, they are clearly writings detailing ecstatic mystical visions. Most of it is dedicated to describing the metaphysical structure of the heavens. We learn about the different spiritual beings up there. It is significant that Jesus Christ is made to quote these writings by the authors and not so much the stories about the Jews fleecing Egyptian farmers through loan-sharking.

Furthermore, there is the Elohim v Yahweh dichotomy.

It appears that the original worship of El and his pantheon came from the Northern Kingdom from where Christ and his apostles are made to hail from, (NOT Judah) and was much the same as the Greek pantheon with El being Zeus and the other gods his children/messengers/agents. These Elohim become angels in the Christian tradition later on - Micha-el, Gabri-el and so on.

It seems very likely to me that we're dealing with two completely different religious traditions here.

Christ even flat-out condemns the Jews' god and calls him a deceiver. Furthermore, in the desert, he is visited by an entity that offers him all the material wealth of this world: kingdoms, fame, money if he only worships him. And, of course, Christ condemns this entity and rejects his deal. This deal is literally the same deal offered to the Jews by Yahweh. Early Christians were quick to point this out. And they were quick to point out that the God of the Torah does not seem to be the same God being referenced in the NT, or even the books of the prophets. Marcion, in particular, stands out in this regard, especially if we consider that he was the first Christian to start compiling a canon. From what we can glean, he did not include the Torah, and he relied on a modified version of Luke that we do not have, and some of the letters of Paul.

The real question to me seems to be the mystery surrounding the official Canon of the Bible. Why was the Torah included? What was the reason for the purges of the first Christians like Marcion and others who we now refer to as Gnostics? If we can answer this question, we will be much closer to figuring out the hidden truth to this whole sordid affair.

We may even salvage something useful from the religion. After the discovery of the Gnostic texts in the Egyptian deserts and the scholarly work done on the Bible over the last two hundred years, we are closer to discovering the truth than we have ever been.

Many of the points you are trying to make above are based on erroneous information and I think that some of that would be solved by reading the book and the books recommended in the book. And if you are going to make statements about the Bible (OT or NT), please cite the book, chapter and verse. There is no way to have a discussion about any of this without doing that.

 

[Palinurus]

One conversation I think is worth having, now that I've read the book, is whether the term 'Paleochristianity' is really worth adopting.

Since it were the C's who first introduced this term for their own reasons it might be wise to ask them for a further explanation of those and possibly also for any suggestions of a better term, if any.

 

[psychegram]

Since it were the C's who first introduced this term for their own reasons it might be wise to ask them for a further explanation of those and possibly also for any suggestions of a better term, if any.

I hadn't realized that. Interesting. Yes, clarification from 6D would be nice to have.

 

[John G]

Since it were the C's who first introduced this term for their own reasons it might be wise to ask them for a further explanation of those and possibly also for any suggestions of a better term, if any.

I hadn't realized that. Interesting. Yes, clarification from 6D would be nice to have.

They did clarify a bit at the time, from the 5/30/2009 session:

Q: (L) What's next?

A: How about "Paleochristianity"?

Q: (laughter) (L) Well since you brought it up... (J) You should respond with, "Now that's an interesting question!" (laughter) (L) What do you mean by Paleochristianity? (laughter) (L) Would you define Paleochristianity for us?

A: The knowledge of realms that all men comprehended before the "fall".

Q: (L) Why is it called Christianity? Isn't Christianity strictly related to Christianity as we know it?

A: Oh no! The word was co-opted and everything you know of as Christianity is distorted. For example, the earliest "Christ" was a woman.

Q: (L) Okay. Were the Bogomils and the Cathars - as I have surmised - close to understanding this original reality?

A: They had some very close approximations, but they were still influenced by many of the distorted religious ideas of the time.

Q: (L) Okay, what is the importance of Paleochristianity?

A: The only hope for the survival of your realm and species.

Q: (L) In what sense do you mean that?

