Você está na página 1de 21


html The Times October 13, 2005 Vatican offers swap deal to regain site of Last Supper From Richard Owen in Rome THE Vatican is hoping to regain control of the Room of the Last Supper in Jerusalem, one of the most sacred sites in Christianity. It will, in exchange, hand over to the Jewish community the historic synagogue at Toledo in Spain, at present a Catholic church. The proposals, contained in a draft agreement between the Israeli Government and the Vatican, come on the eve of a state visit to the Vatican next month by President Katzav. Final details on a long-delayed accord on the status of Roman Catholic properties in the Holy Land are expected to be agreed during the visit, marking a new era of reconciliation between Christians and Jews after centuries of hostility. The Upper Room, where the Last Supper is said to have taken place, is held by Christians to be the place where Jesus broke bread and drank wine with the disciples on the eve of his Crucifixion and also where the Holy Spirit descended on the disciples at Pentecost. The Last Supper has become an iconic Christian image, painted most famously by Leonardo. The Room of the Last Supper is the fourth most holy place in Christendom after the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem, built over Christ's tomb, the Basilica of the Annunciation in Nazareth, where the Virgin Mary was told by an angel she was to give birth, and the Basilica of the Nativity in Bethlehem, where the birth took place. The present Gothic-arched room is not the original but was built by the Crusaders in the 14th century. It was taken over in 1342 by the Franciscans, the Catholic custodians of Christian sites in the Holy Land. Along with the rest of Jerusalem, it fell to the Ottoman Turks in the 16th century and was transformed into a mosque, whose Arabic inscriptions are still visible. Since the foundation of Israel the area has served as the site of Jewish yeshivas, or religious schools, since Jews believe that the Tomb of King David lies beneath the spot. Il Messaggero, the Rome daily, said possible reciprocal gestures include the return to Jewish control of the 12th-century synagogue in Toledo, which, after the suppression of Judaism in Spain in the 15th century, became the Church of Santa Mara La Blanca. A synod of bishops in the Vatican, the first to be held by Pope Benedict, is currently discussing issues related to the Eucharist, or Holy Communion. The renewed Christian-Jewish dialogue comes on the 40th anniversary of Nostra Aetate, the Second Vatican Council document which condemned anti-Semitism and paved the way for the establishment of diplomatic relations between Israel and the Vatican in 1993.

The German-born Pope has reached out to Jews as well as Muslims since his election in April, and in August visited the Cologne synagogue. THE ROOM * The Upper Room is in a building outside the Dormition Abbey behind the Franciscan house on Mount Zion in Jerusalem * King David's Tomb is believed to be at the base of the building. * It is thought to also be the scene of Jesus' appearance before the Apostles after the Resurrection and the descent of the Holy Spirit upon them at Pentecost. * The building was the seat of the Mother Church of Jerusalem for many years, and was a Franciscan medieval friary until 1561. * The room was later turned into a mosque, as shown by the mihrab (niche set in the wall indicating the direction of Mecca) and Arabic inscription forbidding public prayer at the site. In a message dated 10/26/05 10:18:17 AM, provelli1@nycap.rr.com writes:

The Upper Room, where the Last Supper is said to have taken place, is held by Christians to be the place where Jesus broke bread and drank wine with the disciples on the eve of his Crucifixion and also where the Holy Spirit descended on the disciples at Pentecost.

THis may have gotten him killed inthe long run. In the ancient world and Judaism The bread was symbolic of the word of God Wine the spirit of God. Unfortunately it is possible that this Was snot understood by all, In particular the Sicarri which wanted a revolution (Society of Assasins)against the Roman Government, and priesthood. There may be significant Truth to the assertion that when the Bread was given to Judas Iscariot( Jude the Sicarri)he straightway went to the priests. The way things were set up it would be for these priests to judge something either Blasphemy or not Unfortunately for Jude the Sicarri, ( Judas) he could not have foreseen that caiphas had decided to surrender One man to the Romans. (Earlier it says better on man should die than a people). It is not clear he means one man or another, but perhaps one that could be sent to the Romans.( However it could mean exactly what it says they had already decided to send Jesus bar yosef). Based on communications of Judas Sicarri Actually eating Human flesh would be prohibited under Jewish law,,Takingit literally it may have been the first instance where the Eucharist was questioned

As you may know the Catholics claim an actual substantiation.( Change to literal flesh) Of that bread/ or wafer The Protestant churches do not but maintain the symbolism as do others What may be occurring here is the first time this literal interpretation of a Passover feast was questioned.......and it would appear that it didn't turn out too well for the person n in question. Either one of them/ Sicarri, I Scari ot , note the ot added like zealot)( Ot) to the root word Sicarri Regards, johnmoon3717@aol.com Hi JohnMoon, 93 In my article on Gnostic Cycles, I briefly hint that the Magick of the Piscean Age is in the Eucharist, this was the formula that has been installed to augment humanity's next stage in development. It's all about transformation. It would be fascinating if you could relate more of what you know about pre-Christian eucharistic practices. 93/93 pj In a message dated 10/26/05 10:50:34 AM, provelli1@nycap.rr.com writes:

It would be fascinating if you could relate more of what you know about pre-Christian eucharistic practices. 93/93 pj

