The Bible doesn't talk about God

[TheWhiteRabbit]

Acts 2:38

 

Edited June 27, 2023 by TheWhiteRabbit

[Jeff]

5 hours ago, Cheshire Cat said:

I'm familiar with many of the parallels and interpretations that you've cited: in particular I studied the Apocalypse in depth because of some pseudo-gnostic teachings about chakras and the churches.

 

But my conclusion is that everything must be read in context and that we shouldn't begin our analysis with the stretching of the text, a stretching which is necessary for it to fit our pre-conceived ideas.

In other words: if you assume from the beginning that it's a sacred text, inspired by God or some astro-ascended Masters and you immediately try to read in there the "superior" spiritual knowledge that you already possess, you'll go astray 99,99% ot the time.

 

First thing: study the time in which it was written. Then read what it's actually there. You can hardly find instructions on internal yogas in the bible.

 

Did you know for example that the number of the beast changed -at least- a couple times to fit different roman emperors?

Those who actually "used" the text on a daily basis (being it for liturgy or teachings) felt the need to "update" it continuously because it became obsolete in a few decades!

What are you trying to get about modern days?

 

According to St. Paul (the guy who made up the all thing and whose teachings are present in Acts and epistles and are regarded as extremely important) Jesus came here to save us from original sin.

This idea was present in many (if not all) gnostic sects as well.

 

"Don’t think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to abolish but to fulfill (the prophets)" (Matthew 5:17)

 

Jesus' truth was that he was the prophesied Mashiach (not the "spiritual Messiah" invented after his death) ... and the "Law" is Moses' laws, written in the Bible.

 

 

I would definitely agree that that Jesus should be read in context, that is why to me taking one verse out of context does not tell the story. If one is interested in the teachings of Jesus, it is important to read the full section. By “fulfill” in this context, he means transcend or move beyond. You can easily see this concept in the later verses of your quoted chapter...

 

Matthew 5:21-22

“Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.”
‭

In the above verse, Jesus is showing that the old literal is not enough. Then he goes on right after that to show a new and “higher” understanding...

 

Matthew 5:38-48

“Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also. And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain. Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away. Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so? Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.”
‭

So you can see by the end of the chapter, he is basically rewriting all of the old (Testament) rules.  

 

[Zhongyongdaoist]

8 hours ago, Cheshire Cat said:

But my conclusion is that everything must be read in context and that we shouldn't begin our analysis with the stretching of the text, a stretching which is necessary for it to fit our pre-conceived ideas.

In other words: if you assume from the beginning that it's a sacred text, inspired by God or some astro-ascended Masters and you immediately try to read in there the "superior" spiritual knowledge that you already possess, you'll go astray 99,99% ot the time.

 

First thing: study the time in which it was written. Then read what it's actually there. (Emphasis mine, ZYD)

 

Again with all due respect Jeff, your example:

 

3 hours ago, Jeff said:

I would definitely agree that that Jesus should be read in context, that is why to me taking one verse out of context does not tell the story. If one is interested in the teachings of Jesus, it is important to read the full section. By “fulfill” in this context, he means transcend or move beyond. You can easily see this concept in the later verses of your quoted chapter...

 

Matthew 5:21-22

“Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.”
‭

In the above verse, Jesus is showing that the old literal is not enough. Then he goes on right after that to show a new and “higher” understanding...

 

Matthew 5:38-48

“Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also. And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain. Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away. Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so? Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.”
‭

So you can see by the end of the chapter, he is basically rewriting all of the old (Testament) rules.

 

Is simply a literary context, and not the type of historical context that Cheshire Cat is saying is the necessary background.  The big question here is "Why didn't a group of high minded pious Jews of the period stone this demon obsessed carpenter to death as a false prophet, like the Law says they should?", who listened to him, and who took his words seriously and who would have protected him from the angry mob?  Cheshire Cat has his own answers, and which are probably that Jesus was a Zealot, and that he was protected by a gang of "Apostle thugs" who would be only to happy to kill anyone in the audience who disagreed with them.  My own answer is that assuming that any of this actually happened and in many ways that is a big assumption, that he had a very sympathetic audience of "God Fearers" and Hellenizing Jews who would have been only to happy to listen to some nice young itinerant preacher speaking Greek Philosophy, which the Greeks had stolen from the Jews anyway, or at least that is what they believed, in terms which had been made as Kosher sounding as they could be by a line thinkers including Aristobolus and the older and very prolific contemporary of any conceivable historical Jesus, the Apostles and Paul, Philo of Alexandria.  I have posted a little bit about this milieu in my posts on the religious background of the Renaissance Neoplatonist and author on magic Cornelius Agrippa's Three Books of Occult Philosophy here:

Agrippa Book One Introduction

(The Relevant posts are mostly on the first and second page, but the whole thread is short and worth a read.)

 

The upshot of which is that a tendency to synthesis Platonic and and Jewish thought existed possibly as early as the Third Century B.C.E. in Ptolemaic Egypt, and that it continues into the Patristic period starting with Justin Martyr, the first of the Church fathers, and running through such Church Fathers as Lactantius and Marius Victorinus, the teacher of St .Augustine.

