The Descendants Of Adam And Eve

Joined
Apr 13, 2017
Messages
4,424
There is the theory presented by Brahman to which he concludes:

Eve's sin was fornication with the serpent while Adam's was either or participation and complacency in the act. The serpent suffered losing its physical attributes, the woman obtaining the throes of childbirth and menstruation, the man losing the garden, and the both losing their heavenly forms.

In the aftermath of Cain and Able, we lose the line of Adam and find God protecting Cain from punishment. As we reach Noah, we find the sinful line of Cain persist in his children thereby bringing sin into the world after the flood. With the r*pe of Noah's wife we conclude Ham's firstborn to be the progeny of the deed and a curse put upon the child.

It sounds nice and might be right in some places but it overall wrong.
I would also consider this generally wrong, bar Eve's fornication with the serpent.
 
Joined
Apr 13, 2017
Messages
4,424
There isn't just 1 sole interpretation of the tree of life. Kabbalists have their own little interpretations.
Anyway it reminds me of this Quranic verse
(4) It is Allah Who has created seven heavens and of the earth the like thereof (i.e. seven). His Command descends between them (heavens and earth), that you may know that Allah has power over all things, and that Allah surrounds all things in (His) Knowledge.
(سورة الطلاق, At-Talaaq, Chapter #65, Verse #12)

Here the '7 heavens' are the macrocosm ie the whole of ceeation..and man is the microcosm in which all of them are contained.

Now here's an interesting twist from Rumi
From the pure star-bright souls replenishment is ever coming to the stars of heaven.
Outwardly we are ruled by these stars, but our inward nature has become the ruler of the skies.
Therefore, while in form thou art the microcosm, in reality thou art the macrocosm.
Externally the branch is the origin of the fruit;
intrinsically the branch came into existence for the sake of the fruit.
Had there been no hope of the fruit, would the gardener have planted the tree?
Therefore in reality the tree is born of the fruit, though it appears to be produced by the tree.


I think your interpretation of jewish kabballah is basically wrong.

The Primordial Man in Christianity is the image of God as a culmination of the aeons in Heaven, ie. not Eden but God's fullness
ie you think the tree of life represents Adams fall from heaven..but it doesn't.
Study the tree of life. the entire creation is contained in it. It contains the reflections of God's Transcendence and Immanence within creation ie the left and right sides..

The "fall of Adam" is really about the nature of desire itself, where desire is directed the wrong way..and this could only happen when at least one or some sephirots are blocked ie causing ignorance of the true nature of things.
This is where the tree of death Qliphot's come in.




Gevurah represents reason. It's connected to the left side ie the Transcendence of God and represents our passive state in having knowledge of the true nature of things.
Chesed represents feeling and is connected with the right side ie the Immanence of God, representing our active state in 'becoming' One in God.
The left side is downward, dealing with our descent and the right side deals with our ascent, ie brahma and shiva.
However if the sephirots are blocked it can work the otherway...too many different ways this can work so I won't get into it.

where would Adam's 'fall' happen?
Tiferet represents the mind/the entire mental universe.
It basically represents the world view Adam would have had via his mind.
When he was 'tempted', it occured because he thought of 'himself' ie consciousness towards the individual rather than the All. From unity to disunity.
The corresponding Qliphot to Tiferet is Thagirion which means 'disputers'.


Btw genuinely i think most of christian kabballah is nonsense, it doesn't it into a coherent system.
I don't throw around empty terms, they fit into a system which makes perfect sense.
I wonder why you asserted that I described the Fall of Man according to Kabbalah. I specifically said that there is no Fall of Man in Kabbalah. That the Fallen Man in Christianity has been inversed by Kabbalah into the purpose of creation. The purpose of Kabbalah is for Man to be Fallen! Not according to Kabbalah of course, since they inverted the pattern, but when seen from a Christian perspective.

And please don't call Christian mysticism Christian Kabbalah (I believe the correct spelling would be Qabala in this case). It doesn't exist. Christian mysticism is about the relationship of Man with the Father of Jesus in Heaven. Jewish mysticism doesn't even include Jesus!

