Early Forms of Christianity

[michael]

Interesting a point made by Robert a while back re after meditation he saw a dozen or so letters appear and he could not decipher...this has happened to me to in sleep..extremely detailed wall of Chinese writing.i could see each letter clearly..and again this happened a few years later..but why? Why ..when it appears one cannot decipher the leters???And of course..it is difficult to recall even one letter if one is not lucid as i was not on both occassions...

[Robert Bruce]

G'day Michael!

I think the best way of understanding these mysterious symbols would be to get a hypnotist to regress us back to that memory, and then to sketch the symbols/letters. Then they could be analyzed, etc. I plan to attempt this one day using self-hypnosis.

Take care, Robert.

[shadowdancer]

namaste,
    i would like to ask some questions in the spirits of this threads title.  i asked this question in another thread and i realized a little too late that it was an inapropriate thread for it.  my question was to beth in specific because beth, you have exhibited the most intellingent and coherent knowledge of the origins of ancient christianity.  my question can be answered by anyone of course, who may have some input.  what can you tell me of the nicea council?  from what i understand of this pivitol historical event, it took place in the time period around the rule of constantinople? when christianity was becoming the state religion and the roman empire was rapidy becoming "holy" [}:)]  in my understanding, the council was a religious editing orgy.  there had been a strong movement within the church of peter to catalog and assess the various christ-cults(gnostic schools) that were thriving at the time...from the little research i have done these things are true and was it valentinius who was martyred(sp?....so the tensions for religious supremacy in the region were very real and intense....not forgetting that there was no such thing as separation of church and state until very very recently.....what is next is MY suppositions as to the potential detailing of motive and context....and and then the orthodox(meaning narrow-mind right?)church proceeded to marginalize them(various gnostic schools) through a campaign of fear-mongering, violent persecution(in some cases) and an all out propoganda war.  this propoganda war was what the nicea council was about?  it was about finding taking the massive catalogs of sacred texts and using them in the following ways-either dismissing them outright as heresy(if the content of said text did not fit in with the "party line" of the orthodox church); suppressing knowledge of a text(usually happened in conjunction with the first option); if the text in question was found to be useful, it would then have been edited and certain anomalous facts or passages glossed over or cut out altogether.  with the remaining texts that were considered useful, they were spliced together to for the NEW TESTAMENT CANON!!!!  DUNDUNDUN!!!!! [}:)]  is a theory.  my theory based upon the independant research i have done over the years.  when do ya'll think?  if these things are true, and much of these things i have stated we have actual archeological evidence for...then at the very least, modern day christianity is a series of texts manipulated and hijacked for a group of people to consolidate their status as burgeoning temporal powers....but it gets stickier...because, if you look at many, nearly ALL of the texts that were suppressed regarding the beautiful rainbow of cultural mishmosh that was the gnostic schools....most of these texts SPEAK IN THE VERY SAME OCCULT LANGUAGE as Beth mentioned earlier......AND!!!...the messages in nearly all of these texts...once the language keys, the esoteric symbolism is deciphered...repeat an essential message that would have been very very threatening to and group of people wishing to wield power over others...it is a message of SELF-EMPOWERMENT....GOD IS WITHIN YOU/YOU ARE GOD.  looked at with these hypothesis....modern day christianity then becomes less of a religion in a spiritually meaningful sense, it becomes a framework for MASS CONTROL.  the indoctrination and control of hundreds of years of human lives by telling them that someone or something outside of themselves is the ONLY way to salvation.  it is sick.  but now we have shopping......[V]

[Beth]

Shadowdancer:

Hey there!