Eucharist is basically Passover with a twist, The allegorical work of Philo h is commentaries and In Manna for instance being the word (Logos) which is translated into You do not live by bread alone, but by every word which proceeds from the mouth of God, is restated in many ways. The Logos is Identified as The Great Arch angel, the Son of god, and many other descriptions.( Phillo Allegorical interoperation) In Passover they use the Bread of Haste( Unlevened bread).The passover lamb, the bitter herbs to remind them of the flight from Egypt, and wine.(The blood smeared on the gables of the Israelites to mark them from the angel of Death) Thus .. Passover (The angel of death passes over). it was a popular topic for teachers, the Essenes incorporated a curse to their enemies (while they were at the table) Likely this is a Passover feast. The trick is when you go one step further and say do this to remember ME, making it personal and not about the Passover.(It suggests that the words are directly the teachers )The Word( Logos)is the first Forethought of God,etc etc.

Bread from Heaven


The sacred Word bears abundant witness that the food of the soul is

not earthly but heavenly: -- "See, I rain on you bread of heaven, and the people should go out and gather the daily (portion) for a day, that I may test whether they will follow my law or not" (Exod 16:4). You see? The soul is fed not by earthly and corruptible things but by words which God might shower from the high and pure Nature which has been called "Heaven"... 166 ...Therefore, let the soul gather the daily (portion) for the day, so that it may declare the bountiful God, not itself, (to be) the guardian of good things... 169 -- "And Moses said to them: --' This (is) the bread which the Lord has given us to eat; this is the word [rhma] which the Lord ordains" (Exod 16:15b-16a). You see what kind of food is for the soul? The continuous Word of God [logos theou] which, like dew, encircles all and leaves no portion without a share of itself. --- Philo

Allegorical Interpretation 3.162, 166, 169

Names of the Son


Now those who live in acquaintance with the One are fittingly called "sons of God," just as Moses himself confesses, when he says: -- "You are the sons of the Lord God" (Deut 14:1) and -- "Is he not your Father?" (Deut 32:6). Indeed, it follows that the only worthy thing [kalos] with those whose soul is thus disposed is to practice good. This is the way for experienced fighting men to counter-attack the end, Pleasure, (and) to upset and destroy it. 146 And if there is anyone who indeed is not yet worthy to be called a son of God, let him strive to be ordered [kosmeisthai] in relation to (God's) First-born and eldest Messenger [angelos], the Word: that is the multinamed Archangel (who was) at the beginning. For he is also called "the Beginning" and the "Name of God" and the "Word" and the "Man after his Image" and "Israel the Seer." --- Philo , Confusion 145-146
So this is not Christian thought But allegorical interpretation OF Judaism Philo of Alexander Who himself was a philosopher, and a Jew so as you can see, much of the scripture which is taken Literally appears to be allegorical on another level Its not as simplistic as first imagined, based upon the teachings of that day. Regards, johnmon3717@aol.com

Hi JohnMoon, 93 This is interesting...the early Christians, i.e., the early Pisceans, determined that there was not an objective/outside god; rather, an internalized logos, by which the Eucharist served as a medium to bring out. This seems to be the authentic essence of the teaching, ultimately corrupted by the Roman church. 93/93 pj

In a message dated 10/26/05 12:04:46 PM, provelli1@nycap.rr.com writes:

Hi JohnMoon, 93 This is interesting...the early Christians, i.e., the early Pisceans, determined that there was not an objective/outside god; rather, an internalized logos, by which the Eucharist served as a medium to bring out. This seems to be the authentic essence of the teaching, ultimately corrupted by the Roman church. 93/93

Seems to be the case, the literal change that's insisted on Likely could not have been taught by Yeshua bar Yosef.(the historical Character) Rather a teaching about the word/Logos and bread....as allegory. That seems to be something that occurred after the fact.(a misinterpretation) There would have been groups that were unable or unwilling to hear such teachings, or minimally understand them. Likely he meant it as a messenger or prophet (Angelos ) Being messenger. There are similar things said in Ezekial and other prophets. If you think about it the Messiah would not have said t hat.( Not literally) That's probably a separation occurring in the Roman church, distancing itself from the Jewish source which they were at war with (Literally in the early 2nd century) the Bar koppha revolt. The result of that was Rome Squashed them and Threw all the Jews out of Judea and renamed Jerusalem after a Roman god, dedicated to a roman deity.( This was done under hadrian) Certainly the history is not boring Regards, johnmoon3717@aol.com Hi JohnMoon, 93 The Great Archangel coming through every individual in the communal practice of the Eucharist reads much as the H.G.A. experience in Thelema and through the Gnostic Mass with the manifestation of Ra-Hoor-Khuit. There are also those who see this manifest as Lam as others see this as Aiwass; where I see the A.'.A.'. as much more individualistic in this regard. The Augoeides (sp?) represents more a function of the internal genius. The renewal/purging of this ancient formula in Thelemic tradition is perhaps the singlemost differentiation by contrast with all the other magickal traditions. And it seems to me, that though the

neo-Gnostics practice this formula, there's not that much potency in this for them. I've not yet heard of any new scriptural tradition, despite their attempt to revive the ancient cultural motives. Per Ezhekiel, could you elaborate on this. And as well, I'd be really interested in what you have to say on the bar koppha revolt. Jeshua bar Joseph's swipe at the money changers in the temple was also mentioned in the Money Masters video. Do you know anything of the politics connected with this? Were the Iscariot leary of the profiteering as much as they were leary of Sanhedrine's alliance with the Roman government? 93/93 pj In a message dated 10/26/05 10:18:45 PM, provelli1@nycap.rr.com writes:

Hi JohnMoon, 93 The Great Archangel coming through every individual in the communal practice of the Eucharist reads much as the H.G.A. experience in Thelema and through the Gnostic Mass with the manifestation of Ra-Hoor-Khuit. There are also those who see this manifest as Lam as others see this as Aiwass; where I see the A.'.A.'. as much more individualistic in this regard. The Augoeides (sp?) represents more a function of the internal genius.

