"The Gospel of Marcion"

[cupid dave]

This world is death. Nothing here lives except from the destruction of something else. Christ true sacrifice was entering the world of death.

LOL

The god of the bible is not god of the dead, but the god of the living.
So you err.

 

[cupid dave]

1) Yeah, I’m talking about way into the future generations evolving.

2) Do you ever think we will overcome death and achieve eternal life, or do you believe that is scientifically impossible, or maybe a doomsday scenario is going to take us out before we get there?

3) What does the person who is like the Father look like and what would their differences be from myself?
.

1) Evolution means change in the future. The bible says we shall all be changed, and in a twinkling.
We are to become new creatures in the Reality, just as we ourselves were the new creatures before the Flood out of Africa and the extinction of all the 22 species of humans that preceded us.


2) SCIENCE actually supports eternal life as a genetic ability to reproduce past lives in newly born people by genetically storing the memories of those past experiences.
Eternal life will come yo us when we evolve the ability to enter into the presently closed and sealed Unconscious mind, and remember we had lived before.

3) Our Father is the Reality we meet at birth and interact with thereafter until we die.
He "looks" exactly like what we mentally conceive as The Truth.

 

[cupid dave]

Interesting, but I don't care if it was altered or earlier version. Point is the discretion is sharp. Thanks for the links.
Peace to you all.

Whatever value it may have had in the minds of the author it has not been preached over all the world so it can't be the gospel Christ prophesied would so be, i.e.; The New Testament.

 

[Ishraqiyun]

The good news that was preached wasn't limited to a specific text imo. There have been books that discuss the good news though. Luke was one, the so called Gospel of Marcion was another, Matthew another one, the Gospel of Thomas another... and so on.

 

[cupid dave]

Gnostics do believe in the resurrection.
Just not the reanimation of the physical body.

The Treaties on the Resurrection tells us that it would be better to call the world an illusion rather than the resurrection. That's how important the resurrection is. It's reality with a capital R.

The resurrection must take place here and now though. It's a spiritual resurrection. It's not the reanimation of the body or as the Orphics called it the tomb or prision -soma sema. Plato recognized the body as the tomb of the soul as well.

That was what I just posted above, albeit in the venacular of the moment using terms like memories for the "spiritual," and psyche for "soul," and mind/resurrection as opposed to "bodily resurrection."


We already have had observers claim that when a baby is born he/she already knows all about the life he is entering into because he actually remembers the accumilated knowledge of the past:


"The Collective Unconscious is a storehouse of all the experiences of humankind transmitted to each individual
As the repository for all past experiences, it includes even our pre-human animal ancestry.
(Assumably through the genetic processes, though unknown to Freud and Jung at the time.)

It becomes the primary base of a person's pyche, direc ting and influencing behavior.It is the deepest and most inaccessable level of the psyche.

Jung believed that a person accumulates and files all of his past experiences, so does humankind, collectively.


Jung was supported by Freud in that Freud predicted our eventual discovery of what he called "Phylogenetic Memory."

Jung said, "the form of the world into which a person is born is already inborn in him, as a virtual image." (Jung, 1953, pg 188).

An example of the meaning of this was suggested in that an infant is born predisposed to perceive the mother in a certain manner.

Assuming that she behaves as we have generally considered mothers should behave, then the babies predisposition will correspond with his reality.
The form of an infant's world, "inborn within him" thus determines how he adapts and reacts to his world."

 

[Soulgazer]

Yeah, I’m talking about way into the future generations evolving. Do you ever think we will overcome death and achieve eternal life, or do you believe that is scientifically impossible, or maybe a doomsday scenario is going to take us out before we get there?
What does the person who is like the Father look like and what would their differences be from myself? Anyone alive today?
That’s also the Catholic nutshell so maybe we should discuss the differences. Such as, apparently you believe that some semblance of life is possible on the spiritual side so don’t see any necessity behind a resurrection. You believe the way to get to this spiritual realm isn’t something that naturally happens after death but only certain people with certain teachings of God are allowed to go there.