Yes, you are correct on a lot of things here.  First, in order for Constantine to be able to re-build the Roman Empire to the former glory that he saw it to have been, he recognized the need for a “Religion of the Empire.”  Religions have a long history of providing groups of people to join together in a strong and united bond. Really, not unlike “membership” into anything that people agree to commit to.  Religion has another very large advantage, and that is that religion contains GOD.  When a particular group joins together with the firmly held belief that “their religion” is THE TRUE RELIGION, that "their God" is the TRUE GOD, then as history shows, the power is a force to be reckoned with--peoples and territories can rather easily be conquered.  The bigger the numbers of people that are willing to “stand-up” for their belief, the more people you have to “fight.”  This is why wars, such as the Crusades, were fought under the “banner of Christianity.”   It was the “glue” that held the soldiers together.  Today, “America” plays that same role, only our constitution specifically says that this is not a religious thing.  And IT IS NOT, or it is not supposed to be.  America as a “democracy” can provide the same “glue” as a religion does.  

Anyway, Constantine knew this--and he needed to build his armies and have the people behind him.  SO—there were 2 main religions at the time that Constantine thought had potential for his political religion.  Christianity and Mithraism.  Mithraism was really more of a “soldier’s” religion.  It was exclusively male, and much more male oriented in their rituals.  Christianity had more potential to bring in women, and Constantine liked this idea.  But—as one legend has it, he wanted to give each religion a fair shot.  So, he fought two battles.  One under the Christian banner, and one under the Mithraism banner.   He won the first and lost the second.  So, like a “flip of a coin” Christianity became the chosen religion.

There was only one problem for a smooth transition.  Christians did not agree on a lot of important doctrines.  So, the council of Nicaea was called to try and hammer out these differences. Many of those differences were agreed to, e.g. baptism, the hierarchy of the episcopate, etc, but some important issues were not--See "The Trinity" post. (Another "toughy" was Mary.  If Jesus was indeed God incarnate, how could God have or better yet, why would God need a "mother?" The age-old chicken and egg problem...[8D])

Important Note:  Because there were two religions “jockeying” for the religion of the Empire, concessions had to be made with Mithraism. The general populace were “sun-worshippers” and Mithraism was also a solar monotheistic religion. This is basically where we get “Sunday.”  Christians had already begun to worship together just one day a week, and because Constantine instituted that “Sunday” was a day of rest for his new empire, all of Christianity began to worship on this day.  Also, Christianity did not have a “date” for the birth of Jesus (and this was a very common need for an annual festival) but solar monotheism DID have a birthdate for their “Sun God”—December 25 (at the winter solstice.)  SO, Constantine and the Christian bishops agreed to make December 25 Jesus’ birthday.  (They eventually did the same with All Hallows Eve becoming All Saints Day, and the Spring Solstice became Easter and which matched with Passover, etc.)

Moving on, yes, many different brands of Christianity came to the table at the Council of Nicaea.  And yes, one of the main ones was Gnosticism, but even within Gnosticism you had disagreeing parties—one of which were the teachings of Valentinus.)  But there were also several other well-followed groups, including those that were not gnostic per se, but still disagreed on the nature of Jesus.  These were of course eventually found to be heretical and banned from the new Church.  

As for the scriptures:  Yes, there were probably some redactions (editing) that occurred, BUT, I think they probably tried to leave them alone for the most part.  If anything, scholars have found that new opening sentences and perhaps some closing sentences were added to establish who they were written by and that they were of the accepted belief.  That is primarily why they chose the Gospels.  The gospels just told the stories.  The gospels did not try to “explain” what Jesus was really all about like many of the other books that were eventually rejected. (Like the Gospel of Philip and the Gospel of Thomas!  Both of which are Gnostic.) As a matter of fact, the Gospel of John and Revelation almost didn’t make the cut, as well as all of Paul’s writings.  One of the higher ranking bishops did not like the Pauline Epistles, but he was eventually out-voted.  So, in essence—they had to pick some—so they did.  And they picked the “simplest” ones, because Augustine (who was very well educated and had studied all of these different sects) and other bishops knew that they needed to “KEEP IT SIMPLE” so the common people could understand it.  

Now, you wrote:
 

quote:AND!!!...the messages in nearly all of these texts...once the language keys, the esoteric symbolism is deciphered...repeat an essential message that would have been very very threatening to and group of people wishing to wield power over others...it is a message of SELF-EMPOWERMENT....GOD IS WITHIN YOU/YOU ARE GOD.