As long as you don't realise that Jesus is the litmus test, you'll be conflating all these mysticisms for one big family of esoteric adventurers all having the same destination. They do not. The destination of Kabbalah is heaven on earth and experiencing the glory of Yahweh's unity in this existence. The destination of Christian mysticism (ie. Gnoticism) is about getting back whence we came after we were separated from our divine origins.
 

Serveto

Star
Joined
Apr 20, 2017
Messages
1,043
You'll have to blame the translators for that. "Aeon" is in the New Testament many times, it's simply translated into "world" or "time" or "era" or "age" (see Greek Lexicon). We don't see Autogenes in the canonical gospels because it simply refers to the Son, Son of Man, Christ (not holy spirit's son). The gnostic gospels were discovered in 1945 and translators, by their classification of these gospels as gnostic, thought and still think the greek terminology should be respected because "gnosticism" is a different religion than Christianity.
Among others, there are also prototokos, monogenes, archons and pleroma. Each of these is an interesting word search (and Bible study) on its own.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
3,908
I wonder why you asserted that I described the Fall of Man according to Kabbalah. I specifically said that there is no Fall of Man in Kabbalah. That the Fallen Man in Christianity has been inversed by Kabbalah into the purpose of creation. The purpose of Kabbalah is for Man to be Fallen! Not according to Kabbalah of course, since they inverted the pattern, but when seen from a Christian perspective.

And please don't call Christian mysticism Christian Kabbalah (I believe the correct spelling would be Qabala in this case). It doesn't exist. Christian mysticism is about the relationship of Man with the Father of Jesus in Heaven. Jewish mysticism doesn't even include Jesus!

As long as you don't realise that Jesus is the litmus test, you'll be conflating all these mysticisms for one big family of esoteric adventurers all having the same destination. They do not. The destination of Kabbalah is heaven on earth and experiencing the glory of Yahweh's unity in this existence. The destination of Christian mysticism (ie. Gnoticism) is about getting back whence we came after we were separated from our divine origins.
Well you know these different perspectives also exist in hinduism
one of the best books written on the subject is The Life Divine by Sri Aurobindo..and the idea is all based on what you described as kabballah's 'heaven on earth'.
Well didn't Jesus say "the kingdom of heaven is within you"?

personally I don't agree with gnosticism anyway simply because of how it jumps onto the idea of the demiurge.
it makes little sense.
evil has to have a valid explanation.
in the understanding I have, evil originates from ignorance and this only occurs when we became seperate consciousnesses within the vast mental universe.
The hindu idea of maya is often seen in a negative way but from a better perspective it explains why maya is necessary, why creation is necessary, why existing as a man is necessary.

We exist here for a purpose
it's not a fall..it's an opportunity to expand.
 

manama

Star
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
3,827
Seth represents the line that was produced by the union of Adam and Eve, thus "spiritual". Cain and Abel were not produced by the union of Adam and Eve, but Eve - separate from Adam - copulating with other entities and in so doing becoming the prostitute. In Kabbalah, Eve that copulated with the serpent / evil / matter to produce Cain is named Lilith. She is but a shadow of Eve, void of Light.
What
 
Joined
Apr 13, 2017
Messages
4,424
Well you know these different perspectives also exist in hinduism
one of the best books written on the subject is The Life Divine by Sri Aurobindo..and the idea is all based on what you described as kabballah's 'heaven on earth'.
Well didn't Jesus say "the kingdom of heaven is within you"?

personally I don't agree with gnosticism anyway simply because of how it jumps onto the idea of the demiurge.
it makes little sense.
evil has to have a valid explanation.
in the understanding I have, evil originates from ignorance and this only occurs when we became seperate consciousnesses within the vast mental universe.
The hindu idea of maya is often seen in a negative way but from a better perspective it explains why maya is necessary, why creation is necessary, why existing as a man is necessary.

We exist here for a purpose
it's not a fall..it's an opportunity to expand.
Yes, that's true about Hinduism and that means there are different "Hinduisms" that are exclusive that are not complementary which many comparative mysticists often tend to believe.

