edited
Water.,
We need to admit that there is a good possibility that the Jesus of the gospels did not exist and that Paul did not write all the epistles credited to him.
Certainly historical Jesus existed. It is not clear whether the descriptions written of him in the gospels are accurate and without historical agenda. I too agree that not all the letters attributed to Paul are his. I focus my study of him upon those that most scholars agree are his.
However, we need to also acknowledge that despite the fact that there is not paper trail, it is very possible that the ideas embodied in the teachings and parables attributed to one Jesus Christ did predate Paul’s epistles.
I suspect that this is so as well, but the man or the Christ is not reducible to those parables.
So my contention that Paul appears more Old Testament in Romans than Jesus does anywhere remains unaddressed as does my request to reconcile the gist and tone of Romans to the teachings of Jesus I noted.
As said, suggesting that the parables of Jesus are authentic is not equivalent that this was the total of his message. Also your summations of Paul do not seem accurate to me. For instance in the very passages I have been discussing, there is strict absence of Old Testament reference, in terms of its weight of the law, -the law now falls away- and also no mention of the Christ worship you proposed earlier. Rather, there is a radical and spiritual transcendence of historicity here. In terms of Jesus, the emphasis is not on Jesus the crucified, but if anything on Christ resurrected. But more so, it is a radical break with the law, that Paul is advocating.
Dunamis
N.,
“Seeing and seeing with the whole of oneself in perspective are two different qualities of seeing.”
This is more of your esoteric insertions. I knew you would have a problems with this text, due to your attraction to that kind of spiritualism. No matter, at least here, Paul is not speaking of the “whole of oneself in perspective”, but in elementary seeing, a seeing that renders the depraved into silence. I’m sure I will not shake you from your “hidden self” metaphor. 
Paul just imagines here that the hidden self is not hidden, but plain. The Unseen of God, his Capacity and Divinity, are there experienced by all. In parallel, the (hidden) law written in the hearts of some law-deprived Gentiles is also made plain, in that which they make.
Dunamis
Ucc,
“But that is nevertheless the reality we live in.”
The religious call, in my mind, is not about the “reality we live in”, but finding the power to transform that reality, fundamentally and radically.
Dunamis
Dunamis
What is your interest in Christianity if all you recognize is the secular? What is its attraction? Think what you want but I cannot understand its attraction without the esoteric perspective ofscaleand relativity.
I have some very weird suspicious people in my past. One was an archbishop but not just any old archbishop but someone who apparently understood Christianity. He had the audacity to have a friendship with Helena Blavatsky without going berzerk. Of course people from the church as well as Theosophy would growl at that one.
It’s nuts like me though that would have loved to been a fly on the wall during some of their discussions.
I know I’m in the minority but I cannot see the attraction if it was as you’ve stated.
When a person begins to experience the extraordinary depth of psychological understanding in Christianity, it leaves one awe struck. Yet people are content with arguing over secular aspects.
To each his own and I know I’m in a minority but I would never want to sacrifice my experiences to become part of the majority…
N.,
“What is your interest in Christianity if all you recognize is the secular?”
I have been on my own serious spiritual journey for a very long time -as we all are, whether we realize it or not. It is just by my experience, I have found that those who engage themselves with determination in the esoteric, to be a bit premature in their birth. There is no such thing as the secular. I believe that is what Paul was trying to say.
Dunamis
Nick,
Wow! Yeah! Sometimes in such awe that words are impossible – almost laughable. You just kind of stand there before the universe going, “Duh! Wow!†I really believe that that is the message of Moses and Jesus. Kind of, “Stop playing with your poopy and embrace the joy of simply being. No justification, no rationalization, no answers. The name of god is I AM THAT I AM. Period. That’s it. Be satisfied with that. Say, “Amen†and move on. That has always stood in stark contrast to Descartes’ “I think therefore I am.†Baloney! You am therefore you am. No one can say I AM for anyone else, they can say “You are†but the only one who can say I AM for you is you. Blasphemy becomes misusing the name of god (I AM) by inaccurately identifying your true self. Moses said, “Hey, you exist, ain’t that enough?†Jesus went on to say, “In addition to what Moses said, joy is here now (The Kingdom of Heaven is at hand) and you don’t have to do shit to earn it! “Look at the birds of the sky they neither reap no sow and their heavenly father takes care of them. What makes you think you are less than one of these?†And just to keep you on the straight and narrow, remember, “The Kingdom of God is within you.â€
Wow again. WOW!
