>I think time had vanished
Your words exactly match: "[an antique car] from a better, vanished time; I fire up the willing engine, ..." (Red Barchetta, song by Rush) -- sung "better, ... [vanished time]"
>and history was just imagination.
Your personal history as well. Present mental constructs are certain, but all else at all times is only a *claim* made by *present* mental constructs pointing to an alleged past (personal and collective). I have a cartoon *now* about an alleged yesterday, but is yesterday believable based on a cartoon?
>There was also a lession that if I came to face the things that God told me when sober, I'd experience the immense fear and the demons again. I used to wonder what this teaching was exactly because I could not put it in words. It was just a way of seeing the world, an experience of moksha. But so many things seem to fit so nicely into your theory.
There is good reason to fear -- fear control being effectively removed from out of your mental hands upon seeing how the origin of thoughts and will-movements acts of its own accord from outside (or underneath) the mind's supposedly sovereign control center.
I'm sure the mystery religions knew this intensely and practically, if not quite as theoretically as we are coming to. We now have very experienced trippers with little philosophical/mythic modelling of their experiences, and we have philosophers but with little natural, first-hand grasp of the experiences and especially of that altered mode of cognition. My thinking, theory building and mythic construction/exegesis, proceeds from that mode of cognition (I learn to imagine myself in it).
>Are you going to write a book on the cybernetic egodeath theory?
At least a comic book. That is what's needed.
> You must have an IQ of 160 or something to construct a theory this comprehensive,
My practical intelligence is not high, since I'm floating off in theory so often. I've been surrounded by fully intelligent people and concluded what matters is dedication and imagination. I do think I have more imagination and more manic, flighty, abstract thinking. My mundane practical intelligence may be lower. My aptitudes were tested as high, across the board. Many intelligent people appear to me to be unoriginal, unimaginative, but I don't really dare to judge -- what do I know about them?
>yet written almost as lucidly as possible. Wilber is exceptionally bright and writes well so that's where you two are alike.
I literally grew up reading Wilber as his books came out, so my thinking should be compatible with his and is bound to not directly conflict. Everything I write will naturally tend to be compatible with integral theory.
>You do have differences in your way of approaching your subjects
I bow before "way of approach". Approach, spin, style, is everything. It's what thinking, enlightenment, communication are all about. Someone could publish many key ideas I'm gathering, but who is about to come up with the same style, spin, approach? It's a battle of the poets at this point. Who can express the essence best?
>but I don't think you have anything to worry about not comparing your theory to others'. There will be someone who will do that nitty-bitty job. You just relax and take care of the core.
That is totally what I need and want to hear. When a book comes out that is uncomfortably great and bumps against the theory I've been pulling together, I worry about my originality, but say "excellent -- one less area for me to have to labor in, so I can concentrate on the Core and use this new book for support." (Such as Jesus and the Lost Goddess, or Psychedelic Sacrament, or Strange Fruit.) If I never get around to polishing my work, that's fine as long as other people can build on it. I am a frontiersman.
I must be Mr. Core in the area that I am, the crossroads and nexus of ideas that I embody. This means cartoonish mental constructs, entheogens, loose cognition, non-sequential determinism with single preexisting future, loss of sense of control, sacrifice of ego-as-false-sovereign, Christian revelation, acid rock allusion recognition, ...
I have to learn to pretend to be a man of my time, to pretend to be who I in fact genuinely am. Then I will find the core that others who discover this zone are bound to also discover. Certainly, if I die, someone else will soon write the same theory, but I don't trust them to do a good job.
I'm a poor book author, but I guarantee certain essential content. Most important is a comic book. Ease of use is *everything* -- there is nothing, without ultimate ease of use -- a tangibly obvious theory made stupidly simple, as it potentially is. All *too* simple for the Greeks -- delusion of ego had the chance of a snowball in Hades in that Hellenistic world. My whole theory is kindergarten to them. I'm a Dark Ages ignoramus, a laughingstock to them. Aliens? The Greeks!
>Wilber has written a lot on spiritual evolution. You have concentrated on formulating what this cybernetic egodeath is about in the first place.
The transition from the egoic worldmodel to the post-egoic worldmodel is just one transition of many, in Wilber's model. All I care about is this one transition and I go deeper into this subject than Wilber. I think this is by far the most remarkable transition/transformation of them all, in the whole area Wilber covers.
So naturally I'm choosing this to focus on, just as the Greeks and Christians focus on the dying/rising god concept as the center of religion. I'm following up Watts' work, which focuses more than Wilber on the main act in all this developmental drama.
>Are you planning to write on the possible consequences of the lightning-fast enlightenment on the "collective consciousness" of people with predictions on future vision-logic developmental stages?
I have pointed out that due to the rational and explicit and potentially simple nature of the egodeath theory, this knowledge as a theoretical model could spread instantly, thus changing many of the ideas about spiritual discovery or revelation. This is like a simple secret which you either know or you don't -- as the Valentinian Gnostics thought.
It may be too much for some minds, to suddenly learn the Theory in full while in loose cognition. Secrecy and stages are supposedly to soften the transition in the transformation.
I should be more worried about killing the collective ego. What is to stop egoic society from collapsing, when people no longer take moral agency seriously? I ask not because I care about propping up society that's built on a lie, a collective legal deceit, but simply because I am trying to lock onto the theory. Why was there the death penalty for revealing the mysteries? To preserve society based on a legal fiction of sovereign moral agency, and keep that democratic society from collapsing?
It is noteworthy that Alcibiades not only revealed the mysteries without authority, but that he was anti-democratic. Perhaps revealing the mysteries kills ego and kills legal agency and kills democratic society, threatening to lead to a purely power-based king-driven system. Determinism / fatalism on the metaphysical plane can be used to justify unfreedom (oppression) on the practical plane -- such was done in the late classical era.
The liver that was speared in Jesus and Odin and Prometheus is the organ of the will, upon which the future is written. The liver is the organ of prophecy. Sacrifice the animal and inspect its liver to read the future. A spear through the liver is the time axis inevitably killing the personal rulership of one's own will.
I *love* this book cover by Leonard Doob -- can't get enough of it.
Determinism, Fatalism, and Destiny
*That* is the language of the Greeks in the culture that gave rise to the dying/rising savior godmen who provided a way to transcend cosmic determinism.
>I'd love to see your work integrated into Wilber's in a meaningful way. I presume that to be quite hard for him because he's been so ignorant on psychedelics for so long
Wilber should cover entheogens seriously soon -- but in conjunction with encountering and transcending determinism? frozen time? block universe? The Rock Universe? Greek myths? self-control cybernetics and breakdown of the strange loop of control? A portrayal of what loose cognition concretely feels like? Specifics about vision logic?
>but hey, never underestimate the power of both denial and the will to seek. Doesn't your theory, in a way, present the ultimate truth of ego?
I've thought of the right way to put it. This theory I'm gathering and expressing and packaging for ergonomic distribution is the highest knowledge and the most certain knowledge; it's as certain as anything and its coherence of some sort is proven in some way by its killer psychological effect of complete ego death.