The Kingdom within refers to the internal struggle of each individual, which is a microcosm you sometimes use of the greater struggle that takes place on a macrocosmic level.

Not sure why you don't validate the explanation of evil and the demiurgic concept in Gnosticism. I personally resonate with their concepts. Evil does indeed originate from ignorance (I'm quite pleasantly surprised you know this) and leads to error (called sin). Do elaborate on your objection to this and what you mean by a separate consciousness in a mental universe.
 
Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
3,908
Yes, that's true about Hinduism and that means there are different "Hinduisms" that are exclusive that are not complementary which many comparative mysticists often tend to believe.

The Kingdom within refers to the internal struggle of each individual, which is a microcosm you sometimes use of the greater struggle that takes place on a macrocosmic level.

Not sure why you don't validate the explanation of evil and the demiurgic concept in Gnosticism. I personally resonate with their concepts. Evil does indeed originate from ignorance (I'm quite pleasantly surprised you know this) and leads to error (called sin). Do elaborate on your objection to this and what you mean by a separate consciousness in a mental universe.
Well look it's like that guy Osho. He was anti-God because he had the view of God being part of maya (the illusion, similar to demiurge but not evil)...he viewed all life within creation as part of the illusion.
Yet when someone asked him about God, he began with "i think.............."
basically as easy as it is to see all creation as an illusion, the fact is we're real, we exist.
if we exist how much more real is the power that brought us into existence? ie God.
Osho was basically representing hindu athiesm and i really feel he did this moreso as an antagonist to islam (it is common to see some hindus absolutely hate abrahimic religions in general as 'ignorant religions').
Ie they say
"you worship a sky daddy God whereas we worship the ultimate reality that's Immanent/everywhere etc"

So basically maya brings forth creation which brings forth the illusion of being a seperate entity from the Universal consciousness(the logos).
When we gain awareness of our 'self' ie in a manner of ignorance that ALL is the self...desire is born. Desire like Tanha in buddhism.The desire to become, to express ourselves, to grow..and then we become aware of 'else than us'.

There are multiple other factors such as the nature of God in relation to the Logos itself ie if the true Self is the logos..is logos itself the primary Godhead and thus God is a manifestation of our own self? then why worship Him? enter the hindu idea of isvara, where God is just a powerful dispenser of karma and you worship Him just to receive your fair share in the world.

all those ideas are rejected in islam which asserts that God is the Essence itself ie the Logos is not God but the expression of God through which His immanence is revealed.

I don't know if that answers all your questions for now but it was a rushed post.
 

Thunderian

Superstar
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
7,515
So Adam and Eve were sent to Earth after being banished from heaven for having disobeyed God Almighty.
According to the Bible, they were banished from the garden of Eden, not from Heaven.

When they were sent to Earth, to whom did they pray to? How did they pray?
They prayed the same way believers do today, by calling on God.

Same question applies to the people before Mary was born.
What does Mary have to do with prayer?

Did the people at that time know Jesus? If so, do you have any proof?
People did not know Jesus because he had not been revealed yet.

If Jesus wasn't born yet, didn't the people believe in God?
Have you read the Old Testament at all? :)

And if so, how did they go about praying to Him?
O Lord, the great and dreadful God, keeping the covenant and mercy to them that love him, and to them that keep his commandments;

O LORD my God ... give therefore thy servant an understanding heart to judge thy people, that I may discern between good and bad:

My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? why art thou so far from helping me, and from the words of my roaring? O my God, I cry in the daytime, but thou hearest not; and in the night season, and am not silent.

My soul doth magnify the Lord, And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.

And so on ...
 

JoChris

Superstar
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
6,168
You'll have to blame the translators for that. "Aeon" is in the New Testament many times, it's simply translated into "world" or "time" or "era" or "age" (see Greek Lexicon). We don't see Autogenes in the canonical gospels because it simply refers to the Son, Son of Man, Christ (not holy spirit's son). The gnostic gospels were discovered in 1945 and translators, by their classification of these gospels as gnostic, thought and still think the greek terminology should be respected because "gnosticism" is a different religion than Christianity.
There are no mentions of Father-Mother God, monads, demiurges, Sophia, Yaldabaoth and many other weird terms like water-light, androgynous, pentad in Gospel of John, 1-3 John or Book of Revelation.
In fact, use biblegateway search engine to see how often the above are mentioned in the whole bible.

