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

[NewEngland Seeker]

I am glad that you have done your due diligence and are asking your own questions as everyone should, instead of just repeating stereotypes.

To answer your question in very simple terms, the idea is that Christ provides a fast track to accede to the next density level if you want, and the incarnation event as Jesus Christ was a perfect example to that effect.

A group of ants don’t wake up one morning and get together randomly and build a mound, they have the instinct encoded since birth. The God of ants had instilled that instinct in them. Ants don't evolve.

We humans as a species have like every species a certain built a runtime that we are born with and could run forever on like a cuckoo clock, but maybe we could use an upgrade. In order to get past that same old routines, in our spiritual evolution we are given a key, a shibboleth in order to upgrade ourselves and activate a higher conscience or reach the next level and eventually accede to the Throne of Creation (think breaking of the karmic cycle through love, acceptance, etc) think getting out of the loop. That key is provided by God himself, as the Logos of Creation or his Son in personification, manifested incarnation in Jesus Christ to lead by example and show us how it’s done and that... si se puede. We need to discover and resonate with that key in our own manifestation to open the gate of heavens, which makes the understanding and acceptance of the Jesus Christ drama the best course of action - a recognition of the effort if you want - and opportunity at the same time to learn, build on it and evolve on it with our creativity. Not necessarily through imitation Christi or devotion, there are multiple other ways of acceptance and response. Thus we become actors and co-creators on this plane of existence.
To me, the classic script as laid out by the Gospels and Christian tradition has proven a solid blueprint answering to the widest possible philosophical and psychological blocks. Alternatively, if you want to create your own adaptation or find a better way - feel free to do that, see how far you can get.

I disagree on the point that Jesus was the Son of God personified or personification of divine upgrade of human consciousness. Since our soul group has gone through a few harvests already the path to the next level has not changed. I restate that there is nothing new under the sun including how we have to become beings of divine light. If Jesus did exist he only showed how this light had to be personified. He was not the ensign of a new way to be.

If I am understanding you correctly, you are saying that Jesus Christ opened the door to a new way of being! Therefore, it has to be a third way, which has to have two elements to it. First it has to be different then the other 2 ways, and second it has to show how the old way of being the divine light was inadequate to the task of ascending to the 4th dimension. If this is the case, can you elucidate on these two elements of the new way.

 

[mbww]

I think yu

If I am understanding you correctly, you are saying that Jesus Christ opened the door to a new way of being! Therefore, it has to be a third way, which has to have two elements to it. First it has to be different then the other 2 ways, and second it has to show how the old way of being the divine light was inadequate to the task of ascending to the 4th dimension. If this is the case, can you elucidate on these two elements of the new way.

I think you are referring to density levels of consciousness, when you say 'ways'!?

This concept has been introduced and explained in the Law of One material, it's essentially 7 or 8 densities of existence in Creation from the inorganic state of the matter to the becoming one with the Creator. This evolution happens over billions of years. We, humans on Earth are now at the 3D level transitioning to the 4D.

Here's sum-up of this process:

 

[Alejo]

To me, the classic script as laid out by the Gospels and Christian tradition has proven a solid blueprint answering to the widest possible philosophical and psychological blocks. Alternatively, if you want to create your own adaptation or find a better way - feel free to do that, see how far you can get.

Really? well good for you then. I suppose the rest of us mortals will need to continue to dig through the material, oh well.

 

[Ina]

I haven't read Laura's new book yet, but I have a feeling that the last few pages of this thread have distanced the discussion into the more general mystic dimension of the Christian religion. Perhaps a different thread would suit better thus helping to understand the difference between how Christianity is experienced in the western and eastern branches.
After all, "Give Caesar what is Caesar's", does not only refers to reality but is also a truth that needs no explanation.

 

[Laura]

When I finished my theology session, I immediately bought a kindle book. I started reading it right away.

At first, I was not convinced of the concept according to which the Apostle Paul was a mystic and seer, true bringer of the Gospel of Christ.

One of my regrets about the book was that I did not find a way to include a section on the development of apocalypticism and an analysis of the Books of Enoch. But that topic would have taken over a hundred pages to do it right so I only referred to it as needed and put in a couple of long footnotes about it.