Yes, I noticed. Philo of Alexandria, is a pretty cool Philosopher Way ahead of his time. If you read things the way he did, Then the simple stories that are in the old testament have meaning that are not simplistic at all. But complex journeys, internal as well as external. Regards, johnmoon3717@aol.com Hi JohnMoon, 93 Yes, the Philo quotes you provided were exceptional. Showing the Hebrews to have devotion to the Logos, suggests this to be a much more common understanding than exists in today's Judaism. Of course, it's also lost to those traditional Christian traditions that even have eucharistic practices. This seems a result of the corruption that has hit the whole of the Piscean current. The Jews seem to be more a product of the Piscean movement; in contrast to the Hebrews who seem to belong the Arian Age that preceded it. The Gnostics would then have been purging (in the same way Thelema has begun purging Piscean practices) the more ancient tradition. This while being revolutionary, also then seems to be revisionist, drawing upon the restoration of truths that were just before then, all but lost. I can only wonder how this originated within the Hebrew tradition. 93/93 pj

In a message dated 10/26/05 10:18:45 PM, provelli1@nycap.rr.com writes:

I've not yet heard of any new scriptural tradition, despite their attempt to revive the ancient cultural motives. Per Ezhekiel, could you elaborate on this.

In ezekial The prophet talks for himself, then it switched tense, To the third party which is also him but as the Son of God as opposed to son of man,( The one speaking for god) There are God the Son of God and the prophet. The Archangel /Logos, Inhabits the prophet and speaks through him. And when it doesn't it calls him son of man.( If you figure one of the speeches is the angel/or God) It makes interesting reading/ These are terms used later in Christianity (Or by the historical Yeshua bar yosef) who called himself son of man. ezekial is the prophet that saw the wheel within the wheel in the clouds (Keeps on turning), from which even songs have been written and sung (Styx comes to mind) Regards, johnmoon3717@aol.com Hi JohnMoon, 93 This is very similar to what happens in Liber LXV. The prophet speaks as a little boy and as the angel astride the dove. He speaks as a scribe and as the angel. 93/93 pj In a message dated 10/26/2005 11:18:17 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, provelli1@nycap.rr.com writes: The Upper Room, where the Last Supper is said to have taken place, is held by Christians to be the place where Jesus broke bread and drank wine with the disciples on the eve of his Crucifixion and also where the Holy Spirit descended on the disciples at Pentecost THELEMA this above is the gnostic mass. look at the OTO lamen, there are many different reasons the OTOs central ritual is liber 15, but the lamen itself is showing this above. the bread of course is the host the wine is well the wine, the holy gral is as, archbishop of the EGC, duquette told me, "a dove trap" LOL. but for real look at the lamen, the host in the lamen is the cross with the wine around it, and if you are familiar with the mass it is right after the partical is dropped does the dove/holy spirit descend on the host/wine and it is given to all the "disciples" who commune. and also if you think about it this is the secret to immortality, resurrection! AGAPE Fr.418 Hi Gunner, 93 Is that really what the Caliphate now teaches?...the O.T.O. is a Christian sect? 93/93

pj In a message dated 10/27/05 6:49:50 AM, provelli1@nycap.rr.com writes:

Hi Gunner, 93 Is that really what the Caliphate now teaches?...the O.T.O. is a Christian sect? 93/93 pj

HM Im not sure that per se is Christian what a historical character did before his execution doesn't really qualify. As you may recall Jesus Bar Yosef wasn't a Christian. Regards, johnmoon3717@aol.com Hi JohnMoon, 93 The point here to consider is the nature of the eucharist, it's origin and development. To do this, we have to look outside the Christian paradigm, through to its Jewish (perhaps even Egyptian) roots and with its Greco-Roman (and Gnostic) and Pagan influences. And we can't forget the influence of Arabic Alchemy. Crowley suggests this quite clearly in MITP in his chapter on the Eucharist and Alchemy. To narrow the scope back down to the Christian paradigm is self-defeating. The Caliphate bases its formula on its original nature; as a transitional order, both accepting Liber AL but providing an oldaeonic culture as a sort of half-way point for those transitioning to Thelema. Later in his life, Crowley sought to re-tool the O.T.O. by revising its rituals as he felt there was no benefit to be gained from the original schema. He meant for the O.T.O. to abandon its old-aeonic posture and charged Grant to do this. Both Grant and Motta did this in each of their lodges. And only Grant really came up with any form of new Gnosis; though I would argue with its veracity. This is significant as only Grant developed the eucharistic formula. Motta abandoned it, and it remains anethema in S.O.T.O./H.O.O.R. circles. In their view, it's old-aeonic and they've thrown the baby out with the bathwater. Any Alchemist knows you shouldn't throw the bathwater away either as it also serves a purpose. In other words, one needs to incorporate one's origins into one's destiny. One simply cannot deny a part of one's existence. 93/93 pj