Dunamis:
Who determines where the rest of the message is hidden? Paul? The Pope? Pat Roberson? Me? You?
A few verses from Romans in support of my contention that Paul was instrumental in deifying Jesus. Romans 1:4 (Son of God); 7 (Lord – capitalized and interchangeable with god in translation); 8 (“thank God through Jesus Christâ€); 9 also implies the deity of Jesus Christ. In other Epistles there is additional evidence that Paul preached that Jesus was god. I note again that nowhere does Jesus claim to be more than any other man. “All these things I do, you too can do…†I don’t think he was saying I can do what god can do.
As far as tone and gist, you are correct to note that Romans might not be the best example of the Old Testament tone of Paul. There are a few spots, however, that bring that to mind.
My sense of the tone is more hellfire and damnation than love.
Water.,
Who determines where the rest of the message is hidden?
No one. It remains undetermined. But it is not assumed that that is the complete and totalized message, drawing deep conclusions on the nature of the material that was not included.
A few verses from Romans in support of my contention that Paul was instrumental in deifying Jesus.
Don’t you think that a few verses should be read in the context of the larger message, of which they are prelude to? There is very little focus on the worship of Christ, and in fact even less little on his crucifixion in Paul. Further the language of these verses is very ambiguous and wide in meaning. Son of God in Greek simply means born of divinity, but here the metaphor is that of cultural designation and political power, a Lord and his son. Yet lord is a very common designation of respect and allegiance, not worship, it shows a relationship. In fact though, in chapter 8:14 we all become “sons of God” - so would you argue that Paul is there preaching the worship of all those “lead by the Spirit”? “Through†is simply a dative association. All of these aspects though are grammatically repeated in the personal and direct perception of God’s unseen in the seen in the verses that follow. Particular of interest is the use of the dative, wherein the gnosis of God is manifest “among†men in made things, where among can be also translated “in†men, mirroring Jesus’ opaque “the kingdom of God is within/with youâ€. Christ is definitely placed as a conduit, but it is unclear in what manner. In the context of the rest of Paul’s thinking, it is the resurrection, the Christ event itself, and the faith, hope and love that stems from it, that becomes the conduit, not the worship of a new God. There is a double movement in Paul’s theology here. Christ manifest enables and enacts the very inner transformation that a believer automatically has within him. Just as there is a resurrection, there is a sudden reversal in the Self. The focus really is not on Christ, but on the Christ-effect, which facilitates the broken relationship between God and man, a brokenness marked by the law and its effect, sin. The “Son of God” allows all to realize that they are “sons of God”. I think it too much to make the focus of Paul’s message the worship of Christ. Rather it seems it is the divinizing effects of Christ as resurrected upon the mind of the perceiver. Of course historic Christianity as gone a long way with this, in the direction you suggest.
My sense of the tone is more hellfire and damnation than love.
I think you are reading in part. The hellfire and destruction he is attempting to reverse is the hell and destruction taking place on earth. He is very specific about the inability of man to judge, and on the depraved effects that such judgments automatically bring. These effects are the natural consequence of exchanging the truth (naturally perceived, written on the heart) for a lie. This is further brought out in the foundational rejection of the Law by Paul. It is the core of his message. The law is the Old Testament and its power is abolished. In terms of love of course, Cor 1 chapter 13 is about as profound a message of love that has ever been written.
Dunamis
Dunamis
I have been on my own serious spiritual journey for a very long time -as we all are, whether we realize it or not. It is just by my experience, I have found that those who engage themselves with determination in the esoteric, to be a bit premature in their birth. There is no such thing as the secular. I believe that is what Paul was trying to say.
Yes we all are on are on a spiritual journey. In Buddhism it is called the wheel of samsara and in Christianity it is the cycle of dust to dust. Whatever way you want to look at it, the spiritual journey of the fallen state is going around in circles. People pause along the way taking time to criticize and kill others for their seat on this spiritual ferris wheel.
If by premature you mean people that have not become completely captivated by their continual subjective earthly experiences, I admit to being premature.
Secular is involvement with the earthly life. Esoteric means "inner’ and represents the quality of our inner life. To say there is no secular means that you have not recognized that you have a personality that lives the external life and an inner life that is separate from the reactions of personality. You have not witnessed these two sides of yourself.
