Ina
The Living Force
Oupsie, right answer wrong thread.
Laura's Book "From Paul to Mark" is out!!!! ... And in French too
- Thread starter Chu
- Start date
Indeed. Paul was not perfect and he worked with his own biases as far as was possible in his time. He also worked with the only concepts he had to hand and that, already, was quite something.
Marcion, of course, was sure that the Christ was the son of a god higher than Yahweh and perhaps he saw something in Paul's writings, or knew something via some other source, that suggested this to him. In that case, perhaps Paul did NOT assume that Yahweh was the highest/creator god. It would be difficult to make a call on that without some serious study and analysis, and even then, it might not be possible. I just saw no indication that Paul had an 'alien god' in mind. (By 'alien', I mean unknown.)
Have you finished reading the book?
Yeah, there is no truth, why even try, everything is subjective and a poor reflection of a higher, more refined truth somewhere out there, unreachable by us. Anyone, you included obviously, can easily dismiss any truth seeking and reaching attempt with this rather nihilistic pseudo-argument that has aimlessness and pointlessness as its final destination. The only answer to such an argument is to respond to the person making it that they should, by all means, pursue it, and leave the rest of us in the truth seeking community to do what we do best.
When we come to closer approximations of the truth on any given topic, primarily by uncovering and exposing the lies that have defined that topic, and thus, by definition, coming closer to an objective truth, you and others who hold to the subjectivity argument can have fun poking pseudo-holes in it by appealing to the 'all is relative' pseudo-argument.
Searching for truth and coming to a closer approximation of it as I have described is not about any particular truth or its revelation per se, but rather about the effect that that process has on the truth seeker, specifically his/her Being and their 'alignment' so to speak. That's something you clearly missed, likely due to misalignment.
Last edited:
Just thinking aloud from what you are writing. So while the death of Ceasar was a sort of exorcism at the time, then as the Jewish Christians took over, the truth was again veiled by what could be described as demons or demonic forces. That has been the affairs for 1500-2000 years depending on how many years we want to subtract. The fact then that you managed to pull all the threads and rediscover what had been hidden for so long and make it available in book form for the lay person, can really be seen as an exorcism of gargantuan size, undoing the work of the demonic forces who have held the truth hidden for these many years. It makes sense that a deja vu comes to mind from a previously nasty exorcism which sapped you.
To use the Harry Potter imagery, then you have been in close battle with the Dementors and won, thus bringing light, truth and hope back to the tribe, while feeling exhausted due to the battle. Or the breaking of a powerful spell, like in the fairy tale, Sleeping Beauty, which had kept those under the spell asleep for centuries.
Perhaps Caesar's assassination constituted a 'crossing of a line' by STS forces (working through humans) that caused some kind of blow back or negative repercussions for those forces. Perhaps the willing sacrifice of his life (it seems he was aware to some extent and went willingly to it) 'drew down' some positive energies onto the planet that caused a kind of 'exorcism' of some of that kind of negative energy. If a dark world, ruled by lies and suffering, is 'palatable' to dark entities, then when such a world is infused with the opposite energy via the kind of sacrifice offered by Caesar, then the world becomes less palatable to those who thrive in darkness. Who knows how such things work at that level.
I finished reading the book a few weeks ago and I had a couple of small comments to make about it. Now I have time so I'm going to take advantage of it.
The first is simply to say "thank you" to Laura, this work is a treasure and I am sorry that only a small portion of the world's population can benefit from it. I must admit that it was not an easy read for me, firstly because English is not my native language and secondly because every thread that Laura pulls on is done in a detailed way trying to cover every possible angle and that made the text dense. Having said that I must say that it was worth every page of the book and I feel fortunate that life has brought me to a point where I have been allowed to enjoy so much of such a work.
Secondly, I wanted to make a personal observation based on my own experience. I was born and raised in a Catholic family (two uncles were priests and my father was a seminarian until he decided to leave) and I was educated in the values of this religion. I have nothing to reproach, I think I got the best out of this upbringing and I thank my parents for having framed my childhood and youth in this environment. The point I wanted to get to is that remembering my years of participation in Catholic groups and activities (I belonged to the Salesian order) I can see that in the depths of the teachings I received there are still residues of the Pauline message. The one that comes to mind most is the idea of having "the faith of Christ" and not "faith in Christ". This idea of Christ as a model, as a source of inspiration, at least in the Catholic environments in which I grew up, was always an essential factor and did leave an imprint on me. The idea of not worshipping or venerating "holy figures" but seeing them as a kind of archetype to tune into, I don't think, is trivial.