Yes.  This is pretty much the case.  Constantine could not afford that--it would have been counterproductive to why he needed the religion in the first place, AND, I guess I want to believe that Augustine and the other good bishops had at least “good intentions.”  And that is, the most important thing was for the religion to survive.  Just like the writers of the scriptures, Augustine and the other good bishops probably had no idea that it would all turn out as you say and become,
 

quote:… less of a religion in a spiritually meaningful sense, it becomes a framework for MASS CONTROL. the indoctrination and control of hundreds of years of human lives by telling them that someone or something outside of themselves is the ONLY way to salvation.

I really don’t think that these men could have known this would happen.  I think most of them were very spiritual men.  But, they all knew that the deeper meanings were “too deep” for the general peasant to understand, and I guess they didn’t take into full consideration the totally “other extreme.”  Anyway, this last part is my own conjecture, but from reading Augustine’s other writings, I think it is a pretty accurate guess.  (Augustine actually wrote a treatise that we still possess, showing that the OT was written in allegory!)

So, you are for the most part correct.  This is a good example of the old adage, you know, about a Pathway of Good Intentions….?    

Thanks for your statements and questions!  Keep 'em coming![]

[shadowdancer]

Namaste,
     thats more like it!!!  (i was initially very discouraged by some of the goings on there as i just joined the forum recently [])
   Something that i have noticed in this thread and in others in which you(Beth) have shared your knowledge of the "biblical" times...particularly around the birth of the christ cults(peters church i include in that group [])....is, at first glance, an expressed bias toward christianity as a whole movement and an subtley expressed antagonism toward the more *sic* temporal powers of the era, the Roman State....please don't take offense [:I] there is quite enough of that goin around.  i mention this (my initialy impression) as an exploratory process for myself, to understand better where you are coming from....more on that later []
    to fill in some gaps...i am 'relatively' (i make no claim to scholarship) learned of the history of the gnostic cults, that there were many of them, and that many of them were not oriented toward 'christ' symbolism.  there were still schools of platonic though up until around 500ad?  the isians were some of the more established mystery schools at that time....am also fairly familiar with mitraism, and how much of the significant moments within mithras life (such as his birthdate) have been superimposed into the jesus model...like jesus being born in a manger(sp?)(sometimes words just dont look right, ya know?).  
     im gonna use the mithra connection to branch a bit, because there are examples of the church not only "hijacking" the religious symbols, and even central archetypes of other religions during those crazy days of its birth pangs as a state religion...WHOA!!!!! HOLY excrement!!  no pun intended!!!!  we just stated it in the last posts!!!  CHRISTIANITY AS WE KNOW IT, FROM ITS VERY INCEPTION, was MADE to BE A TOOL OF STATE CONTROL!!!!!!!!!!  sorry bout the flamin.  the mystical origins of the possibility of a real person named jesus who was a mystic trained in egypt and who knows where else in magick and sorcery, has very little to do with the Romanized church.  it was a collaberation between constantine and the jews!!  I AM NOT ANTI-SEMITIC []  but some information that i have come across is that many many of the semitic peoples within Rome at the time of constantine's rule were very learned people!  the days of persecution(which other sources state that the persecution of early christians is pretty marginal=caligula is an example of someone who went out of his way mess with them...but then again, was that a policy of oppression or a madman's whim?...is there a difference?!) of the christians were well past and now the christians were doing it to others in turn.  As you said Beth, rome was certainly not the former glory it once was....and many of the local magistrates and judges(i am nearly certain those are not the proper names for the local legislative funtionaries within rome at that time, but you get the idea [])were in those places, as jews? because they had preserved culturally a tremendous source of power=the ability to read and write.  nobody flay me for these statements.  i dont know how reliable this information is regarding "jews"(its almost feels antisemitic just writing that...weird)...and i am very open to correction in these matters, so...[]  more acurately, constantine made a deal with the orthodoxy and the rest is history....