When you have danced with ego death and have experienced control puppethood and sacrifice of ego-as-controller, when you have been forced to participate in the crucifixion of the pretender to the throne, the false sovereign ego, no one can deny that experience, that Truth. Is it "just a theory"? Something is wrong with calling the life-and-death experience of ego death "just a theory". The theory is, in some limited sense, "absolutely certain".
The deluded aspect of ego dies, and the mind is coerced into willingly sacrificing ego-as-false-sovereign as control is forcefully realized out of one's grasp.
>That you have discovered a way to make science out of something that was thought to be a mystical, non-scientific part of this weirdness we call life?
Any philosopher of science will tell you that the idea of "science" is a nebulous cloud of dubious and disproven claims. Let us instead talk of "theory" and "model construction" -- an approach in some of my favorite Philosophy of Science books.
More than a scientist, mystic, entheogenist, or philosopher, I am a theorist -- a model builder. I seek to assemble a plausible theory that is also an ergonomic technique of combining theory with experience to create an instant and complete kind of ego death in which theory builds up experience to the infinite peak, and experience builds up theory to the infinite peak.
It is odd or ironic that I've been wanting the Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet book for a couple years, and for some impenetrable reason -- feeling bad about so many unread books in my library -- I never got it. One has to draw the line somewhere -- but I made a mistake in not scooping it up immediately. It seemed just a little too much like just yet another book to gather with the various so-so books on Jesus as shaman, Jesus as magician (I don't have that one), Jesus as wisdom teacher.
From one perspective, given that the Jesus figure was designed to absorb all possible desirable figures into one, the apocalpytic prophet role is just yet another role piled on the heap, sucked into the all-absorbing catholic black hole of the universal Jesus figure of 313 CE.
However, insofar as Jesus was a Jewish messiah type of figure born from the Jewish quasi-political mythic context of around 200 BCE to 200 CE -- and Jesus was very much based on that type of visionary Jewish messiah and apocalyptic figure -- his main, primary theme is the apocalyptic prophet theme. That is the most overarching, structured, story-like theme.
The healer theme and miracle-worker theme and wisdom teacher theme are clearly present, but they don't make for such an interesting story playing out. The apocalyptic prophet theme is excellent for constructing a story that plays out over time. It makes a great framework into which to plug the other mystic/mythic allegorical themes. Across all these small-scale and large-scale themes is the no-free-will idea and the intense entheogenic mystic altered state, heavily allegorized and metaphorized.
Reading Christian doctrine is more profitable for me now than ever, since grasping the importance of the apocalyptic prophet theme. I just wasn't seeing this large-scale theme before -- I was only recognizing and successfully decoding mythic regions that turn out to be within this newly visible overarching theme. These individual successful decodings now can all fit together into the overarching "single developing story" dimension that runs throughout much of the canonical scriptures.
Part of this understanding depends on appreciating the extent to which the Old Testament (Jewish scriptures) were continuously interpretively developed, and that this interpretive development naturally led to the Jewish messiah figure, which continued to develop into the Jesus Christ Jewish messiah figure.
Such interpretation was always contentious, with aggressive allegorization and counter-allegorization between Jewish groups, with very tricky mixtures of literalist thinking and high mystic metaphorical thinking. Confusing artificial poles, often mystically clever but often harmful, were invented, including the metaphors of:
o "Jews" versus "pagans"
o (deluded literalist) "Jews" versus (enlightened) "Israelites"
o "Jewish apostates and idol worshippers" versus "prophets"
o (deluded/condemned) "temple Jews" versus (enlightened/saved) "Essenes"
o "Jews" versus "gentiles"
o enlightened "followers of the messiah" versus deluded "haters of the messiah"
o and eventually, (enlightened) "Christians" vs. (deluded) "Jews".
The apocalyptic framework wholly came together for me when the Dale Allison 2-week online Q&A seminar was announced a week or two ago.
This framework of interpretation, in terms of mystic entheogenic allegory and no-free-will philosophy, went beyond the "what does Kingdom mean" idea. The broad apocalyptic framework enabled plugging in all the more piecemeal mythic elements which I had successfully made sense of.
The key to this framework coming together over a few days around 3/21/03 was based on applying my theory of myth-religion interpretation to Dale Allison's understanding of the Jesus figure as mystic apocalyptic prophet; that is, the whole *apocalyptic* dimension.
The turning point was when I began to read his two articles:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/crosstalk2/files/HELL.PDF (case-sensitive) - Jesus and Gehenna
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/crosstalk2/files/IdeologyandApocalyptic.pdf - Liking and Disliking the Apocalyptic Jesus
Allison woke me up to the specifically apocalyptic dimension; I only had the raw "kingdom of god" idea before, and some other isolated elements, but not what I now consider to be the overarching framework in which the "kingdom" idea is presented in the Gospels and Revelation. I really had not considered the apocalyptic aspect, just the teaching about seeing the kingdom of god -- not the idea-matrix including the two ages...
I had unsystematic isolated fragments of the apocalyptic metaphor-space, not even identified as such. "apocalyptic" or "millenialism" is a great label for the metaphor-set. I have a medium-high breakthrough -- I didn't realize how much structure was missing -- Freke & Gandy know nothing about the apocalyptic idea.
Canonical Christianity seems to be based heavily on the Jewish apocalyptic mythic (mystic, metaphor) framework, while Gnostic Christianity is more inclined to mythic frameworks based on astrotheology and wisdom teachings.
The days between 3/21 and now were particularly stressful, and I couldn't understand why: that this really would end up adding up to a major falling-into-place of an overarching framework that brought the previous successful interpretations into a much more organized story-arrangement. My core theory isn't affected, but my comprehension of the canonical Christian mythic story has made a breakthrough:
From 11/14/01 (discovered the no-free-will interpretation of separate mythemes such as "kingdom of God" and "Crucifixion")
to 3/21-3/25/03 ("apocalyptic prophet" as overarching framework for no-free-will interpretations of Christian elements)
Comparable to 12/12/87 (initial no-free-will insight)
versus 1/11/88 (complete block-universe framework).
I believe I picked the date 11/14/01 to represent the week-long unfolding of the breakthrough because on 11/14, I was first able to post and think the recent ideas richly, with a firm grasp of their extent.
It was exciting how large of an expanse of metaphor structure became visible and perfectly fit with the no-free-will model; it fell into place effortlessly by interpreting in terms of no-free-will; if I didn't have the notion of no-free-will as a guiding axiom, I wouldn't have been able to suddenly and immediately make sense out of the whole range of "apocalyptic" myth elements. This demonstrates the practical efficacy and explanatory utility of the no-free-will axiom.
The fact that I was able to make coherent sense of apocalyptic via no-free-will interpretive axiom strongly suggests that the apocalyptic ideaset is indeed keyed to that axiom and that in that sense the axiom is "right" and "true".
Consider canonical Christianity from a pure mystic point of view; consider the meaning of Jesus as apocalyptic prophet, and what the apocalyptic prophetic myth system is about.