While I agree in existence of a spiritual side, nor would I argue against an immaterial/immortal soul. What I don’t agree with is that any semblance of life can be had without the spacial and temporal limitations of matter. It wouldn’t be like dreamland that you experience in vision, it would be every idea constantly expressing itself all at once, forever. There would be no continuing the relationships you had/have in this life, in the afterlife, which is the desire of many.

This understanding of spirit is why the resurrection became the only rational solution for an afterlife that had any type of life to it. Then it became a question of how do we get to that resurrection, the obvious answer was establish the ideal kingdom/republic that all the thinkers have been working on and that will bring us to that point.

How was that Kindom supposed to be brought about? With the appearance of the ideal King which Jesus claimed and was believed to be.

How was that ideal King going to establish dominion? By spreading and identifying “faith” that he was the messiah as the key ingredient to establish the kingdom.

Gnostics don’t believe in this ideal Kingdom or resurrection being possible so they go with alternative salvation plans of trying to get the soul to dreamland when they die. Which souls get to heaven depends on what they know about the spiritual side. Gnostics are basically the guys trying to sell maps to the spiritual side because they claim that when you die you will get lost without one.

I'm still waiting for a helicopter in every garage


I am going to contradict you. The kingdom of God is here, spread over the earth, and you don't see it.

There is no one agreement on matters that will take care of themselves. We might find ourselves with new bodies, we might not. There is nothing that can be done here and now to influence something that is beyond our control, so we just don't worry about it.

We believe in the divine potentiality. If we all have the potential be be a child of God, then we should treat each other that way. How do we change the world? One person at a time, starting with ourselves. Evil is always easiest to spot in someone else. Yet the evil we see in others is often merely a reflection of our own faults being projected. So we do the best we can to follow the command to "know thyself", and to "clean the inside of the cup".

Yes, we believe the spiritual side is here and now. You could not even stand up without a spirit; We have our teeth fixed, haircut, go to the doctor for an illness. We take care of our minds, we go to school and seek out universities. We take care of our vehicles. Yet people do so little for their true self, and some don't even recognize that they are a spirit.

You've asked a lot of questions, and I hope I answered some.

 

[cupid dave]

The good news that was preached wasn't limited to a specific text imo. There have been books that discuss the good news though. Luke was one, the so called Gospel of Marcion was another, Matthew another one, the Gospel of Thomas another... and so on.

The fact remains that these books, most recently re-discovered, were not preached over all the world.

The Arians' "gospel" was silenced and these gnostic idea were not heard for the whole 1000 years during the sole reign of Jesus over all the Roman World during the monasticism of the Dark Ages that saw the one singular church that had been prophecied by Jesus.






Rev. 20:4 And I saw thrones (of Universal Christian authority) and they, (the 144,000 monks of Catholic monasticism: [Rev14:4]), sat upon them, (Christianity mandated as the ONLY legal religion in the Empire, in 380AD), and (theocratic) judgment was given unto them (in the days of Catholic Monasticism): and I saw the souls, (the spirit-like psyches or thinking) of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the (one) word of God, (Truth), and which had not worshipped (by participation in the paganistic practices and sexual excesses fueling) the beast (of the Roman Culture, including the slave feuled economic system which had been based upon selfish self-interest), neither his image (on his coinage as towns disappeared and feudalism institued a moneyless economy of barter), neither had received his mark (of ledgered accounts recorded) upon their foreheads, or in (wages in) their hands; and they, (the saints or apostles), lived (as angels in the minds of the Christians who have followed since 32AD, those beheaded saints, in the memories of the congregations who worshipped in churches built upon the bones of their remain)...
.... and (they) reigned (in Monasticism) with Christ a thousand years, (from 54 AD upon the appearance of the Holy Comforter, until 1054 AD with the first Schism of Greek Orthodoxy).

 

[ElijahW]

Gnostics do believe in the resurrection. Just not the reanimation of the physical body. The Treaties on the Resurrection tells us that it would be better to call the world an illusion rather than the resurrection. That's how important the resurrection is. It's reality with a capital R.

