While I yet reason that LWSleeth is attempting to put forward is an impossibility, one picture that he did paint of the situation is quite in line with reality, namely, that we will all come to the table with colored lensed glasses on. . . . However, it is a false assertion to claim that we can know by ourselves, through inward focused meditation, anything of the above paragraph's listed points. By meditation, one only experiences the inner workings of brain, and to that extent, all H.sapeins are pretty much in the same boat. Yeshua did have a brain, and it can be stated with great certainty that the chances are that it had been a normal brain, hardwired and working pretty much the way ours do today; but that's it.

The proposition put forward by LWSleeth is an impossibility.

...verse 19 (please not) reads:
[INDENT]Jesus said, "Blessed is he who came into being before he came into being. If you (plural second person here) become my disciples (notice a specific audience is given) and listen to my words, these stones will minister to you. For there are five trees for you in Paradise which remain undisturbed summer and winter and whose leaves do not fall. Whoever becomes acquainted with them will not experience death."
[/INDENT]We have to accept any and all statements, passages, and pericopes firstly within the contextual setting that they immediately fall in whenever we start to work on sense. Linguistical style, idiomatic tendencies will then be considered and matches organized. Then, we have to cross-examine and reference for cultural similarities in texts within the relatively close time span of the the one we will be looking at. After these steps, the average theological and/or mythological framework developed by the all possible relevant texts and documents should be taken into consideration. Then, we can have a better chance at arriving at an intended-to-have-been-communicated sense of the statement, passage, or pericope under investigation.

It fair to point out that coming to the table with a presupposition as grand as the one which is being attempted to propogated here, is a fault from the very get go.

To claim that some concept of consciousness which has been shown to be most incorrect, is a cosmic truth of all reality on any practical level, and must be fully accepted without any further explanation or testing of it to be able to understand what a person who had died some 2000 years ago had experienced, in order to properly understand written communicative forms credited to that person, is a presupposition without hope of reality at all, on the practical level.

The quote you have provided, and I thank you for that, it is helpful in understanding, is very much true in one sense, in that everything that is, is everything that is, but is nonsense on the level of the mental activity of living organisms. That is the major problem with Mysticism.

Shamanism of course needs no book, but that fact will deduct nothing from the truthfulness of the statement that if a person has no data whatsoever of, on, or about, a particular human who had lived and died any number of years before that former person had been born, will know nothing or, on, or about, and without data of some sorts, will never be able to learn or find out anything about that particular latter person's life history, learned traits, formed memories, brain build beyond what is normal for all people, and so on. This, Whoever, is what is true.

By meditation, one only experiences the inner workings of brain, and to that extent, all H.sapeins are pretty much in the same boat. Yeshua did have a brain, and it can be stated with great certainty that the chances are that it had been a normal brain, hardwired and working pretty much the way ours do today; but that's it.

The proposition put forward by LWSleeth is an impossibility.

Regardless of how you may feel, emotionally, about the matter of experiencing things in relation to the brain both internally and/or externally, LWSleeth, and regardless of how much disdain you may harbor towards the hard-'n-fast, empirically learned-through-observations-over the-passage-of time scientific knowledge that has accumulated, you are attempting to propose an impossibility--unless, of course, you can fairly demonstrate through controlled tests providing replicateable evidence that what you are proposing is possible.

The colored lenses that I had come to the table with way back, where of the type that allowed me to take in all evidences and work with them to arrive at statements which will more greatly evidence fact-related truths. I have come to this particular table as it relates to early first century Christian documents, and (since your position presuppositionally demands it) neurological matters with lenses adjusted by fact-related truths of the type which may be yet to be encountered by some.

What I had stated, that which you have quoted, is a fact-related truth. Can you fairly demonstrate (though that would not be within the theme of this thread, but on another one) that what I have stated is not just that?

Can you provide evidence which is capable of convincing the neutral third party individual looking at all evidences produced by both sides here that you can actually know the brain state of a person who lived some 2000 years ago? Can you put your money where your mouth is, in other words; cold cash on the barrel head?

Look, LWSleeth. I am trying to awaken some logical, pragmatic reasoning in people. I am not bent on trying to put you, personally, down, or anything, simply trying to encourage you also to be reasonable about it all too. Now, how can you demonstrate the factuality of your proposition on this thread (and without ignoring known facts about the brain)? How can you demonstrate that Thomas, as a text, has more value than any of the other early Christian texts? I'm counting on your fairness. KJ

Why do you think this?

Whoever, you have just highlighted a major problem, namely, that all that I had mentioned early is what is necessary, and that it is true that most see it as trouble, and thus bother hardly lifting a finger towards a proper and diligent search effort. And, it is for this reason especially, as you have mentioned, that it seems to come in so many flavors--as has been said about the Bible...just an old fiddle upon which many songs can be played. (because most people don't bother to do it right)

There will always be various interpretations on some points, and the very reason is because we cannot know--just as I have been striving to get across here.