 

Finally two things, it should be remembered that Joseph and Mary were supposed to have fled to Egypt with the baby Jesus in order to avoid Herod's slaughter of the innocents and if all of this interesting stuff was going on in Alexandria, there would have been no need for Jesus to go off to India for instruction from Hindus or Buddhists would there?  For those people who find the notion of Plato and the Gospels farfetched, I did post about the possible use of Plato's Gorgias in the "Sermon on the Mount" here:

 

Plato's Gorgias in Matthew

 

If you think finding Plato in the Gospel's is simply my own odd and eccentric hobby, you should find yourself a copy of:

 

Plato and the Christians by Adam Fox, Philosophical Library, 1957

 

On the title page the author is listed as Archdeacon of Wesminster, a title of some significance in the Anglican Church.  In this book he takes almost every commonplace among Christian thought that originates somewhere in the New Testament and traces it to some interesting section of Plato's dialogs.  There on p. 131 you will find under the heading, "Love your Enemies", a correlation of Matthew 5.43-45 with Plato's Republic 335B-E.

 

Finally for the sake of brevity I have had to engage in some real oversimplification, nonetheless I hope the above is helpful.

 

ZYD

 

 

 

Edit: Minor spelling and paragraph spacing.

[Jeff]

40 minutes ago, Zhongyongdaoist said:

 

Again with all due respect Jeff, your example:

 

 

Is simply a literary context, and not the type of historical context that Cheshire Cat is saying is the necessary background.  The big question here is "Why didn't a group of high minded pious Jews of the period stone this demon obsessed carpenter to death as a false prophet, like the Law says they should?", who listened to him, and who took his words seriously and who would have protected him from the angry mob?  Cheshire Cat has his own answers, and which are probably that Jesus was a Zealot, and that he was protected by a gang of "Apostle thugs" who would be only to happy to kill anyone in the audience who disagreed with them.  My own answer is that assuming that any of this actually happened and in many ways that is a big assumption, that he had a very sympathetic audience of "God Fearers" and Hellenizing Jews who would have been only to happy to listen to some nice young itinerant preacher speaking Greek Philosophy, which the Greeks had stolen from the Jews anyway, or at least that is what they believed, in terms which had been made as Kosher sounding as they could be by a line thinkers including Aristobolus and the older and very prolific contemporary of any conceivable historical Jesus, the Apostles and Paul, Philo of Alexandria.  I have posted a little bit about this milieu in my posts on the religious background of the Renaissance Neoplatonist and author on magic Cornelius Agrippa's Three Books of Occult Philosophy here:

Agrippa Book One Introduction

(The Relevant posts are mostly on the first and second page, but the whole thread is short and worth a read.)

 

The upshot of which is that a tendency to synthesis Platonic and and Jewish thought existed possibly as early as the Third Century B.C.E. in Ptolemaic Egypt, and that it continues into the Patristic period starting with Justin Martyr, the first of the Church fathers, and running through such Church Fathers as Lactantius and Marius Victorinus, the teacher of St .Augustine.

 

Finally two things, it should be remembered that Joseph and Mary were supposed to have fled to Egypt with the baby Jesus in order to avoid Herod's slaughter of the innocents and if all of this interesting stuff was going on in Alexandria, there would have been no need for Jesus to go off to India for instruction from Hindus or Buddhists would there?  For those people who find the notion of Plato and the Gospels farfetched, I did post about the possible use of Plato's Gorgias in the "Sermon on the Mount" here:

 

Plato's Gorgias in Matthew

 

If you think finding Plato in the Gospel's is simply my own odd and eccentric hobby, you should find yourself a copy of:

 

Plato and the Christians by Adam Fox, Philosophical Library, 1957

 

On the title page the author is listed as Archdeacon of Wesminster, a title of some significance in the Anglican Church.  In this book he takes almost every commonplace among Christian thought that originates somewhere in the New Testament and traces it to some interesting section of Plato's dialogs.  There on p. 131 you will find under the heading, "Love your Enemies", a correlation of Matthew 5.43-45 with Plato's Republic 335B-E.

 

Finally for the sake of brevity I have had to engage in some real oversimplification, nonetheless I hope the above is helpful.

 

ZYD

 

Edit: Minor spelling and paragraph spacing.

 

Thanks for your comments, but my response to Cheshire was related to the topic of Jesus bringing a new and higher understanding then the “old law” of the Old Testament. His point to his original quote from Matthew was an attempt to show that Jesus was the “fulfillment” in terms to continuation, as opposed the new view that the rest of chapter seems to clearly demonstrate (different that Old Testament - Jewish views). 

 

Also, I am in no way saying that what Jesus is stating is in some way unique. While personally, I don’t see your Greek/Plato connection, I would agree that the Teachings of Jesus in the gospels are remarkably similar to Buddhist and Daoist thought from that time period. 

 

I also think that it is important to note that there is actually no third party historical records for Jesus’s life in general. Only, with John the Baptist, is there such historical records.

 

My point is really that relative to the teachings of Jesus, you might as well just throw away the Old Testament. They talk about two completely different concepts of God and also how a person should relate to others in general. Or Jesus’s terms, new wine that doesn’t fit in the old wineskin (of Judaic Old Testament thought).

[Zhongyongdaoist]

1 hour ago, Jeff said:

Also, I am in no way saying that what Jesus is stating is in some way unique. While personally, I don’t see your Greek/Plato connection, I would agree that the Teachings of Jesus in the gospels are remarkably similar to Buddhist and Daoist thought from that time period.