A: Unification of aim: survival and avoidance of the destruction hanging over your heads as a consequence of the machinations of psychopathy.

Q: (L) So in other words, some of the thoughts and discussions that we've had over the past week or two {about the global situation} are pretty much on the money?

A: Yes. More or less. There has also been some nudging from this side. Time is getting "short" even though there really is no time. Remember what we said about being wise as serpents and gentle as doves.

 

[PaleFace]

Many of the points you are trying to make above are based on erroneous information

I'm no expert, that's for sure.

My claims about Yahweh being a materialistic and tribal god in the Torah I got from "From Yahweh to Zion: Jealous God, Chosen People, Promised Land...Clash of Civilizations" by Laurent Guyénot. Very solid book. Meticulously sourced. Pretty much unimpeachable, but you can try, if you like.

As for the claim about the prophets being about mystical visions, well I can just pull up any quote from them almost at random I guess. Daniel 10:4 onwards he talk about a vision he has of some sort of non-human being that talks to him. There are a lot of prophets and some are not counted as part of the books of the prophets. I don't know what else you would call these writings that deal with dreams and prophecy. And we get the whole Christian understanding of angels from books like Isiah, where, for example, the Seraphim are described. You see them depicted on church walls as heads covered in wings.

As for the Greek stuff. Well, are you saying that Galilee wasn't a greek-populated region that spoke koin greek and that Judas the villain in the story was literally the only Apostle who was stated to not be from Galilee? From Orthowiki:



I thought this was just standard dogma that people knew - not something new or controversial. As for the region being called "land of the goys", again, is this a controversial claim?



God is called El in Genesis: 14:20 and in other places. And then he is called Yahweh in other places. Confusing. Also, the KJV and subsequent bibles make it hard to tell when Yahweh or El is being referred to because they just use LORD, which only adds to the confusion. El and the Elohim were the pantheon of the original inhabitants of northern Israel - Caananites and others. I didn't read anything specific on this, but it seems to be commonly accepted by scholars. I posit that there's some confusion and also blatant youknowwhoish trickery going on here within the very structure of the Old Testament itself, which might be worth exploring.

Marcion is indeed the first to compile a canon and was branded a heretic for his Yahweh = Demiurge position. I've read quite a bit about him and it is a topic that I have taken a personal interest in, but honestly, a simple Wiki scan is enough to confirm that this is commonly accepted as his position and the official reason for his dismissal.

I don't mean to sidetrack your thread about your new book. My comment was just that, a comment about the bizarreness of the Old Testament. Feel free to move my comments to another thread if you like.

 

[Mark7]

I finished reading the first 100 or so pages dealing with the historical background which would eventually lead to Christianity as it was from Paul to Mark. It seems that a part of what was going on in that process involved the clash of egalitarian, sometimes nomadic groups coming in contact with groups that had developed stratified, hierarchical societies via the development of agriculture. Agriculture allowed for the development of military and ruling classes. These new societies had enough time and energy to conquer other, more "primitive" tribes.

Rome, as well as other hierarchically structured nations, were good at assimilating many peoples into often a more materialistic way of life, but they did not respect, or even consider the worldview, religious beliefs, and societal conventions of conquered tribes or nations. One can see why ideas of a messiah, hero, or savior who could stand up to these hegemons could develop. A version of this dynamic exists today it seems - the globalists vis-a-vis nation-states. Most people are not happy to see their country and way of life, however imperfect, be replaced by a system designed to benefit an elite at the expense of the common good. Hasn't there has always been this dynamic? the 'terror of history' as Laura has mentioned in her writings.

For me, there have already been many ah-ha! moments in the book, fascinating details, as well as insights that help to understand how we got where we are today. The massive research and passion for knowledge are evident on every page, such an important book for anybody who is asking questions about the origins and development of Christianity and so much more. Looking forward to more surprises and edification as I continue reading.

 

[PaleFace]

I'm no expert, that's for sure.

