Pre-Philo

Transcript (PDF)

Ancient Rome: Rome, Essenes, Alexandria, and the Book of Enoch Presentation 33 of 54 Pre-Philo Presented by Roger Weir Tuesday, July 30, 1985 Transcript: The date is July 30th, 1985. This tape was made at the Whirling Rainbow Lecture of Roger Weir. The correct title would be Prefill, but I'm not quite sure how to style this. You can see from the desk that talking intelligently or supposedly intelligently about this era is almost impossible, and we have an array of about 35 books here, which are all relevant and should all be brought in and cannot be. So the only tact to take is the tact that the jeweler takes to try and cut along the facets, and hoped not to destroy the gem. So, Irene, there's a cushion right in front of the desk. You want to sit on that? And just anywhere. Maybe not in front of the door, though. You never you never know. Okay, so I'm going to start at a discovery place. One of the most important books in antiquity was by Cicero, and it was called De Re Publica on the Republic. And he wrote it right at the end of his life, knowing he was going to be killed. He wrote it in 43 BC, and he had spent the whole summer of 43 BC delivering orations and publishing the written text of the orations, condemning Mark Antony for being a demagogue. And they're known as the Philippics. And Cicero pointedly, again and again, says, this is the end of the Republic. That it ends with men taking advantage of power and creating parties which caused sedition. And at the very end of De re publica, in book six, he went into the philosophy of why this was so. But book six of de re publica was lost, and you have to put quotation marks around that. The truth is, is that the Vatican manuscript of Cicero does not have book six. It was either lost or was conveniently lost, and only fragments survived. And the few fragments that survive are some of the most important writing in the world. The largest group of pages that survived were called The Dream of Scipio, and the Dream of Scipio was the most famous cosmological prophetic writing of the classical world, and influenced tremendously the new ecumenical world that came after Jesus. We have talked a couple of times about the change in structure, how in fact the BC centuries, as we move on down to what would have been zero BC. Of course we go from one BC to one AD. There was no zero. The firm that is most applicable to the kinds of structures that were made mentally, psychically. Politically, we're gathering up. And the Greek word that is used for this is the origin of the word logos. But the Greek word for this gathering up was Lego, Lego, Lego. And be careful now not to think of Legos, because Legos in Greek meant lewd, lewd, the lewd word. But Lego meant to gather up, to pick up, put together. And it's much like the structure that we've been talking about, about braiding traditions together. And that was the kind of syncretism that was the structure that was there before Christ and immediately after Christ. There's a change in the possibilities of structure. There's a change in the mental structuring of the world. Instead of a gathering up instead of a Lego, there's an interweaving and making a fabric of vision so that the language that was used at that time logos takes the form Legos, but takes a verbal form of it and makes a noun out of it so that logos, rather than meaning the word, is that which has been gathered into a unity, so that the logos which became a favorite doctrine, of course, is a very poignant doctrine, but it's more poignant as a numinous occurrence than as a doctrine. And I guess that's the crucial understanding that we have to make tonight that this change, this alchemical change of the spirit was so profound. And because it was structurally different, there were many intelligent people who followed the implications of the change but who could not make the change. And early Christianity is exactly the mysterious focus where this bifurcation happens. And as the centuries go on, we will see that this split does nothing but widen and fortify itself. And there is an esoteric and there is an exoteric movements which have their origins in only one individual, and that was Jesus. There simply is no other individual that we can turn to who was significant enough, who could have made both that alchemical change and harbored this bifurcation in a single unity in Cicero's De re publica. Some of the fragments that were culled from other classical authors talk about the structure of the Republic, which was disappearing and turning into the Empire. Within 11 years, Augustus would cement his hold, and by 19 BC the Roman Empire would be a fact. Here's what Cicero wrote. And these are all missing from the Vatican manuscript. What you look for, then, is an account of this ruling statesman's prudence in its entirety. A quality which derives its name from foreseeing and prudentia comes from pro video. This, uh, uh, ability to foresee what is going to happen. So prudence is not just being conservative, but it's actually being able to foresee. How can one foresee because there are patterns. The patterns that are there in a fabric of life were not there as long as things were just gathered up. As long as Lego was operating, there were no patterns. There was just holding power as much as you could. But with the change to logos, the universe, man's essential nature was now patterned and one could understand. And the difference in this is, um, pointed out by Jesus