  ok, moving away from growth through clash of views....you mentioned that mithaism was a bit to male and christianity suited constantines needs a little better because it included women...are you sure?  what were the predominate perspectives regarding the role of women in judaic/early christian church doctrine?  i think....and please forgive cause its a difference of opinion again and i was trying to explore on common ground...that the idea that christianity appealed to constantine can be looked at in a couple of ways...wasnt constantine's wife famous in her own right?  from what i remember, she was a social activist of sorts, and fought for much legislation about education of the general population and other egalitarian themes?  if this is true, then the christianity/women=alluring to constantine could either be supported or angled against.  surely the presence of such a self-possessed, aware and powerful female who had express interest in state policy, would have surely influenced constantine on the issue of selecting a cult to elevate to the status of national religion.  and if so, what were her views?  if the early christian church was so avante guard as to be defenders of womens rights (must be considered in a relative context to things such as hassidic judaism and the warrior cult of mithras)...her vote would seem relatively self evident...hmmm....but maybe it made no difference whatsoever and the connection of womens lib=early christian church+roman state=more people to control....is mute??  why? maybe because of the possibility that it was the Roman State itself that was the most tolerant of the idea of women exercising personal power in the arenas of state policy??  one more question on this note...if the early romanized church(300ad or so and all)was liberal in its policies regarding women...what happened?

     my next thoughts are all pretty closely connected...in short: legitimacy(read=historical accuracy)of NT Cannon
the theoretical exploration of the intentions of the early romanized church fathers within the context of Nicea.
the philosophical implications of the application of the "secret knowledge must be kept secret because the ignorant will corrupt its message".(in a nutshell, and yes, i think that within that philosophical premise it is a veritable playground of possible subtle permutations of linguistic paths to different interpretations of meaning)  to begin(sometimes i feel so stuffy..[^]), there are many many errors of time, place and character within the various books of the new testament.  whole events are left out in certain books and the, really ridiculous amount of contradiction in the sequential flow of time and space(as far as we can perceive in our relatively shared 3d stage)are glaring, and i can see where you can see this as an attempt by some present at the council as an attempt to retain most of the original texts..(not saying this is your view, i am making an assumption about how you may see it)...if this is the case, i look at it upside down and see the alice in wonderland-esque flow of events within the NT cannon as a direct result of the tremendous amount of redaction that had to take place to make those texts fit within the ideological framework of the church.  
   the theoretical explorations of the potential mental space that those priests and bishops were in is...difficult at best.  i dont really resonate at all with the "altruistic protector" view of these men...Augustine was an educated man regarding these cults as a CIA agent might be today educated about various potential threats to the policies of the USA, whether those potential threats come in the form of an armed paramilitary group or street protestors with puppets...they are learned about the enemy...and i really feel that is a strong possibility that that very same mental space was a good deal contributing to their individual world view....those cultist WERE HERETICS AND SINNERS after all???  
    lastly, the philosophical belief that you project that these men potentially held, thus a justification, or at the very best a rationalization? for the actions taken at nicea.  to rehash in my own words...."people are stupid and we have to protect them from themselves"....i feel very strongly about this view as a fear-based and misguided rationalization for a deeper psychological need to control others.  i feel that this is true today...and we can certainly see how this view is present in nearly every one of the united states administrative cabinet...keep the info from the people for "national security"....this is the same philosophical premise and is uncomfortably close to the ideas of "divine kingship by bloodlines".......which is very very very very interesting.....have you read any books by michael baigent and richard leigh???  or lynn picknett and clive prince??  ps-please dont dismiss me or my perspectives because i cite those authors...the are not very respected in the US and regardless, i do take all things with a grain of salt []  thanks for listening again, i look forward to your feedback, namaste

[Beth]

Hey shadowdancer!  It’s nice to hear from you again!

You wrote:

 

quote:because there are examples of the church not only "hijacking" the religious symbols

That was not just something that Christianity did.  That was the way of the world. In other words, anytime a conquering people came "through town” and took over a culture, they had to, to a certain extent, absorb some of the cultural uniqueness.   In 300 bce that is how Alexander the Great hellenized the world.  He brought Greek culture to the world, but in the process, every major “intersection” had to absorb some of the conquered culture.  That is why there are varying degrees of differences between major metropolises.  They were all Hellenized, but each one had their own “brand” of Hellenism.  It was no different for the Romans and Christianity.  