In the light of the following passage, I cannot see how Paul could not make the distinction between the secular and esoteric.
Hi Waterlover
I don’t really undestand your conception of a friction between Jesus and Paul. Just so I better understand, do you agree with the following article?
N.,
If by premature you mean people that have not become completely captivated by their continual subjective earthly experiences,
No by premature is imagining that you are already born, when in fact you are simply pretending to be. Attempting to force the birth before the birth. Part of this self-deception, in my view, is the idea that
Secular is involvement with the earthly life. Esoteric means "inner’ and represents the quality of our inner life.
This is typical dualistic thinking. There is no “innerâ€, there is no “outerâ€. The “husk†and “shell†of the acorn is not separate from the heart of its seed. Each and every moment is divine. To me such thinking is dividing that which is not divided, and I believe this is done out of search for power, special advantage, and not the kind of compassion that distinguishes “true†(that is mundane), spirituality. This is exactly what Paul seems to be saying here in Romans, that the critical distinction is the source of error. The immediate and natural perception of the world contains all the awareness necessary for the knowing of God. There is no “inner†secret, the secret is exoteric, there and plain. Your desire to divide the world into secular and divine is exactly the division that leads to sadness, and the elevation of oneself to the status of being one of the “sophoiâ€.
1 Cor. Chapter 2 certainly speaks of a hidden truth, but the truth is revealed by having the â€mind of Christ†[noun Kristou], and by being “perfected” [teleios]. The mind of Christ is not the result of secret indoctrination though -so far as I can tell-, but is in a demonstration [apodeikse] of the Spirit [2:4]. A spirit that is within all men. The wisdom of the world, is the wisdom of distinctions. Just as the knowledge of God is described as hidden and also made plain, so too the wisdom of the perfected is also hidden and made plain in action. The distinction that Paul makes here is not a distinction among distinctions, nor a theory among theories – this being an esoteric one. It is the release of the distinction drawing exercise, release from the Law. Release from the diachrony of unfolding, of which no other diachrony will suffice. Honestly I find people who go on about esoteric truths are simply people in search of power, a power quite alien from the source it should come from. It is notable that what immediately follows this passage is a criticism of divisions risen within the church, which is exactly the kind of thing that occurs when people hungry for Spiritual power, and esoteric wisdom, declare for themselves. If there is a secret wisdom, the secret is that the path to it is not a secret. Shhh. Don’t tell anyone.
Dunamis
The power of the esoteric is that it encourages the seeker. The secret hints at a promise of rare power, a power that is rare because it can only be earned through the special effort of the seeking. Yet after a certain period of seeking many seekers experience a sensation of entitlement. They feel as if they have already earned the power, and having learned many portentous things they can present themselves as a master, a sage, or a guru. Then they can seduce less experienced seekers with their esoteric ways and experience dominion over them. This experience often justifies their assumption that they are done enough seeking.
Yet there is a positive, beneficial aspect of the esoteric that I would remiss if I did not address. The esoteric can also be a source of hope. Paying attention to the esoteric can remind us of the untapped potential that we can help manifest. We are all more than we take ourselves to be. That potential must be accepted on its own terms and is not under the control of our everyday willpower. Potential is our drive to totality. Yet we get caught habituated into perpetuating our limited sense of self. The ego (who we think we are) must die so that the self (who we really are) can be reborn.
An experience of the esoteric can help to prepare us for that death and rebirth or we can get stuck midway between. Like a butterfly fascinated by the experience of pressing on the chrysalis, yet never allowing itself to become the butterfly.
Dunamis
Quite true and the natural result of the corrupt ego rationalizing what is impossible for it to comprehend.
The quality that allows us to distinguish between the inner and outer is not dual but rather the result of the triune reality that enables consciousness.
A moment is not divine any more than it is for a dog. By divine I mean having the nature of a deity. Something that is a fraction of a whole is not necessarily divine. The fact that moments offer opportunities is not by nature divine.
You confuse the search for meaning and purpose with the search for power. The true spirituality gives meaning to the mundane while dualism of the secular only reshuffles it. The human desire to be able “to do” doesn’t mean to conquer, it just means to be able “to do” as a human being which we have only an inkling of.