 

I didn't miss your point Jeff, I was addressing where Jesus may have gotten these "higher doctrines", and how they may have related to the Old Testament.  Most people in general and especially around here have just about no idea what Greek philosophy or Plato is about and its connection with Hellenistic Spirituality and I have to say that the connection came as quit a surprise to me, as I have noted elsewhere on the Dao Bums.  I had read about and studied Western Magic, Qabalah, Tibetan Buddhism, Daoism and qigong for fifteen or so years before, in an effort to understand aspects of the Western tradition, I seriously turned my attention to Plato and the Platonists, so that I read these things with different eyes than the scholars whose works I was reading.  It would take too much time to recount both the reasons why I undertook this study and how much that it changed my attitude about a lot of things, but I will address at least some of how this affects the way that Hellenized Jews viewed what we not call "the Old Testament"

 

In my discussion of Jewish adaptations of Plato I mentioned Philo of Alexandria, and he is very important as a contemporary of all of the founders of Christianity, because of the possible influence of thinking like his on their own thought and action.  As moderns we tend to view the "Old Testament" in a certain way, and mostly thanks to the Protestant Reformation most of us tend to view it as something to be interpreted literally.  This is not how Hellenized Jews thought of it, they had no problems with doing the same type of thing to the Torah as Greeks routinely did to their mythology, they interpreted it as allegories of higher spiritual realities and not as something to be taken literally.  In short they did everything thy could to read Plato and Aristotle into the Torah to get something that they could be proud of, out of it.

 

Here are some excerpts from the Internet Encylopedia of Philosophy's article on Philo:

 

Quote

11. Doctrine of the Logos in Philo's Writings

The pivotal and the most developed doctrine in Philo's writings on which hinges his entire philosophical system, is his doctrine of the Logos. By developing this doctrine he fused Greek philosophical concepts with Hebrew religious thought and provided the foundation for Christianity, first in the development of the Christian Pauline myth and speculations of John, later in the Hellenistic Christian Logos and Gnostic doctrines of the second century. All other doctrines of Philo hinge on his interpretation of divine existence and action. The term Logos was widely used in the Greco-Roman culture and in Judaism. Through most schools of Greek philosophy, this term was used to designate a rational, intelligent and thus vivifying principle of the universe. This principle was deduced from an understanding of the universe as a living reality and by comparing it to a living creature. Ancient people did not have the dynamic concept of "function," therefore, every phenomenon had to have an underlying factor, agent, or principle responsible for its occurrence. In the Septuagint version of the Old Testament the term logos (Hebrew davar) was used frequently to describe God's utterances (Gen. 1:3, 6,9; 3:9,11; Ps. 32:9), God's action (Zech. 5:1-4; Ps. 106:20; Ps. 147:15), and messages of prophets by means of which God communicated his will to his people (Jer. 1:4-19, 2:1-7; Ezek. 1:3; Amos 3:1). Logos is used here only as a figure of speech designating God's activity or action. In the so-called Jewish wisdom literature we find the concept of Wisdom (hokhmah and sophia) which could be to some degree interpreted as a separate personification or individualization (hypostatization), but it is contrasted often with human stupidity. In the Hebrew culture it was a part of the metaphorical and poetic language describing divine wisdom as God's attribute and it clearly refers to a human characteristic in the context of human earthly existence. The Greek, metaphysical concept of the Logos is in sharp contrast to the concept of a personal God described in anthropomorphic terms typical of Hebrew thought. Philo made a synthesis of the two systems and attempted to explain Hebrew thought in terms of Greek philosophy by introducing the Stoic concept of the Logos into Judaism. In the process the Logos became transformed from a metaphysical entity into an extension of a divine and transcendental anthropomorphic being and mediator between God and men. Philo offered various descriptions of the Logos.

 

f. Immanent Reason

The reasoning capacity of a human mind is but a portion of the all-pervading Divine Logos. Mind is a special gift to humans from God and it has divine essence, therefore, as such, it is imperishable. By receiving this humans received freedom and the power of spontaneous will free from necessity (Deus. 47). Philo emphasizes that man "has received this one extraordinary gift, intellect, which is accustomed to comprehend the nature of all bodies and of all things at the same time." Thus humanity resembles God in the sense of having free volition for unlike plants and other animals, the soul of man received from God the power of voluntary motion and in this respect resembles God (Deus. 48). This concept, that it is chiefly in the intellect and free volition that makes humans differ from other life forms, has a long history which can be traced to Anaxagoras and Aristotle.  Philo calls "men of God" those people who made God-inspired intellectual life their dominant issue. Such men "have entirely transcended the sensible sphere, and migrated to the intelligible world, and dwell there enrolled as citizens of the Commonwealth of Ideas, which are imperishable, and incorporeal ... those who are born of God are priests and prophets who have not thought fit to mix themselves up in the constitutions of this world...."(Gig. 61). Philo writes in reference to the Old Testament expression that God "breathed into" (equivalent of "inspired" or "gave life to") inanimate things that through this act God extended his spirit into humans (LA 1.37). Though his spirit is distributed among men it is not diminished (Gig. 27). The nature of the reasoning power in men is indivisible from the Divine Logos, but "though they are indivisible themselves, they divide an innumerable multitude of other things." Just as the Divine Logos divided and distributed everything in nature (that is, it gave qualities to undifferentiated, primordial matter), so the human mind by exertion of its intellect is able to divide everything and everybody into an infinite number of parts. And this is possible because it resembles the Logos of the Creator and Father of the universe: "So that, very naturally, the two things which thus resemble each other, both the mind which is in us and that which is above us, being without parts and invisible, will still be able in a powerful manner to divide and distribute [comprehend] all existing things" (Her. 234-236; Det. 90). Uninitiated minds are unable to apprehend the Existent by itself; they only perceive it through its actions. To them God appears as a Triad -- himself and his two Powers: Creative and Ruling. To the "purified soul," however, God appears as One.
 