Knowing through friends or acquaintances other branches of Christianity derived from Protestantism, I must say that, at least from my experience, this is a feature that creates a great difference between one form of Christianity and another. The latter place a special emphasis on blind faith in order to obtain the favours of a deity who, if He sees enough devotion on your part, will surely grant you great benefits.
In short, I just wanted to comment that, at least from my experience, I think there are still remnants of that early Christianity still hanging around the world, which, given the dramatic times we are living in today, feels like smelling a minty breath while we are wading through a fetid swamp.
The first is simply to say "thank you" to Laura, this work is a treasure and I am sorry that only a small portion of the world's population can benefit from it. I must admit that it was not an easy read for me, firstly because English is not my native language and secondly because every thread that Laura pulls on is done in a detailed way trying to cover every possible angle and that made the text dense. Having said that I must say that it was worth every page of the book and I feel fortunate that life has brought me to a point where I have been allowed to enjoy so much of such a work.
Secondly, I wanted to make a personal observation based on my own experience. I was born and raised in a Catholic family (two uncles were priests and my father was a seminarian until he decided to leave) and I was educated in the values of this religion. I have nothing to reproach, I think I got the best out of this upbringing and I thank my parents for having framed my childhood and youth in this environment. The point I wanted to get to is that remembering my years of participation in Catholic groups and activities (I belonged to the Salesian order) I can see that in the depths of the teachings I received there are still residues of the Pauline message. The one that comes to mind most is the idea of having "the faith of Christ" and not "faith in Christ". This idea of Christ as a model, as a source of inspiration, at least in the Catholic environments in which I grew up, was always an essential factor and did leave an imprint on me. The idea of not worshipping or venerating "holy figures" but seeing them as a kind of archetype to tune into, I don't think, is trivial.
Knowing through friends or acquaintances other branches of Christianity derived from Protestantism, I must say that, at least from my experience, this is a feature that creates a great difference between one form of Christianity and another. The latter place a special emphasis on blind faith in order to obtain the favours of a deity who, if He sees enough devotion on your part, will surely grant you great benefits.
In short, I just wanted to comment that, at least from my experience, I think there are still remnants of that early Christianity still hanging around the world, which, given the dramatic times we are living in today, feels like smelling a minty breath while we are wading through a fetid swamp.
I'm currently reading Elaine Pagels, The Gnostic Paul, and I can highly recommend it. @Laura briefly refers to this book in FPTM as well.
Pagels basically reconstructs the Valentinian/early Gnostic reading of Paul. Now, my hunch about what went down is that the Valentinians were indeed a direct successor of Paul's "school" if you will, probably with a direct lineage (Valentinus claimed his teacher was a student of Paul). But as it always happens, the Valentinian teaching was corrupted somewhat over the years; there apparently were different factions/splits that we don't know much about, etc. In particular, their thinking became a bit too elitist: thinking in terms of "the elect" and "the psychic". They probably also over-emphasized the idea of predestination, i.e. that the "elect" are predestined to "know God". They also read later Gnostic concepts like the Sophia worship into Paul (or perhaps there was something there that is lost).
Nonetheless, their reading of Paul emphasizes the gulf between "those who live according to the flesh" and those who live "according to the spirit", and to my mind they are right on the money here. They read Paul symbolically, and seem to have a good grasp of the "unseen world" and its relationship with the world of the flesh.
One idea in particular is fascinating, although I'm not sure yet if the early Gnostics didn't exagerate it a bit: they claim that Paul deliberately worked two layers into his written works, namely a "fleshly" Gospel that appeals to those "of the flesh", and a deep symbolism that appeals to those of the spirit. That is, he foresaw the twisting and misunderstanding and destruction that would ultimately set in when those with no eyes to see try to interpret true spiritual teachings, and for that reason, he produced the fleshly gospel about Jesus Christ the man and the bodily resurrection, talked about the importance of the Law, and so on.
Now, perhaps these "fleshly" parts had been injected into the Pauline corpus by that time, and the Gnostics weren't aware this, so that's just how they tried to make sense of it. Or they didn't understand the true conflict between Paul and Peter, the Pauline groups and the zealots, and interpreted this conflict exclusively in symbolical terms.