himself in the gospel according to Mark in the 13th chapter of Mark. Where he tells the disciples that the changes that are coming are the most profound changes that have ever been in the world, that there never again will be changes as profound. And he says, you'll be dragged in front of courts, both in the synagogues and in the courts. But don't worry about what you're going to say. You will say whatever comes out from the Holy Spirit on the moment. Now, this is very poignant because this is setting aside all of the Lego. This is setting aside all of the gathered up traditions, setting the law aside for a kind of existential freedom, which is a intelligent pivot at any moment in which it occurs. And this is the Holy Spirit. And this is different is a totally different structure. But in order to trust oneself as a human being to this takes a certain transformation. And in order for a community of human beings to trust to this, the whole community must be transformed. And this is the crux of the problem. We're going to come back to Cicero now for just a moment. More quotations missing from the Vatican manuscript filled in later on. Wherefore, this citizen must see to it that he is always armed against those influences which disturb this the stability of the state. The individual has to remain alert, vigilant. How? By learning the pattern. There's now a possibility of a pattern. There will be a pattern of wholesomeness and such a dissension among the citizens in which one party separates from the rest is called sedition. The constant emphasis will be on unanimity on the community. Operating from a unanimous understanding which is achieved, this unita's is achieved by everyone having undergone the transformation, so that they see in terms of the overall pattern, in terms, in fact, of a universal pattern, and not in terms of limited perspectives that would allow for party politics or would allow for personal self aggrandizement. Both of these levels are going to be handled at the same time, in the same way. Both are going to be transformed, and the context that allows them to be transformed is the fact that the universe has now matured to a point to where it has transformed. Cicero writes, for our desires are hard masters over our thoughts, compelling and commanding us to do an infinite number of things. And as these desires can never be appeased or satisfied in any way, they urge to every sort of crime those whom they have inflamed by their allurements. In other words, in the nature of desires and druthers based on an untransformed individual or an untransformed community, there is no end to the complications. There is, by design, by structure, no end to those complications. Hence, the transformation is going to be an archetypal recalibration of possibility. It is now going to be possible to be whole. It's going to be possible to be whole as an individual. It's going to be possible to have a whole community. And that the universe as a unita's is now made whole against Cicero. We need deposit in here now. An observation on the nature of the Gospels. Cicero was writing that in 43 BC, leaving a legacy the best that he could. Part of the legacy that he was leaving was six volumes of philosophy that recounted the cream of the ancient classical understanding. Besides de Republica, he did a volume called De Natura Deorum on the nature of the gods, which recounted all of the major philosophical standpoints of his day, and in particular there the Epicurean and the stoic cosmologies were explained and given in what we would call simple language. These formulations by Cicero would influence Philo of Alexandria enormously. In fact, it's of some synchronistic coincidence that Cicero's teacher in stoic matters was also named Philo, and Philo of Alexandria was named for this. Philo, just like Philo of Alexandria, Alexandria's brother, was named Alexander, the wealthy man. Philo's brother was the one who financed Herod. Agrippa, the grandson of of Herod the Great, lent him something like 200,000 sesterces so that he could be a power. The nephew of Philo, the one of the sons, one of the two sons of Alexander, was the governor of Judea after Pontius Pilate. So that this family was extremely. My powerful and potent. And we've talked about how the Jewish community of Alexandria was extremely powerful. Philo estimates their numbers at a million people, more than the population of Jews everywhere else in the world. By 117 A.D., there were very few Jews left in Alexandria because of a revolt. And the emperor at that time was Trajan, who simply eradicated the problem, uprooted people. This uprooting kind of a tendency appears as a key in this break. In this split around 25 to 45 A.D., and probably the easiest way to remember and to keep track of this is that magical words, power words and bullet inscription, um, spell breaking words began to be carved at that time interchangeably in Greek and Aramaic and Hebrew, and within another 50 years, Latin was added to it. Some of these magical words at this time are extremely interesting. When they're looked at, I'll give you just one, and maybe you can avail yourself of some of this information later on and do something with it. The word I'm going to give you was akra makumira akra makumira akra m a c h a m a r e I. You can find it in the discussion by Gershom Scholem on page 94 of his book Jewish Gnosticism. Merkabah Mysticism and Talmudic Tradition. I won't go into the whole discussion that he has