Quote

“When, therefore, the soul is shone upon by God as if at noonday, and when it is wholly and entirely filled with that light which is appreciable only by the intellect, and by being wholly surrounded with its brilliancy is free from all shackle or darkness, it then perceives a threefold image of one subject, one image of the living God, and others of the other two, as if they were shadows irradiated by it .... but he claims that the term shadow is just a more vivid representation of the matter intended to be intimated. Since this is not the actual truth, but in order that one may when speaking keep as close to the truth as possible, the one in the middle is the Father of the universe, who in the sacred scripture is called by his proper name, I am that I am; and the beings on each side are those most ancient powers which are always close to the living God, one of which is called his Creative Power, and the other his Royal Power. And the Creative Power is God, for it is by this that he made and arranged the universe; and the Royal Power is the Lord, for it is fitting that the Creator should lord it over and govern the creature. Therefore, the middle person of the three, being attended by each of his powers as by body-guard, presents to the mind, which is endowed with the faculty of sight, a vision at one time of one being, and at another time of three; of one when the soul being completely purified, and having surmounted not only the multitude of numbers, but also the number two, which is the neighbour of the unit, hastens onward to that idea which is devoid of mixture, free from all combination, and by itself in need of nothing else whatever; and of three, when, not being as yet made perfect as to the important virtues, it is still seeking for initiation in those of less consequence, and is not able to attain to a comprehension of the living God by its own unassisted faculties without the aid of something else, but can only do so by judging of his deeds, whether as creator or as governor. This then, as they say, is the second best thing; and it no less partakes in the opinion which is dear to and devoted to God. But the first-mentioned disposition has no such share, but is itself the very God-loving and God-beloved opinion itself, or rather it is truth which is older than opinion, and more valuable than any seeming (Abr. 119-123).”

 

The one category of enlightened people is able to comprehend God through a vision beyond the physical universe. It is as though they advanced on a heavenly ladder and conjectured the existence of God through an inference (Praem. 40). The other category apprehends him through himself, as light is seen by light. For God gave man such a perception "as should prove to him that God exists, and not to show him what God is." Philo believes that even the existence of God "cannot possibly be contemplated by any other being; because, in fact, it is not possible for God to be comprehended by any being but himself " (Praem. 39-40). Philo adds, "Only men who have raised themselves upward from below, so as, through the contemplation of his works, to form a conjectural conception of the Creator by a probable train of reasoning" (Praem. 43) are holy, and are his servants. Next Philo explains how such men have an impression of God's existence as revealed by God himself, by the similitude of the sun (Mut. 4-6) a concept which he borrowed from Plato.  As light is seen in consequence of its own presence so, "In the same manner God, being his own light, is perceived by himself alone, nothing and no other being co-operating with or assisting him, a being at all able to contribute to pure comprehension of his existence; But these men have arrived at the real truth, who form their ideas of God from God, of light from light" (Praem. 45-46). As Plato and Philo had done, Plotinus later used this image of the sun. Thus the Logos, eternally created (begotten), is an expression of the immanent powers of God, and at the same time, it emanates into everything in the world.  (Emphasis mine, ZYD)

 

Here we see important ideas and images that appear in both orthodox and Gnostic thought, such as the Logos, Trinity, light etc., and this is hardly an single icicle from the tip of the iceberg.

 

I hope that these rather long excerpts are helpful.

 

ZYD

 

 

 

 

Edit: Changed paragraph spacing.

[Jeff]

6 minutes ago, Zhongyongdaoist said:

 

I didn't miss your point Jeff, I was addressing where Jesus may have gotten these "higher doctrines", and how they may have related to the Old Testament.  Most people in general and especially around here have just about no idea what Greek philosophy or Plato is about and its connection with Hellenistic Spirituality and I have to say that the connection came as quit a surprise to me, as I have noted elsewhere on the Dao Bums.  I had read about and studied Western Magic, Qabalah, Tibetan Buddhism, Daoism and qigong for fifteen or so years before, in an effort to understand aspects of the Western tradition, I seriously turned my attention to Plato and the Platonists, so that I read these things with different eyes than the scholars whose works I was reading.  It would take too much time to recount both the reasons why I undertook this study and how much that it changed my attitude about a lot of things, but I will address at least some of how this affects the way that Hellenized Jews viewed what we not call "the Old Testament"

 

In my discussion of Jewish adaptations of Plato I mentioned Philo of Alexandria, and he is very important as a contemporary of all of the founders of Christianity, because of the possible influence of thinking like his on their own thought and action.  As moderns we tend to view the "Old Testament" in a certain way, and mostly thanks to the Protestant Reformation most of us tend to view it as something to be interpreted literally.  This is not how Hellenized Jews thought of it, they had no problems with doing the same type of thing to the Torah as Greeks routinely did to their mythology, they interpreted it as allegories of higher spiritual realities and not as something to be taken literally.  In short they did everything thy could to read Plato and Aristotle into the Torah to get something that they could be proud of, out of it.

 

Here are some excerpts from the Internet Encylopedia of Philosophy's article on Philo:

Here we see important ideas and images that appear in both orthodox and Gnostic thought, such as the Logos, Trinity, light etc., and this is hardly an single icicle from the tip of the iceberg.

 

I hope that these rather long excerpts are helpful.

 

Thank you very much for your detailed overview. I very much enjoy such discussions. But, if you look at the analysis and similarities that you are describing, it is talking about cross over with the Old Testament and earlier Jewish thought. Additionally, concept like the “trinity” are not stated by or part of the teachings of Jesus, but were added much later by Roman Empire based theologians. And I would agree that it is highly likely that their thinking, was affected by Plato and other great philosophical thinkers. I see it as the Roman Empire redefining the meaning and teachings to create an integrated base within the broader empire. A perfect example of this “hijacking” can be seen in the creation of a hierarchy of priests/fathers, when Jesus very clearly stated that one should call no man father/priest/rabbi.