 

quote:it was a collaberation between constantine and the jews!!

No, by the 300's, centuries had passed, and a solid split had already occurred between the Jews and the Christians.   It was the Christians and the Romans.

 

quote:some information that i have come across is that many many of the semitic peoples within Rome at the time of constantine's rule were very learned people!

Jewish people were always (and still are) very learned people.  Education is a big part of Judaism.  That is what, in great part, separated them from the rest of the people, especially the Romans--but as it applies here, that was much earlier.  (The Greeks were very learned too.)The entire Bible, both the Hebrew scriptures and the NT, were written by very learned people with a literary genius that is absolutely amazing.  I am in total awe of the genius of scripture.  The bishops at Nicaea were also very learned, but by that time they were not Jews--they were Christians.

 

quote:the persecution of early christians is pretty marginal...[but]well past and now the christians were doing it to others in turn

Yes. You are correct.

 

quote:and many of the local magistrates and judges… were in those places, as jews.

Not to my knowledge.  I know there were Christians in these high places.  I could be wrong about this, but I think the Jews had pretty much been dispersed during this time. The Temple had been their consolidating point, and the Temple had not been rebuilt after its destruction in 70 ce.  The Jews had scattered all over the Near East and into Europe.  If I am not mistaken, it would not be for several hundred more years that they would join forces again and re-unite Judaism as a whole.  As far as I know, the Jews were relatively quiet during this time.  

 

quote:because they had preserved culturally a tremendous source of power=the ability to read and write.

It was not the Jews, but the Christians that now held that power--for the new Roman Empire anyway.  Before long, the Church would be totally in charge of “the education system.”  Many clergymen would also act as tutors. Eventually, the Catholic Church became the founder of the “University.”  And they sponsored and ran numerous universities for centuries.  They were in charge of “knowledge.” What they taught is what people learned. The Catholic Church eventually became the primary source for just about everything.  Their political and economic clout was tremendous.  They held the future generations in their hands.  That is how the religion became so pervasive.

 

quote:...wasnt constantine's wife famous in her own right? if this is true, then the christianity/women=alluring to constantine could either be supported or angled against. surely the presence of such a self-possessed, aware and powerful female who had express interest in state policy, would have surely influenced constantine on the issue of selecting a cult to elevate to the status of national religion.

Constantine was not a Christian.  And did not become a Christian until his deathbed.  But his wife most definitely was.  Ms. Constantine was a “collector” of sorts.  She sent out “scouts” to bring back Christian relics from Jerusalem and surrounding areas.  I think I read somewhere that she even thought she possessed the actual cross that Jesus had been crucified on. Many of these relics were then placed in various churches that Constantine built for Christianity.  This is where the whole idea of having the bones or ashes of the Saints became a tradition for Christian churches.

 

quote:surely the presence of such a self-possessed, aware and powerful female who had express interest in state policy, would have surely influenced constantine on the issue of selecting a cult to elevate to the status of national religion. and if so, what were her views?

I am sorry shadowdancer, but I have to laugh at this one.  For years I cried, but now I laugh.  We really have NO IDEA what her or any other women's views were.  As far as I know, she left no memoirs, and whatever we do know about her was written by men.  Now there may be some new discoveries that I am unaware of.  Women's Studies have come a long way just in the last 2 decades.  So if this is known for sure, then it is "new" news to me.  For centuries, men wrote all of the history until just recently.  We really do not have that much to account for what women felt.  But, Christianity always seemed to include women.  That was one of the problems it had when it was just a Jewish sect.  Including women to the point that Christianity did, in the public realm, went against traditional Judaism.  Women could be educated, but not with the men, and not out in public.  Women were invited into the renegade sect of Judaism that eventually became Christianity--and that was a big problem for other Jews.  As a matter fact, we do know, that without the help of women, the Jewish sect that eventually became Christianity might not have survived through the first century.