Had I done so, however, it seems to me that Paul's mysticism would have been obvious and in context. It is there, also, that you find so many of the building blocks of Paul's theology.

However, I was very curious what would happen next. I was able to take over 1,300 notes while reading!

I really loved the methodology of your research. I noticed that you combine biblical and historical methods in a very interesting way. In addition, you ask very interesting questions and take into account important observations, which many people forget, e.g.

“If you believe in what you are studying, you've already lost any claim to scientific objectivity, so please don't pretend to it.”

Exactly so. Being able to divest oneself of any belief in any of it was key. Only then are you able to see the clues, hear the echoes. Then, after a long process of collecting those do you begin to formulate a hypothesis based on the collected data. After that, you have to make some propositions and run the experiment, so to say, the "re-enacting of history." It was only at a certain stage that I concluded that it was highly probable that Paul was sincere and not a mythical construct himself nor a con-artist.

Robert Price and a few others (maybe more than a few), were convinced that even Paul was a fictional character and we corresponded on that topic somewhat. He wrote a book or two about that showing how all the contradictions about Paul were just as bad as the contradictions about Jesus of Nazareth in the gospels. If a person was to just read his work, he or she might be convinced of something along that line. What seemed to be the solution (actually, to both problems), was that the historical character had been seriously modified in order to fulfill an agenda. Just as Judas the Galilean was covered up and Jesus of Nazareth created to take his place, Paul, the opponent of the Zealots had been covered up and "Paul of Tarsus" invented.

Under that sentence, I only noted: "I fully agree with you". And with each new page, I understood you better and better. At one point I made a note of "Bruno Bauer" and a few pages later this figure appeared! This has happened many more times. You built up the tension, you made the reader sink into the right mood, specific questions to come to his mind. Then you answered them!

I keep telling people, please assume that I have, indeed, covered the research rather thoroughly and continue to read and see if your questions and suggestions are not dealt with in the text.

Russell Gmirkin was one of the first readers of the finished text and he was making notes in the document throughout. He did a lot of "what about so-and so?" or "this and that?" only to add a note later "oh, I see you covered this! Good job." That happened repeatedly.

As I worked on each problem, each text, each stage of analysis and understanding, I dealt with it as it was/is, and only when finished laying it out as the original scholar had done did I begin to subject it to my own analysis and discussion. I did that as much for me as for the reader.

This made reading not reading but a sacred symphony of the spheres. Moreover, reading was also a dialogue with you. It wasn't just an association with the written word. You were present all the time. I felt so.

You pay close attention to what is often overlooked by many biblical scholars. You take into account possible changes to the manuscripts and all contingencies, even in those cases where others do not challenge the statements made. You question everything, and that is very right! You create your own interpretations, which you support with solid arguments. You do not ignore any of the ways, you look at each issue from all possible sides. I also consider your analyzes of the works of other theologians outstanding.

I've spent many, many years reading biblical studies - books and papers - and my nearly photographic memory enabled me to see contradictions and make other connections that the original scholars missed or ignored entirely. If it happens within a single text, I will page back until I find the original statement, and re-read it next to the subsequent statement and add page numbers on the margin so that any subsequent reader of my book can be alerted that there is an issue and to compare. If it happens between books/scholars, I usually will note in the margin to "see so and so who says such and such."

There ARE many ways to "read" a text, even a modern one where no barriers of ancient languages and translations come into play. For example, my take on the passage in the Epistle of Clement about the deaths of Peter and Paul. I went to Bart Ehrman's recent translation and hauled out the Greek lexicon to see if I could get any clarity on that. My proposed reading was not excluded, so I went with it while still making it clear that it COULD mean something else altogether.

What made me give my reading more weight was the strong suspicion that Paul had, indeed, authored Romans 9-11 after the destruction of Jerusalem (even if that section was edited/modified later for obvious reasons). There was just something Pauline about the flavor of it and certainly the anguish of the opening declarations of that section was quite moving. Thus, if Paul was still alive after 70 AD, he could not have died in the Neronian purge after the Great Fire.

Of course, you can see from the above little recap of the process, that I had completely given up all the "accepted assumptions" and was just looking at the material to see what it gave without preconceived notions.

