Philo's guide to decoding the Hebrew Bible

The study of religious or heroic legends and tales. One constant rule of mythology is that whatever happens amongst the gods or other mythical beings was in one sense or another a reflection of events on earth. Recorded myths and legends, perhaps preserved in literature or folklore, have an immediate interest to archaeology in trying to unravel the nature and meaning of ancient events and traditions.

Moderators: MichelleH, Minimalist, JPeters

User avatar
john
Posts: 1004
Joined: Wed Jul 19, 2006 7:43 pm

Post by john »

Forum Monk wrote:Well I guess I owe you an apology as I used "Eleusian Mystery rites" as my search term. And I admit while I have read your posts I don't usually check all the links because if I had, it may have sunk in better.

What I have been doing here, is going back and addressing things and searching them out kind of "after the fact" as time permits. So I often browse and if the post looks like a recapitulation of ideas I already read, I takes some notes, then go back later and dig deeper. After all there is a lot in this thread from you, seeker, Min, John and Patty and noone on this board is giving me much support apart from an occasional blurb by KB.

I like this list, though and thanks for this. It gives me a nice list of topics that can be addressed individually over time. (I copied it for off-line research).

btw -
But now that I've shown these unread posts to you, please don't come back on here with a copy and paste from the apologists' encyclopaedias about why I'm wrong.
There is no quote from me from an apologist website in this thread that I can remember - but don't try to dictate what constitutes a viable source. If the argment is relevent I reserve the right to post it.


Forum Monk -

Just in case you missed this one, also.

http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/twainlfe.htm


.......by a better mind

than yours or mine............


"Mistah Twain,

He lives".

- To misquote Conrad -


hoka hey

john
"Man is a marvellous curiosity. When he is at his very, very best he is sort of a low-grade nickel-plated angel; at his worst he is unspeakable, unimaginable; and first and last and all the time he is a sarcasm."

Mark Twain
seeker
Posts: 394
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2008 9:37 am

Post by seeker »

Forum Monk wrote: Your evidence is out of context quotations and does not hold up when shown in complete context in spite of your declarations.
My evidence consisted of direct quotes in context which you tried desperately to change the meaning of and explain away. In fact your desperation was so great you ended up proving that the bible contains Gnostic doctrine.

Now you are just angry because you were caught out. Its okay FM, you just took a bad position in a discussion. Don't get all heated up over it.
Forum Monk wrote: Your view is hardly objective as evidenced by your sarcasm and characterizations.
I'm actually being nice. Some of your statements about Jews not knowing their own holy documents etc were really over the top. Trust me, if I had wanted to really cut loose on you I'd have left no doubt.
Forum Monk wrote: Strawman and misdirection.
On your part, yes.
Forum Monk wrote: Misdirection. This is your way of saying it can not progress unless my point of view of the words agrees with yours.
Not necessarily but your attempts to distort the plain meanings of biblical quotes is only keeping you in te dark.
seeker
Posts: 394
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2008 9:37 am

Post by seeker »

Forum Monk wrote: Give me a break seeker - could you not figure out my meaning? I was accused of copying from another site. I am not an author or english teacher - I'm an engineer and amateur astronomer who happens to know some things about history and science and I did not learn christianity from a church or a priest so everyone can drop the "saying what the church tells you" tact. It is tiring.
Come on FM, even you have to admit your choice of wording was comical. Don't worry I respect your intellect but indoctrination clearly is a greater component of your beliefs than intellect.

Forum Monk wrote: I am happy to discuss things amicably and in the spirit that we can reach a point of agreeing to disagree. Its not a contest with winners and losers. I get angry when the discussion boils over from topical to a vindictive attack against a religion that has special meaning to millions of people. It is not necessary and serves no purpose.
What vindictive attack? Are you claiming that any examination of Christianity's origins that doesn't agree with approved doctrine is a vindictive attack?
seeker
Posts: 394
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2008 9:37 am

Post by seeker »

john wrote: .......by a better mind

than yours or mine............


"Mistah Twain,

He lives".

- To misquote Conrad -


hoka hey

john
His "Mysterious Stranger" is worth a read as well
User avatar
john
Posts: 1004
Joined: Wed Jul 19, 2006 7:43 pm

Post by john »

seeker wrote:
john wrote: .......by a better mind

than yours or mine............


"Mistah Twain,

He lives".

- To misquote Conrad -


hoka hey

john
His "Mysterious Stranger" is worth a read as well


Seeker -

Seek and ye shall find, eh?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CR-ZAnil_Mw

Matthew 7:7 on acid.

Yeah baby,

or,

Bonne chance............


j
"Man is a marvellous curiosity. When he is at his very, very best he is sort of a low-grade nickel-plated angel; at his worst he is unspeakable, unimaginable; and first and last and all the time he is a sarcasm."