The resurrection must take place here and now though. It's a spiritual resurrection. It's not the reanimation of the body or as the Orphics called it the tomb or prision -soma sema. Plato recognized the body as the tomb of the soul as well.

It was important for them to abuse the definition of the word and reinterpret in from their perspective but they don’t believe in what the word “resurrection” means when people hear it.

How do you address the problems of existence in that realm being nothing like we experience here? Or do you think it’s going to be just like a dream when you die?

It’s understandable back then to doubt literal eternal life and a literal resurrection but seeing all the technological and scientific progress of the last hundred years, what makes you doubt that literal eternal life can be achieved by mankind and eventually the retrieval of those who previously died?

 

[ElijahW]

I am going to contradict you. The kingdom of God is here, spread over the earth, and you don't see it.

No doubt, because it is an ideological kingdom that isn’t bound by lines on a map.

There is no one agreement on matters that will take care of themselves. We might find ourselves with new bodies, we might not. There is nothing that can be done here and now to influence something that is beyond our control, so we just don't worry about it.

I doubt that the early Gnostics position was that the catholics could be right, we just don’t worry about that. The nature of the bodies may be not worth discussing because of too much uncertainty but if existence is possible in the spiritual realm, or not, should be something an opinion can be found on, just from the fundamental understanding of spiritual elements.

We believe in the divine potentiality. If we all have the potential be be a child of God, then we should treat each other that way. How do we change the world? One person at a time, starting with ourselves. Evil is always easiest to spot in someone else. Yet the evil we see in others is often merely a reflection of our own faults being projected. So we do the best we can to follow the command to "know thyself", and to "clean the inside of the cup".

Yep, one person at a time is the only way to go that I know of but the overall plan of what we are trying to do collectively needs to be thought out beyond just setting a positive example for others, or promoting a particular metaphysical outlook.

True knowledge of self includes who you are within the greater picture. Christianity is formed from three people who IMO had true KOS, with John the Baptist, Jesus and Paul. John’s knowledge of self was recognizing that he was the Elijah figure who was supposed to identify the true King of Israel.

Jesus’ knowledge comes from believing John that he was the King that everyone was waiting for. It’s this knowledge that leads Jesus to do things like wash his disciples’ feet and get himself killed.

Paul’s knowledge of self is recognizing that he was the apostle to the gentiles. It was up to him and him alone to spread the message of Christ to the other nations because there was no one else to do it. This allowed him to develop an ideology free of influence because he knew what his mission was. Which like all three was the establishment of the Kingdom of God on Earth.

It wasn’t metaphysical knowledge of self or ethical or particular talents but understanding who they were and what part they were supposed to play in establishing that kingdom.

Yes, we believe the spiritual side is here and now. You could not even stand up without a spirit; We have our teeth fixed, haircut, go to the doctor for an illness. We take care of our minds, we go to school and seek out universities. We take care of our vehicles. Yet people do so little for their true self, and some don't even recognize that they are a spirit.

Agree.

You've asked a lot of questions, and I hope I answered some.

Sorry, questions are how I figure people out. Yes, you did wonderful in answering my questions and thank you for the effort.

 

[Soulgazer]

No doubt, because it is an ideological kingdom that isn’t bound by lines on a map.
I doubt that the early Gnostics position was that the catholics could be right, we just don’t worry about that. The nature of the bodies may be not worth discussing because of too much uncertainty but if existence is possible in the spiritual realm, or not, should be something an opinion can be found on, just from the fundamental understanding of spiritual elements.

Yep, one person at a time is the only way to go that I know of but the overall plan of what we are trying to do collectively needs to be thought out beyond just setting a positive example for others, or promoting a particular metaphysical outlook.

True knowledge of self includes who you are within the greater picture. Christianity is formed from three people who IMO had true KOS, with John the Baptist, Jesus and Paul. John’s knowledge of self was recognizing that he was the Elijah figure who was supposed to identify the true King of Israel.