A theory of the Cross myth, even with a theory of kingdom of god/heaven myth, is nothing more than a couple isolated fragments, if not treated as parts of overarching general theory of apocalyptic myth. Apocalyptic is the overarching framework, which I didn't have and didn't see. I owe so much of this insight to Dale Allison. Almost should post a thanks to him, more than a discussion.
I had pieces before: chaos-monster, kingdom of heaven, -- what's new? two ages, age to come, son of man, choice between the kingdom and gehenna (aligning on J's side or on Satan's side against God).
Assessing when the peak was in scholarly breakthrough, and how high the peak:
First (3/21/03) you have a couple ideas, seems no more so than usual. Then (3/25/03), many more ideas rush together, it peaks, then soon after the peak you can identify when the peak was. After the peak, there is the confirmation and detail phase. I choose the date 3/25/03 as the peak of my fully recognizing the specifically apocalyptic framework which my previous ideas plug into, such as Cross, sinlessness, kingdom, and the meaning-shift of the "good vs. evil" axis.
I'm now (4/1/03) in the confirmation and detail phase about the apocalyptic phophet mytheme or rather, in this case, mythic framework.
The one constant in mythic contrastive symbolism is emphatically not any particular symbols, but rather, the "initially deluded, later enlightened" primal contrast, which in the core theory is named "the egoic mental worldmodel" and "the transcendent mental worldmodel", or "egoic thinking" and "transcendent thinking". Metaphors for this standard transformation include:
Initially Caesar; later king Jesus.
Initially this age; later the age to come.
Initially king Saul; later king David.
Initially Saul; later Paul.
Initially persecute the holy ones; later promote the holy ones.
Initially the dragon and goat; later the sheep.
Initially the physical temple in Judah, later the spiritual temple in Israel/Galilee.
Initially there is the father; later there is a son.
Initially one is a son; later one is a father.
Initially there is the firstborn son; later there is the lastborn son.
Initially there is corruptibility, later there is incorruptibility.
Initially there is perishability, later there is imperishability.
Initially there is susceptibility to (ego) death, later there is non-susceptibility to (ego) death.
How long will meaning rapidly unfold? At some point, one locks onto the main gist of the meaning, the big-picture story -- which takes some doing before you can dismiss the 99% floundering books and find those few that really are attuned to the overall gist.
Popular Christianity assumes a very different story than the whole Bible story studied carefully, just as pop apocalypticism is very different than scholarly exegesis of apocalyptic. It's all about the overall system of meaning, and different interpretive mixtures of literalism and allegory.
Mythemes that are integrated by the framework of Jesus as Jewish messianic apocalyptic prophet include:
Dangling over the fires of Gehenna
Those that reject me
Those that follow me
Throne of God
New heaven, new Earth, new Jerusalem
Washing away sin in the blood of the lamb
Conquering (ego) death and perishibility (of egoic thinking-mode)
Prince of pride
Sorting sheep from goats
Role of eucharist and last supper in all this (sacred meals of visionary plants)
I want a taller stack of eschatalogical and apocalyptic books, some "Jesus, king, and kingdom" books, and a taller stack of books on Eucharist, Hellenistic and Jewish sacred meals, feasts and banquet books, and Feasts of the Kingdom http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0788019414.
In decoding the Christian mythic system, I'm no longer driven by uncertainty and confirmation, but rather, the fun of completing and filling in the meaning-holes.
It's remarkable, the perfectness of fit, such as that the resurrected Jesus usually reveals himself to people, who don't initially recognize him, in conjunction with his giving them food or drink. Be completely on the lookout for themes of meal, food, feast, banquet, dine, dining, eat, drink, vine, wine, and cup, just as the standard meaning of "king" and "ruler of this world" in myth-religion is "beginning initiate".
Why did the "Christian Jewish" and later "Jewish Christian" apocalyptic-prophet mythic framework become the most popular, compared to other metaphorical entheogenic mystic frameworks of the time? It was the one mystery religion that was primarily styled as political resistance; Jews were popularly admired for disparaging and resisting Rome and earthly rule over them by the System of Empire.
Christianity was the mystery-religion which was most fully styled as resistance to the System of Empire. The political goal of this flavor of mystery-religion was resistance to the system of empire; the method was heavy dualistic polarized allegory and other nonviolent but absolutely derogatory resistance to Empire.
Christianity absorbed and integrated what made Dionysus/Pentheus myth-religion popular: the contrast and conflict between themundane king vs. the godman became a popular style of allegory for ego vs. transcendent knowledge/experiencing. How to choose the favorite and most popular allegory system? Pick a way that not only allegorizes transcendence, but that also is socio-politically meaningful.
Given the mythic thinking and political backdrop as I now know it to have been, why was this myth system preferred to others -- the notion of resistance to Rome? The way Rome was mythically demonized? The downtrodden populace related to the way the Jews resisted Rome and were squashed by it?
Why did this story (the killed-by-Rome and the rising godman versus those literalist, power-driven Jewish leaders who collaborated with Rome) resonate more with the populace than the pagan godman mystery religions that were integrated into the Roman polical system? Consider the Dionysus myth and allegory based on resistance to king Pentheus and kingship.
The present age is king Pentheus; future age is king Dionysus, the people's king. The mythic framework of the elite few, versus that of the downtrodden masses who are interested in political resistance. Christianity was styled as politically relevant; it is the one political-resistance styled mystery-religion.
What is the ultimate extreme endpoint of socio-political resistance to Empire, that can serve to fully express mystic-state transformation? The Jewish apocalyptic prophecy mythic framework. This worldly empire will bite the dust any moment; the good downtrodden wisdom teacher, healer, etc. godman will return as soon as the next sacred meal of visionary plants, to do away with this worldly empire.
Instead of an empire-neutral mythic framework, the populace wanted a resistance-themed mythic framework. So Christianity was maximized for adherance to the theme or overarching framework of empire-resistance. The Gnostic framework was in many ways weak as far as the theme of empire-resistance.
The canonical framework is stronger regarding the theme of empire-resistance, because it was that theme -- not astrotheology -- which uniquely made the apocalyptic Jewish style of mystery religion hugely popular among the downtrodden populace.
In assembling a system of mystic-mythic-state allegory that is cast as socio-political resistance to empire, the Jews around 200 BCE went much farther than the Dionysus/Pentheus story. Instead of just negatively casting the regional king, the Jewish apocalyptic prophets negatively cast the entire system of Empire, in world-sized, cosmos-scaled epic scope, not merely local scope.
As emperor cult became cosmic in scope, the Jewish mythmakers escalated Dionysus-type king-resisting divine figure to cosmic scope (from Mesapotamian myth-religion).
As soon as the Roman era arrived, the Jewish political resistance myth was, specifically pitted against the Roman empire; this allegorical equating of the negative with the System of Empire was so extremely successful, the only solution the Roman empire rulers could do was to co-opt the resistance. The resistance itself had co-opted and largely inverted emperor cult -- forming an ongoing battle of co-optation and counter-co-optation, inversion and counter-inversion.