If you read the Gospel of John and 1 John carefully and compare the Apocrypha of John you'll see the theology contradicts each other.
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
[Jesus said] I am the Father, I am the Mother, I am the Son.

3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
No mention of any other God/demiurges, archons that Jesus supposedly gives multiple names in addition to the one God of the Bible, who are the ones who allegedly created Earth and Adam.

All the other stuff is weird sexualised mystic-goobledygook that is totally unlike the clear teachings of the bible. Secret knowledge that Jesus made no mention of in the other books of the bible (from the first century). It is a completely different faith to biblical Christianity.

It even claims Jesus, not Satan / the snake in https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=genesis+3&version=KJV is the one who tempted Adam and Eve.
Genesis 3:4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: 5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

Jesus speaking "But what they call the tree of knowledge of good and evil, which is the Epinoia of the light, they stayed in front of it in order that he (Adam) might not look up to his fullness and recognize the nakedness of his shamefulness. But it was I who brought about that they ate."

http://www.equip.org/article/the-gnostic-jesus/
 
Joined
Apr 13, 2017
Messages
4,424
Well look it's like that guy Osho. He was anti-God because he had the view of God being part of maya (the illusion, similar to demiurge but not evil)...he viewed all life within creation as part of the illusion.
Yet when someone asked him about God, he began with "i think.............."
basically as easy as it is to see all creation as an illusion, the fact is we're real, we exist.
if we exist how much more real is the power that brought us into existence? ie God.
Osho was basically representing hindu athiesm and i really feel he did this moreso as an antagonist to islam (it is common to see some hindus absolutely hate abrahimic religions in general as 'ignorant religions').
Ie they say
"you worship a sky daddy God whereas we worship the ultimate reality that's Immanent/everywhere etc"

So basically maya brings forth creation which brings forth the illusion of being a seperate entity from the Universal consciousness(the logos).
When we gain awareness of our 'self' ie in a manner of ignorance that ALL is the self...desire is born. Desire like Tanha in buddhism.The desire to become, to express ourselves, to grow..and then we become aware of 'else than us'.

There are multiple other factors such as the nature of God in relation to the Logos itself ie if the true Self is the logos..is logos itself the primary Godhead and thus God is a manifestation of our own self? then why worship Him? enter the hindu idea of isvara, where God is just a powerful dispenser of karma and you worship Him just to receive your fair share in the world.

all those ideas are rejected in islam which asserts that God is the Essence itself ie the Logos is not God but the expression of God through which His immanence is revealed.

I don't know if that answers all your questions for now but it was a rushed post.
You raise more questions than you answered. It's hard to distinguish which view you are advocating and which you're not in agreement with. Where's your objection to the demiurge (who's not considered evil in gnostic literature btw) and the origin of evil? I have not yet encountered universal consciousness in Christian literature as a concept or anything that resembles it and I don't think I ever will, so that seems rather irrelevant here for now. I'm trying to tie together what you said but your comparatives are al over the place. You seem to pick out a concept from a religion which is known to have been used in different ways in different contexts with different connotations, yet you seem to choose the one that fits an overall picture, which isn't necessarily bad but it's causing you to lead from the doctrines respective of the individual religions and mysticisms.

What scripture in Islam can you present that explains the Logos being the expression of Allah through which Allah's immanence (??) is revealed? Also, how is the Logos the prisma in your prisma-analogy if it is an expression of God? (the prisma would be a completely separate and independent "thing")
 
Joined
Apr 13, 2017
Messages
4,424
If you read the Gospel of John and 1 John carefully and compare the Apocrypha of John you'll see the theology contradicts each other.
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
[Jesus said] I am the Father, I am the Mother, I am the Son.