My claims about Yahweh being a materialistic and tribal god in the Torah I got from "From Yahweh to Zion: Jealous God, Chosen People, Promised Land...Clash of Civilizations" by Laurent Guyénot. Very solid book. Meticulously sourced. Pretty much unimpeachable, but you can try, if you like.

As for the claim about the prophets being about mystical visions, well I can just pull up any quote from them almost at random I guess. Daniel 10:4 onwards he talk about a vision he has of some sort of non-human being that talks to him. There are a lot of prophets and some are not counted as part of the books of the prophets. I don't know what else you would call these writings that deal with dreams and prophecy. And we get the whole Christian understanding of angels from books like Isiah, where, for example, the Seraphim are described. You see them depicted on church walls as heads covered in wings.

As for the Greek stuff. Well, are you saying that Galilee wasn't a greek-populated region that spoke koin greek and that Judas the villain in the story was literally the only Apostle who was stated to not be from Galilee? From Orthowiki:

View attachment 46129

I thought this was just standard dogma that people knew - not something new or controversial. As for the region being called "land of the goys", again, is this a controversial claim?
View attachment 46128


God is called El in Genesis: 14:20 and in other places. And then he is called Yahweh in other places. Confusing. Also, the KJV and subsequent bibles make it hard to tell when Yahweh or El is being referred to because they just use LORD, which only adds to the confusion. El and the Elohim were the pantheon of the original inhabitants of northern Israel - Caananites and others. I didn't read anything specific on this, but it seems to be commonly accepted by scholars. I posit that there's some confusion and also blatant youknowwhoish trickery going on here within the very structure of the Old Testament itself, which might be worth exploring.

Marcion is indeed the first to compile a canon and was branded a heretic for his Yahweh = Demiurge position. I've read quite a bit about him and it is a topic that I have taken a personal interest in, but honestly, a simple Wiki scan is enough to confirm that this is commonly accepted as his position and the official reason for his dismissal.

I don't mean to sidetrack your thread about your new book. My comment was just that, a comment about the bizarreness of the Old Testament. Feel free to move my comments to another thread if you like.

I didn't address all the points, got sidetracked and didn't notice.

The famous story of Jesus in the desert is so well-known that I didn't think I had to cite it. But here it is: The Temptation of Christ. It may be a fiction, but that's not the point. It's a clear allegorical teaching tale. It was interpreted by Marcion and other Gnostics as Jesus rejecting the Demiurge, the ruler of this world.



Also, Galilee is referred to as Galilee of the GENTILES, not goys. Goyim is what the Jews call us (cattle/slaves) and the terms get mixed in my head. My bad.

My final remark: looking into the Nag Hammadi writings to gain a greater insight into Paleo-christianity doesn't seem like a far-fetched line of inquiry for someone genuinely interested in the history of Christianity. Finding out why it was all suppressed would seem like the next logical step for someone following this line of inquiry.

 

[psychegram]

They did clarify a bit at the time, from the 5/30/2009 session:

Thanks for that! I'd forgotten about that session.

There's certainly no question that Christianity was hijacked. FPTM makes that abundantly clear.

 

[psychegram]

Rome, as well as other hierarchically structured nations, were good at assimilating many peoples into often a more materialistic way of life, but they did not respect, or even consider the worldview, religious beliefs, and societal conventions of conquered tribes or nations.

I don't think that's accurate. The Romans were famously pluralistic. They didn't care who your gods were, and were entirely happy to let subject peoples worship what and as they pleased ... so long as taxes were paid.

That isn't too say they wouldn't sometimes engage in a bit of iconoclasm or desecration as a punishment, but that was a pretty standard tactic in ancient warfare.

 

[Mark7]

They didn't care who your gods were, and were entirely happy to let subject peoples worship what and as they pleased.

Good point. But it kinda depended on what kind of god you believed in. The early Christians were often persecuted for their beliefs about their god because he did not fit the 'Roman' idea of god for example. A lot of Romans did not take their own gods too seriously it seems.
As long as your god could be happy with a few rituals and offerings, and didn't cause a stir it was ok. Not like anyone could refuse to be assimilated though.