The moment the Roman emperor demanded worship (Nero Caesar), this immediately sparked the formation of an anti-emperor, anti-empire mythic-religious symbolic framework. As soon as the emperor demanded to be worshipped as god, the Jewish religion of exclusive monotheism kicked into gear to portray the emperor as pitted irreconcilably against the one and only transcendent god.
Assertion of the emperor's divinity and divinely ordained right of rulership automatically and immediately gave rise to resistance, and symbolic-mythic assertion led to symbolic-mythic resistance: exactly a counter-cult to the emperor-cult.
When the emperor claims that the gods will his rule, the one thing the downtrodden populace needs the most is not mystic enlightenment (there was more than enough of that, given the effectiveness of the entheogenic core mystery-religion of the era), but rather, a god who was more powerful than the gods who ordained the emperor's rule.
What was needed by the populace wasn't godmen that would affirm the emperor and his empire, but godmen who were expressly against the emperor and empire, with an axis of godman and his followers equated with the positive army, and the emperor and sanctioned godmen and their followers equated with the negative army, in the allegorized final, ultimate mystic-state battle between the good godman and his followers against the bad emperor and his followers.
This resistance couldn't be dependent on physical resistance to the System of Empire -- the Roman victory over the Jews established the futility of that way of framing the resistance. It would have to be only a mystic allegorical, or spiritual, form of ultimate resistance -- not literal physical resistance, which was proven to be less powerful than the evil power of the System of Empire.
Ironically and strangely, Eusebius' job for Constantine in 313 was to consistently select those aspects of the Christian Jewish myth-system which were set against the System of Empire, in order to effectively co-opt the popular resistance movement. Mary Magdalene-oriented Gnosticism was rejected because it was insufficiently set against the System of Empire.
"So you want a mythic framework that is shaped as empire-resistance? OK, the emperor will make this the only permitted religion, and everyone must adopt this religion, as the emperor himself frames it." This way, the emperor effectively co-opted and took control of the highly popular anti-emperor styled mystery religion. In response to the anti-emperor flavored mystery religion, the emperor says "Sure you can resist me; I will help you -- you may resist me strictly in the way I say."
Mere wisdom teachings of the Gnostics, mere enlightenment, and mere intense mystic experiencing could never command popular allegiance, which is what was needed for Constantine to co-opt and form a universally popular version of the core mystery-religion. A strong (but safely controlled) theme of nonviolent sociopolitical resistance was both most popular and most effectively co-opted by the System of Empire which the resistance was set against.
Best suited for an enforced universal mystery-religion was a 2-level system with a strong emphasis on the literalist lower level of meaning -- while retaining enough of the higher level to be attractive to those who care about it -- with a promise of resistance, albeit, like a trippy advertisement, a harmless pseudo-resistance, a pseudo-rebellion that is commoditized, domesticated, defused, and safely controlled by the state, which would otherwise be challenged by this system which originally was a more potent resistance.
The theme of the 'Messianic Secret', like all religious themes, needs to be considered from the interpretive framework of "myth is metaphorical description of mystic experiencing".
Scholars reconstructing Christian origins need to focus on texts and need a conscious, explicit methodology for approaching texts, rather than defaulting to some familiar modern literalist methodology. A crucial factor is the issue of how one processes and interprets the texts; what kind of texts are these? They are Hellenistic double-meaning texts, with one layer of systematic network-meaning for the uninitiated, and another, different layer of systematic network-meaning for the initiated.
The question then becomes: What are the two systematic layers of meaning of the theme of 'Messianic Secret'? If we attempt to be serious textual scholars without looking for these two layers -- one for the uninitiated and another for the initiated -- then we're adopting a theory and method of interpretation that is counterindicated by what we know about Hellenistic literature and culture.
The 'Messianic Secret' theme represents the hidden nature of Heimarmene/Necessity/Fate, revealed after partaking of the Eucharistic meal at the Last Supper. During that meal, the disciples go from cluelessness to comprehension of Jesus' mystic kingship, and become apostles. On the road afterward, Jesus walked with two followers who didn't recognize him until he gave them something to eat. Only after he gave them something to eat did they perceive what was formerly hidden to them, Jesus the lord.
Prior to the last supper, the disciples are puzzled and clueless about the one they follow. What is puzzling, illogical, irrational, and inconsistent to the literalist analysis -- the reasons for the 'Messianic Secret' -- comes naturally to the analysis based on the interpretive framework of "myth is metaphorical description of mystic experiencing".
May be relevant:
There are two required halves of establishing the no-Jesus theory. One half is negative: showing that there was no literal single Jesus, no single individual upon whom the Jesus figure significantly depends. Doherty's book The Jesus Puzzle concentrates well on establishing this, and the position is also supported through a stack of other books.
The other required half of establishing the no-Jesus theory is the positive task of showing what the Jesus figure actually was about, if not simply a historical individual. Research here is weak, and is a higher priority than fleshing out what Doherty has sufficiently covered and established already. Jesus was not a literal single man, but was rather, an esoteric allegorical figure.
But what exactly does that type of figure really mean to the Greco-Roman culture? What is the esoteric-only Jesus really all about, that is so tremendously compelling, so tremendously coherent, that this conception of the nature of the Jesus figure is far more convincing than the literalist view of Jesus as an individual actual man? Developing a powerful and convincing explanation of a super-compelling esoteric-only conception of Jesus requires deliberate work on that problem.
A discussion group that claims to be concerned with the themes in the book The Jesus Mysteries, yet discourages idea development regarding the nature of an esoteric-only conception of Jesus, is a disgraceful fraud and sham and cannot possibly succeed at its supposed, stated goal of investigating the themes of the book The Jesus Mysteries, which is concerned with trying to adequately comprehend the esoteric-only conception of Jesus, and is not only concerned with debunking the literalist Jesus.
The character of researching and developing the esoteric-only conception of Jesus is inherently different than the character of research that focuses on the negative project of debunking the literalist historical Jesus. It is totally unfair and biased to insist a priori that the same type of argument and research used for the negative, debunking project also be required for the positive project of building up an adequate esoteric conception of the Jesus figure.
The positive project is difficult -- too bad. Few people are capable of productively researching the positive project -- too bad. There's a risk of conversational chaos and low-grade spiritual postings -- too bad; the moderators have to rise up to the occasion and develop new techniques for managing the discussion -- or else they must admit that they are not willing to put in the work to support the supposed, stated scope of their own discussion group.
The positive project of reconstructing the esoteric conception of Jesus is not optional, given that the stated goal is to investigate the themes covered in the book The Jesus Mysteries and to figure out the real historical origin of the Jesus figure.
All the researchers burning mental calories with their nose pressed against texts don't really care about understanding the origin of the Jesus figure. If they did, they would study and take seriously the need to robustly and adequately investigate and reconstruct the esoteric conception of Jesus. Short of such work, one can only conclude that the researchers are firmly committed to the historical Jesus assumption or to a 1-dimensional, reactionary broad-brush debunking of Christianity as a whole.