here, but he says this is a very interesting word, because it is carved in the gem that we have in Greek, and that most people have assumed that this, uh, had something to do with the Greek and Coptic background because it was found in Egypt, you know, near Alexandria. But in fact, the word does not make sense in Greek. The word makes sense in Aramaic, and in Aramaic the word means somewhat that which is an uprooting of the nets of spells. Spells were considered to be mental nets put over people, so that the more you struggled against them, the tighter you were bound, because by recognizing them as a net, as having been caught, you were caught. The uprooting of the nets was recognizing that you were not caught, that what is there of you that can be caught by such a thing? That realization took a transformation and the individual transformation. When we use the Greek terms metanoia, but we're going to move over to the Greek terms gnosis, that the metanoia, the change of mind produced a gnosis produced a knowing, a seeing, so that one was no longer notable. The startling thing is that one was no longer notable not only by curses or by spells, but also not notable by laws anymore. Not notable by the state politics, not notable by the kind of community that Ibsen used to write against the kind of community that tries to keep the individual under their thumb. One was completely freed from this. This, of course, is dynamite. Or we talked about last week. We called it nitroglycerin in the gospel of Mark in the 13th chapter. And this is actually the culmination in the gospel of Mark. After that is the passion story. They're leaving the temple, Mark writes. And one of the disciples remarks, look, master, what huge stones, what fine buildings! And Jesus said, says to him, you see these great buildings? Not one stone will be left on another. All will be thrown down. So they go off. And of course, anything that the master says, especially something poignant like this, they're talking about and they don't understand. So Mark records that later when. And he was sitting on the Mount of Olives, facing the temple up still in Jerusalem, but up on the Mount of Olives. And they're all sitting around, probably taking a repast. He was questioned privately by Peter, James, John and Andrew. Sounds like a delegation, right? Well, we don't know what he means. Well, go and ask him. Well, I'm not going to ask him. Well, all right, let's get a committee and go up. Talk to him, ask him. Tell us. They said, when will this happen? It's a very interesting. When will this happen? And then to cover themselves. What sign when the fulfillment of all this is at hand? They're asking a double question here. They're asking for a calendar date and they're also asking for an omen. And now Jesus is going to tell them that this kind of an event has no calendar date. And this kind of event has no sign. There are no omens for this sort of thing, that that world where there were omens is not going to happen here. This event is not in that kind of calendar time. It's not in that kind of a net where there are still omens. This is different, but they're not going to be able to hear him. But Mark, John Mark is able not only to hear, but to understand enough to put it down in such a way that it comes off the page. After about 1930 years, it still comes off the page, he writes. Jesus began, take care that no one misleads you first thing. It's like Hollywood Boulevard alertness. Watch out for the scams before he tells them anything. Many will come claiming my name, saying I am he and many will be misled by them. When you hear he's going to give them a little parable. Now, when you hear the noise of battle at near at hand and the news of battles far away, do not be alarmed. Such things are bound to happen. But the end is still to come. For nation will make war upon nation, kingdom upon kingdom. There will be earthquakes in many places. Famines. With these things, the birth pangs of a new age begin. As for you, be on your guard. You will be handed over to the courts. You will be flogged in the synagogues. You will be summoned to appear before governors and kings on my account to testify in their presence. Notice here now you will be flogged in synagogues. Why? Because you are going oblique to the law. You're no longer operating within the law. You will be brought before governors and kings who was brought before governors and kings. In John Mark's experience, the only disciple that was brought before governors and kings was Paul. He was the one. And remember that every time Paul was pressed to the issue of transformation and disclosing that he was now siding in a different realm, he did not. He said, you can't do this to me. I'm a Roman citizen. Luke, who was with who was a Syrian doctor. He was born in Apamea, the same place that Sedona's, the Great Stoic, was born and raised in. It says again and again in both acts, and alludes to it in the Gospel of Luke that the the Romans were extremely cautious about Roman citizens because their law was as important as the Jewish law to them. He says in Mark. So when you are arrested and taken away, don't worry beforehand what you will say. But when the time comes, say whatever is given to you to say, for it is not you who will be speaking, it will be the Holy Spirit. Brother will betray brother to death and the father, his child. Children will turn against parents and send them to their death. All will hate you for your allegiance to me. But