Theos-Talk Archives (November 2002 Message tt00851)

In theos?talk@y..., samblo@c... wrote:
> Well, you have delved in Catholicism where I have not search that 
> deeply.

I never really thought of it as that, since it has nothing to do with 
the modern religion (except inasmuch as the modern religion is an 
exoteric husk of the original.)

One
> monitor of mine was the consideration that many of the high 
potentates of 
> the Church
> were literally Franchises and Fiefdoms of men who for the 
requisite fee 
> purchased 
> the office, stature and mantle

Well, yes, I am not going to defend the catholic church. It is a 
fact that the original sect was rooted in Kabbalism, specifically the 
Merkabah and Yetzireh schools of first century Jewish mysticism. 
Mead refers to this briefly in his book on the Jewish traditions 
about Jesus. The story of the "Temptation," for example, is very 
characteristic of first century Jewish mystical thinking, and 
includes veiled references to an amazing assortment of ideas which 
are altogether unknown to most moderns.

> I would like and appreciate a view from your perspective of 
> which you came
> to consider as expressly "Initiate" by name and why as this would 
be a 
> stimulating
> sharing.

Irenaeus says in his book that he took pains to get initiated into 
the Valentinian school, and that he had long discussions with their 
students and read their books. According to Tertuliian Valentinus 
was an up-and-coming priest with considerable potential who went to 
Rome during the time of Hyginus and expected to swiftly advance in 
the hierarchy. He was passed over, became furious, and started his 
own organization in Egypt in which he taught the esoteric teaching of 
Paul, which was handed down orally from mouth to ear, but never set 
into writing before his time. Naturally his peers were furious and 
set out to condemn him as a humbug while secretly studying his 
stuff. Ambrose was one of his students, but Irenaeus was the one who 
left the most extensive account of it, suitably obfuscated. 
Naturally Irenaeus called it all horseshit while at the same time 
going to considerable trouble to learn and write about it. His book 
is pretty essential before tackling the primary Valentinian sources 
in the Nag Hammadi manuscripts, which are also written to be 
inscrutable to non initiates. Unfortunately, you have to throw out 
all the garbage when reading Irenaeus, then rearrange the resulting 
fragments and get rid of all the synonyms. That defeats his effort 
to make himself inscrutable while at the same time preserving these 
teachings. It also helps to keep in mind the history of Gnosticism, 
in which Valentinus' school lef to all sorts of derivatives. This 
can be confusing if you don't keep in mind that they were just 
changing the original system around and repackaging it.

That Paul had a secret teaching is documented by Blavatsky in Isis 
Unveiled, but she did not say what it consisted of.

Basilides claimed his initiatic lineage went back to "the secret 
discourses of Matthias," by which I take it he meant the apostle 
Matthew, and Glaucias, the interpreter of Peter. His school 
therefore went back to JC himself. As we know from Blavatsky, there 
was a war between Peter and Paul (she wrote about that in Isis) and 
there were disagreements between these two esoteric schools on some 
matters. It appears the "abrogation of the Law" actually originated 
within the Basilidean lineage and that Paul did not originate it but 
rather moderated it. The "abrogation of the law" also had an 
esoteric significance which made its way into Theosophy, although 
Blavatsky does not make a point of drawing the reader's attention to 
that fact.

The writer of Revelation was a Merkabah mystic, as his book makes 
clear. There are all sorts of esoteric notions referred to in there, 
but without studying Merkabah mysticism you will not get any of 
them. The writer is believed to have been the apostle John, whose 
lineage goes back to JC again. The gospel which bears his name was 
written at Ephesus by a student of his who had a much better command 
of literary Greek. It alludes to Merkabah mysticism throughout. 
This book was a textbook with the Valentinian school, and Mead says, 
inaccurately, I believe, that it originated within the Valentinian 
circles. John disputed with the Basilidean lineage on certain 
matters which points to an early schism not otherwise documented. 
According to Clement of Alexandria, in addition to Merkabah methods 
he used fasting and chanting for purpose of stilling the mind and 
bringing about the visions recorded in his book. That is referred to 
in his essay about whether or not the rich man can be "saved." As 
Annie Besant points out in Esoteric Christianity, Polycarp was one of 
John's disciples, and also a student of Merkabah mysticism, although 
Besant knew very little about it and her book is almost worthless. 
She quotes Polycarp on hs esoteric studies vut does not know what he 
was talking about. There are two interesting chapters in Besant's 
book in which she quotes various early authors to the effect that 
there was an esoteric Christianity, but she did not know what it 
consisted of. That is true of almost all the books written to 
explain esoteric Christianity. The information I have uncovered is 
not in any published book of which I am aware, or is not assembled so 
that people can see what it means, anyway. It is scattered through 
dozens of ancient documents.

According to the Secret Gospel of Mark, discovered by Morton Smith, 
the apostle Mark was also an initiate. It appears that it was 
through him that esoteric teaching went to Clement of Alexandria and 
especially Origen, who touches on numerous esoteric points in his 
book CONTRA CELSUM. None of these authors make it clear, but it can 
be shown that their inheritance consisted largely of the use of 
divine names for mystical purposes, which was the interest of the 
Yetzireh school. Dionysius the Areopagite, who was the most explicit 
writer on esoteric subjects, left an essay called "Divine Names." He 
makes it clear that the ultimate reality in the esoteric school was 
not personal, as did Basilides and Valentinus.

That does not of course scratch the surface. I have been working 
this puzzle for about 40 years, and especially for the past 11 
years. There is something hidden under almost every word. It is 
simply amazing the way they concealed their esoterica in writings 
which are everywhere today. And then you have all these jokers 
running around quoting this stuff with no idea what it really means. 
It is almost laughable to see ignorant people pompously quoting "the 
bible" with no comprehension of the concealed meaning.

This should not be confused with any of the modern religious cults 
which use the christian name for a franchise. It is quite certain 
that ignorant television preachers know nothing of this. Blavatsky 
and others insisted the catholic hierarchy knows all about it, but 
the evidence that this is true is scant. The keys are in the Ante 
Nicene Fathers and the NT if you are an intrepid and I do mean 
intrepid reader. That is why I prefer the online documents to the 
printed versions. I can use an editor to throw out the chaff and 
leave the wheat. Then I can rearrange the wheat so the meaning 
becomes clear. You also have to study Jewish ideas, especially 
Kaplan's writings.

> I might ask as regards Mead and a system whether you read or 
have his 
> "Orpheus"
> in which he delineates the Orphic Theogony with many schematic 
inserts?

Yes, it has been ages, but I have seen it. Very good book.