Frauds and poseurs, such scholars -- such discussion groups are a disgrace and prove all the worst accusations about the denseness and blindness of scholars, sinners who utterly miss the mark in their field of interest, making a colossal category error of the first degree (failing to take esotericism seriously) while claiming to be seriously motivated by and devoted to the objective search for the historical truth.
Their motif ought to be the James ossuary. Let the James ossuary serve now as a symbol for how far off-base the scope and methods and mentality of such scholarship is.
You've tried the approach of being concerned with the James ossuary -- that was a complete dismal disaster, and now it is time to stop evading the most important task at hand, and take seriously at last the required and non-optional, necessary project of idea development to fully reconstruct the Hellenistic conception of the esoteric-only Jesus, guided by the way the Hellenistic world actually thought, rather than how the literalist modern world is limited to thinking.
>>Why would the 2nd-century fabricators of the Jesus life-story have him make such a blatantly false prophecy, of his soon imperial parousia (second coming) during the lifetime of the apostles, in glory and power, as God's designated emperor of the kingdom of God?
For mystical esoteric purposes in emphatic contrast to Ruler Cult, as a religious and philosophical sociopolitical resistance theme, providing a sociopolitically satisfying and meaningful version of the standard Hellenistic mystic-state initiation framework.
As an example of how esoteric mystic-state thinking is the only viable coherent solution to understanding the Jesus figure, consider the common "problem" that Jesus was profoundly wrong in affirming the immediate arrival of the kingdom of God and his own imperial parousia (entry into the city, received as king and savior/rescuer of the city).
When a Christian initiate ingests the visionary-plant Eucharist at the agape meal, which is a standard Hellenistic banquet based on 'mixed wine' and involving philosophical-religious teaching and experiencing, the initiate experiences the suspension of their own sense of control agency, and experiences being controlled by a hidden, uncontrollable transcendent controller; they experience and intuit the utterly hidden puppetmaster that injects our control-thoughts and movements of will into us.
This intense mystic altered state experience is metaphorically described as becoming aware of the kingdom of God. This experience of metaphysical puppethood renders practical self-control intensely problematic and unstable, like a boat assaulted by a sudden storm.
Mental stability as a control agent returns the moment the mind is given the divine way of thinking, allegorized as the descending mind of Christ that pulls one's spirit upward into the throne room of the invisible but felt and intuited higher controller -- the One that is the prime mover standing over oneself, oneself now recognized as a secondary-only controller.
The initiate has entered the kingdom of God, brought into it by the arrival and descent of the mind of Christ from the heavens, turning one's thinking around in conversion and regeneration. The second coming of Jesus as recognized emperor/king (parousia), designated visible and perceived ruler arrived visibly (unlike the utterly hidden puppetmaster, God), occurs in time, but only one mind at a time.
As Jesus vowed to not drink 'wine' again until the kingdom of God arrives, so does the follower of the way of Jesus not drink 'wine' again until the kingdom of God arrives -- for them, individually and esoterically. The initiate has entered the kingdom of God, has met Jesus in his parousia entry into his own kingdom, and so, the next time the initiate drinks 'wine', indeed it will be drunk in the arrived kingdom of God.
So esoterically, the Jesus figure was completely correct in affirming the nearness of his parousia (second coming) and the immediate arrival of the kingdom of God, which happens as soon as one drinks the visionary 'wine' at the Hellenistic banquet.
This esoteric reading of Jesus as apocalyptic prophet is coherent and unproblematic. The alternative is a literalist reading, in which case Jesus was completely wrong and a false prophet.
>>We cannot prove nonhistoricity of Jesus beyond all doubt. It is merely *likely* Jesus never existed because:
>>o There is no *real evidence* he existed
>>o The Jesus figure was *likely* a myth meaning esoteric and sociopolitical things, based on the earliest versions of the myth and what we know about the religious thinking at the time.
By my definition and interpretation, it is certain that Jesus didn't exist. That is, it is as certain as anything can be, that there were multiple partially Jesus-like men, none of whom towered over the others to the extent that the Jesus figure is dependent upon him and wouldn't have been possible without him.
Given that there were multiple men serving as types upon which to construct the Jesus figure, and not one lone unusual man who stood far apart, we know there was no historical Jesus -- no single man upon whom the Jesus figure was based and dependent.
Truly I say to you, I won't drink wine with you again until we have entered the kingdom of heaven.
Scholars are uncomfortable realizing, as I realized a couple years ago, that they cannot ignore the fact that Jesus asserted plain and clear that heaven was in fact just about arrived, that some people hearing him won't pass away before the kingdom of heaven arrives.
This is a rational metaphor puzzle which is quite easy for the holy spirit to solve. The kingdom of heaven arrives an hour or two after one drinks the psychoactive mixed wine and awakens to timeless determinism and one's own metaphysical impotence to create or change the future or to create one's own thoughts and movements of the will. The next time one drinks that wine, heaven-awareness, which is awareness of timeless block-universe determinism, will already be present.
Healing Miracles as Mystic-State Metaphors
The paralyzed man -- ego death is control-seizure.
The leper -- the mystic altered state shows skin moving around.
The blind man -- one awakens and looks with metaperception.
Possessed by a demon -- egoic free will is the demon to be cast out.
Now I uncover metaphorical theology in entheogen exegesis.
Consider "it was a real fine line" in the Cheap Trick lyrics from Way of the World (http://www.cheaptrick.com/theworld.html). Through this verse, there are climbing psycho violins combined with psychedelic tape-based phasing:
Remember, you were at work and then Friday at five,
I remember, felt like a pawn, was I dead or alive?
I remember, thought no one could hear me, I was goin' insane.
I remember, it was a real fine line, now you've changed my life around.
Jewish apocalyptic writings such as Revelation are a deliberate, clever mixture of literalist politics with allusions to mystic altered-state phenomena: two distinct domains of allegory interblended.
The book of Revelation only has a couple Jesus references tacked on and functions quite differently than the gospels or Pauline writings.
In the orgasmic buildup of ego-death, particularly in its most striking and distinctive form, which is control-loss panic, the mind's control-system cybernetically trembles and short-circuits, self-destructs, and the physically disastrous and destructive loss of control is very narrowly averted. In effect, the mind comes upon a choice between acting out loss of control, or accepting a new way of thinking based around no-free-will and frozen time.
This way of thinking is transcendent or divine, and clearly maps to ideas about divine or transcendent savior figures or archetypes, anthropomorphisms representing a new way of thinking. This experience is allegorized as judgement day, the day of wrath, the day of the messiah, the final battle of good (transcendent-morality no-free-will thinking) and evil (egoic moral freewill thinking).
It is certain that the mind contains the intriguing potential to discover a panicked choice between destructive personal loss-of-control versus being saved from wrath by accepting a divine way of thinking. This is definitive of the mystic altered state, in some sense.
Perhaps the peak mystic state and enlightenment resulting therefore does not *have* to include this control-loss panic or this sense of a choice between control-loss versus accepting a divine worldmodel of time, space, control, will, and self. But the *potential* is a most interesting fact, a datum that is discovered and calls out for explanation and in that sense is "definitive".
I need to write more about the mapping of altered-state control-loss to apocalyptic myth-religion, but the above defines the scope well.