Jesus’ knowledge comes from believing John that he was the King that everyone was waiting for. It’s this knowledge that leads Jesus to do things like wash his disciples’ feet and get himself killed.

Paul’s knowledge of self is recognizing that he was the apostle to the gentiles. It was up to him and him alone to spread the message of Christ to the other nations because there was no one else to do it. This allowed him to develop an ideology free of influence because he knew what his mission was. Which like all three was the establishment of the Kingdom of God on Earth.

It wasn’t metaphysical knowledge of self or ethical or particular talents but understanding who they were and what part they were supposed to play in establishing that kingdom.


Agree.

Sorry, questions are how I figure people out. Yes, you did wonderful in answering my questions and thank you for the effort.

I like people who question; the comforter is the spirit of Truth. The lower case of spirit indicates it as an adjective;it is the thing that keeps one searching in the face of all that is commonly accepted. The comfort is knowing that you are standing on verifiable truths. Not verifiable as in being written, because anybody can write anything, and consensus makes one afraid of questioning, but verifiable because they are experienced, repeatable, and demonstrable.

There is a common thread between gnostics of the past and present. It is this understanding that belief can serve as a surrogate for knowledge, but once the knowledge is attained , belief, no matter how once treasured, must give way. We have seldom mistaken belief for knowledge.

Because you question everything, I know that the comforter moves in you.

 

[Ishraqiyun]

It was important for them to abuse the definition of the word and reinterpret in from their perspective but they don’t believe in what the word “resurrection” means when people hear it.

I don't feel that it was a redefinition. I believe it was the original Pauline definition of the term at least as he taught it to the initiates or the mature (teleoi). I see strong hints of this in his letters** and those who claim spiritual descent from him make it even clearer in their texts directed towards initiates rather than the public. We die in Christ (to this false "life" of sin and death) and then we rise with Christ. That's what the symbolism of baptism is about. That's what it means to be born again or from above. Born again = the resurrection.

When our physical body dies we will then find ourselves clothed with a glorified spiritual body. It will be composed of imaginal substance. A substance like that viewed in the realm of visions. A substance more permeable and open to thought and emotion. Like that of dreams in a way but infinitely more glorious and luminous.

The idea of reanimation of the body was allowed for those in the lesser mysteries or the psychics and hylics simply so they wouldn't loose hope and fall into nihilism. Not everyone can comprehend non material existence and to some it would seem like non-existence or destruction. So as a skillful expedient that teaching was allowed for those outside the inner mysteries.

** I'll post some examples from the Pauline Epistles when I get the chance.

 

[Soulgazer]

I don't feel that it was a redefinition. I believe it was the original Pauline definition of the term at least as he taught it to the initiates or the mature (teleoi). I see strong hints of this in his letters** and those who claim spiritual descent from him make it even clearer in their texts directed towards initiates rather than the public. We die in Christ (to this false "life" of sin and death) and then we rise with Christ. That's what the symbolism of baptism is about. That's what it means to be born again or from above. Born again = the resurrection.

When our physical body dies we will then find ourselves closed with a glorified spiritual body. It will be composed of imaginal substance. A substance like that viewed in the realm of visions. A substance more permeable and open to thought and emotion. Like that of dreams in a way but infinitely more glorious and luminous.

The idea of reanimation of the body was allowed for those in the lesser mysteries or the psychics and hylics simply so they wouldn't loose hope and fall into nihilism. Not everyone can comprehend non material existence and to some it would seem like non-existence or destruction. So as a skillful expedient that teaching was allowed for those outside the inner mysteries.

** I'll post some examples from the Pauline Epistles when I get the chance.

Ditto

 

[ElijahW]

I like people who question; the comforter is the spirit of Truth. The lower case of spirit indicates it as an adjective;it is the thing that keeps one searching in the face of all that is commonly accepted. The comfort is knowing that you are standing on verifiable truths. Not verifiable as in being written, because anybody can write anything, and consensus makes one afraid of questioning, but verifiable because they are experienced, repeatable, and demonstrable.