... a person can, with imaginative free rein and lack of discipline and experience, get just about anything out of just about anything. (and of course, such fact does not make any such 'get' a truth!)

I am not going to even take glance in the direction of simply making presumptions, out of lack of knowledge, (much less take a step in that direction) on how new you might be to the forum, or how much you have read around, because I don't have that data (you see?). Because of this thread's experienceand this post's content, and because of what I have studied, learned, been involved with for some now, and am slowly developing on this thread, here. Which fact leads to the next fact.

If I were to tell you that a mutation in the pantothenate kinase 2 (PANK2) gene, on the short arm of chromosome 20 (20p13), leads to pantothenate knase-associated neurodegeneration and in many cases, death, would you tend to think that I'd merely be giving an opinion, as though it were based on nothing more than just some mid-summer's day dream? I most certainly would hope not !! (you have so far proven yourself more thoughtful)

For now, and as for your later concerns, Whoever, allow me a little margin to ask you to go back to post number 38, and look at paragraph three under your quote I had given, and tell me if what I am saying there is incorrect, or correct, please. Then, I will continue from there.

Hi Xris,




I think he is pretty clear on this point from his thread on "Biblical Texts: explication & discussion"

http://www.philosophyforum.com/forum/philosophy-forums/branches-philosophy/philosophy-religion/4256-biblical-texts-explication-discussion.html

"My applications do arrive at the conclusion that these biblical texts by far, more so evidence nothing more than mere human activity, and in areas, imagination--a lack of supernatural superintendence--and as such are greatly overrated (regardless of being classic works, holding their own with the likes the Upahishads, the Illiad, or the writings of Lao-tse."

I agree, It seems like a lot of unnecessary effort to me, odd.

Regardless of how you may feel, emotionally, about the matter of experiencing things in relation to the brain both internally and/or externally, LWSleeth, and regardless of how much disdain you may harbor towards the hard-'n-fast, empirically learned-through-observations-over the-passage-of time scientific knowledge that has accumulated, you are attempting to propose an impossibility--unless, of course, you can fairly demonstrate through controlled tests providing replicateable evidence that what you are proposing is possible.

I work from the bottom up . . . you asserted that 'it was impossible to understand Jesus without understanding the conscious experience he was having;' correct?

And you deduced that it would be 'difficult to understand Thomas without understanding Jesus;' correct?

Then . . . you suggested that by meditation, one could start to see Jesus in a new light, and would have a real sense of being with Jesus consciously instead of merely looking at him from the outside; right?

You have been proposing that the content of consciousness is not created by the brain, but is some something that is immaterial, and that by meditating one can plug into that and thus be the same consciousness as all humans that have ever lived on the face of the earth since creation. Does this seem to be in line with the core of your presentation background that you have approached this thread with?

I'd like to go little by little here, so everything can be as clear as possible. Is the above correct? and please do correct that much, and only that much (for now) please, if something is off. Then I will go on, thanks ! KJ

I suggest that if Thomas were practicing the experience Jesus was teaching, then yes it would difficult to understand Thomas without first understanding Jesus' conscious experience.

I am not talking about some generic meaning, but a very specific practice aimed at merging one's mind with an unwavering foundation that can be found behind the mind. How do I know? Because I've repeatedly experienced that sort of oneness myself.

I don't think there is any hope for going on. The problem is you lack the experience of the more basic stuff I am postulating is the basis of all, and therefore you can't possibly accept it as a fact. And you shouldn't! I myself only believe what I can experience myself.

But I detect in your ideas a firm commitment to explaining reality in terms of physical phenomena only. While I fully accept the role of physicalness, I know of something else going on through an experience you are not going to pursue. So how can we possibly come to any sort of agreement?

I therefore suggest you go your way, and I will continue with my own. I have had this debate dozens of times, I am weary of it because I've heard all the arguments you make far too often, and because it never goes anywhere. You can't believe in what you haven't experienced and don't know, and I can't possibly ignore what I've experienced inwardly.

One quicky here, then. In the event that your are talking about the author of that document, the Coptic Gospel of Thomas, then I should point out that the author of that document in unknown. Who do you intend to be pointing to here?

Let me bring this exchange to a close by assuring you that I don't believe in anything supernatural, I have a solid understanding of physics and biology, and I accept the powerful role physicalness plays in the human experience. In other words, nothing you have said explaining the effects of the brain on consciousness would I dispute.

I suggested that Jesus was teaching a way to develop consciousness . . .

LWSleeth, let me begin here. I fully trust your intention to bring the exchange to a close, because you have done that before. Be that as it may, I would yet entertain the wish that you would continue to reason on the details