3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
No mention of any other God/demiurges, archons that Jesus supposedly gives multiple names in addition to the one God of the Bible, who are the ones who allegedly created Earth and Adam.
How is John 1:1 contradictory to the Apocryphon of John? "The Word Was God" vs "Jesus is the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit." It's the same thing.

Or John 1:3

vs


"And the mind wanted to perform a deed through the word of the invisible Spirit. And his will became a deed and it appeared with the mind; and the light glorified it. And the word followed the will. For because of the word, Christ the divine Autogenes created everything. - Apocryphon of John

All the other stuff is weird sexualised mystic-goobledygook that is totally unlike the clear teachings of the bible. Secret knowledge that Jesus made no mention of in the other books of the bible (from the first century). It is a completely different faith to biblical Christianity.
It's definitely weird, but that's pretty normal. It addresses what happened before your Bible begins with "heaven and earth" and then carries on with Genesis.

It even claims Jesus, not Satan / the snake in https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=genesis+3&version=KJV is the one who tempted Adam and Eve.
Genesis 3:4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: 5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

Jesus speaking "But what they call the tree of knowledge of good and evil, which is the Epinoia of the light, they stayed in front of it in order that he (Adam) might not look up to his fullness and recognize the nakedness of his shamefulness. But it was I who brought about that they ate."
It actually says the snake was tricked into having Adam and Eve eat from the forbidden tree. The snake remains the wicked one.

And to I said to the savior, "Lord, was it not the serpent that taught Adam to eat?" The savior smiled and said, "The serpent taught them to eat from wickedness of begetting, lust, (and) destruction, that he (Adam) might be useful to him. And he (Adam) knew that he was disobedient to him (the chief archon) due to light of the Epinoia which is in him, which made him more correct in his thinking than the chief archon. And (the latter) wanted to bring about the power which he himself had given him. And he brought a forgetfulness over Adam.
 

JoChris

Superstar
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
6,168
How is John 1:1 contradictory to the Apocryphon of John? "The Word Was God" vs "Jesus is the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit." It's the same thing.

Or John 1:3

vs


"And the mind wanted to perform a deed through the word of the invisible Spirit. And his will became a deed and it appeared with the mind; and the light glorified it. And the word followed the will. For because of the word, Christ the divine Autogenes created everything. - Apocryphon of John

It's definitely weird, but that's pretty normal. It addresses what happened before your Bible begins with "heaven and earth" and then carries on with Genesis.

It actually says the snake was tricked into having Adam and Eve eat from the forbidden tree. The snake remains the wicked one.

And to I said to the savior, "Lord, was it not the serpent that taught Adam to eat?" The savior smiled and said, "The serpent taught them to eat from wickedness of begetting, lust, (and) destruction, that he (Adam) might be useful to him. And he (Adam) knew that he was disobedient to him (the chief archon) due to light of the Epinoia which is in him, which made him more correct in his thinking than the chief archon. And (the latter) wanted to bring about the power which he himself had given him. And he brought a forgetfulness over Adam.
Did a bit more searching and found that Sethians were the Gnostic cult who believed in the Apocryphon of John.

Useful summary from a Theology University:

Sethian Gnosticism derives its name from Seth, the third son of Adam, who was considered to be the mediator of divine knowledge to mankind. Sethian gnostics referred to themselves as the "descendants of Seth". Christian material plays a smaller role in Sethian than in Valentinian Gnosticism, indeed part of the Sethian writings contain no reference at all to Christianity. Instead many Sethian texts contain a notable amount of material stemming from Judaism, such as names of Semitic origin.

The Sethian view of the creator god is clearly more negative than that of the Valentinians. In the Sethian writings the creator god is known by the Semitic name Yaldabaoth, but he is also referred to as "the fool" and "the blind god". Yaldabaoth is presented as a demonic figure, the leader of the other spirit beings and as the enemy of humanity. The Sethian writings radically reinterpret the creation story found in the Old Testament, describing, for instance, how Yaldabaoth, tormented by desire, ravished Eve and fathered two sons, Cain and Abel; only Seth is Adam's own son. In the latest research, Sethian Gnosticism is beginning to be considered as one of the earliest forms of gnostic thought, indeed as a certain kind of "classical Gnosticism", from which later forms of Gnosticism such as Valentinianism gradually developed. Certain scholars have even suggested that the word "Gnosticism" should be reserved for Sethian thought alone.


http://www.helsinki.fi/teol/pro/gnosti/eng_gnosticism/sethian.html

That is a different God to the God of the Bible. Jesus is the God of the Old Testament as well as the new. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jude&version=KJV

Jude 1:4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ. 5 I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not.
 
Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
3,908
You raise more questions than you answered. It's hard to distinguish which view you are advocating and which you're not in agreement with. Where's your objection to the demiurge (who's not considered evil in gnostic literature btw) and the origin of evil? I have not yet encountered universal consciousness in Christian literature as a concept or anything that resembles it and I don't think I ever will, so that seems rather irrelevant here for now. I'm trying to tie together what you said but your comparatives are al over the place. You seem to pick out a concept from a religion which is known to have been used in different ways in different contexts with different connotations, yet you seem to choose the one that fits an overall picture, which isn't necessarily bad but it's causing you to lead from the doctrines respective of the individual religions and mysticisms.

What scripture in Islam can you present that explains the Logos being the expression of Allah through which Allah's immanence (??) is revealed? Also, how is the Logos the prisma in your prisma-analogy if it is an expression of God? (the prisma would be a completely separate and independent "thing")
What you have to understand is we all share in a collective intelligence. There are also mass/collective thoughtforms, there are also powerful individual thoughtforms contained in the works of previous greats of any tradition.

It's a bit like if you write a book on spirituality
the book has it's content, but the real content is in the thoughts behind the book. Those thoughts don't just vanish, they exist as a thoughtform..and the book itself is like a key to the thoughtform. someone can read the book without having access to the thoughtform and therefore miss the point.
It's the actual intent that determines how much of the thought form we receive.


In a similar way, music can contain energy forms that are often very dark, it isn't even the music itself or the lyrics that influence us negatively, but the energy in which the music was composed.

Basically what it means is, everything we do on the physical, has a bigger imprint on the subconscious level. Just like how Freud described our complex's like the tip of the iceberg, where the real issue is hidden in the subconscious.

Also, billions of people are reading scriptures, how come they don't just subconsciously pick up on ALL the intelligent ideas, ie why do dumb people pick up on poor narratives which lead to poor interpretations?
law of attraction right? what you focus on is what you'll get.
if you want to know, you'll know.

I'm not claiming to have all the answers, it's only whereever i've been able to focus, i've eventually received the answers I wanted.

As for terms like 'universal consciousness' this is an easier to understand modern new age term but it describes the same reality.
In islamic sufi circles the Kalam was called the Ruh-e-azam, the great soul.
In hinduis, vishnu is called the universal spirit.
Basically just different terms to describe the same idea.
All the traditions have used the analogy of the 'infinite ocean'.

As for the 'prism' analogy.
well it's like maya
maya isn't a seperate entity but the power of Brahman and it is through maya, Vishnu itself manifests as 'God with attributes'.
It is Brahman revealing it's own self.
YET they do not differentiate between vishnu and brahman ie same thing, with a different appearance, like the analogy of the 3 states of matter and ironically this is what the trinitarian christians use.
The problem I have with this version is, in effect all consciousness is basically Brahman, therefore panthiesm or monism..but in essence when we worship God then we are worshipping a manifestation of our own self.
The hindus do beleive that YOU are Brahman
The I AM state
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satcitananda

Now for me, my understanding is a variation where Brahman and vishnu are not the same thing, but vishnu is the expression of Brahman ie the Logos/Word of God.
Basically like the Father and Son.
in every way, vishnu is the same as the logos ie all things exist in it, come from it, return to it.

Look at it this way
was there ever a time, where God didn't know about you?
Your exist in His awareness.....and His awareness is eternal, therefore ALL things are eternally existing ie the Logos.

So it is perfectly fine for me to believe in the existence of both the Essence and the Logos together without making the Logos as GOD in the Transcendent sense.
I see the Logos as the means through which the Transcendent Essence reveals it's Immanent nature.