Seminar with Dale Allison, author of _Jesus: Millennial Prophet_ begins Monday, March 24th.
This scholarly discussion will be based around articles about Mr. Historical Jesus' interpretation of Jewish apocalyptic, including:
A glance at those articles which reminded me to discuss the apocalyptic day of wrath in terms of control-loss panic.
Some people have noted the absence of a distinct actual historical Jesus in these articles. The embarrassing problem with succeeding at making sense out of the world of the historical Jesus is that the literal historical Jesus falls out as extraneous, the leftover screw after the curious kid has taken apart a device and put it back together. Many people had reasons, which we now know, to almost inexorably coagulate a single historical Jesus from the many human and mythic precursors.
Apocalyptic writing is becoming better understood with respect to its *political* allegory-domain, but not with respect to its other half, the intense entheogenic mystic altered state metaphor/allegory domain.
>>Seminar with Dale Allison, author of _Jesus: Millennial Prophet_ begins Monday, March 24th.
This scholarly discussion will be based around articles about Mr. Historical Jesus' interpretation of Jewish apocalyptic, including:
The links are case-sensitive. Correction:
The Jesus allegory is designed to be received and understood in two opposing senses: an earlier, lower sense, and a later, higher sense.
The lower understanding of Jesus and morality is that Jesus is a judge of each person's moral soul after the person's bodily death. According to the lower way of reading the Christian word-network, if the person used their free will to perform morally good deeds (such as the good deed of believing in the bodily supernatural Jesus as savior), Jesus will judge them to be one of his followers/believers and will send them to heaven for their reward of eternal pleasure.
If the person used their free will to perform morally evil deeds, Jesus will judge them to be a follower of the king of the devils, and will send them to hell for their punishment of eternal torture. This way of thinking accepts all sorts of ideas: free will, supernatural miracles, the devil as an actual creature, heaven and hell after bodily death, bodily resurrection, spirit creatures, the virgin birth, the bodily historical Jesus who was miraculously resurrected, the historical Peter and other apostles, precognition, the effectiveness of prayer, and the ability of ritual sacrifices to cleanse moral impurity.
The higher understanding of Jesus and morality is that Jesus is an allegorical figure and avatar for that which completely controls our destiny in every detail. A person has no metaphysically free will, and thus is incapable of moral action good or bad, and is exempt from moral judgement.
The person takes no moral credit for any of their own actions, but gives that-which-controls-destiny -- God or Fate -- this credit, and considers any punishment of moral guilt to be justly executed upon God himself, rather than the person who is merely a helpless puppet that is completely controlled by God or Fate, which is the almighty power that forces every action, every thought, and every act of will into the person.
To learn to think this way is to enter heaven, specifically considered as the kingdom of God -- the mental worldmodel which considers God to be so all-powerful that there is no room for personal moral responsibility or judgement of oneself as a moral agent.
The higher mind believes that living in the lower mental worldmodel is living in hell and worshipping the devil. One is born into hell but is lifted up into heaven during life, if ever, during the ego-death experience in life.
To the higher mind, to believe in Jesus is to believe in the principle of moral exemption that follows from determinism. The higher thinking considers the mind to be entirely a puppet/slave of Jesus/God/Fate.
To the lower mind, to believe in Jesus is to consider oneself a moral agent with sovereign power that one directs toward confessing believe in Jesus. To the higher thinking, such a person only claims to follow Jesus; they actually follow the devil, worship the devil, and are a slave of the devil.
To the higher thinking, to confess Jesus as Lord is to believe that Jesus on the cross is a perfect allegorical representation of determinist morality in which God is the only one deserving moral punishment. To the higher thinking, Jesus on the cross is being justly punished for God's universal guilt.
The term "death", to the higher worldmodel, is ego-death, conceived of as a transformation from freewillist thinking to determinist thinking. The term "death", to the lower worldmodel, means bodily death. To the lower thinking, Jesus on the cross is being punished for the guilt that actually belongs to the person as moral agent, and since the person's punishment has been suffered by Jesus for the person, one may be justly allowed into heaven.
The lower mind thinks the person is judged and sent to heaven or hell after bodily death. The higher mind thinks the person is judged by the light of the Holy Spirit during the ego-death in life.
"Eternity" to the lower mind is a long time. "Eternity" to the higher mind is the timelessness during which determinism and the illusory, lying nature of ego are experienced.
A sinner is a person who considers themselves to be a metaphysically free moral agent. A saint is someone who considers themselves to have no metaphysically free will, but to be a determinist puppet/slave of the Ground/Goddess or the savior/God, or the Fates. The 'P' of the Calvinist TULIP mnemonic is perseverance of the saints: once the mind learns and experiences how believing in determinism cancels all sin and all one's believe in freewill moral agency, the mind forever retains that view and cannot be lost in sin again.
During entheogenic enlightenment about the emptiness of moral agency, one awakens to God's ownership of all moral-type guilt: one awakens to the kingdom of God. Those who don't recognize determinism and its moral implications are asleep or dead in Satan's kingdom. To awaken to the moral principle of determinism is to become freed from slavery to the devil and become a much superior kind of slave, a slave of the determinist morally transcendent system called "Jesus".
Those who think they wield the power of moral agency say they follow the system of Jesus, but they follow the system of the devil. They are followers of the law, "Jews" (speaking very allegorically), attempting salvation from moral sin through superficial following of the law of moral agency -- not just literally Jewish laws, but rather, the type of law that is given to supposed freewillist moral agents.
"Gentiles" -- speaking allegorically -- are the determinists, who walk in awareness of God's kingdom -- God's puppetmaster role and our relative moral role as empty puppets.
A type of hypocrisy would be to be enlightened about determinism but preach freewill and coerce others into buying your increments of moral purification, for financial profit.
What it means to "worship the devil" and be "actually a follower of the devil", a "member of Satan's kingdom", a "slave of the devil", is understood by reverse parallel with the "kingdom of God", "worshipping God", being "a true follower of God/Jesus", a "member of God's kingdom", a "slave of Christ".
Someone in the kingdom of God is a slave/puppet of God, having no moral power of their own because no free will. God is the father of truth about the metaphysical unfreeness of the will and the illusory nature of moral agency. Through isomorphic parallel, therefore, one who believes they have free will and are a metaphysically free, genuine moral agent must be a follower and worshipper of the Devil, king of the sinners, father of lies -- especially the lie of free will and its moral implications and correlates.
The Jews, actually the Jewish high priests, were not intended to be framed by the storywriters. Jesus didn't exist, so the Church has framed and persecuted them falsely all these years. In the end times, the Jews believe in Jesus: that is, when the end of time is experienced, freewillists discover and become believers in determinism and its moral ramifications -- the freewillists repent of taking freewill as a metaphysical reality, and learn to see it as merely a practical conventional illusion.
To experience the moral ramification of determinism is to have moral guilt washed away and lifted off your shoulders and placed instead where it has always actually belonged: on God, or God's avatar on the cross.