the man who holds out to the end will be saved. So he tells them this, and they're not seeing this. Peter, John, James and Andrew, the closest core of the disciples, are not seeing this. So Mark reverses the field. He reverses the field totally. And he has Jesus say, but when you see the abomination of desolation usurping a place which is not his, then those who are in Judea must take to the hills. Now he's talking about signs, and the abomination of desolation is a play on words. Uh, in the Greek it meant Zeus in heaven, and it was used in the Book of Daniel to take this phrase, Zeus in heaven and twist it around into a Hebrew phrase that meant the abomination that creates desolation. He says, if a man is on the roof, he must not come down into the house to fetch anything out. If in the field, he must not turn back for his coat. As for women with child, in those days, and for those who have children at their breast, pray that it may not come in winter. For those days will bring distress such as never been seen until now, since the beginning of the world which God created and will never be again. This is a culmination. This is a transformative point. And what's being transformed here is that what has been historical, what has been capable of being gathered up, is going to be changed. Alchemically changed. There's not going to be the same kind of history anymore. There's not going to be a history which can be gathered up anymore. There's going to be a unified field which has an eternal aspect to it, which is not dependent upon historical vicissitudes, that the individual who is still identifying himself with historical processes, who is still identifying himself with legal precedence, who still somehow identifies himself with the exoteric structure, is going to be lost. He says no one would be able to survive this period if it had not been cut short. That this is the only way that anybody is going to survive this. And he says, no one knows when this is coming. And he specifically says, not the angels, nor the son, but only the father, that there is no time to this. There's no way to have a prediction on this. One of the basic reasons, and we use the Tum ratio here, one of the basic reasons for this transformation, the necessity for it was that. Structures that had been gathered up, had become polluted, had become completely polluted by what we have traced for the last 3 or 4 months, an increasing awareness on the part of man that there were demonic forces in the world. That these demonic forces, these evil spirits that were made not from creation, but from the mixing of angels and men, the watchers, the whole realm that the book, the Enoch books go into, that this demonology had proliferated so much by this time, whether it was in fact or not is actually beside the point, because it was psychologically so. The the. Crux of the matter focused around the fact that there was no longer anything pure to gather up, so everything had to be changed so that the structure was purified by its unity. And it was this core that was to prove a problem for the disciples. And the first person to really understand this was John Mark. And probably Philo's presence in Alexandria. His writings in Alexandria were the crowning material or data that helped John Mark to see this vision. So the relationship between Philo and Mark is crucial to understanding the origins of esoteric Christianity. And that was purely an Alexandrian understanding for a long time. And when we get to it within a month, I hope we can get to Clement of Alexandria. He is the last person who still understands this Alexandrian, uh, synthesis, as we could call it now, this transformation. It used to be that we thought that the synoptic Gospels were the everyday gospels, and that the Gospel of John was the esoteric gospel. But in fact, the gospel according to John. Is actually very much in the old Jewish tradition. In fact, the arrangement of the Gospel of John takes the Triennial, the three year cycle of the Jewish synagogue lecture sermon cycle, and puts it into the gospel form as its structure, so that if you read through the Gospel of John without knowing the the lectionary cycle in the synagogues of Judaism of that time, it seems to you very mystifying that somehow John must be talking mystically. But in fact he carefully chooses all of his examples, and they usually run along in a formula of a feast, a ceremony, a celebration throughout the ritual year, which is not a single year but a three year cycle. And it runs feast, then miracle, and then discourse. So that reading through John, the gospel of John, one could take the Gospel of John and use it as the sermon liturgy in Jewish synagogues, and it could be read within the cycle so as to displace the old understanding of the festivals. Now this is what we would call reform. This is reform. This is not gnosis. This is reform. And no matter how admirable it is, no matter how well done it is in the Gospel of John is extremely well done. It does not produce the transformed individual. The Gospel of Luke was almost a complete rewriting of Mark. In fact, in the church from the late second century up until about the fifth century AD, very often you would find only Matthew, Luke, and John. Some of the earliest Testaments. New Testaments were where the Gospels were bound together, and we have many examples where those three Gospels are bound together and Mark is not with them. In fact, the first examples, the oldest examples that