 

[psychegram]

Good point. But it kinda depended on what kind of god you believed in. The early Christians were often persecuted for their beliefs about their god because he did not fit the 'Roman' idea of god for example. A lot of Romans did not take their own gods too seriously it seems.
As long as your god could be happy with a few rituals and offerings, and didn't cause a stir it was ok. Not like anyone could refuse to be assimilated though.

Laura's book makes it pretty clear that the "Christians" being persecuted were messianic Judaists who believed their messiah would return from heaven at the head of an army of angels, drench the empire in blood, and enslave Rome and put the Jews at the top.

And honestly I don't have the sense Rome would have cared if they believed this, since aside from their distaste for Carthaginian child sacrifice they generally really didn't care what anyone believed, were it not that this particular belief motivated them to pursue sedition and rebellion throughout the empire (not just in Judea).

Context is really important.

Notably, almost all the stories - that I'm aware of - of Roman persecution of Christians date to this early period. The later church does not seem to have had any such problems.

 

[John G]

I'm no expert, that's for sure.

My claims about Yahweh being a materialistic and tribal god in the Torah I got from "From Yahweh to Zion: Jealous God, Chosen People, Promised Land...Clash of Civilizations" by Laurent Guyénot. Very solid book. Meticulously sourced. Pretty much unimpeachable, but you can try, if you like.

As for the claim about the prophets being about mystical visions, well I can just pull up any quote from them almost at random I guess. Daniel 10:4 onwards he talk about a vision he has of some sort of non-human being that talks to him. There are a lot of prophets and some are not counted as part of the books of the prophets. I don't know what else you would call these writings that deal with dreams and prophecy. And we get the whole Christian understanding of angels from books like Isiah, where, for example, the Seraphim are described. You see them depicted on church walls as heads covered in wings.

As for the Greek stuff. Well, are you saying that Galilee wasn't a greek-populated region that spoke koin greek and that Judas the villain in the story was literally the only Apostle who was stated to not be from Galilee? From Orthowiki:

View attachment 46129

I thought this was just standard dogma that people knew - not something new or controversial. As for the region being called "land of the goys", again, is this a controversial claim?
View attachment 46128


God is called El in Genesis: 14:20 and in other places. And then he is called Yahweh in other places. Confusing. Also, the KJV and subsequent bibles make it hard to tell when Yahweh or El is being referred to because they just use LORD, which only adds to the confusion. El and the Elohim were the pantheon of the original inhabitants of northern Israel - Caananites and others. I didn't read anything specific on this, but it seems to be commonly accepted by scholars. I posit that there's some confusion and also blatant youknowwhoish trickery going on here within the very structure of the Old Testament itself, which might be worth exploring.

Marcion is indeed the first to compile a canon and was branded a heretic for his Yahweh = Demiurge position. I've read quite a bit about him and it is a topic that I have taken a personal interest in, but honestly, a simple Wiki scan is enough to confirm that this is commonly accepted as his position and the official reason for his dismissal.

I don't mean to sidetrack your thread about your new book. My comment was just that, a comment about the bizarreness of the Old Testament. Feel free to move my comments to another thread if you like.

Laura likes "Yahweh to Zion" also:

The New History of Mankind: Who Are we? What are we? How did we get here?