You have fought a war with fantasy, distortions, you are looking for the truth at any cost. Your look at Paul is also unique, you touched me very deeply. And you have uniquely highlighted the path of redemption found in Paul's correctly understood teachings. It was something special because it was no longer just science, history, but a deep mystical insight into the very depths.

If so, then I did my job as Collingwood would have wanted. I "lived" Paul for years...

And most importantly - you convinced me to many of your hypotheses, and you made me reach for other literature in the context of what you are discussing.

I would like to write even more and discuss individual threads for a long time, but I would have to write thousands of pages for that.

I will end with these words:

You are not an amateur, but an outstanding expert. You have become my favorite biblical scholar, the best I understand and the most reliable. You are not just an ordinary Florida girl dreaming of a better world. I can see a bottomless depth here. In you, Laura.

Did you do the job you wanted to do?

Yes, but you have done much more.

I thank you with all my heart.

You are welcome. I am satisfied to think that I did a good, workmanlike job.

And now, a question for you: Do you agree with your fellow countryman who posted on Ark's blog that there is nothing new that can possibly be said about the subject? That everything is known, done and dusted?

 

[luc]

As I worked on each problem, each text, each stage of analysis and understanding, I dealt with it as it was/is, and only when finished laying it out as the original scholar had done did I begin to subject it to my own analysis and discussion. I did that as much for me as for the reader.

I noticed that in the text, and this kind of thouroughness is setting a great example. Yes, it can make it a bit more challenging for the reader, because you don't just present your results but instead make us participate in the journey. But it is inspiring in the sense that you show how to go about it without any preconceived notions: you thoroughly explain the position of the researcher you cite. That way, you understand it deeply and convey that understanding. You also make sure that way that you don't miss an important clue, even though you might disagree with most of the conclusions. It is also showing respect to people who have looked at these issues for decades, even though they might have missed important things or took the wrong track. It also shows that you clearly valued getting to the bottom of things more than any "pet theories" or what you thought you knew already. I suspect that this kind of approach - thouroughly understanding different positions, looking at the problem from multiple angles at once (even contradictory angles, even if there is no hope to overcome some of these contradictions), forgetting about preconceived, "comfortable" notions out of a pure love for truth - has something to do with what the Cs meant by "mosaic consciousness" and 4D realities...

 

[Pierre]

When I finished my theology session, I immediately bought a kindle book. I started reading it right away.

At first, I was not convinced of the concept according to which the Apostle Paul was a mystic and seer, true bringer of the Gospel of Christ. However, I was very curious what would happen next. I was able to take over 1,300 notes while reading!

I really loved the methodology of your research. I noticed that you combine biblical and historical methods in a very interesting way. In addition, you ask very interesting questions and take into account important observations, which many people forget, e.g.

“If you believe in what you are studying, you've already lost any claim to scientific objectivity, so please don't pretend to it.”

Under that sentence, I only noted: "I fully agree with you". And with each new page, I understood you better and better. At one point I made a note of "Bruno Bauer" and a few pages later this figure appeared! This has happened many more times. You built up the tension, you made the reader sink into the right mood, specific questions to come to his mind. Then you answered them!

This made reading not reading but a sacred symphony of the spheres. Moreover, reading was also a dialogue with you. It wasn't just an association with the written word. You were present all the time. I felt so.

You pay close attention to what is often overlooked by many biblical scholars. You take into account possible changes to the manuscripts and all contingencies, even in those cases where others do not challenge the statements made. You question everything, and that is very right! You create your own interpretations, which you support with solid arguments. You do not ignore any of the ways, you look at each issue from all possible sides. I also consider your analyzes of the works of other theologians outstanding.

You have fought a war with fantasy, distortions, you are looking for the truth at any cost. Your look at Paul is also unique, you touched me very deeply. And you have uniquely highlighted the path of redemption found in Paul's correctly understood teachings. It was something special because it was no longer just science, history, but a deep mystical insight into the very depths.

And most importantly - you convinced me to many of your hypotheses, and you made me reach for other literature in the context of what you are discussing.

I would like to write even more and discuss individual threads for a long time, but I would have to write thousands of pages for that.