How do you understand this in light of the demiurge idea?
 
Joined
Mar 20, 2017
Messages
2,065
According to the Bible, they were banished from the garden of Eden, not from Heaven.
Okay, but that's what i meant anyway because in the garden of Eden the only Commandment was not to approach the forbidden tree, right?

What does Mary have to do with prayer?
Mary was the mother of Jesus. Since some people pray to Jesus, God Forbid, i wonder to whom did she and those before her pray to.

People did not know Jesus because he had not been revealed yet.
Precisely and since you responded to my question (When they were sent to Earth, to whom did they pray to? How did they pray?) with

They prayed the same way believers do today, by calling on God.
Which means that they believed in One God to Whom nothing needs to be likened or ascribed to lest we may be offending His Incomparability.

Thank you for your nice reply though. God Bless
 
Last edited:
Joined
Mar 20, 2017
Messages
2,065
In a similar way, music can contain energy forms that are often very dark, it isn't even the music itself or the lyrics that influence us negatively, but the energy in which the music was composed.
Speaking of music and Seth (Islamically Prophet Sheeth - On him be Prayers and Peace), here's a reminder about the origin of music.

It was during his time when two groups of people were Forbidden from ever mixing together. Satan invented the flute and thereby lured them to come together and thus breaking the Commandment of that time. The two nations were intrigued as to the origin of the sound. Trying to find out, they came to meet each other and were furthermore enticed with the beauties of each other. They disobeyed. Fornication thus started.
 
Last edited:

Serveto

Star
Joined
Apr 20, 2017
Messages
1,043
This was St. Paul's advice to Timothy:
As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine, Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do. (1 Tim 1:3-4)
Given their location, Ephesus and Macedonia, I think, though cannot prove, of course, that here St. Paul is advising against becoming involved not only in Jewish, but, perhaps more so, Greek fables and "endless genealogies," the speculative theogonies for which Greeks were notorious. Try, for instance, to do a family tree of Zeus and his consorts, and the genealogies will become endless, comprised of both "gods" and mortals. As well, (gnostic) Valentinus and the Valentinians, for instance, and though they differed in particulars, in like manner as some of their Kabbalistic counterparts had an entire cosmogony, based on divine and semi-divine "emanations."

With that said, I also think that certain types of so called gnosticism were and are acceptable within a Christian framework. Elsewhere, St. Paul said "the Jews require a sign and the Greeks seek after wisdom." It seems to me that, just as the Jews got a sign (of Jonah), St. Paul went about providing the gnosis, or wisdom, that the Greeks sought, though he did, perhaps in this case, caution against then-competing schools of thought.
 
Joined
Apr 13, 2017
Messages
4,424
What you have to understand is we all share in a collective intelligence. There are also mass/collective thoughtforms, there are also powerful individual thoughtforms contained in the works of previous greats of any tradition.

It's a bit like if you write a book on spirituality
the book has it's content, but the real content is in the thoughts behind the book. Those thoughts don't just vanish, they exist as a thoughtform..and the book itself is like a key to the thoughtform. someone can read the book without having access to the thoughtform and therefore miss the point.
It's the actual intent that determines how much of the thought form we receive.


In a similar way, music can contain energy forms that are often very dark, it isn't even the music itself or the lyrics that influence us negatively, but the energy in which the music was composed.

Basically what it means is, everything we do on the physical, has a bigger imprint on the subconscious level. Just like how Freud described our complex's like the tip of the iceberg, where the real issue is hidden in the subconscious.

Also, billions of people are reading scriptures, how come they don't just subconsciously pick up on ALL the intelligent ideas, ie why do dumb people pick up on poor narratives which lead to poor interpretations?
law of attraction right? what you focus on is what you'll get.
if you want to know, you'll know.

I'm not claiming to have all the answers, it's only whereever i've been able to focus, i've eventually received the answers I wanted.

As for terms like 'universal consciousness' this is an easier to understand modern new age term but it describes the same reality.
In islamic sufi circles the Kalam was called the Ruh-e-azam, the great soul.
In hinduis, vishnu is called the universal spirit.
Basically just different terms to describe the same idea.
All the traditions have used the analogy of the 'infinite ocean'.