When I hear the conversation go to "verifiable evidence", I assume it’s an attempt to limit the conversation, so the evidence only shows materialism being possible. I don’t think that is the case here, since we are talking about the nature of the spiritual side. Which not being physical prevents verifiable evidence from being possible. Also the future progress of humanity, which again, we have no verifiable way of knowing if what we say is true or not. So that said, what verifiable evidence do you have, to what Truth?

There is a common thread between gnostics of the past and present. It is this understanding that belief can serve as a surrogate for knowledge, but once the knowledge is attained , belief, no matter how once treasured, must give way. We have seldom mistaken belief for knowledge.

I’m not understanding the distinction between belief and knowledge. Is it ideas that can’t be verified and ideas that can? It’s hard for me to not interpret what you are saying in an orthodox way, where you are trying to show the dichotomy in opinions(beliefs) about the Spirit and faith (knowledge) of the Spirit.

 

[ElijahW]

I don't feel that it was a redefinition. I believe it was the original Pauline definition of the term at least as he taught it to the initiates or the mature (teleoi). I see strong hints of this in his letters** and those who claim spiritual descent from him make it even clearer in their texts directed towards initiates rather than the public. We die in Christ (to this false "life" of sin and death) and then we rise with Christ. That's what the symbolism of baptism is about. That's what it means to be born again or from above. Born again = the resurrection.

It was the allegorical interpretation of the word, since the original intent of the word conflicted with the ideology of the person interpreting the text/beliefs. If the author interprets the word allegorically and doesn’t tell us how they redefined the word we then we can only guess at what kind of resurrection they are talking about.

As far as if Paul was speaking allegorically or literal when speaking of a resurrection. There is the possibility that Paul wasn’t actually in line with Pharisees thinking towards the resurrection but I would need to see the evidence you are using before I could comment.

When our physical body dies we will then find ourselves clothed with a glorified spiritual body. It will be composed of imaginal substance. A substance like that viewed in the realm of visions. A substance more permeable and open to thought and emotion. Like that of dreams in a way but infinitely more glorious and luminous.

So we don’t have any spirit now? We get our spiritual body when we die? Or do we have a spirit now; we are just going to get an improved body, which is more like spirit than matter after we die?

The difference between what you would experience in a purely spiritual existence and what you experience in a dream, is that in a dream, your brain is still limiting the experience of spirit for you. In a dream you experience a small bundle of information for just a second when a particular brain cell fires off.

I’m not saying that the spiritual side you experience in your dreams isn’t real; it’s just that you are still experiencing it thru the temporal filter that is limited by the physical activity of the brain. If you didn’t have some way to filter the ideas, you would be experiencing every idea, all at once, constantly and forever. It wouldn’t be like our dreams; we wouldn’t have any identity or be able to indentify anything or anyone else.

The idea of reanimation of the body was allowed for those in the lesser mysteries or the psychics and hylics simply so they wouldn't loose hope and fall into nihilism. Not everyone can comprehend non material existence and to some it would seem like non-existence or destruction. So as a skillful expedient that teaching was allowed for those outside the inner mysteries.

I doubt that the Gnostics were as deceptive and dishonest about what they were teaching as you suggest. You make them out to be con men who knew that no one would want their actual teachings so they decided to be deceptive to their followers about the possibility of eternal life and the resurrection.

I think there were plenty of people back then who didn’t believe in a literal resurrection and believed in some kind of spiritual realm you could live in or reincarnation or reunification. Marcion and other Gnostics fulfilled a need for them. He didn’t deceive people, who if they knew what they were actually teaching, would have gone catholic.

 

[Soulgazer]

When I hear the conversation go to "verifiable evidence", I assume it’s an attempt to limit the conversation, so the evidence only shows materialism being possible. I don’t think that is the case here, since we are talking about the nature of the spiritual side. Which not being physical prevents verifiable evidence from being possible. Also the future progress of humanity, which again, we have no verifiable way of knowing if what we say is true or not. So that said, what verifiable evidence do you have, to what Truth?