At 13:48 27.10.2005, Paul Joseph Rovelli wrote: Hi Gunner, 93 Is that really what the Caliphate now teaches?...the O.T.O. is a Christian sect? 93/93 pj

93 No its much worse. David Jones is still having a good time and is close to become the most inspired of them all. I think his notocon speech is very gifted. That I have seen no critical remarks on him lately is beyond my understanding. I think the average attitude where he goes must be something like " if he doesnt slap and spit in your face, he cant be evil" I also think he is very fit for the Ministery of Truth, thogh id prefer he would have been caretaken by the Ministery of forgotten men. I just saw the movie PDT spoke about, Orwell rolls in his grave, and it didnt tell me much I didnt knew, but it was good to get refreshed on the qoutes of Orwell from both Animal farm, and 1984, and to see how well he was able to predict the situation. GW Bush and his administration uses today cognitive dissonance for what its worth, and he still gets away with it. Probably because he doesnt slap and spit people in the face - himself. The red is mine. 93 93 Runar

NOTOCON 2005: Gnosticism, Enochian and Thelema. The Gnostic Roots and Thelemic Fruit of the Spirits Actions of Dr. John Dee & Edward Kelly By Brother David R Jones of Coph Nia Lodge [A textual analysis of the correlations in the metaphysical literature and praxis of these three traditions, and their contextual meaning using modern exegetical text criticism. Those who believe any analytical consideration of Thelemic or other Holy Texts to be blasphemous or restricted should consider shunning this discussion.] From the pen of David R. Jones: I have been advised to warn you all that this is only a mere speech and as such necessarily brief in its argument and wide in its scope. Apologies if the arguments herein are not fully developed. The presentation also lacks some illustration, though more critical links are provided. Part I. Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.

Now some of you may think that I am merely here to debunk the whole corpus of Thelemic holy texts and by extension most if not all visionary and sacred literature. But I also believe that if you consider carefully you will see that this is not the case. We are taught to apply the scientific method which is not only about seeking the truth, but to engage in that search by rejecting what is false. A wise man once said what can be killed by the truth does not deserve to live. Even if we only wish to understand it in our own lives, do we truly want the ways we can approach that understanding to be limited by restrictions on what is and what isnt acceptable method. I have seen more than my fair share of would be Thelemites who have taken Thelema on as a rejection of whatever flavor of fundamentalism in which they were raised. Sometimes this leads them to a healthy questioning spirit, but occasionally and too often it is only a substitute dogma, blindly followed because it offers that which was previously forbidden. All religions are formed and grow in a dynamic tension with their predecessors. All religions essentially begin as heresies. And to the degree to which they maintain their distinctions from others, their heresies become doctrine. But by the same token formative religious movements also retain large bodies of ideas and symbols from those traditions with which their identity ultimately becomes separate; far more, in almost all cases, than they reject. My point is not to lead you to a deeper understanding but merely to introduce you to some of the more obvious tools that may lead you to your own richer and more rational appreciation of those texts. ------I propose to apply some basic methods of criticism used by scholars of religion to understand sacred texts and the faiths that use them. Principally we are going to apply source criticism, text criticism and a hint of form criticism. I can only skim the surface in this brief presentation, you are after this left to your own devices, hopefully I will have enkindled some interest in exploring and using these methods for yourself. Let us begin with sources and one of the chief curiosities surrounding the material known as Enochian: the Spirit Actions of John Dee and Edward Kelly. During Dee and Kellys own time, the Book of Enoch was to them a legendary text. Referred to in Judes epistle but lost, at the time, to Europeans. We on the other hand have Enochic texts, recovered from versions in Ethiopic, Greek, and the Aramaic of the Dead Sea Scrolls. A comparison of the material attributed to Enoch in the Spirit Actions to what we now have

of the original material is striking; both in their similarities and in their differences. Notably both contain complex angelologies, direct interactions with the Archangels particularly Michael, Gabriel, Uriel and Raphael, standard apocalyptic metaphysics and symbolism, levels of spiritual hierarchy etc. Far more commonality than can be explained by the sparse references to Enoch in the Bible or the citation given in Jude. And yet no direct literary relationship can be established, that is no one really seriously entertains the notion that either Dee or Kelly had any version of the Enochic texts from which they were borrowing. What then is the source of these similarities? Remember that both Kelly and Dee were University men, Kelly of Oxford and Dee of Cambridge. Dee also had one of the great libraries in Europe at the time, much of it recovered from the destruction of the great monastic collections that resulted from Henry VIII reformation of the Church in England. We can examine the contents of these collections and determine if there are any details regarding the Enochic literature to be found in their texts. And indeed there are, the works of the Church Fathers contain numerous references and details regarding the form and content of the Book of Enoch. The Epistle of Barnabas, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen, Lactantius, Methodius of Philippi, Minucius Felix, Athenagoras, Commodianus, and Ambrose of Milan all contain descriptions and commentary of the Book of Enoch and all were in not only in the collections of Oxford and Cambridge, but most were in Dees own library. It is hard to imagine, given the known intellectual propensities and interests of both Dee and Kelly that they would not have sought out and studied these texts. Dee we know from his own notes to the Spirit Actions queried the Angels regarding the comparison, in reference to Origen, Ireneaus, and Tertullian. These three are also of great interest for what else they discuss. All make reference not only to astrology, magick and angelology, but to the Hermetic literature, which had only recently been rediscovered in Dees time and to the Gnostics. In fact until the uncovering of the collection at Nag Hammadi, the Church Fathers were the primary source for information on the Gnostics. Again we find striking similarities between the Church Fathers descriptions of the Gnostics, their beliefs and practices and what the Angels are said to have communicated to Kelly and Dee. 30 Aires compared to 30 Aeons, concentric Hierarchies of nested Spheres that one had to pass on the way to the highest heavens, with ruling archons and magical passwords. Similar names for God as were attributed to the Gnostics, Iad Balt for Iadlbaoth, Iaod for Iao, etc. and many more subtleties too numerous and complex to go into detail here. Then of course there is Kellys notorious litany against the Angels of June 8, 1584: "- That Jesus was not God. - That no prayer ought to be made to Jesus. - That there is no sin. - That mans soul doth go from one body to another childes quickening or animation. - That as many men and women as are now, have always been (...)