I will end with these words:

You are not an amateur, but an outstanding expert. You have become my favorite biblical scholar, the best I understand and the most reliable. You are not just an ordinary Florida girl dreaming of a better world. I can see a bottomless depth here. In you, Laura.

Did you do the job you wanted to do?

Yes, but you have done much more.

I thank you with all my heart.

What an interesting analysis of Laura's book. It would make an excellent Amazon review!

 

[Laura]

I noticed that in the text, and this kind of thouroughness is setting a great example. Yes, it can make it a bit more challenging for the reader, because you don't just present your results but instead make us participate in the journey. But it is inspiring in the sense that you show how to go about it without any preconceived notions: you thoroughly explain the position of the researcher you cite. That way, you understand it deeply and convey that understanding. You also make sure that way that you don't miss an important clue, even though you might disagree with most of the conclusions. It is also showing respect to people who have looked at these issues for decades, even though they might have missed important things or took the wrong track. It also shows that you clearly valued getting to the bottom of things more than any "pet theories" or what you thought you knew already. I suspect that this kind of approach - thouroughly understanding different positions, looking at the problem from multiple angles at once (even contradictory angles, even if there is no hope to overcome some of these contradictions), forgetting about preconceived, "comfortable" notions out of a pure love for truth - has something to do with what the Cs meant by "mosaic consciousness" and 4D realities...

I have to admit that I was more than a little nonplussed with Douglas Campbell's screw-up over the Artabanus/Aretas text in Tacitus. It just seemed to me to be either really careless research, or possibly even cherry-picking data. How the heck could he do that?

But the good thing about it was that it set me off on the trail of Aretas and all related issues which then led me to the realization that a big chunk of text had been deleted from Josephus and then the almost smoking gun evidence that Pilate had been in Judea much earlier than the standard timeline mandates. And that, of course, was a complete death blow to the Jesus timeline.

I then had to think a lot about whether or not the mention of Christ by Tacitus was an interpolation or not. There were the two items:

The first was his mention of the execution of Christus by Pilate under Tiberius.

Therefore, to dispel the rumor [that he personally ordered the fire], Nero supplied defendants and
inflicted the choicest punishments on those, resented for their outrages, whom the public called
Chrestiani. (The source of the name was Christus, on whom, during the command of Tiberius,
reprisal had been inflicted by the procurator Pontius Pilatus; and, though the baleful superstition
had been stifled for the moment, there was now another outbreak, not only across Judaea, the origin
of the malignancy, but also across the City, where everything frightful or shameful, of whatever
provenance, converges and is celebrated.) (Ann. 15.44.2–3.)

The second was:

Measures were also taken for exterminating the solemnities of the Jews and Egyptians; and by
decree of Senate four thousand descendants of franchised slaves, all defiled with that superstition,
but of proper strength and age, were to be transported to Sardinia; to restrain the Sardinian
robbers; and if, through the malignity of the climate, they perished, despicable would be the loss:
the rest were doomed to depart Italy, unless by a stated day they renounced their profane rites. (Ann. 2.85.4)

It seemed to me that the two remarks, though widely separated in the text of Tacitus, were related. In the first one, he mentions the cause of the "superstition" was due to something that happened back in the time of Tiberius. In the second one (which actually comes earlier in his text), we are in the 19 AD temporal context.

But both talk about that "superstition".

I finally decided to accept the Tacitean mention of Christus and Pilate as authentic and not an interpolation and that it was a later comment that clarified what went on in the time of Nero.

Taking what Tacitus wrote together with Philo's discussion of Pilate and his "extra-judicial murders", extreme cruelty, the matter of the shields, and the story about Judas the Galilean's attack on the "Golden Eagle" which resulted in his death, as far as I can see, is strongly indicative that someone important to the Jews was executed in 19 AD, by Pilate, and his life and death was the core element of what Tacitus and later, Pliny, referred to as a vile superstition. Then, when you read the letter of Claudius where he states pretty clearly that there was some sort of Jewish superstition that was infecting the entire empire, well... it all begins to fit together: Jewish messianism was the vile superstition and it was riling people up and causing problems for the empire, and that, as early as 19 AD; and that riling up was leading to violence and rebellion.