Still, the idea that there are "two Pauls" so to speak would go well with the Markan gospel as both an allegory for Pauline teaching and a "codification" of it for those who "live in the flesh".
I mean, Christianity has certainly persisted, and despite all the corruption and nonsense still has preserved some crucial teachings. Whereas the Gnostics are gone, probably after they lost much of their initial truth and descended into "fleshly" thinking and sectarianism themselves... So IF that was Paul's plan, or at the least the plan of his successors, it seems to have worked to some extent at least.
Anyway, some very interesting stuff in that short book. Even though it claims to be about theology and not history, some likely historical development may be inferred, especially about the fate of the Pauline teachings in the second century and after.
Pagels basically reconstructs the Valentinian/early Gnostic reading of Paul. Now, my hunch about what went down is that the Valentinians were indeed a direct successor of Paul's "school" if you will, probably with a direct lineage (Valentinus claimed his teacher was a student of Paul). But as it always happens, the Valentinian teaching was corrupted somewhat over the years; there apparently were different factions/splits that we don't know much about, etc. In particular, their thinking became a bit too elitist: thinking in terms of "the elect" and "the psychic". They probably also over-emphasized the idea of predestination, i.e. that the "elect" are predestined to "know God". They also read later Gnostic concepts like the Sophia worship into Paul (or perhaps there was something there that is lost).
Nonetheless, their reading of Paul emphasizes the gulf between "those who live according to the flesh" and those who live "according to the spirit", and to my mind they are right on the money here. They read Paul symbolically, and seem to have a good grasp of the "unseen world" and its relationship with the world of the flesh.
One idea in particular is fascinating, although I'm not sure yet if the early Gnostics didn't exagerate it a bit: they claim that Paul deliberately worked two layers into his written works, namely a "fleshly" Gospel that appeals to those "of the flesh", and a deep symbolism that appeals to those of the spirit. That is, he foresaw the twisting and misunderstanding and destruction that would ultimately set in when those with no eyes to see try to interpret true spiritual teachings, and for that reason, he produced the fleshly gospel about Jesus Christ the man and the bodily resurrection, talked about the importance of the Law, and so on.
Now, perhaps these "fleshly" parts had been injected into the Pauline corpus by that time, and the Gnostics weren't aware this, so that's just how they tried to make sense of it. Or they didn't understand the true conflict between Paul and Peter, the Pauline groups and the zealots, and interpreted this conflict exclusively in symbolical terms.
Still, the idea that there are "two Pauls" so to speak would go well with the Markan gospel as both an allegory for Pauline teaching and a "codification" of it for those who "live in the flesh".
I mean, Christianity has certainly persisted, and despite all the corruption and nonsense still has preserved some crucial teachings. Whereas the Gnostics are gone, probably after they lost much of their initial truth and descended into "fleshly" thinking and sectarianism themselves... So IF that was Paul's plan, or at the least the plan of his successors, it seems to have worked to some extent at least.
Anyway, some very interesting stuff in that short book. Even though it claims to be about theology and not history, some likely historical development may be inferred, especially about the fate of the Pauline teachings in the second century and after.
Yes, and it was suggested by one scholar, quoted in FPTM, that perhaps Paul had direct input into the writing of Mark.
I'm also quite taken with the idea that the skeleton of Mark was a mystery play about Caesar possibly written by Fulvia as a rite to be overseen by her husband at the time, Mark Anthony who was the first priest of the cult of Caesar. If this drama was taken over by Pauline Christians as a 1st draft for their gospel, it would be entirely fitting to name it after Mark Anthony.
It should be available somewhere in 2023.
Merci Gandalf pour votre réponse précise...
N'oubliez pas de nous prévenir ; Merci d'avance...
Thank you Gandalf for your accurate response...
Don't forget to let us know; Thanks in advance...
From Paul to Mark is now available in French.
See that thread for more info :
From Paul to Mark in French! - De Paul à Marc
Nous sommes ravis de vous informer que le livre De Paul à Marc, oeuvre colossale de Laura Knight-Jadczyk, est désormais disponible en français ! Un grand merci à tous ceux qui ont rendu cela possible, et à tous ceux qui ont attendu patiemment. :wizard::flowers::clap::bacon: Laura herself...
cassiopaea.org