- That the generation of mankind from Adam and Eve, is not an History, but a writing which has another sense. - No Holy Ghost they acknowledged. - They would not suffer him to pray to Jesus Christ; but would rebuke him, saying, that he robbed God of his honour, etc.," most of which are examples of traditional heresies, defined and combated by the herisiological polemics of the Church Fathers. To be sure some like Origen (himself declared a heretic after his death) and Clement of Alexandria are more sympathetic than are Ireneaus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, and Epiphanius. More on the Church Fathers a bit later, because Dee and Kelly arent the only ones who show their direct and significant impact. As I have stated it is difficult to imagine that Dee and Kelly were not aware of this source material. And from this application of what is called Source Criticism, much of the Enochian material of Kelly and Dee looks like a synthesis of material influenced by the Church Fathers and their descriptions of lost, hidden and forbidden knowledge: the very kinds of knowledge that both Kelly and Dee were most interested in. Does this mean that Kelly somehow fabricated the material for Dee? Possible, but given the content of the material unlikely. The results of conjuring and scrying as those who do them know, is controlled by the symbol set of the one or ones working. The information is conveyed is inevitably communicated in symbols, words and paradigms the workers know. Exceptions seem to occur and they are often foisted by spirits as proof of their power and existence, but the bulk of material is always familiar (even if confusing or dissonant). These were certainly not the only influences on the Enochian material, there is much that derives from alchemy, the grimoiric magick of the period, Hermeticism and esp. the more traditional canonical Apocalypticism of Revelation and other books of the Bible and Apocrypha. But there are numerous and significant peculiarities that can be traced back to the accounts of the Church Fathers. And these ideas seem to have clearly functioned as symbolic seeds influencing the symbolic content and providing a framework upon which much of the edifice of Enochian is built. The Book of Revelation is of course central to Enochian magick, it is the foundation and it is the peculiar eschatology and bizarre imagery of Revelation that Enochian magick is principally concerned with explicating. The seven seals, the seven trumpets, the seven vials of woe, all have magical equivalents in the world of the Sigillum Dei Aemeth and the Holy Table. The four kings of the watchtowers are the four living creatures that sit about the holy throne and represent the four fixed signs, their six wings the six seniors that make up 24. Both harkening back to Ezekiel and the four cherubs of the chariot of god and the 24 courses of the Temple of his vision. The four seals about the tablets are the four horsemen, indicating the seasonal ingresses and reflecting a similar vision in Zechariah. The 12 gates of the New Jerusalem are ruled over by 12 Angelic kings that stand above the gates and lead the 12 tribes etc.

Part II I think most of us are aware of another Book which is heavily concerned with imagery and even the eschatology of the Book of Revelation. That is of course The Book of the Law. When we apply the same kind of source criticism to Liber AL, we also see a rather heavy dependence on, in Crowleys case, the King James Version of the Bible. Why does the author of the Book of the Law (whoever you think that that might be) choose and arrange the words the way that he does? On a purely semantic level we are subjected to forms of English that we ourselves do not use. Unless we are extremely traditional Quakers, Amish, Shakespearan actors, or eccentric members of TOPY we dont use thees, thous, yes, or end our verbs with est or eth. And yet not only the Book of the Law, but much of Crowleys writing, both sacred and otherwise employs this archaicism. Why it does this is rather obvious from even a cursory examination of Crowleys cultural indoctrination. It is being used in conscious and unconscious imitation of the language of the King James Bible. If there is some reasonable antithesis that can be posed to this premise I have never seen it. There is of course Crowleys own adoption of the Beast 666 (even though the # is probably 616) as his personal title. The term itself Book of the Law is a proper title; used to denote the Holy Bible, esp. the Torah (though Law is probably not a very good translation of Torah). It is found as such in the King James and other translations of the Bible, and therefrom into the rituals of Freemasonry. Granted there is an Egyptian veneer to the text, but then Crowley was, at the time, steeped in the Egyptian Revival of the Golden Dawn and Budge et al. Not only after all did Hermes Trismegistus and Valentinius come out of Egypt, but Abraham, Joseph, Moses, Joshua, Jeremiah and even Jesus had their sojourns in the land of Mizraim. Compare for instance Matthew 10:16 be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves". With Liber AL 1:57 There is the dove, and there is the serpent. Choose ye well! No one says, after all, that you have to choose between them, so you might as well choose both. Another example is the description of the Stele of Revealing as the Abomination of Desolation in AL III: 19. This symbolism is taken directly from the Book of Daniel (11:31,