 

To me, this discussion is silimar to the historical Buddha coming out of a classical and well educated Indian culture. His concept and view was a radical shift in historical view of doctrine that for believers caused a fundamental split. But, from the view of existing Hindu cultural framework, they historically “readopted” him as a classical avatar.

 

i would argue that all of the actual teaching/words of Jesus are about a spiritual understanding and realization, not about a world king revolutionary concept that had been hoped for by political strategists (or the historical Old Testament view).

[Cheshire Cat]

1 hour ago, Jeff said:

 

Thanks for your comments, but my response to Cheshire was related to the topic of Jesus bringing a new and higher understanding then the “old law” of the Old Testament. His point to his original quote from Matthew was an attempt to show that Jesus was the “fulfillment” in terms to continuation, as opposed the new view that the rest of chapter seems to clearly demonstrate (different that Old Testament - Jewish views). 

[...]

 

Again, you forget to consider the times and place where Jesus lived which are crucial elements to understand this figure.

 

He was ONE of the MANY messianic preachers of the time that studied (like many of those Messiahs) at the Pharisaic school of Rav Hillel: you could easily find the contents of this jewish school in Jesus' teachings.

 

This idea of Jesus bringing new and higher understanding is a christian fraud : for example, think of that famous phrase “The Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath" which supposedly brought a new light to the poor idiotic jews who can't save themselves from old customs...

Well, all of the Messiahs repeated this very phrase which comes directly from the school of Rav Hillel .

[Jeff]

8 minutes ago, Cheshire Cat said:

 

Again, you forget to consider the times and place where Jesus lived which are crucial elements to understand this figure.

 

He was ONE of the MANY messianic preachers of the time that studied (like many of those Messiahs) at the Pharisaic school of Rav Hillel: you could easily find the contents of this jewish school in Jesus' teachings.

 

This idea of Jesus bringing new and higher understanding is a christian fraud : for example, think of that famous phrase “The Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath" which supposedly brought a new light to the poor idiotic jews who can't save themselves from old customs...

Well, all of the Messiahs repeated this very phrase which comes directly from the school of Rav Hillel .

 

Very interesting that you pick this verse from Mark, because in context it fit exactly what I have been saying about the “new wine” stuff...

 

Mark 2:18-28

“And the disciples of John and of the Pharisees used to fast: and they come and say unto him, Why do the disciples of John and of the Pharisees fast, but thy disciples fast not? And Jesus said unto them, Can the children of the bridechamber fast, while the bridegroom is with them? as long as they have the bridegroom with them, they cannot fast. But the days will come, when the bridegroom shall be taken away from them, and then shall they fast in those days. No man also seweth a piece of new cloth on an old garment: else the new piece that filled it up taketh away from the old, and the rent is made worse. And no man putteth new wine into old bottles: else the new wine doth burst the bottles, and the wine is spilled, and the bottles will be marred: but new wine must be put into new bottles. And it came to pass, that he went through the corn fields on the sabbath day; and his disciples began, as they went, to pluck the ears of corn. And the Pharisees said unto him, Behold, why do they on the sabbath day that which is not lawful? And he said unto them, Have ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was an hungred, he, and they that were with him? How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the shewbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him? And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath: Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.”
‭‭

As you can see Jesus with sabbath comment is specifically, talking about the old rules being taken out of context. Additionally, he is saying that he is speaking from “spiritual higher authority” when he says that the Son of man is Lord also of the Sabbath.

 

 

[Cheshire Cat]

7 minutes ago, Jeff said:

 

Very interesting that you pick this verse from Mark, because in context it fit exactly what I have been saying about the “new wine” stuff...

 

[...]

 

 

 

That's Rav Hillel stuff.

[Jeff]

39 minutes ago, Cheshire Cat said:

 

That's Rav Hillel stuff.

 

I don’t see it at all. Rav Hillel was famous for telling everyone to study the Torah (and the law), and one of his most famous sayings is....

 

“If I am not for myself who is for me? And being for my own self, what am 'I'? And if not now, when?"

- Hillel, Pirke Avot I.14, translated Charles Taylor

 

This is not anything like the teachings of Jesus. Additionally, Rav Hillel would tell everyone to fit in to the culture and even dress alike, definitely very un-Jesus like who says how he will set parent against child.

[Spotless]

I have yet to see a translation of the compiled books of the Catholic Church which we call the Bible to include such things as the many references to "Hell" being actually specific references to a dump outside of Jeruselum.

[Nungali]

On ‎13‎/‎10‎/‎2017 at 5:43 PM, Bindi said:

 

The flood story would be the main parallel from Sumerian texts, but there are also Gods (plural) in the Sumerian Eridu genesis which are mentioned in the biblical genesis but don't fit the monotheistic pattern. 

 

This page gives a reasonable overview

http://www.piney.com/EriduGen.html

 

One of the bottom line issues is that some people, those that end up in the alien UFO camp really, are reading the Eridu genesis text and other Akkadian texts as factual history instead of myth. 

 

edit: Also 'The genesis of genesis' by Victor Hurowitz regarding the Babylonian creation myth and its similarity to the Biblical genesis.    http://www.michaelsheiser.com/PaleoBabble/babylonbaghdad.pdf

 

 

 

 

 

Its easy to understand why when the greater dynamics of  events before during and after ' the captivity '  are understood .