I’m not understanding the distinction between belief and knowledge. Is it ideas that can’t be verified and ideas that can? It’s hard for me to not interpret what you are saying in an orthodox way, where you are trying to show the dichotomy in opinions(beliefs) about the Spirit and faith (knowledge) of the Spirit.

I do appreciate your attempt to understand. Gnostics can seem rather off the wall, but I will do my best not to appear to be too insane.

By verifiable spiritual evidence, we talk about demonstrable, repeatable, evidence of a spiritual nature. Rather like trying to watch the wind, we have to look for the ripples in the hayfield.



For instance, Jesus on the Gospels exhorts his hearers not to just greet those who are of the same faith, but to greet everybody. Someone who refuses the friendship of a muslem for instance, has found a way to make themselves spiritually poorer---- and it will be reflected in their lives, as they fall into prejudice.

Another example would be someone who has dedicated their walk with God to the mission of helping children have enough to eat, and enough warm clothing. That also will be reflected in their lives.

So though we can't directly measure the evidence of the spirit itself, we can measure and qualify, if not quantify, the results.

In a more personal testing, Jesus asks us to make the inner like the outer, and the outer like the inner. This refers to the faces we show others. We will put on a happy face while being introduced to a stranger, but show our true face to our spouse. By finding a way to be truly happy and content, both our spouse and the stranger will see the same face.

I hope I am not coming off as too nuts, but I'm willing to explore the question further if need be.

 

[ElijahW]

I don't think you sound nuts at all. It's not what I expected though. That just seems like ethical advice on behavior that I think most would agree with. I thought you were talking about verifiable evidence of life being possible without a Resurrection of the body, or that a particular Gnosis was the key to achieving eternal life on the spiritual side.

 

[Soulgazer]

I don't think you sound nuts at all. It's not what I expected though. That just seems like ethical advice on behavior that I think most would agree with. I thought you were talking about verifiable evidence of life being possible without a Resurrection of the body, or that a particular Gnosis was the key to achieving eternal life on the spiritual side.

There is a lot of misunderstanding of why "gnosis" is important, mostly as a result of the nineteenth century theosophy movement, and propagated by a lot of charletons on the web.

It all comes down to one verse in the single Gnostic text that made the Christian Bible. John 17:3 Direct knowledge of God through Jesus Christ. How does one get direct knowledge? By not taking anything at face value, but by watching and experimenting. By knowing Jesus(Son of/"perfect image of" God) first by the Gospels, we can then look for Him in ourselves and others. The "son of man", or in ancient contemporary terms, "image of the perfect man".

It brings about stability, peace and contentment, as the soul is gradually healed.


Sort of like the cigar store indian(cut away anything that doesn't look like an indian), we carve away at ourselves using Jesus as the model.

Having said all that, this verse from Philip should then make sense:

Blessed is the one who on no occasion caused a soul distress. That person is Jesus Christ. He came to the whole place and did not burden anyone. Therefore, blessed is the one who is like this, because he is a perfect man. For the Word tells us that this kind is difficult to define. How shall we be able to accomplish such a great thing? How will he give everyone comfort? Above all, it is not proper to cause anyone distress - whether the person is great or small, unbeliever or believer - and then give comfort only to those who take satisfaction in good deeds. Some find it advantageous to give comfort to the one who has fared well. He who does good deeds cannot give comfort to such people, for he does not seize whatever he likes. He is unable to cause distress, however, since he does not afflict them. To be sure, the one who fares well sometimes causes people distress - not that he intends to do so; rather, it is their own wickedness which is responsible for their distress. He who possesses the qualities (of the perfect man) bestows joy upon the good. Some, however, are terribly distressed by all this.

 

[ElijahW]

Knowledge of God and knowledge of Jesus Christ. Even though knowledge of God thru Christ makes sense if you are talking about the purely spiritual Christ that has existed since the beginning, or that knowing Jesus the man means you automatically know God.