 

quote:that it was the Roman State itself that was the most tolerant of the idea of women exercising personal power in the arenas of state policy??

nooo…..I do not think so!  It was Christianity that made that possible.  Not the Romans. (I could be wrong on this, but I don't think so!)  Ms. Constantine might have been a powerhouse in her Roman Household, but women in general definately were NOT.

 

quote:one more question on this note...if the early romanized church(300ad or so and all)was liberal in its policies regarding women...what happened?

lol……well that is a very good question.  Bad luck?  lol….  I can’t say for sure (remember, we don’t have "their voice" in the history books) except to say that the “older” Christianity became, the farther removed it became from its original form.  And, the whole “original sin” thing took off like wildfire.  When Christianity began to convert the pagans in the Middle Ages, just being a woman made you suspect of witchery.  Unless of course, you were modest, pious and kept to yourself.  The whole “women should be kept silent in the church thing” also took off like wildfire, and eventually women lost their original place within the Church.  (See my post on the "masculine and feminine" and I will write a most specific post about this soon.)


 

quote:in a nutshell, and yes, i think that within that philosophical premise it is a veritable playground of possible subtle permutations of linguistic paths to different interpretations of meaning

LOL…WELL PUT!!!  BUT...after translation, these are not necessarily so subtle.

 

quote:to begin(sometimes i feel so stuffy..[^]

LOL…me too! We need to watch that![^]

 

quote:i dont really resonate at all with the "altruistic protector" view of these men...Augustine was an educated man regarding these cults as a CIA agent might be today educated about various potential threats to the policies of the USA,

LOL…well, perhaps this is my way of giving them the benefit of the doubt.  Since they are not here to speak for themselves, I guess I just try to smooth any contentious slandering of them (BUT HEY…I guess at least here on AP, I am taking some of the heat for them huh?[B)]  lol… "Hey Augustine--have you reincarnated yet--if so--log-on!![])  I do believe however, that the “survival of the religion” was their top priority.  Whatever it took.

 

quote:lastly, the philosophical belief that you project that these men potentially held, thus a justification, or at the very best a rationalization? for the actions taken at nicea.

Yes, I could be justifying and rationalizing.  And yes--you could certainly be right.  I really can’t say for sure.  Like I said, I guess “I WANT TO BELIEVE” that there were at least SOME honest bishops at the table.

 

quote:have you read any books by michael baigent and richard leigh??? or lynn picknett and clive prince?? ps-please dont dismiss me or my perspectives because i cite those authors...the are not very respected in the US

Are they the authors of Holy Blood, Holy Grail?  If so, yes I did read that.  Very interesting!!!  I want to go to Provence, France one day and check some of that stuff out myself.  If you liked that book, have you read Woman with the Alabaster Jar by Margaret Starbird?   Good read, as is her other book, The Goddess in the Gospels.  She has a very interesting spiritual journey that she shares, where she, as a Roman Catholic was “outraged” by Holy Blood, Holy Grail and set out to prove them WRONG.  What she found however, was that they were more right than she EVER imagined.  Both books are really good reads.

 

quote:"It has been said, quite accurately, that a psychotic person is drowning in the very same things that a mystic swims in." -- Pema Chodron

I like that!

Thanks for the constuctive discussion![]  

and…

Namaste

[Tab]

Question. Isn't it true that cult christianity (I.E. pre-Constantine) subscribed to the doctrine of reincarnation? In addition, that Constantine's wife persuaded him to eject it from Roman Catholicism?

According to Ellie,

quote:The Roman Emperor Constantine married his way into power. His wife mysteriously disappeared. His second wife was his ticket to the thorne. Then he had her killed. His third wife was a prostitute who had risen to the throne in the same diabolical ways Constantine had and who lived to have a devestating effect on the belief in reincarnation. She feared that her sins would follow from lifetime to lifetime infuriated her. She did not like the idea of Karma. Her life was filled with lies and treachery. She was not interested in advocated any religion that would demote her in another life. Thus she persuaded Emperor Constantine to remove reincarnation from Christainity.