 

The Old Testament  sources seem constructed from a combination of  Mesopotamian , Zoroastrianism and Zurvanism .

[Nungali]

On ‎13‎/‎10‎/‎2017 at 7:43 PM, Cheshire Cat said:

 

Biglino is pointing out that the verb that theologians translate "to create" doesn't mean "creatio ex nihilo" and it never does.

The term specifically imply an intervention on something that already exists to create something else.

 

 

 

When the Bible says God, the original term is Elohim.

When the Bible says Lord, the original term is YHWH.

When the Bible says (the) Most Hight, the original term is Elyon.

 

and ...

 

 

 

But I prefer , when examining Hebrew names of God , to go to a  Hebrew tradition, not a Christian one.

 

For example - where is the primal name of God, above ? -    ' I am '    ( that I am )   אֶהְיֶה‎

( a very interesting one   that  ;  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Am_that_I_Am  )

 

 

 

On ‎13‎/‎10‎/‎2017 at 7:43 PM, Cheshire Cat said:

 

Elohim is a plural and nobody knows what it actually means.

YHWH is the name of an individual and we don't even know how to properly pronounce it.

Elyon... there are chances (but we're not sure) that it comes from a term which means High.

 

This is what it's written.

Now you can interpret as you like or stay literal. It's your choice.

 

and you can interpret Hebrew scripture from its corrupt form in the  OT . Its your choice      Or, you could get right into it ... to the point where you are listening to two Rabbi's ( both experts )  argue amongst themselves what it means    

 

Its contentious either way ... just look at the points of view in that wiki link  above  ... or read up on just about any name , try  'El Chai Shaddai '  for example, and try tracking down what that 'actually' means ;   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Shaddai

[Nungali]

On ‎13‎/‎10‎/‎2017 at 10:09 PM, Bindi said:

I looked into 'Olam' for example, one of Biglino's disputed words, usually translated as 'eternity' in the bible, and the more literal translation from the Ancient Hebrew Research Centre:

 

 

So Biglino has reason I believe to make a new literal translation, but it's also true that he does go further than just literal translation, as he then interprets his literal translation. 

 

Hence making the final product not literal translation  at all     

[Nungali]

On ‎14‎/‎10‎/‎2017 at 4:25 AM, Zhongyongdaoist said:

.... the opinions of a UFO theorist lecturing in Italian with English subtitles.  ...

 

...on adopted Christianised  Hebrew scripture     

 

But hey !   Its got  UFOs and aliens somehow attached  ... so that's '  cool ' .   

 

Peeps flock to support that   

[Nungali]

On ‎14‎/‎10‎/‎2017 at 4:28 AM, Jeff said:

I think it is also important to differentiate between the Bible (with the New Testament) itself and really what you are describing about the Old Testament. 

 

 

Eh ?          Are you saying the Bible  with the New Testament  -   the bible 'itself '  -   somehow changes the first part of the Bible being the OT ?

[Nungali]

On ‎14‎/‎10‎/‎2017 at 4:38 AM, silent thunder said:

When the bible was cannonized and the books codified into the form they now occupy, there was I would wager, no one involved in the process who could envision a time such as we live in now... when a common farmer, or carpenter/artist such as myself, would be able to read the bible for himself and thus inquire directly to answer the inconvenient questions, so often ignored or shut down by the church.

 

As such, the wealth of contradictions in the varying books was considered a non issue, as no commoner would ever have access to the wealth, the means, or the time, to devote to learning to read the words for themselves and thus would always be required to rely upon the clergy to interpret the words of god and remain firmly within the context decided by doctrine.

 

That was going back in the  60s at the catholic school I went to ... never saw a Bible !    The teacher had one, but not used.  We learnt 'religion'  from the 'Catholic catechism books'  . censored versions with extracts from the Bible . Any questions related to that, was not for us to compare with the Bible ! That had already been done , we  were supposed to take 'their' word on things.  Or at church in sermon, you might get read a bit and then told what it means for you.

 

I was surprised when I went to other places and Bible was lying around to be read willy nilly ,  or even discussed by people..  Radical ! 

[Spotless]

When we are require to reflect on the differences between the Old Teatament and the New Teatament we are invariably being asked to step into the shoes of an apologist for the Bible(s).

 

The only non-apologist for the Bible(s) is a Fundamentalist - all others must offer explainaways for the intolerable concoctions and the incredible puffery. 

 

It would be be nice to consider a simple story of a boy who was born of parents that fucked their brains out one night in instinctive and passionate merriment. Parents that were not special - (the women being as soiled as the rest of us - meaning for those that do not know that she was not "immaculate" which means "having no original sin" nor that she was still a virgin after conception).

 

Standing on this alone, the character in the Bible(s) named Jesus does not say one word or phrase more clearly uttered by someone else previous to his purported existence of which there is not one spec of evidence.

 

All of that said - when sages explain to us what the character Jesus means - more often than not those who hit the mark are sages based in other traditions. The best of the apologists walk and speak and write as Buddhist/Hindu/Daoist amalgamations - having shed nearly all of the shackles of fundamental Christian concrete.

 

I am not opposed to ancient mythology and even the not so ancient mythology of the Christian heritage - virgin birth, ressurection - these were the requirements for bringing in the gold and establishing awe - they were bullshit then and they are bullshit now. If the message serves to open mind and heart and find our Godness within - this is a helpful and wonderful influence on all. 