That certainly is NOT what we have been told was the origin of early Christianity.

 

[Glenn]

mbww, I want to relate a story that a close friend told me some time ago.

He said, there was this new fellow at work, and first impressions were that he seemed to be knowledgeable on many subjects, and had many strong opinions.

But he said, it was not long that he noticed that in subsequent meetings and discussions, they always seemed to start at the zero point. All the same opinions would be trotted out, as if on a script, and all the points that my friend had made seemed to either be forgotten or ignored. It is like they did not have the prior discussions at all.

It was like talking to a robot, or a computer program. At first you feel like you are involved in a discussion, but then realize you are just listening to a monologue, and you are interjecting at different points. And every time you meet again, you will always start at the zero point, as if it is the first time you are talking to this person.

That observation has definitely stuck with me.

I do see a lot of that in your, 'discussions'.

 

[Cleopatre VII]

One of my regrets about the book was that I did not find a way to include a section on the development of apocalypticism and an analysis of the Books of Enoch. But that topic would have taken over a hundred pages to do it right so I only referred to it as needed and put in a couple of long footnotes about it.

Had I done so, however, it seems to me that Paul's mysticism would have been obvious and in context. It is there, also, that you find so many of the building blocks of Paul's theology.



Exactly so. Being able to divest oneself of any belief in any of it was key. Only then are you able to see the clues, hear the echoes. Then, after a long process of collecting those do you begin to formulate a hypothesis based on the collected data. After that, you have to make some propositions and run the experiment, so to say, the "re-enacting of history." It was only at a certain stage that I concluded that it was highly probable that Paul was sincere and not a mythical construct himself nor a con-artist.

Robert Price and a few others (maybe more than a few), were convinced that even Paul was a fictional character and we corresponded on that topic somewhat. He wrote a book or two about that showing how all the contradictions about Paul were just as bad as the contradictions about Jesus of Nazareth in the gospels. If a person was to just read his work, he or she might be convinced of something along that line. What seemed to be the solution (actually, to both problems), was that the historical character had been seriously modified in order to fulfill an agenda. Just as Judas the Galilean was covered up and Jesus of Nazareth created to take his place, Paul, the opponent of the Zealots had been covered up and "Paul of Tarsus" invented.



I keep telling people, please assume that I have, indeed, covered the research rather thoroughly and continue to read and see if your questions and suggestions are not dealt with in the text.

Russell Gmirkin was one of the first readers of the finished text and he was making notes in the document throughout. He did a lot of "what about so-and so?" or "this and that?" only to add a note later "oh, I see you covered this! Good job." That happened repeatedly.

As I worked on each problem, each text, each stage of analysis and understanding, I dealt with it as it was/is, and only when finished laying it out as the original scholar had done did I begin to subject it to my own analysis and discussion. I did that as much for me as for the reader.





I've spent many, many years reading biblical studies - books and papers - and my nearly photographic memory enabled me to see contradictions and make other connections that the original scholars missed or ignored entirely. If it happens within a single text, I will page back until I find the original statement, and re-read it next to the subsequent statement and add page numbers on the margin so that any subsequent reader of my book can be alerted that there is an issue and to compare. If it happens between books/scholars, I usually will note in the margin to "see so and so who says such and such."

There ARE many ways to "read" a text, even a modern one where no barriers of ancient languages and translations come into play. For example, my take on the passage in the Epistle of Clement about the deaths of Peter and Paul. I went to Bart Ehrman's recent translation and hauled out the Greek lexicon to see if I could get any clarity on that. My proposed reading was not excluded, so I went with it while still making it clear that it COULD mean something else altogether.

What made me give my reading more weight was the strong suspicion that Paul had, indeed, authored Romans 9-11 after the destruction of Jerusalem (even if that section was edited/modified later for obvious reasons). There was just something Pauline about the flavor of it and certainly the anguish of the opening declarations of that section was quite moving. Thus, if Paul was still alive after 70 AD, he could not have died in the Neronian purge after the Great Fire.

Of course, you can see from the above little recap of the process, that I had completely given up all the "accepted assumptions" and was just looking at the material to see what it gave without preconceived notions.