In the allegory from that Book of moral allegories, why did the morality-cleansing priests want to kill Jesus? Jesus is the entheogenic plant teacher who reveals, for free, determinism and its moral ramifications -- thus permanently clearing all moral impurity, cancelling the delusion of freewillist moral culpability. That brings the temple system of incremental sin-washing crashing down.
The priests wanted to save their financially profitable system of "masses", so to speak, cleansing an impossible type of moral guilt through the ongoing spilling of blood. This was a very clever allegory -- which the Catholic church quickly used as an instruction manual for designing their own church. The Catholic priests hid away the psychoactive true vine such as Amanita, and sold a false substitute pseudo-product of moral cleansing through financially profitable endlessly repeated blood-sacrifice (Jesus' holy human flesh) instead.
The Jewish priests hid away the psychoactive manna that God had commanded to keep always on public display, into the closed-off inner holy of holies -- and proceeded to sell a fake kind of moral cleansing through ineffectual but financially profitable endlessly repeated blood-sacrifice instead.
The allegorical story was brilliant and especially, clever, even funny and humorous, poking fun at how the mind takes freewill and the accompanying moral system as a reality. But freewill and the sense of being a self-steering sovereign individual is also valuable.
In the sacred marriage, the freewill lower way of thinking (Sophia or Mary Magdalene, or Simon Magus' prostitute Helen) is joined harmoniously with the determinist, metaphysically higher way of thinking (Jesus and in a way, the goddess Virgin Mary). See Freke and Gandy's books listed at http://www.egodeath.com/christmyth.htm.
Christianity as it has been predominantly known has been fully mistaken, because that is only the lower half of Christianity. What was missing is the psychoactive, true vine, and the higher half of Christianity thereby revealed by the Holy Spirit residing in the vine.
Preliminary notes written before the above:
There are many things to explain about late antiquity, but solving these is solving some other puzzle than the main one that we have received in Christianity as we know it. Our puzzle: make universal clever good sense out of "Jesus is the only way", "Jesus is Lord", "Jesus is my savior", "ye are followers of your father the devil".
The attitude that allowed me to find solution: suppose it's all fiction. What would be the simple riddle pun joke revelation puzzle meaning and point of such fiction, a system of fiction? The answer must be metaphysically basic/simple. It must be a matter of solving a Gordian knot, answering the gorgon's riddle.
There is a choice: either some quite simple but clever explanation, or else you are left with a totally baffling supernaturalist mess of notions. Theiring's theory of pescher interpretation of the scriptures as political encodings of a historical Jesus movement is way too complex and oversubtle.
The solution must be slap-your-head simple solution that elicits a laugh. The solution is so very much *simpler* than you expected. Determinism is revealed. Sins flow upward in an instant, catastrophically shifting upward; the puppet strings come into view as sin/guilt moves up them. As you feel your puppet strings pulled in the entheogenic lesson, so do you feel your responsibility lifted until you become an unresponsible puppet of god.
The two systems of morality - the lower understanding of "the moral system of Jesus", and the higher understanding of "the moral system of Jesus". There are two different, opposing systems of Jesus-centered morality, that were *designed* as two phases in an encompassing system.
Clearly see them as two extremely different systems, two "opposing" -- not opposite, but perpendicularly different systems. Freewillist Jesus morality is not a mirror of the determinist Jesus morality, but rather a "perpendicular opposite". These are two distinct and glaringly different systems, but the two are designed as a pair.
There is a Satanic version of Jesus-based morality, and a Holy Spirit inspired version of Jesus-centered morality. Those who assume the first system of Jesus are actually Satanic though they think they follow Jesus. "You say and think that you follow me, but you are no follower of mine. You are of the devil, father of lies."
The Satanic interpretation of Jesus is held by those who are alive in the body and yet are now in hell. Those who know the higher system of Jesus-based meaning are heavenly, his, they are alive now and are in heaven -- they live in consciousness of the kingdom of God.
In heaven you are slave of God, Jesus being God's mythically visible avatar. By isomorphism, then, if you are not in heaven and not a slave of God, you must therefore be a slave of the devil, who is the king of hell - the king of lower morality. Jehovah, god of the "Jews" (freewillist moralists) is the demiurge, the god of the lower system of moral notions.
Today I fully ascend to heaven because I fully understand the "joke" that the original Christians (or perhaps Orphic thinkers) had; I fully understand the joke as joke, considering a 3-panel painting of Jesus in the sky with one arm up, one down, sending the sinners (freewillists) to hell and saints (determinists) to heaven -- there are two ways of reading this painting.
One subject who participated in the Miracle of Marsh Chapel, Good Friday Experiment with psilocybin, after the sermon by Howard Thurman, escaped from the experiment. He entered Boston University's School of Theology and was climbing toward the third floor and climbed stairs to attempt to deliver a revelation to the dean. The revelation was merely about the good news of the dawning of a millennium of universal peace -- not the entheogenic deterministic revelation of sin cancellation. So he was given Thorazine. He is the only subject who refuses to discuss the experiment. This story has been suppressed from the reports except for this from Huston Smith in the book Cleansing the Doors of Perception: The Religious Significance of Entheogenic Plants and Chemicals, 2000, page 103. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1585420344
There are two ways of reading the Christian word-network. After bodily death Jesus judges your actions and sends you to heaven or hell. Jesus judges those who measure morality by themselves as moral agents.
They go to heaven or hell, or expect to do so, as a moral place for moral souls (cybernetic homunculus steersmen, sovereign kings). The higher thinker knows that Jesus judges you by what *system* of morality you believe in, not by what moral actions you did, and not by the moral action of putting faith in Historical Supernatural Jesus.
There's nothing morally wrong with the sin of believing in freewill and your own moral power -- this delusion of personal metaphysical sovereignty can be considered a gift that is the devil, a gift from God to himself.
Having true faith or truly believing in Jesus means believing in determinism and its concomitant trans-moral logic. If you believe in determinism and its moral implications about who is actually guilty, you go to heaven, giving all glory to god even as you declare God to be all-guilty. Give God/Ground/Fate what's his: all the glory and all the guilt in the world he all-powerfully authors, controls, and creates.
I ascend today -- but the soul is always lower than the spirit; to enter the kingdom of heaven you leave your inherently freewillist soul behind. It's logically consistent to say you leave your soul behind. The soul doesn't ascend to heaven. It vanishes, or is seen never to have existed. Yet it is right to say it ascends to heaven. We here discuss the fate of a fiction, an illusion.
The Christian scheme is figured out as a designed double-meaning system, figured out *as* a bi-fold 2-level system. "Gentiles" means determinists, as the Hellenistic world was. "Jews" is a code-word meaning those who think in terms of freewill moral agency and consider themselves culpable for morality and thus subject to be sent to heaven or hell (ideas from the system of Orpheus). Did Apollonius do the same -- did he teach a moral heaven/hell for freewillists, that then breaks over into a different, contrasting scheme of "hell is belief in freewill -- the current land the freewillists dwell in morally" while "heaven is determinism", heaven = blaming Dionysus as avatar of Gods/Fates for all actions?