 

The religion - the beliefs promulgated by our favored western traditions do not do is - though the apologists for them will point out that they should and in some cases they do - but this is not true. Only those that go well beyond the religion and leave it well behind them find the message of the true sages unveiled. And the argument that this is true of all religions is simply not the case.

 

Our Western religions teach "other" - it is true that deep down one will find a different set of teachings - but then this is the entire failing and it requires the apologists to intervene if possible to the closed minds of the former adherents.

 

Taken as a simple man without the puffery the character Jesus in any one of the many Bibles says some nice things - nothing of significance not said before and generally said in a much more understandable way. But it is always nice to slow the analyzing brain somewhat and so odd ways of saying things can be of great value - no issue here with that - and they may be odd only in that they come from someone who may have said them not so long ago but long enough that they spoke in different ways than we are accustomed to.

 

It is curious that those most familiar with the Bible(s) on a general level are Athiests and those least are the Fundamentalists.

The apologists are generally concerned with both the Athiest and the Fundamentalist - few are actually concerned with the actual truth being known regarding the actual lack of any evidence and the overwhelming evidence of mimic and overt seizure of pre-existing celebrations and "must have" God birth mythology.

 

For the fun of it - did you know that we used to celebrate the birth of the Sun God Mithra on December 25th and we celebrated his reasurection during Easter?     Few Christians know any of such things - quite a few Atheists do.

The vast majority of Christians think the Immaculate conception means Virgin Birth (since immaculate implies "not dirty" which Christians associate with sex and the ever horrible (completely normal) sins of flesh).

Edited October 15, 2017 by Spotless

[Nungali]

On ‎14‎/‎10‎/‎2017 at 5:28 AM, MooNiNite said:

The New Testament with The Book of Revelation is clearly just a description of opening the chakras. 

 

Clearly ?      Nah !     However, there are obscure and spurious  Freemasonic rites that interpret the opening of the seals in revelations as 'chakra openings' .  

 

Here is your 7 'chakras'  a la Steiner ;

 

 

For Cayce fans , followers and believers  ;

 

Church Gland Seal
Ephesus Gonads 1
Smyrna Ayden 2
Pergamos Adrenals 3
Thyatira Thymus 4
Sardis Thyroid 5
Philadelphia Pineal 6
Laodicea Pituitary 7

John has a mental awakening when he attains the spiritual level of the superconscious mind, within the throne of his own body. The four beasts are his four lower spiritual center's animalistic desires and the twenty-four elders are the twenty-four nerves from his brain leading to his five senses. The superconscious mind, is now in full control of John's body. The body is symbolized as a book with seven seals which "no one has the ability to open on his own" (Revelation 5:3). Only through the development of the superconscious mind within a person, can these spiritual centers within the body be opened (i.e., spiritually activated).

As each spiritual center within the body is activated, different parts of the body are purified and upheavals of the body occur mentally, physically, and spiritually. The superconscious mind spiritually activates the seventh spiritual center (the Pituitary, the master gland of the body). As a result of this, it becomes "quiet in heaven for one half hour" (Revelation 8:1). This is symbolic of the perfect control of the mind for one half hour through meditation

 

[Nungali]

On ‎14‎/‎10‎/‎2017 at 5:45 AM, MooNiNite said:

The Book of Revelation is about opening 7 seals on a scroll and each time one opens, the creature that corrisponds to the charkas horoscope sign comes out. 

 

What is a 'chakra horoscope sign '     and what creatures are entrapped in our chakras ? 

 Where did you get this from ?

 

 

On ‎14‎/‎10‎/‎2017 at 5:45 AM, MooNiNite said:

 

Finally when all 7 are open there is 30 minutes of silence. 

The book is about an "apocolypse."

 

An apocalypse (Ancient Greek: ἀποκάλυψις apokálypsis, from ἀπό and καλύπτω, literally meaning "an uncovering") is a disclosure of knowledge or revelation. In religious contexts it is usually a disclosure of something hidden, "a vision of heavenly secrets that can make sense of earthly realities".^[1]

 

 

The book (if you can call it that) is clearly just some stolen Hindu/Tibetan Buddhist ideas.   

 

P f f f t     the  Hindu/Tibetan Buddhist ideas. are clearly just some stolen   'spenta mainyu'  concepts     

 

Each Amesha Spenta represents a good moral quality that mortals should strive to obtain. and endeavour to assimilate the qualities of an Amesha Spenta into oneself. Of course , each one has an antithetical counterpart - a 'qlippoth'

 

Or ,   I could 'go hermetic' on the concept ;

 

 

7 spheres, concepts, levels,  that have 'good and bad'  qualities. each one must be passed through, the bad resolved and the good bought forward and accomplished

 

 

 

 

7 steps   

[Spotless]

When this one ends it goes on to others - refreshing and ineresting.

 

[Jeff]

14 hours ago, Nungali said:

 

 

Eh ?          Are you saying the Bible  with the New Testament  -   the bible 'itself '  -   somehow changes the first part of the Bible being the OT ?

 

In context, only the OT was being referenced.

[Cheshire Cat]

19 hours ago, Jeff said:

(...)

 

This is not anything like the teachings of Jesus. Additionally, Rav Hillel would tell everyone to fit in to the culture and even dress alike, definitely very un-Jesus like who says how he will set parent against child.

 

All of Jesus teachings could be traced back to Bet Hillet... except when he talks precisely like a zealot, indeed he was a wannabe Mashiach.

 

18 hours ago, Nungali said:

But I prefer , when examining Hebrew names of God , to go to a  Hebrew tradition, not a Christian one.

 

I prefer not to translate stuff that can't be translated because NONE has the truth, not even the Jewish traditions.

