.jpg)
"he who says 'exalted by the right hand of God' clearly reveals the unspeakable economy of the mystery that the right hand of God who made all things that are who is the Lord by whom all things were made and without whom nothing that is subsists himself raised to his own height the man (anthropos) united to him, making him also by the commixture to be what he is by nature; he is Lord and King, and the King is called Christ; these things he made him too ... the lowliness of the one crucified in weakness (and weakness we have heard from the Lord means flesh) that by the virtue of its mingling with the infinite and boundless nature of the Good remained no longer in its own measures and properties, but by the right hand of God was raised up together and became Lord instead of servant, Christ the King instead of a subject, highest instead of lowly, God instead of man." (Gregory Eun. 44 - 6 (3))So here I am this Jew that never heard of Christianity before trying to make sense of this mystery of enthronement that comes to us thanks to Gregory of Nyssa, a devoted disciple of the original Alexandrian doctrine of Origen. We know that Origen argued that Christ was enthroned since the beginning of tine, space etc. So when 'normative' scholars inject their 'European Christian paradigm' into this 'mystery of enthronement' it comes off looking patently absurd.
Jesus came down to earth and was born to a virgin, went teaching in Galilee only to get HIS flesh crucified, HIS body resurrected only to go BACK UP TO HEAVEN where the disciples 'see' (in their minds eye of course) this fabulous doctrine of Jesus uniting his flesh with God on the throne.
As I said only a moron would think that this is what Origen and the Alexandrian tradition had in mind.
After all these stupid white people don't want to acknowledge that there was this thing called a 'Pope' already sitting in Alexandria since the time of Hadrian. No, they won't accept the testimony of this witness from outside of Christianity because he did not partake of the Holy Spirit and therefore cannot be considered reliable (or some 'rational' disguise of this original Catholic mythology).
The point however is that the fact that the Alexandrians had a man of the flesh sitting on a throne of God in their holiest sanctuary SHOULD change our original paradigm. The idea is clearly that a throne facilitated the 'transformation' (the hidden implication of the word 'Passion' - yetzer' in Aramaic) that originally was referenced in the gospel.
The point is that not only does Irenaeus says that 'those who preferred Mark' already divided Jesus and Christ saying that Jesus was crucified but Christ watched impassibly, but the Alexandrian tradition and Peter I in particular says that Jesus resurrected in another form, another person.
When you put all these things together it is obvious that the mystery described by Gregory from his master Origen is that of A DISCIPLE being represented in the gospel as a 'servant' (and thus needing 'redemption'), his flesh being crucified with stigmata (Gal 6:2) and THIS DISCIPLE being ambiguously represented in the original gospel of Mark sitting on a physical throne IN ALEXANDRIA - the one I discovered in Venice with its secret reference to Zech 6:9f on the backrest - witnessing that flesh and spirit, man and God were united in one person on that object which in turn facilitated the perpetuation of that original mystery to the line of Popes which proceeded from that original disciple - John-Mark.
All that is required to make sense of this formulation is for us to actually spend ONE MINUTE not thinking about 'Matthew,' 'Mark,' 'Paul,' 'Luke' and the rest of the cast of non-existent characters we inherited from our tradition and actually consider how the Marcionites reconstructed their New Testament paradigm.
The Marcionites clearly said that the apostle who wrote the epistles claimed to have received the gospel via heavenly revelation.
No one can doubt this.
Yet the problem is that the Catholics have pounded it in our head that the name of this apostle was 'Paul' - something I am not prepared to concede was true for the Marcionites. As Hippolytus explicitly goes out of his way to deny that the Marcionite gospel was written by Mark, it stands to reason that it at least is plausible that Marcionites (whose name means 'those of Mark' in Aramaic and Hebrew) thought that Mark (or as we would say 'Marcion') was the real (and now hidden) identity of the author of to the Galatians, to the Corinthians, to the Romans and all the rest but including a 'to the Alexandrians' address that was either removed or renamed in our canon.
Indeed no one can deny that the Marcionites argued that the apostle and the original evangelist were actually one and the same person. The problem is that the last hundred generations of scholars were basically brainwashed into starting with 'Paul' and forcing the idea that 'Paul' wrote the original gospel EVEN THOUGH TERTULLIAN EXPLICITLY STATES THAT MARCIONITES DENIED THIS PROPOSITION.
The other way these idiots could have proceeded if they were actually interested in solving this mystery would be to work backwards as I said from Hippolytus' statement and at least consider the possibility that the guy who said that his eyes saw Jesus crucified, the one who said that he received the stigmata on his flesh like the other guy the Alexandrian tradition said Jesus resurrected his Christ-soul in three days after the crucifixion and said all those statements like 'Or seek yea proof of that Christ is speaking in me?' which the Acts of Archelaus and other texts think proves that the apostle was also the Paraclete.
The point is that I don't have enough time to PROVE this proposition. All I ask you is to consider it - for a minute ...