12:11, and 9:27), itself in reference to I Maccabees 1:57 to Antiochus IV Epiphanes erection of statues and supposed pig sacrifices in the Temple to Yahweh. A blasphemy so shocking that it precipitated the Maccabbean revolt. And a turn of phrase so evocative that it made its way into the mouth of Jesus in both Mark 13:13 and Matthew 24:15. It is notable that most scholars now believe that this very revolt and its aftermath became the catalyst for the fluorescence of Apocalyptic literature epitomized by Daniel and I Enoch. House of God, Prophet, Priest and King, and phrases too numerous to mention have their origin in the King James Bible. The word Thelema itself finds its earliest extant MS. attestation in the Bible, most notably in the Lords Prayer where it is the form of will used to indicate thy will. All I can suggest is that if you are truly interested in the precursors of this language and its original context, you find a good Bible search engine, like www.biblegateway.com, choose the KJV and work your way through the significant word and their combinations. And likewise we must consider not only the roots of our traditions but the very symbol set of which it is composed and to which the texts themselves make unequivocal reference. They do not exist in isolation and what they truly mean is to a large degree semantically influenced if not determined by the history of their usage. Part III And likewise we must consider not only the roots of our traditions but the very symbol set of which it is composed and to which the texts themselves make unequivocal reference. They do not exist in isolation and what they truly mean is to a large degree semantically influenced if not determined by the history of their usage. Even on the level of what is called Text Criticism (that is trying to read as exactly as possible what a given MS. says) the Book of the Law, is complex and problematic. There is in fact no typeset text of the Book of the Law that faithfully represents the MS. From a text critical standpoint this is bizarre, to put it mildly. http://www.oto-usa.org/disp31.html?num=6 This is a shot from O.T.O.s official site version and Craig Berrys incredibly useful typeset holograph comparison. One has to ask if A. Change not so much as the style of a letter or shall not in one letter change this book; and

B. the incredible known variance in the text? (Given B. we are also left with a corollary problem that there are numerous other instances of debatable readings.) That if we know that Crowley and other subsequent editors of the text down to H.B. have never accurately reproduced the MS. when the difference between the MS. and typescript is known, how can we trust their various necessary interpretations of the handwriting into typeface. The problem is that we cant and so we must go to the MS. itself. I sometimes speculate that if the Tunis Comment really is in class A that it may well refer not to the MS. but to the printed text. My admonition to you. If you cant read the MS. learn! The problem itself has been well explored in Red Flame #8 but even their to date thoroughest examination is not complete, nor are there some problems that may ever succumb to analysis and H.B.s (long before he was H.B.) 93 press edt. of the Book of the Law is an admirable attempt to reflect the MS in type. In most cases the set of possible variants can be limited to a manageable number, but some places defy knowing beyond Crowleys not always trustworthy or consistent memory. By now you are of course wondering how many nits I can pick out of my beard, so I will desist with Textual analysis before we descend any deeper into the pit of minutiae. But before we leave the Book of the Law, and my pestilential discourse, I have one pet peeve. Liber AL says in verses I:46-7 Nothing is a secret key of this law. Sixty-one the Jews call it; I call it eight, eighty, four hundred & eighteen. But they have the half: unite by thine art so that all disappear. This fairly clearly implies that Hebrew the language of the Jews is of critical importance to understanding the Book of Law. Unfortunately in my experience the application of this verse often amounts to comparing entries in Sepher Sephiroth to license plate numbers and trying to derive significance. Now present company is of course excluded but this is a pretty shallow reading of this verse in my humblest opinion. I would admonish you to learn Biblical Hebrew; the rewards are fully worth the fairly limited effort this entails. Just for instance the sexual humor and double entendre that one finds in the Zohar are simply not expressed by Mathers in Kabbalah Unveiled unless he hides it in untranslated Latin, though Waite does tell you in Holy Kabbalah where most of the sex parts are. Each passage in the Zohar is also numeric poetry using all the permutation of Gematria to select the words around which the passage is built and for rather obvious reasons this cant be appreciated in either English or Latin. But failing that I suggest you at least become acquainted with some serious Hebrew Qabalistic literature, to which I cant highly enough recommend Aryeh Kaplan. His Sepher