This is a fact.

 

18 hours ago, Nungali said:

 

For example - where is the primal name of God, above ? -    ' I am '    ( that I am )   אֶהְיֶה‎

(...) 

 

That "name" is already translated "I am what I am" and it sounds more like an upset warlord than some sort of esoteric thing.

 

19 hours ago, Spotless said:

I have yet to see a translation of the compiled books of the Catholic Church which we call the Bible to include such things as the many references to "Hell" being actually specific references to a dump outside of Jeruselum.

 

Yes, it was the jeenna and theologians translate it as Hell.

[Jeff]

19 hours ago, Spotless said:

When we are require to reflect on the differences between the Old Teatament and the New Teatament we are invariably being asked to step into the shoes of an apologist for the Bible(s).

 

The only non-apologist for the Bible(s) is a Fundamentalist - all others must offer explainaways for the intolerable concoctions and the incredible puffery. 

 

It would be be nice to consider a simple story of a boy who was born of parents that fucked their brains out one night in instinctive and passionate merriment. Parents that were not special - (the women being as soiled as the rest of us - meaning for those that do not know that she was not "immaculate" which means "having no original sin" nor that she was still a virgin after conception).

 

Standing on this alone, the character in the Bible(s) named Jesus does not say one word or phrase more clearly uttered by someone else previous to his purported existence of which there is not one spec of evidence.

 

All of that said - when sages explain to us what the character Jesus means - more often than not those who hit the mark are sages based in other traditions. The best of the apologists walk and speak and write as Buddhist/Hindu/Daoist amalgamations - having shed nearly all of the shackles of fundamental Christian concrete.

 

I am not opposed to ancient mythology and even the not so ancient mythology of the Christian heritage - virgin birth, ressurection - these were the requirements for bringing in the gold and establishing awe - they were bullshit then and they are bullshit now. If the message serves to open mind and heart and find our Godness within - this is a helpful and wonderful influence on all. 

 

The religion - the beliefs promulgated by our favored western traditions do not do is - though the apologists for them will point out that they should and in some cases they do - but this is not true. Only those that go well beyond the religion and leave it well behind them find the message of the true sages unveiled. And the argument that this is true of all religions is simply not the case.

 

Our Western religions teach "other" - it is true that deep down one will find a different set of teachings - but then this is the entire failing and it requires the apologists to intervene if possible to the closed minds of the former adherents.

 

Taken as a simple man without the puffery the character Jesus in any one of the many Bibles says some nice things - nothing of significance not said before and generally said in a much more understandable way. But it is always nice to slow the analyzing brain somewhat and so odd ways of saying things can be of great value - no issue here with that - and they may be odd only in that they come from someone who may have said them not so long ago but long enough that they spoke in different ways than we are accustomed to.

 

It is curious that those most familiar with the Bible(s) on a general level are Athiests and those least are the Fundamentalists.

The apologists are generally concerned with both the Athiest and the Fundamentalist - few are actually concerned with the actual truth being known regarding the actual lack of any evidence and the overwhelming evidence of mimic and overt seizure of pre-existing celebrations and "must have" God birth mythology.

 

For the fun of it - did you know that we used to celebrate the birth of the Sun God Mithra on December 25th and we celebrated his reasurection during Easter?     Few Christians know any of such things - quite a few Atheists do.

The vast majority of Christians think the Immaculate conception means Virgin Birth (since immaculate implies "not dirty" which Christians associate with sex and the ever horrible (completely normal) sins of flesh).

 

Interesting theory. But I would disagree with your apologist perspective. The apologist mentality has abosoluting nothing to do with actual teachings of Jesus, but all much more relates to the nature of the various religious-empire-military instutions that attempted to build an entity around him.

 

To me, it is very simple, just throw away Old Testament stuff and focus on the actual words and teachings of Jesus in the various gospels. No one ever really seems to read them in context, but it is very clear. I would also add the gospel Thomas to the mix, as it was probably only not included by the Roman Empire because of it’s specific statements of Peter not being the chosen one and hence diminishing Rome. 

[Spotless]

9 hours ago, Jeff said:

 

Interesting theory. But I would disagree with your apologist perspective. The apologist mentality has abosoluting nothing to do with actual teachings of Jesus, but all much more relates to the nature of the various religious-empire-military instutions that attempted to build an entity around him.

 

To me, it is very simple, just throw away Old Testament stuff and focus on the actual words and teachings of Jesus in the various gospels. No one ever really seems to read them in context, but it is very clear. I would also add the gospel Thomas to the mix, as it was probably only not included by the Roman Empire because of it’s specific statements of Peter not being the chosen one and hence diminishing Rome. 

I assumed most would understand what I meant by an apologist - it is not a theory: Either one believes in the Bible as the word of God - infallible - or one apologizes for it and retreats from portions of it and says things like - " well I don't like the Old Testament" and wants to go with just the New Testament and then when the great problems of the New Testament are brought up then the apologist either begins to hold his ground against all reason or begins to back off a good portion of it as well. 

 

You are a perfect example here of an apologist for the Bible. I do not mean it in an offensive way. All Christians are either Fundamentalists or Apologists regarding the Bible(s). To you it is simple - "just throw away Old Testament stuff" and pretty much focus on what you have chosen as the good stuff - I would guess that would include throwing out a great deal of the New Testament stuff - Basically toss out 19/20ths of the Bible and then it is pretty good. 

 

Most people would agree with that - I would - though possibly a bit less than 1/20th - more like 2% of it.

2% of it is pretty good stuff!