The Hellenistic world was fascinated by the freewill moral assumptions of some of the Jews or of the temple sacrifice logic for repeatedly "cleansing moral impurity".
Dionysus is lord and shepherd and takes all guilt upon himself upon revealing to you determinism via himself as entheogen. Apollonius/Orpheus/Dionysus -- isomorphic with bi-fold Jesus-morality? To be saved -- to have sin cleared and enter heaven, God's kingdom, believe in Jesus. This means believing in determinism; Jesus represents determinism's moral release disguised as freewillist morality.
Jesus said, "To be saved and enter the kingdom of heaven, believe in me". "Me" here means "determinism and its moral correlates". This requires switching from the system of morality that looks to the freewillist like heaven/hell moral punishment/reward but clearly is revealed by the Holy Spirit as God owning all guilt. "Me" = Jesus' Holy Spirit-revealed system of salvation from sin. "Believe in Jesus" = believe that God is all-sovereign and deserves all guilt and has achieved full appropriate guilt-punishment in the allegorical figure of Jesus on the cross.
Is Jesus son of God? He is the sacrificial son provided for us to accept, like Abraham's angel, as a complete and appropriate demonstration of our deterministic puppethood relationship to God the all-controller. Jesus is the same type as the sacrificial son of Abraham, isomorphic in that he, like Isaac was permitted to escape death. The higher thinker cannot countenance even a story of an allegorical Jesus figure actually dying bodily and rising up. This says it all: "Pilate could not believe Jesus was dead so quickly." Such staggering doubt, such a frenetically waving red flag, is not in the scriptures by accident.
The swoon theory is the superior way to mythically read these double-coded word-networks: it preserves the isomorphic equivalence between Abraham's near-sacrifice of Isaac and God's visible but virtual sacrifice of Jesus. Gnostics embrace allegorically God's just suffering on the cross, but not a vulgar simple shallow fairy tale of bodily death and bodily resurrection. The swoon theory -- rather, the swoon hidden interpretation -- is far more rich in its Abrahamic interpretive depth. The stories are designed for just such depth.
The dying/rising savior is consubstantial with the entheogen. http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=consubstantial
What did Orpheus, the singing head, teach? The judgement of the afterlife to divide moral agents into heaven and hell. Apollonius was the travelling apostle of Orphic teaching, I surmise that he taught how entheogens reveal determinism and the transformation into a higher network of interpretation.
Christianity was in no way original -- except perhaps as a whole bi-fold system that incorporated a historical and political reference point (the large-scale crucifixion of Jewish rebels and would-be kings before the fall of the Jerusalem temple in 70 CE). The 2-level meaning-flipping about moral heaven and hell sorting must have come from somewhere, not just from the uninitiated/initiated distinction or from the meaning-toggling in Attic tragedy.
I am Apollonius the mouth of Orpheus, the yammering Pauline teacher and minister -- I have something to share with you, taste my knowledge -- about how determinism flips from one moral-system to another. In higher moral system, hell is essentially the place freewillists now live in and consider themselves subject to -- they are subject to Satan, are subjects and worshippers of devil -- heaven is determinism's cancellation of sin-culpability.
A couple years ago, the Holy Spirit revealed two paths open to me: The Branch appeared -- two ways appeared before me which I didn't then identify with the Christian hell and heaven as deliberately designed, opposing systems of thinking. I chose determinism and knew I had entered heaven, I knew my sin was in principle cancelled and rooted out, but still didn't know how this deterministic sin-cancellation connected with 2-level original Christianity.
This shows that the full Christian Revelation requires not just the generic core principles, but fully fleshed-out connections to existing systems, such as Gnosticism, mystery religions, Stoic thought, Greek myths, astrological determinism, Attic tragedy, temple sacrifice morality-cleansing, Reformed theology, and Catholic moral religion.
I didn't see that the fork I rejected wasn't just some magic never-solvable worldmodel -- it wasn't just any old random nonsense -- but precisely and specifically the way of thinking called "hell" -- the moral system that is "hell and damnation and sin and devil-worship" in a certain encoded sense.
Now all that was revealed during my initial partway entry into heaven (I still retained the careless assumption of a Historical Jesus) is brought to completion through studying the original Christianity and its mythic and philosophical context such as the rock-chained, eagle-stabbed Prometheus, the Prometheus-eating Titans zapped down by Zeus, and the death of the power of the bull in the center of the labyrinth.
These are the missing revelations Jesus told to Mary Magdalene by which the apostles were so shocked and filled with disbelief, the missing pages removed from the Gospel of Mary Magdalene; these are the message to be delivered to the minister at the top of the Marsh Chapel
What is the difference between my insight now versus my original transcendence of sin and entry into heaven in the "forking path" encounter two or three years ago? How have I "finished my ascension" now, that wasn't finished before? Before, the only thing I knew was, letting go of supernatural thinking and magic and freewill together implied determinism, and with determinism my sins are annulled and made unreal, made never to have existed.
That was all I knew -- merely that core idea/experience. I didn't know Christianity to have been a deliberately crafted system to inculcate two levels of meaning-network. I had just the chest of a skeleton of a theory, but now I have a fully fleshed theory.
This theory explains what "hell" means, when it exists, what "sin" and "salvation" are taken to mean within the lower and higher system of meaning, what "salvation" really is, how these meanings were *designed* to shift, that being entrapped in the lower net of meaning *is* having Satan as one's king, it *is* being in hell and damned. I have now not just had my sins cleared, but have fully mapped the network of meaning held by people who are "in heaven" that held by people who are "in hell".
I know what the Last Judgement is -- that God stands in judgement of himself and reveals how he has always been the only morally guilty one, deserving of all moral punishment. The sinners understand the Last Judgment one way and the saints another. Sinners are those who believe in the system of freewill moral agency; saints believe in "Jesus" as the system of determinist/fatalist/fixed-future agent-slavehood/puppethood.
I have donned my Saint Michael hat. I have become sinless, a saint incapable of sinning. It is impossible for the mature determinist to sin. The punnish joke networks of meanings -- the humor -- has been revealed. There is a Christian belly laugh of enlightenment as the slap-your-head comical/clever aspect of the two opposing semantic meaning-networks is revealed. In the Last Judgement, God is judged as all-guilty; all people are revealed as morally innocent.
All minds do not go to heaven; lifetime sinners spent their entire life in hell, believing in freewill moral agency the whole time; those who are elected to be saved spend part of their life in hell -- the freewill-assuming childhood learning mundane conventional morality -- but during egodeath, they enter heaven, the kingdom of God, during bodily life.
After bodily life, nothing can be said. To experience fatedness is to experience the way in which time is a frozen block. Nov 14, 2001, all has been revealed to me about the Christian 2-fold system of mental models.
The Cybernetic Revelation of Moral Salvation
The Revelation and the Last Judgment, the Apocalypse is today.
For 13 years I have been working on this puzzle, and it is solved today: what is the egodeath-oriented allegorical meaning of the New Testament stories and expressions? What is the simple and elegant Revelation of their true, nonsupernatural, universally valid meaning?"