I agree that the short term goal of an individual should be making ourselves like Christ, but in both ways, of simple imitation of behavior, from the human man, and intellectual alignment to his way of thinking(Christ).

Where I disagree, is with thinking that imitation is the end goal, and not recognizing what Jesus was trying to accomplish with his example and sacrifice… not recognizing the reason around claiming he was the Messiah.

You have to put yourself in Jesus’ shoes and recognize the situation he was in order to see what he was attempting to do. What is the ideal thing to do when you have been identified as the Messiah? His answer is to turn the paradigm of authority upside down and serve and die for the people, instead of what was previously the standard.

Jesus washing the disciples' feet is about establishing an example of how leadership should behave. All of this is missed if you fail to see him as the messiah because you think his issue was just ethical behavior (legalism) or belief in a particular metaphysical outlook (Gnosticism).

 

[Ishraqiyun]

I read this today and thought it was relevant to the idea of the visionary or imaginal body of the ressurection:

"This orientation pertains to a visionary geography oriented to the "climate of the soul,' the place of the emerald cities, illuminated by the brilliance of the inner light that they themselves secrete. This suprasensory Orient governs the primary phenomenon of the Gnostics orientation towards his country of origin. The Orient-Origin identified with the center, with the heavenly north pole, heralds access to the beyond, where vision becomes real history, the history of the soul, and where every visionary event symbolizes a spiritual state, or , as the Ishraqiyun say, it is the climate "Where what is bodily becomes spirit and what is spiritual acquires a body."

 

[Soulgazer]

Knowledge of God and knowledge of Jesus Christ. Even though knowledge of God thru Christ makes sense if you are talking about the purely spiritual Christ that has existed since the beginning, or that knowing Jesus the man means you automatically know God.

I agree that the short term goal of an individual should be making ourselves like Christ, but in both ways, of simple imitation of behavior, from the human man, and intellectual alignment to his way of thinking(Christ).

Where I disagree, is with thinking that imitation is the end goal, and not recognizing what Jesus was trying to accomplish with his example and sacrifice… not recognizing the reason around claiming he was the Messiah.

You have to put yourself in Jesus’ shoes and recognize the situation he was in order to see what he was attempting to do. What is the ideal thing to do when you have been identified as the Messiah? His answer is to turn the paradigm of authority upside down and serve and die for the people, instead of what was previously the standard.

Jesus washing the disciples' feet is about establishing an example of how leadership should behave. All of this is missed if you fail to see him as the messiah because you think his issue was just ethical behavior (legalism) or belief in a particular metaphysical outlook (Gnosticism).

But that is a matter of belief. If I say that Jesus never existed, or insisted that He did, in either case I would be bearing false witness. I was not there.

The scriptures in the bible are a catholic interpretation of events, in that the selection supports a catholic position, were selected by catholics, to promote catholicism, which sought to integrate as many different schools into one as possible.

The catholic position, is that Jesus supreme sacrifice was made on the cross. The Gnostic position, is that Jesus supreme sacrifice was to leave the heavens and enter the world of death.

The catholic position is that Jesus died to pay for our sins in a vicarious atonement. The Gnostic position is that Jesus did not stay dead, so there was no payment. Never the less, we accept His blood as the symbol of what all mankind is expected to do---no one gets in to see the King without it.

The catholic position is that God demanded the sacrifice of His own Son. The Gnostic position is that the powers of evil conspired to bring about His untimely demise, not knowing that He would be able to defeat death.


The Gnostic position is that Jesus wasn't going to skip dying, because everything that lives here dies. The nails are driven into our wrist as soon as we crack our mother's womb. Jesus was both man enough and God enough to face it. His body, or " the slave" died, but He did not. He defeated death, showing that it can be defeated.

We look to the knowledge that He brought about God, as our healing salve. We don't have to fear our Father, because our Father loves us; we take care not to pollute that inheritance.

Imitation is the sincerest form of worship. Look no further than your teen children for verification.

There is no legalism; that's of the demiurge. We do what we do out of Love, not law.