Should the Bible ditch the Old Testament?

[Alexis Jacobi]

True in a sense but within the narrative of historical fact such laminations become superfluous if one want's to understand its true history without the metaphysics which is mostly used to inflict meaning. Such would be a different subject with a different intent, its conflation being the error.

As we have all noticed — over long, dreary years! — the Christian thing is endlessly debated and recycled and hardly any part of it is resolved to satisfaction. Why? Because the philosophical mind is not the mind that (in the ultimate, and possibly the more important sense) can benefit from internalized understanding. For this reason, if the metaphysical (and supernatural) element is put to the side, yes, all that remains is historical and socio-political and socio-philosophical musing over the travels and interactions of Paul and academic analysis of what happened, what it led to, the formation of the Early Church and all that. If all that is merely “studied” it is certainly interesting, but rather dry as it pertains to the inner element, the influence of the supernatural potency, and everything associated with spiritual and ‘faith’ processes.

But here is the key: mental musing and intellectual rumination on such topics is activity essentially on the periphery of all that is “spiritual” and “mystical”. And though it is not much delved into in those letters of Paul, I think we must suppose that there did develop, if you will, an oral tradition within these communities similar to what is communicated in (for example) the yoga traditions of the East. I.e. a “science” of devotion, meditation and prayer. You can only study so much material before you have to make some sort of decision to involve yourself on a psychic, psychological level. Now, with that said I am pretty sure you are familiar with, say, Jungian psychological “practices” that involve paying attention to, indeed evoking, response and communication from “inner dimensions” (Jung would say from the “unconscious”).

Once such an “activity” begins, which is applied mysticism, there a “relationship” (with inner, perhaps mysterious forces) is initiated. As you know people involve themselves artistically and nearly with their whole soul in such probings. And the quality of the experience this practitioner has always depends on the quality of that individual. Or in any case in something in that individual.

For this reason, and certainly in the early Greek world, the monastic traditions evolved. To some extent “intellectual” in focus — competent, literate, ‘sensitive’ to all schools of 1st century philosophy and mysticism — but with emphasis on cultivation of spiritual experience. Therefore the metaphysical aspect is shown to be paramount within the practicing community.

[Dubious]

As we have all noticed — over long, dreary years! — the Christian thing is endlessly debated and recycled and hardly any part of it is resolved to satisfaction. Why? Because the philosophical mind is not the mind that (in the ultimate, and possibly the more important sense) can benefit from internalized understanding. For this reason, if the metaphysical (and supernatural) element is put to the side, yes, all that remains is historical and socio-political and socio-philosophical musing over the travels and interactions of Paul and academic analysis of what happened, what it led to, the formation of the Early Church and all that. If all that is merely “studied” it is certainly interesting, but rather dry as it pertains to the inner element, the influence of the supernatural potency, and everything associated with spiritual and ‘faith’ processes.

I don’t disagree but for me the value of a faith, if one wishes to emphasize it as such, also relates to the value of its content and how it came to be.

Christianity as a system, is a thoroughly engineered enterprise, not one which has grown organically but stitchted by bits and pieces mostly through subterfuge like Frankenstein collected into an operating system which controlled the West for millenniums. Most of its so-called wisdom and mystery pre-existed its origins. Had Christianity thoroughly defaulted, what would be lost by way of the wisdom it presumed to espouse as peculiar to it?

It’s historical, socio-political and socio-philosophical musings, as you put it are not to be discounted in evaluating its core or inner validity. Whatever wisdom it has is borrowed or stolen while pretending to be original. It was a system in which not even Jesus was required to build and maintain its power structure, especially after Constantine in which the credentials of Jesus, as its central entity, was established by the prerogatives of doctrine and less by faith. Compare this to the much earlier function of the gospels as rendered in the bible to reify a Pauline abstraction into a personality others could relate, accept and die for.

But here is the key: mental musing and intellectual rumination on such topics is activity essentially on the periphery of all that is “spiritual” and “mystical”. And though it is not much delved into in those letters of Paul, I think we must suppose that there did develop, if you will, an oral tradition within these communities similar to what is communicated in (for example) the yoga traditions of the East. I.e. a “science” of devotion, meditation and prayer. You can only study so much material before you have to make some sort of decision to involve yourself on a psychic, psychological level. Now, with that said I am pretty sure you are familiar with, say, Jungian psychological “practices” that involve paying attention to, indeed evoking, response and communication from “inner dimensions” (Jung would say from the “unconscious”).

I think so too once those inner dimensions develop. The unconscious knows nothing and doesn’t seek to know. It’s latency is the same, dog, cat or human. The intent to know comes from an advanced awareness which makes the intent instinctual. In spite of Jung, the unconscious is a living but near empty set upon which, to whatever degree, awareness and any of its states of consciousness is grown or inscribed; one in which the evaluation and authentication of its content becomes one of its highest functions and privileges. As within the cosmos, it begins in a void which was never void to begin with. Hence its subsequent manifestations.

Once such an “activity” begins, which is applied mysticism, there a “relationship” (with inner, perhaps mysterious forces) is initiated. As you know people involve themselves artistically and nearly with their whole soul in such probings. And the quality of the experience this practitioner has always depends on the quality of that individual. Or in any case in something in that individual.

Yes, mystery has the propensity to know itself and not remain forever mystical. Ironically, we often apply very mystical explanations to make it appear less recondite, in the process, compounding itself into an even greater mystery which, if not qualified, is prone to become unconditional and unconditionally accepted. Religions depend on it...and yet the same process should have the power to advance its own awareness, meaning mental acuity, providing one doesn’t succumb to a Final Solution which instead, denotes a paralysis.

For this reason, and certainly in the early Greek world, the monastic traditions evolved. To some extent “intellectual” in focus — competent, literate, ‘sensitive’ to all schools of 1st century philosophy and mysticism — but with emphasis on cultivation of spiritual experience. Therefore the metaphysical aspect is shown to be paramount within the practicing community.

Again, very desirable as long as it doesn’t end in being das Ding an sich , tantamount to an irrevocable dedication and finalization of its monastic ideals and practices. To my mind, any type of mysticism subsumed by protocol and fixed traditions devolves to a secular impulse, a mere ritual practiced more through habit than the extra-mundane experience it was meant to serve.