In the past few weeks, I've read three books that are amazing supports for the C's worldview/cosmology and stand alongside our reading in Intelligent Design as another major thread of the mysteries of life, existence, etc. Interestingly, they could be read in a certain order as the "New History...

cassiopaea.org

In the past few weeks, I've read three books that are amazing supports for the C's worldview/cosmology and stand alongside our reading in Intelligent Design as another major thread of the mysteries of life, existence, etc. Interestingly, they could be read in a certain order as the "New History of Mankind" with strong hints about cosmological mysteries. The three books are:

The Origins of the Worlds Myths by Witzel
Plato, Prehistorian by Mary Settegast
From Yahweh to Zion by Laurent Guyenot

Laura and this forum are also into materialism being a problem hence the "Intelligent Design" reference. Guyenot also though contrasts Osirism to Judaism via relating Judaism to the not so nice Seth which would kind of propel Yahweh beyond his original tribal storm god origins. Also the Jewish bible was kind of put together all at once via stealing existing stories that often weren't even part of Jewish history. Hence the historical Abraham/Moses (there are doublet stories) could actually have been partly based on an Egyptian (like Ay) who perhaps actually had a more Osirism-like than Seth-like view and also relates to a Paris of Troy in Egypt story (it's messy).

It's complicated for Mark too. The words in Jesus' mouth can often be from Paul (who wrote before Mark). Paul was into sourcing ideas via Enoch and Isaiah. The guy from Galilee would be Judas of Galilee whom Mark merged into his Jesus to give the previous revolutionary Jewish Christians (like James-John-Cephas) a more gentle less threatening to Rome motif. The revolutionary Jewish Christians could have threatened the Gentile Christians via association hence the need of Gentile Christians for Mark. The idea for the original "Jesus" of the Gentile Christians would be Julius Caesar (Paul took over churches in Caesarean colonies) with Brutus as the original betrayer instead of Judas (using the name Judas for the betrayer was perhaps a subtle shot at Judas of Galilee).

 

[psychegram]

(using the name Judas for the betrayer was perhaps a subtle shot at Judas of Galilee).

For Mark's audience, I think that was as subtle as a 2x4 between the eyes.

His audience would have been well-versed in all of the literary works Mark referenced, and they would have been painfully aware of the religious, political, and historical context in which Mark wrote.

I think Mark was satire, and I expect it was greated with enthusiastic laughter by his audience.

Consider:
- he portrays the apostles - who have the same names as the 'pillars' of the Jerusalem Church that led Judea to disaster - as blundering blockheads
- he implies that Pilate, apparently one of Judea's most brutal and unpopular governor's, was nowhere near as bad as the Sanhedrin
- the Sanhedrin, the learned men of the culture, are portrayed as not understanding their own religion
- giving the name of Judas to the betrayer, as mentioned
- the Roman centurion being the one to recognize Jesus as the Son of God is clearly a bit of absurdity
- Jesus' death resulting in the temple curtains tearing is if anything a bit anticlimactic (and might even be taken to have a bit of a prurient overtone)
- even the framework of the story, the reworking of Caesar's life into a silly story about a wandering miracle worker and his band of merry dunces, is a classic comedic tactic ("first as tragedy, then as farce")

Mark absolutely skewers his opponents, and once you understand all the context, it's actually really, really funny. Deeply irreverent to every single sacred cow of Mark's opponents, but not in an angry, accusatory fashion so much as a tone of savage mockery. It's even possible that being written in bad, colloquial, romanized Greek was part of the gag; humorists are known to sometimes adopt such a tactic.

That probably explains its popularity, too. It seems to have spread quite widely and rapidly through the Christian community. Humor is an extremely effective means of distributing propaganda, as demonstrated by the success of memes in the modern context, as a tactic for waging cognitive insurrection against TPTB.

It doesn't take long for humor to stop being funny, though. Since most jokes rely on shared context, word play, subtle allusions, etc., they get lost very quickly. Most of the humor in Shakespeare's comedies goes right over a modern audience's head, especially if you just read them.

So, my take here is that Mark was basically pointed satire, written for a very specific purpose at a very specific time; that it achieved its goal brilliantly and therefore became an "underground hit"; and was then in turn subverted by Matthew and Luke who historicized it, thereby removed the humor (changing the genre from comedy to tragedy, really), and thus reasserted Judaizing influence over the church.

Life of Brian was actually closer to the spirit of Mark than any of the subsequent gospels.