Yetzirah is the finest eanalysis of that text ever done in English and reading it will free you from the delusion that there is but one right way of attributing the letters to the paths on the Tree of Life. Nor is the Book of the Law the only place in the Sacred texts of Thelema wherein Crowleys mysticism is thus dependant. If anyone has ever read the Vision and the Voice one sees how much biblical symbolism it contains. But there is one passage that is fairly obvious but seems to escape notice. Crowleys vision of the 8th Aire or Aethyr ZID, which has become canonized in the practices of A..A.. as ritual 8 (one of the three approved methods of contacting ones Holy Guardian Angel) purports to be a message from Crowleys own HGA. An entity we would typically identify as Aiwass, though I dont think that it is clear that Crowley had made that identification at the point of the reception of said Aethyr. And Crowleys own 5=6 motto Christeos Lucifitias may also be a key to his expectations. The statement . . . even as it was, not once nor twice, when I have met with thee, as it were, upon the road to Damascus is a clear literary reference to Lukes historical fiction about the apostle Paul in chapter 9 of the Acts of the Apostles. And the speaker would then be the risen Christ. Part IV Before concluding there are two issues of basic Gnosticism that I would like to touch on. IAO http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rs/rak/lxx4qlevb.jpg Here we see the earliest known use of Iota Alpha Omega. It is from a fragment of the Book of Leviticus in the collection known as the Dead Sea Scrolls. It is from an otherwise attested passage in the Septuagint (though extant copies replace IAW with Kurious). Paleographically it is dated to the 2nd century BCE. It is given here as substitute for the Tetragrammaton, i.e. the divine name usually glossed as Yahweh. It is clear from this and other contexts that IAO is a rendering in Greek of the Divine Name. Notably it also appears in fragments from the garbage heap at Oxyrhynchus, where strata of Egyptian, Greek and Coptic literature span the era. http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rs/rak/earlylxx/images/oxy/POxy2745.jpg

Here it is contemporaneous with florescence of apocalyptic literature at the turn of what has become known as the common era. Complex doctrinal and metaphysical struggles and speculations swept the Hellenized world ruled by the successors of Alexander as competing forces of tradition and syncretism interacted and in particular praxis was posed against reason. This was the generation of the Abomination of Desolation. It is not the only example of the Tetragrammaton transliterated this way, which in the DSS is usually expressed in both Hebrew and Greek texts by the insertion of the divine name It indicates too, what was considered to be the proper pronunciation at least in the post exilic world. http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rs/rak/lxxjewpap/tetragram.jpg Already there was some reticence about pronouncing the name and in both Greek and Hebrew it was substituted with Lord, i.e. kurios or Adonai. So remember anytime you call on IAO in the Gnostic Mass or the Star Ruby you are in fact conjuring JHVH Jehovah God himself. It seems to have been used by the Gnostics as a way of supplicating the Demiurge, bargaining in a way for magical favors with the God (evil, stupid, crazy or whatever) who actually ruled the material world, in spite of the fact that Gnostics pretty universally believed that he wasnt the real and unknown god; who in any case would not be concerned with the mundane details of everyday life. http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rs/rak/other/magics.JPG Finally I would like to read a few passages from Epiphanius, one of the most notorious and lurid of the Herisiologists. I do this because the material is borrowed and plagiarized extensively by Aleister Crowley in his construction of many of the upper half of the degrees of O.T.O. Now Im not going to tell you where to find and compare these texts, you are on you own in that regard, but you should know that when both Reuss and Crowley were integrating Gnostic ideas into O.T.O. and EGC they had very little access to actual Gnostic texts, the Nag Hammadi not having as yet been discovered. So guess upon whom they had to rely? Our old friends the Church Fathers. Now the Church Fathers were as I noted previously mostly concerned with fairly vitriolic polemics against the Gnostics, so you have to take what they say with the proverbial grain of salt.

They consummate their pleasure, and then they take unto themselves the sperm produced by their act of impurity not inseminating it for the bearing of children, but rather eating the product of their filthy conduct. and again And if one of them, a man, prematurely ejaculates and the woman becomes pregnant, listen to the even more terrible thing that these folks dare to do. As soon as it is feasible, they induce the expulsion of the embryo, and take the aborted offspring and grind it up with a mortar and pestle. And they season it with honey, pepper and other spices, and with aromatics . . . and partake with their fingers the ground-up baby. . . . And, of course, they consider this to be the perfect Passover. [I have truncated this section in the interests of fair usage; readers should consult Laytons On the Gnostics from Epiphanis Panarion in his Gnostic Scriptures reader] I am reading from Bentley Laytons Anchor Bible Gnostic reader, which in spite of the New Agey cover is the best available collection and will go a long way to uncovering the mysteries of Gnosticism for both the beginner and the expert, and includes detailed excerpts from both actual Gnostic literature and their detractors. More than a few Gnostic saints are covered in detail and it should be in the library of any good O.T.O. body or EGC clergy member. Skrevet: Onsdag 24. August, 2005 11:00 Conclusion I can only hope that the true believers among you feel a bit uncomfortable by all of this analysis. Somewhat on the same level that fundamentalist Christians feel when facing Bible debunkers or the speculations of the Jesus seminar. But I also hope that some others of you and perhaps even those whose minds have been irritated by my questionings have seen their beliefs nay may I use the blasphemous title of faith renewed by a curiosity to attack their most cherished beliefs in the understanding that such analysis, study and maybe even discussion may lead you to a deeper understanding of your sacred texts. To put it bluntly, without a detailed analysis of the words and symbols of the system in which you are working, it is difficult if not impossible to have sufficient material within the mind to understand the complexities with which the mystic and magician will be faced. If they contain truth or even more so if they contain the truth then they can stand the tests of scrutiny. Crowley rather sheepishly explains in MWT that he believes the Comment in Class A protects the text of the Book of the Law from the dangers of sectarian factionalism and schism, but if such was his hope the last hundred years have demonstrated that hope to