“The immediate and natural perception of the world contains all the awareness necessary for the knowing of God.” If you were capable of natural perception this would be true. But how many people even know the difference between sensing and feeling cold for example. It is a natural distinction but as we are, we are oblivious and have to become open to it. We lack the presence to profit from natural perception. You can only experience the wholeness of God through the inner cooperation of the parts creating the wholeness of ourselves. without this, all that results is a warped conception of both God and ourselves.
There is no secret to the exoteric it is the natural result of man asleep. However, the psychology of the esoteric or inner nature of man is only hidden to protect both the psychology and those open to it from charlatans, experts, and their own self deception. It requires an effort that is both unwanted by the majority and requiring real sincere efforts on the part of both teacher and student.
Does coming to grips with ones part in the human condition in relation to its potential lead to sadness? Yes but not a sadness that you would understand. It results from the experience of human meaning and purpose that you deny and is capable itself of transformation as opposed to avoidance.
The mind of Christ is not the result of secret indoctrination though -so far as I can tell-, but is in a demonstration [apodeikse] of the Spirit [2:4]. A spirit that is within all men.
It may be in us but we are closed to it. The spirit works with spiritual energy. We interpret the spirit with emotional and mechanical energies. When we don’t grasp the difference and persist to want to know more about the spirit , we become experts.
Quite true and the esoteric affirmation is their reconciliation into “one”.
It will always be a secret from those who do not sincerely need it or unable to be open to it. How could it be any other way. It is the human condition.
As an aside, have you ever posted your understanding of Plato’s cave allegory? I’d like to read how you interpreted it not for any negative reasons but just out of curiousity.
Xanderman
Yes, they have become card carrying bona fide “experts.”
N.,
“As an aside, have you ever posted your understanding of Plato’s cave allegory? I’d like to read how you interpreted it not for any negative reasons but just out of curiousity.”
Are you asking of what Plato meant by the allegory of the Cave, or the esoteric and hidden Truth that is secretly buried in the allegory?
Dunamis
Dunamis
I’m just curious as to what you believe Plato’s intent was and what it means to you.
N.,
I have moved away from Plato in the last years, focusing more on Plotinus and his lineage in Western Philosophy, so right now the Allegory of the Cave doesn’t mean particularly much to me. I found Irigaray’s emphasis on the “chora” very resonant, the productive space within which all occurs, but I’m not sure I can verbalize its meaning yet. Also of interest is the Platonic gesture of “turning” and its homologies with meta-bolic change, revolution and repenting, and its invocation of the turning of the dance of the Greek Chorus in tragedy. But all of these are loose associations that gather about my general understanding of the world at this moment in Time. I do not believe that Plato was presenting secret teachings, but rather perhaps grasping for the importance of the mind-Nous in the organization/perception of matter. Honestly, I find more significance in Plotinus, than in Plato’s dualistic attempt to deal with Parmenides. Perhaps Plato got it half right. Becoming is the proper emphasis.
Dunamis
Nick,
I read the article and am not in agreement with much of it. The major disagreement is that I think the writer totally misunderstands the message of Jesus. So, I cannot agree with his position on where Paul disagrees with Jesus. My issues with Paul’s writings are really much more basic. The first one, and the sole one I wish to address so as not to get bogged down in esoteric discourse is that Paul was one of the ones responsible for the religion we have today that worships Jesus as god. I don’t think that anyone would disagree that Paul promoted that idea. This bastardization has done more harm to the message of Jesus than any other misrepresentations of his message. It changed the focus from the Jesus’ message to the competition of “my god’s better than yours†that we have today.
Dunamis,
Many expound eloquently on love, faith, god, truth, freedom, etc., but still put their skills in the service of mendaciousness. I am sure you can think of many eloquent speakers and writers who have done this – some knowingly expanding on points of view they did not believe to be true themselves. Eloquence is eloquence – but in the service of what overall concepts?
Would you agree that any “conclusions†drawn from material not included in the gospels would need to be in agreement with the teachings and parables in the gospels, or at minimum be reconcilable to them?
Are you claiming that Paul did not in any way assert that Jesus Christ was god? It is a simple question. It requires only a simple yes or no answer. I am not asking for support for your claim I am merely asking if that is your claim.
Is it your position that Jesus rejected the Laws of Moses as well and sought the “abolition of its power?â€