we have of a collected gospel like that are from around 150 AD. I think it was Justin Martyr who might have done this, or Marcion might have had a hand in this. And the gospel of Mark is left out, and Luke is largely a process of making Mark dispensable. We saw that more than 80% of the words that are in Mark are in Luke, but the arrangement of the words, the import of Mark is totally different from that of Luke. The Gospel of Luke is a prelude, is a setting for for the acts and the Gospel of Luke. And the acts were actually one book, and you can't really appreciate Luke without having acts and acts when you read through. It focuses finally upon the doings of Paul. The whole end of the acts has now channeled all the disciples into Paul, so that the Gospel of Luke runs in a pattern which finally funnels down to Pauline Christianity. And Paul, like John, was a reformer. Always went to the synagogues first, always thought that this was the basic commitment, and that delivering the good news to the Gentiles was a secondary operation and would always, uh, uh, specifically say, I shake the dust off in front of you to let you know I have come here first, and I go there only because this is a, uh, a rejection by you, and perhaps they will receive it. The spreading of Pauline Christianity went first to Antioch, and it was in Antioch that the Christian Church, as a structure of Reformed Judaism was born. But it was in Alexandria at the very same time that transformed man. Universal man was recognized. And the difference between Antioch and Alexandria is exactly contemporaneous is the difference between the development, finally, of the Alexandrian vision of transcendent man becoming a universal. The understanding of the Christos and Antiochene Christianity is the understanding of Jesus as the culminating rabbi. The teacher who leaves in his place the church. Whereas in Alexandria, the Christos has been transformed and the Holy Spirit is where it will be. It doesn't have to have a building. It doesn't have to have any kind of a structure whatsoever. In terms of the world, there is no politics. In Alexandria, Gnosis. But in the Antiochian Christianity, more and more, it is the structure of the church that becomes paramount in the minds of individuals. The structure of this church, strangely enough, was based upon stoic physics and not upon Jewish cosmology and the structure of the the Christian church in its development as it grows and as it comes into its maturity by the time of the four hundreds. Augustine's time. Is actually an adaption of a stoic cosmology. Rather than having anything to do at all with an inner transformation, a gnosis. Probably the best description of stoic physics, because almost all those documents were destroyed. None of them survived. You talk about book burnings. None of them survived. The only thing that survived was another book of Cicero's. And the little note here. Why does Cicero survive? Because it was held that he was good for boys to learn to write, that he wasn't a earth shaking philosopher. He wasn't dangerous like Posidonius. Now, if Posidonius his works had survived, they would really have been something. The feeling was that Cicero is good for educating boys. So let's not press. Let's keep him around. Augustus Caesar, who was the one who, uh, let Anthony have Cicero sacrifice? Cicero used to have a gentle smile whenever he would see his grandchildren reading Cicero as little boys. He didn't have anything to worry about, so he thought. But Cicero. If I can find De Natura Deorum gives us a complete rundown of Posidonius stoic cosmology. And it's very interesting because one can also call it a stoic theology, and the theological structure of stoic cosmology is the one that the Christian Church finally adopted for itself and in fact, structured the expectation of a of a holocaust of fire at the end of the world. The whole thing of an apocalyptic end of the world is actually a stoic doctrine. It has nothing whatsoever to do with Christianity. It has nothing whatsoever to do with what was taught by Jesus. The Stoics held that the universe is controlled by God, not a God, but by God. And in the last resort is God. The sole ultimate reality is the divine mind, which expresses itself in the world process. But only matter exists. For only matter can act and be acted upon. Notice how subtle the changes are. How it goes from a monotheistic standpoint to a historical standpoint. To a materialistic standpoint. The very, very potent material. The greatest criticism of this, incidentally, if you remember, was in Plutarch and Plutarch took stoic physics to the wall because he said, this is absolutely a moral, that if men believe this, they will believe anything. And we have to train our minds to understand that this is a non-sequitur of absurdities when really looked at. And Plutarch is speaking from someone who was a priest of the mysteries, the transformative mysteries. Only matter exists, for only matter can act and be acted upon. Mind, therefore, is matter in its subtlest form. Well, we come across that doctrine in our time so many times it's just pitiful. Mind is just matter in the subtlest form. This is Anti-spiritual. This is Psychism. Therefore. Fire or breath or ether is the ultimate mind stuff. The primal, fiery spirit creates out of itself the world that we know persist in it as its heat or soul or tension is the cause of all movement and all life, and ultimately the cause of a universal conflagration