As for the 'prism' analogy.
well it's like maya
maya isn't a seperate entity but the power of Brahman and it is through maya, Vishnu itself manifests as 'God with attributes'.
It is Brahman revealing it's own self.
YET they do not differentiate between vishnu and brahman ie same thing, with a different appearance, like the analogy of the 3 states of matter and ironically this is what the trinitarian christians use.
The problem I have with this version is, in effect all consciousness is basically Brahman, therefore panthiesm or monism..but in essence when we worship God then we are worshipping a manifestation of our own self.
The hindus do beleive that YOU are Brahman
The I AM state
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satcitananda

Now for me, my understanding is a variation where Brahman and vishnu are not the same thing, but vishnu is the expression of Brahman ie the Logos/Word of God.
Basically like the Father and Son.
in every way, vishnu is the same as the logos ie all things exist in it, come from it, return to it.

Look at it this way
was there ever a time, where God didn't know about you?
Your exist in His awareness.....and His awareness is eternal, therefore ALL things are eternally existing ie the Logos.

So it is perfectly fine for me to believe in the existence of both the Essence and the Logos together without making the Logos as GOD in the Transcendent sense.
I see the Logos as the means through which the Transcendent Essence reveals it's Immanent nature.

How do you understand this in light of the demiurge idea?
Thanks for the elaboration. I'll let it sink in for a while. Regarding the demiurge, he would be to God what Brahma is to Brahman in Hinduism. I suppose the illusion you speak of would be the cosmos manifested through the Hiranyagarbha or Cosmic Egg. To further compare with Gnostic Christianity, the Cosmic Egg or Primordial Waters as referred to in alot of other traditions, represents a fullness of God / Brahman or God's original creation / emanations before it was torn in two by the demiurge / Brahma (signifying the beginning of the material universe).

The two halves of Hiranyagarbha, Dyaus and Prithvi - although I believe it's Svarga and Prithvi in the more philosophical schools - represent heaven and earth presided over by the devas who in the Rigveda were described as lesser deities who manipulate the elements and after the separation usurped the place of the asuras who were relegated to the status of demons. The demiurge thus refers to the entity responsible for the universe we currently live, trying to resemble that which came before him (ie. God's fullness) and reversing the hierarchy of divinities. For more information if you're interested see the chapter on the Demiurge here.
 
Last edited:

Mr. Blah

Veteran
Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
580
You do realise that the book could not have been written by the apostle John don't you? Very earliest written 120 AD. http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/apocryphonjohn.html
Where are terms like aoens, monads, Barbelo, androgynous, Mother-Father God, Autogenes (Holy Spirit's son ?!), archons et. al in the bible?
It is super easy to detect Gnostic teaching.

The rule of thumb is this: if you find the word "aeon" in anywhere, it must be Gnostic.
 

Serveto

Star
Joined
Apr 20, 2017
Messages
1,043
It is super easy to detect Gnostic teaching.

The rule of thumb is this: if you find the word "aeon" in anywhere, it must be Gnostic.
It is true that many gnostics elaborated upon the theme, but the word, aeon, as @Artful Revealer pointed out above, appears throughout the New Testament {click here}. Still, though it has its limitations, it could be a general rule of thumb.
 

Thunderian

Superstar
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
7,515
Okay, but that's what i meant anyway because in the garden of Eden the only Commandment was not to approach the forbidden tree, right?
Not quite.

Genesis 2:16-17 - And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
The first two chapters of Genesis are a really quick read. Give them a quick once over when you have the time. Would you be this loose with details if we were talking about the Quran?

Mary was the mother of Jesus. Since some people pray to Jesus, God Forbid, i wonder to whom did she and those before her pray to.
As I said, she and others called on the Lord. I quoted part of one of her prayers in my last post, and this question was answered there as well.

Do you think there is something divine about Mary? She gave birth to the human Jesus Christ, the living word of God, but Jesus has always existed, and didn't begin his existence at his physical birth.
 
Top