If so, then I did my job as Collingwood would have wanted. I "lived" Paul for years...



You are welcome. I am satisfied to think that I did a good, workmanlike job.

And now, a question for you: Do you agree with your fellow countryman who posted on Ark's blog that there is nothing new that can possibly be said about the subject? That everything is known, done and dusted?

"And now, a question for you: Do you agree with your fellow countryman who posted on Ark's blog that there is nothing new that can possibly be said about the subject? That everything is known, done and dusted?"

I definitely disagree with that statement. I also remember that this person wrote that no new sources would be found. This is also not certain. I think it may be the opposite.

But at the same time you showed in your book that a new approach to what is already known is possible. This is not just a different interpretation, but noticing something other researchers have missed. In my opinion, the search should never be abandoned.

It seems to me that the attitude of some people may be for several reasons. One of them is probably ignorance. The second may be the fact that people who have devoted many years of their lives to a given issue and reached certain conclusions are very reluctant to question their vision. When something appears that could turn their world upside down, they run away instead of facing it. And it's extremely valuable that you don't do that.

You also wrote:

"One of my regrets about the book was that I did not find a way to include a section on the development of apocalypticism and an analysis of the Books of Enoch. But that topic would have taken over a hundred pages to do it right so I only referred to it as needed and put in a couple of long footnotes about it. "

I think that the footnotes are absolutely sufficient in this matter, and the book is a perfect whole in the form in which it was published. But on the other hand, you can also write another book about it or write a supplement to the book. It's up to you, but I don't think you have anything to regret.

 

[Cleopatre VII]

What an interesting analysis of Laura's book. It would make an excellent Amazon review!

Thank you. I will consider this possibility.

 

[Laura]

Thank you. I will consider this possibility.

Yes, that would be nice. Of course, you would have to modify it somewhat and address it to a general audience and not to the forum here, or me specifically.

 

[PaleFace]

One of my regrets about the book was that I did not find a way to include a section on the development of apocalypticism and an analysis of the Books of Enoch.

That would be an interesting deep dive for sure. Perhaps a shorter book or just an in-depth thread would be appreciated.

 

[Cleopatre VII]

Yes, that would be nice. Of course, you would have to modify it somewhat and address it to a general audience and not to the forum here, or me specifically.

Therefore, I propose the following form (I ask readers to pay attention, some typos or non-grammatical phrases may have crept during the modification):

"Before reading the book, I was not convinced of the concept according to which the Apostle Paul was a mystic and seer, true bringer of the Gospel of Christ.

However, I really loved the methodology of the research. I noticed that the author combines biblical and historical methods in a very interesting way. In addition, she asks very interesting questions and takes into account important observations, which many people forget, e.g.

“If you believe in what you are studying, you've already lost any claim to scientific objectivity, so please don't pretend to it.”

With each new page, I understood author's message better and better. At one point I made a note of "Bruno Bauer" and a few pages later this figure appeared. This has happened many more times. The author built up the tension, made the reader sink into the right mood, specific questions to come to his mind. Then she answered them.

This made reading not reading but a sacred symphony of the spheres. Moreover, reading was also a dialogue with the author, who seemed present all the time. It wasn't just an association with the written word.

The author pays close attention to what is often overlooked by many biblical scholars, takes into account possible changes to the manuscripts and all contingencies, even in those cases where others do not challenge the statements made. She questions everything, what is very right in my opinion. The author created her own interpretations, which she supports with solid arguments. She does not ignore any of the ways, but looks at each issue from all possible sides. I also consider numerous original analyzes of the works of other theologians outstanding.

The book has fought a war with fantasy, distortions, the search for truth takes place at any cost. The author’s look at Paul is also unique. The path of redemption found in Paul's correctly understood teachings has been uniquely highlighted. It was something special because it was no longer just science, history, but a deep mystical insight into the very depths.

And most importantly – the author convinced me to many of her hypotheses, and made me reach for other literature in the context of what she is discussing.

I would like to write even more and discuss individual threads for a long time, but I would have to write thousands of pages for that.

The author does not write like an amateur, but like an outstanding expert. In my opinion, she is one of the most credible Bible scholars."

 

[Laura]

Looks good to me. Thank you.