which will reabsorb the world into itself. But there will be no pause at once. The process will begin again, unity will again pluralize itself, and all will repeat the same course as before. Mark this. This is deterministic. It says nothing whatsoever to do with nature. This is a mental net. So existence goes on forever and endlessly recurring. Reoccurring cycles endlessly reoccurring cycles. If one believed this, if one really believed this, your emotional reaction would be ultimate despair. Ultimate despair. Think of Camus The Myth of Sisyphus, but now raise that up to a theological level, and this endlessly reoccurring cycle follows a fixed law, a fixed formula. And here is where Cicero uses the terms logos. The formula is the logos. The logos. This law is then fate or providence ordained by gods. And the Stoics said that the Logos is God. And the universe. Perfectly good badness is only apparent. Evil only means the necessary imperfection of the parts viewed separately from the whole. Also denies the reality of evil. If you deny the reality of evil, you also must deny the reality of good. And the first of the Noble Four Noble Truths is that suffering is real. Evil is real. Otherwise, you never do anything real about it. If you believe it's just an occurrence, well, what's to worry? This is a very subtle trap. This is a real net. It's a real curse. All of this was explained in Cicero and De Natura Deorum, and survived because it was used as a school textbook. He writes in here about Epicurus, who was one of the greatest of the Stoics. And he thinks and he says, obviously Epicurus thinks as spoilt children do, that idleness is the best thing there is, because God is supposed to be free from trouble. Yet these very children, even when idle, amused themselves with some act of gain. Are we to suppose that God enjoys so complete a holiday, and is so sunk in sloth, that we must fear lest the least movement may jeopardize his happiness? This language not merely robs the gods of the movements and activities suitable to the divine nature, but also tends to make men slothful, even if even God cannot be happy when actively employed. However, granting your view that God is the image and likeness of man, what is his dwelling place? What is his local habitation and what activities does he spend his life? What constitutes that happiness which you attribute to him? For a person who is to be happy must actively enjoy his blessing. As for locality, even the inanimate elements each have their own particular region. Earth occupies the lowest place. Water covers the earth, dew air is assigned the upper realm, and the ethereal fires occupy the highest confines of all. So, about your deity. I want to know where does he dwell? Secondly, what motive he has for moving in space, that is, if he ever does so, move. Thirdly, it being a special characteristic of animate beings to desire some end that is appropriate to their nature. What is the thing that God desires and what subject does he employ? His mental activity and reason? And lastly, how is he happy and how eternal? In the stoic cosmology, the ultimate end is the endlessly reoccurring cycle according to law. That stoic cosmology was the same thing as what was called Middle Platonism. And it was Middle Platonism. That grabbed Philo of Alexandria. It wasn't Plato. It was over 300 years in between them. There is Middle Platonism on which there are almost no books. Almost nobody wants to talk about it, because Middle Platonism, with its stoic cosmology, is a can of worms. And it's good reason why the Vatican left book six out of de Republica, because all of these things are very potent and poignant, because they all surface at the same time. Now we happen to have because it was also written as a literary poem, another complete view of the stoic cosmology, and that is Lucretius De rerum natura the nature of the universe. Epicurean cosmology. What does he say in here? We went through some of this on. On Sunday or on Saturday. We talked about, uh, I guess we don't have time to go into all this. It seemed that there was so much in our contemporary age that has the same kind of quality as this matter is indestructible. It holds all things together through the fastenings. Everything varies. Otherwise, a touch, the merest touch would be a cause of death, a force sufficient to dissolve in air textures of mortal substances. But here's the fact the elements are held bound together in different degrees by the basic stuff is indestructible, so things remain intact and harmed until force is found proportionate to their texture, to effect reversion to their primal elements, but never to complete annihilation, and so on. Again, the same dull round, the same kind of lawfulness. It is this that early Christianity, in its churchiness, tended to revert back to, tended to go back and just amplify and change the terms, but go back to the comfortable old world that was there before. John Mark couldn't stand that. He left Paul and Andrew in the midst of a voyage. They were they were sailing from Rhodes to the mainland of Asia minor, probably not more than a couple of three hours worth of sailing. And in that couple of three hours, he decided he was not going to go with them. And he went back. He went back to Antioch because he knew about Antioch. And at Antioch he teamed up with Peter. And it was with Peter that they decided to go to Rome. And John Mark was the amanuensis. He was the private secretary of Peter in Rome. And