Constantine, for all reports was vain and fearful for his many sins. He considered himself on one hand to be the incarnation of the Gods Apollo, Mytha, Jupiter, and Christ. On the other hand he was afraid that when he died he would anger these Gods in heaven.

He was the first Roman Emperor to support complete religious freedom of all faiths so that when he got to heaven no God would want to take venegence on him personally.

[Beth]

Wow!  Interesting stuff!  I did not know we had that much info on Constantine's wives.  Maybe some diaries or journals have been discovered?  I know that we are discovering more and more everyday! AND--I know I am "behind in my homework" on Womens Studies![:O]  ...so much to learn...and so little time![]

On Reincarnation being a part of early Christianity:  Most definately.  

I put together a brief thing not long ago on this very subject (for Robert as a matter of fact!) So I will find it and post it soon! []

Thanks for all of your contributions Tab.  You bring up very thought provoking issues!

[crippled_by_confusion]

Hi... I'm new here and I really enjoyed reading about this topic! I was constantly wondering why I felt so connected with Jesus Christ, but not to Christianity and a very wise woman told me that Jesus, Lord of Light and Healing was made from GOD. Christianity was made by MAN. Probably as a form of controlling others.

When the women of the Burning Times were burnt, it wasn't because they were witches, but because they were women with power. The Bible (also written by man) condemns women and homosexuals repeatedly so I take comfort in this ideal ; it IS possible to love and believe in our Creator and our Saviour without the folly of Christianity.

[michael]

Beth..just out of interest..I wonder if you have any knowledge of Rudolf Steiner's views on Christ etc??he maintained there were "Two jesus''"..one "Christ"..and all sorts of stuff about etheric astral bodies being prepared etc for the Christ Spirit.....all tied in with reincarnation etc..

[Beth]

Michael,

On Rudolf Steiner, I know only enough to know that he is another great thinker that is ahead of his time (or perhaps revisited from a past one???...or even a future one???[])

I studied his thought a little bit a few years back, but had to "shelf him" to work on my thesis.  I did, however, recognize the importance of his thought enough to "order most all of his available books" for the University that I was attending, because I was a bibliographer for a year!!  Ah.... the power of the unlimited book budget!!![]

But, I am very glad that you bring him up...I must now "bring him back up" on my reading list!!

Can you share with us some details of his thought?? That would be great... as it will be a little while before I can get to him...

Peace,
Beth

[michael]

yep Beth ..you got it right in one in my opinion..Steiner is far ahead of his time..wrote so much and so erudite that I have only scratched his surface as it were and that is after reading hepas of books and articles on his stuff..prolific to say the least..takes some effort to condense his thought..
But re Christinaity..apart from the Pistis Sophia and stuff like that..I think he expresses it more coherently and satisfactorily than anywhere else...in my opinion..

[Beth]

Hello.  My name is Beth and I would like to start a new thread that will discuss the different approaches to the earliest forms of Christianity.  

I have been academically trained--but that does not mean that I think I hold all the answers!!  Far from it--the more I learn the more I realize that there is not enough time for this old body to learn all that there is to learn!!  

While my academic backgroud serves to greatly inform me--I am much more of a seeker that has been very blessed to be able to devote ten years of my life to constant study.  I intend to continue to study for the rest of my life.  

My knowledge did not begin with academia.  My knowledge began to develop when I was 10 years old.  Every decade since then I have been seeking understanding of that original point of knowledge.  This search has led me through the doctrinal teachings of the Church and into the Mystery Traditions of early Judaism and early Christianity.

There is a vast difference between early Christianity and the Christianity of today.  These differences can be discussed from a variety of topics.  I will be happy to participate in and help to facilitate any of these topics that other users may want to discuss.  I am not going to start with a specific question or topic--but I will jump in with everything I have (well most everything [])

Thanks Robert for inviting me!! I look forward to sharing with all of you!