Well this is the reason why I don't like to cross streams because it causes interference patterns between our individual fields of study and individual personal interests and thoughts. It sets up segues such as answering questions which leads to more, and then we're off topic....again. It's more a question of good time management with me. I'm not blowing off Carrier nor your recommends at all as you may suppose, it deals more with, "what is the very best use of my time?"....not that I can't answer questions? I can. Open up a new thread. "Getting to "know" you".<g> If I have time, that is. If I may, just ask yourself is Carrier relevant to the thread? If not, then let's start another. I'd love a personal chat with you, and everyone else too.
Polyamorists who have had near death experiences
- Thread starter Zay
- Start date
That's a cop-out. You yourself have veered off topic over a dozen times. Is it relevant to near death experiences that you are a so-called sigma? That your partner was molested? Is Jung related to NDEs? If you want to talk Christianity, is that even on the topic? (You brought it up, not me.) If we want to talk about life after death, this veers into religion as well as science. If you want to grasp the attention of people like Al and me, I am pointing out the POV I am working from (and perhaps he is too) in regards to Christianity. If you're not a "churchian," you'd be better off looking at the various Christianities that were prevelant in the first few centuries, before "orthodoxy" was declared and enforced. Valentinianism, Marcionism, Manichaeism, etc. were much more popular than any "pure" 1st century Christianity you imagine, based on apologists like Strobel (not to mention Eusebius and Tertullian of the 3rd century), and the Acts of the Apostles of the canon. I doubt you've read the Gospels of Mary, Judas or Thomas or the Ascension of Isaiah.
In an early post you mention Bible vs Bardo. If you want early canonical stuff, read Paul. He does not know an earthly Christ. Take note that we do not have the complete corpus of Paul, not by a long shot. God only knows what rabbit holes he went down in his other writings.
The gospels were made up to "save the masses." The real message is esoteric, for the enlightened elite. Why would you want to think and read like a literalist child, with all your fancy ideas?
Yes, Carrier is relevant to this thread. You are so intent on telling us all you've figured out, to save us, to enlighten us, because you have such "original ideas." But you haven't even read a whole important swathe of the material of the era in the first place.
In an early post you mention Bible vs Bardo. If you want early canonical stuff, read Paul. He does not know an earthly Christ. Take note that we do not have the complete corpus of Paul, not by a long shot. God only knows what rabbit holes he went down in his other writings.
The gospels were made up to "save the masses." The real message is esoteric, for the enlightened elite. Why would you want to think and read like a literalist child, with all your fancy ideas?
Yes, Carrier is relevant to this thread. You are so intent on telling us all you've figured out, to save us, to enlighten us, because you have such "original ideas." But you haven't even read a whole important swathe of the material of the era in the first place.
Last edited:
Al99
Well-known member
In fairness, my understanding was also that the thread was about NDE's - not Christianity per se. However, since you have written about Christianity extensively in this thread, let me once again echo Magdlyn's recommendations that you take a look at the other gospels and schools of Christianity from the first couple of centuries - before Constantine had Christianity codified and then systematically purged of other early Christian thought systems (including the Gnostic documents). These documents are almost certainly closer to Jesus' actual words than the documents chosen by the Constantine-created Church (the Canon chosen at the Council of Rome, 380AD, to support the doctrines ironed out at the Nicene conferences earlier in the fourth century - and then edited as needed).
Many non-Church scholars will argue that the Gospel of Thomas (that Magdlyn mentioned above) is perhaps the closest document we have to what Jesus actually said. I would also recommend the Gospel of Truth (Valentinus) - perhaps the most sophisticated of the early Gnostic documents (from the Nag Hammadi find). And, also as Magdlyn mentioned, the Gospels of Judas and Mary are quite interesting as well. All are available for free download (just Google). Elaine Pagel's popular book, "The Gnostic Gospels" (1989), is an excellent modern introduction to the subject.
Al
Many non-Church scholars will argue that the Gospel of Thomas (that Magdlyn mentioned above) is perhaps the closest document we have to what Jesus actually said. I would also recommend the Gospel of Truth (Valentinus) - perhaps the most sophisticated of the early Gnostic documents (from the Nag Hammadi find). And, also as Magdlyn mentioned, the Gospels of Judas and Mary are quite interesting as well. All are available for free download (just Google). Elaine Pagel's popular book, "The Gnostic Gospels" (1989), is an excellent modern introduction to the subject.
Al
2 Kings 23:7
And he broke down the dwellings of the qudeshim who were in the house of Yahweh, where the women wove coverings for Asherah.
Qudesha (female plural) and qudeshim (male plural) literally means those set apart, holy or consecrated. It is a different word than priest (kohein). There is much argument these days about whether any religions really had holy ones performing sexual religious rites in or near temples in those days. People seem to be trying to debunk it in the face of evidence, which seems quite prudish to me.