they went to Rome. And it was a very dangerous situation, because the early Christians, the Galileans, they were sometimes called, were rebels. They were not welcome. They were not welcome as Jews, and they were not welcome as heretical Jews, and they were not welcome as rebels. And so the early Christian community in Rome, under Peter, with John Mark, was an esoteric underground community, literally underground. We have a book here published about 120 years ago, that has engravings of the catacomb drawings and symbols and all the way in there you do not see the cross that has the bottom elongated. You have the equal cross as a self symbol that the transformation is not to death, but to eternal life. That's the transformation. Who makes money on the fact that you're supposed to be protected by the transformation through death? If you look at the letters of Paul, especially Romans, there's a lot in Corinthians two, and we'll get to it. But in Romans he says that the only way that we can join Jesus is through his death. It sounds good on the surface that he has gone through death. And we must, uh, give our allegiance to him through the church so that we are resurrected through the church structure, through our affinity to him. Mark says there are many who are going to come in my name. Don't believe them. Won't have anything to do with this. But the transformation is individual, and it's the individual that goes through this, not through immediate structure, because all these immediate structures are already splayed out and amplified according to ruts that have run so deep in history that we had to change it. All of this happened, and all of this was done by 70 A.D. it was a accompli. By 70 A.D., all of this was completed. These polarities were set into place. These variants were set into place. The esoteric traditions were already beginning to come alive again. And from 70 AD when the temple was destroyed, was like adding fuel to this fire because those who had sought to align themselves with the new understanding of the temple suddenly were left out in the open. There was no more temple. It was completely destroyed. It was never built again. Temple Judaism came to a dead end in 70 AD. There never again has ever been a temple. Judaism. Rabbinic Judaism came out of that. The Talmud, the missionaries. And the Christian church structure solidifies itself. And so after 70 AD, there's an increasing tendency. For those who had transformed, who had changed. To keep themselves free of this complication and more and more. The description was that the demonic Lord of this world has truly netted everybody into his scam. And you have to keep yourself free from this. In any way that you can. But that there is a way of transformation where this salvation, this soteriological event can happen, and from there there is no backsliding. One need never worry after that. And so the firm savior. Comes in. And it's interesting that the word esoteric and exoteric are very much the same word. Only one has an E in front of it. That Jesus as a Savior is different from Jesus as a Rabbi, that the experience of gnosis is different from a church structure. Is different in the one. One has a religious community. I think the Greek terms is ecclesia. One has a religious community and the other one has a theological doctrine which owns property. And that's different. It's a totally different experience. And the whole of the second century AD. Is a war between these viewpoints and increasingly because of the tremendous dynamic in here. Because it wasn't an issue of a, of a neighborhood or of a region, or of just a sect of human beings. Because these are universal problems. This is the universal problem. It sucked into itself the whole Roman Empire. It wasn't a question of popularity. Christianity did not win popularity contests. Mithraism would have won the popularity contest. It was that the dynamic of truthful recognition and reality was all bound up in Christianity. And the whole of the ancient world was simply, um, evaporated in into the issues that Christianity had generated, so that by the early fourth century, there was no longer any question of a classical tradition without a Christian understanding, a Christian hermeneutic one way or another. And of course, we'll see that the church structure, in order to foster itself, has to stamp out competition. It has to bring the reins of transformation into a theological understanding, into a doctrinal position. And the creation of a single New Testament is the most glaring example of a repetition in the old rut, that there was an Old Testament, and now there is a New Testament, and we're going to be loyal, good church members to the New Testament, like our forefathers were loyal to the Old Testament. But there's another testament that transformation really occurs, and that in that vision, there's no such thing as death. There's no such thing as demonic energies. There's no such thing as some God of this world who has to be, um, kowtowed to. That's different. And it was that freedom that had its home in Alexandria. And we're going to see all the way through that. That tradition was raised to the highest levels of human achievement right there in Alexandria, and all within about 250 years. Well, that's about as far as we can go tonight. Thanks for coming out on an evening like this. We've got some spaghetti, I think. Or macaroni. Just the tapes here. If you'd like to help provide some books. END OF RECORDING