be nave at best and poorly reasoned at worst. Like most authors he wanted to protect his legacy, and he seems to have consciously or subconsciously generated the Comment, in fact the whole concept of Class A literature with this aim. The idea of inerrant scripture and absolute doctrine emanating from the great unknown, to which us mere mortals must pay unquestioning adherence is one of the great abominations of the pre modern world. It was largely destroyed by the intellectual evolution of the modern world, but in the crises of our post modern world it has reared its ugly head again. Lets call a spade a spade, the worlds conflicts are largely excused on its grounds. Are we too become victims of the same narrow paradigms, even if we cannot escape the vicissitudes of other zealous true believers who would restrict and even kill those whose brand of religion is not the same as theirs? Muslims and Hindus in both Pakistan and India celebrate their nuclear tests and blessings from their respective gods. Fundamentalist Christians support our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan against fundamentalist Muslims, both decrying the same decline in morals. Hezbollah faces off against the Kahanie Orthodox Jews in Gaza. To read the Book of the Law without reference to the literature that preceded it is akin to trying to understand the Quran or New Testament without the Hebrew Bible. We proudly declare ourselves to be bearers of the Archest of all Heresies, Gnosticism, dont you all think it behooves us to know the heritage the mantle of the arch Heretics a Gnostic heritage and some of us practice By now you must be wondering my thesis is, or if for that matter if I even have a point. In the brief time we have had together it would be impossible for me to introduce you to all the sources to which the Holy Books of Thelema are in debt, nor all of the analytical tools to which they can be subjected. Likewise the relationship between the Bible, the corpus of non Canonical literature and beliefs and practices of our Gnostic forebearers has only been sketched. Do we as Thelemites wish to align ourselves with those kinds of religious paradigms? Crowley said it, I believe it that settles it. If we wish Thelema to grow and flourish who do we want to stand by our side, those who would refuse to study our holy texts, fear the open forum of discussion, and have no original opinions about the text itself? I for one would rather those who joined our ranks came with decent critical thinking skills and the ability not only to question everything but to be able to formulate their own valid opinions, so far as I understand this that means study certainly, comment probably (even if it is only private and personal) and an environment where discussion is valued and vigorous. Does Liber OZ really mean

Man has the right to think what he will: Except about the Book of the Law. to speak what he will: Except about the Book of the Law. to write what he will: Except about the Book of the Law. If we are going to explain our religion to open minded and thinking individuals then it behooves us be able explain our beliefs in honest and hopefully not irrational ways. Conversion is not necessary but tolerance is nice, unless you are up for being an intellectual martyr in a constantly adversarial relationship with the dominant paradigms. Even if you will to be a firebrand for Thelema, it serves you better if you know what sacred concepts are being blasphemed directly and how. You can always ask people if they have read the book of Revelation? And if they have just say, well were the bad guys in the story. Thank You Love is the law, love under will.
Hi Runar, 93 I've been reading some of David Jones' recent posts. He's working a spin that teaches the Gnostic Mass as directly invoking Jesus. He's incorporating Crowley's Liber C (as you know, Motta's is quite different in that it removed the Christist references) into his argumentation. And by implication, 4th Degree O.T.O. ... all because the Caliphate actually does cling to the old paradigm and has chosen to ignore Crowley's directions to revamp and revitalize the order in accord with the dictates of the new aeon. Really, they are canonizers and conservers. 93/93 pj THELEMA no the OTO doesn't teach christinaity or anything about the last supper i just made that connection with the mass last night. AGAPE Fr.418 THELEMA unfortunetly i was working during his lecture, tho he told me to go to duquettes it was probably better if i could go to one. he seemed like a really nice and very very humble guy. a lot of people that are high up OTO members kinda live it up at NOTOCON, he is not one of them. he was a very cool guy AGAPE Fr.418

Hi PJ, 93 Excellent point about the bathwater! This applies to the problem with hating the old current. We should only curse it, and cursing is transforming, when we curse someone to death we are only modifying their elemental constitution. As Hegel would claim, there can only be evolution, the synthesis of thesis and antithesis, as opposed to revolution. Why so, because we do not exist in a vacuum. Thus Thelema is reforming the combinations of existing ideas and practices into a new blend and a new vision. Hating implies a complete removal which can never occur. The study of various religions, such as in liber 777, and the expropriation of their symbols and rituals can then be modified and exploited to serve the new vision that is driving human evolution. 93/93 Ryan I see cursing as revealing and unveiling something for what it is inside - the putrefaction process of petty kings and banishing subliminal messages which carry more weight than what is seen with the naked eye, in fact a whole way of life (or death). By that we transform our POV to something higher and more objective, like looking through a microscope rather than a magnifying or rose-tinted glass. Direct and forthcoming (forward) honesty isn't appreciated by those swallowed up by fantasias, even if it's as tactful as possible (little white lies). And yes, Arabic al-khem-y (from which also derives chem-istry and chem-icals) guides one to initiation in the present or current moment of the here-and-now. The modern age or aeon. I think seeing colours in the astral are most important in this regard rather than shape or form, as the forms of love are NOT love. Later one can begin to really hear things. Also, one becomes offensive (rather than defensive for no reason) as one defends No-thing. There are 2 meanings to "offensive" here. 93 Camille