Mark Twain
Forum Monk
Posts: 1999
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 5:37 pm
Location: USA

Post by Forum Monk »

seeker wrote:My evidence consisted of direct quotes in context which you tried desperately to change the meaning of and explain away.
Let me remind you seeker, a single quote of of a single sentence, hardly contitutes evidence in context. There was no context, only your interpretation.
In fact your desperation was so great you ended up proving that the bible contains Gnostic doctrine.
Not at all. Your claim is that reference contains gnostic doctrine. So it is your burden of proof. Logos=christ emerged well after the gospels.
What vindictive attack? Are you claiming that any examination of Christianity's origins that doesn't agree with approved doctrine is a vindictive attack?
No. I have no problem with evidence which supports a particular point of view. Afterall, I am presenting same with other quotations to backup what I claim. You, on the other hand use provocative language like this "bride of Christ nonsense", "your whole rapture fantasy" (which I never mention btw - its a strawman argument), "God was incredibly rude...not only was he rude but he was culpable in the murder of Abel".

I never heard or read a bible scholar or any kind of scholar use these kinds of expressions. It is the language typical of one trying to ram home his point by degrading or belittling the opposing view.
Come on FM, even you have to admit your choice of wording was comical.
You're right. It was comical. :D

If you don't mind seeker, my intention is to break down our previous discussions into smaller pieces to prevent filling the board with page after page of long posts. So if it appears, I skip a point or two, don't worry, I am likely to cover it later.

As for your case about Jesus and law, your entire evidence consists of a single sentence plucked out of the middle of a chapter and then laced with your commentary. That is not evidence, it is editorial comment on a snap-shot. So far I have presented supporting scriptures and full context including other quotes from Jesus from the same book you are using to make my case.
User avatar
john
Posts: 1004
Joined: Wed Jul 19, 2006 7:43 pm

Post by john »

And in case anybody

Didn't get my point,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zydAs5bRW1U&NR=1


Purely amazing what an old fart can do with a Stratocaster.

Let alone the Other Members of the Band.

j
"Man is a marvellous curiosity. When he is at his very, very best he is sort of a low-grade nickel-plated angel; at his worst he is unspeakable, unimaginable; and first and last and all the time he is a sarcasm."

Mark Twain
seeker
Posts: 394
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2008 9:37 am

Post by seeker »

Forum Monk wrote: Let me remind you seeker, a single quote of of a single sentence, hardly contitutes evidence in context. There was no context, only your interpretation.
It does when the meaning is plain and undistorted as in when Jesus says plainly that man will be judged by his works or when he says that the law wil not change one jot or tittle
Forum Monk wrote: Not at all. Your claim is that reference contains gnostic doctrine. So it is your burden of proof. Logos=christ emerged well after the gospels.
Considering that Pythagorus existed around 500BCE and was Gnostic your refutation is clearly wrong. As to Gnostic doctrine the whole 'christ in you' line is clearly a repetition of that doctrine. I think your real difficulty is that you never really considered what some of those phrases really meant.
Forum Monk wrote: No. I have no problem with evidence which supports a particular point of view. Afterall, I am presenting same with other quotations to backup what I claim. You, on the other hand use provocative language like this "bride of Christ nonsense", "your whole rapture fantasy" (which I never mention btw - its a strawman argument), "God was incredibly rude...not only was he rude but he was culpable in the murder of Abel".

I never heard or read a bible scholar or any kind of scholar use these kinds of expressions. It is the language typical of one trying to ram home his point by degrading or belittling the opposing view.
Yeah, I have to admit, when you arrogantly claimed that Jews didn't understand their own OT or that only a Christian could you ticked me off. The fact is that Christians probably have the least understanding of their own core documents of any religion. Catholics are even warned away from reading the bible and those Christians that do read it only do so in the most controlled circumstances.

BTW that wouldn't be a strawman, if anything it would be an ad hominem but because of the nature of some of the accusations and assumptions you made I would say that I was answering in kind. I see now though that letting you be rude without my responding in kind is to my advantage.
Forum Monk wrote: You're right. It was comical. :D
I knew you could smile.
Forum Monk wrote:If you don't mind seeker, my intention is to break down our previous discussions into smaller pieces to prevent filling the board with page after page of long posts. So if it appears, I skip a point or two, don't worry, I am likely to cover it later.
No problem
Forum Monk wrote:As for your case about Jesus and law, your entire evidence consists of a single sentence plucked out of the middle of a chapter and then laced with your commentary. That is not evidence, it is editorial comment on a snap-shot. So far I have presented supporting scriptures and full context including other quotes from Jesus from the same book you are using to make my case.
Actually I posted a few quotes, I could have put more up but then you'd be accusing me of trying to bury you in them. The point though is that all I needed was one clear and direct statement. Your refutations boiled down to taking quotes and reading meanings that simply weren't there into them.
pattylt
Posts: 55
Joined: Fri May 23, 2008 5:15 pm
Location: Colorado

Post by pattylt »

Has anyone here read "The Jesus Mysteries" by Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy? I am only a little way into it and it bears directly on this discussion. I am not aware of how accurate the information is but there are many footnotes of references for me to check out later. These 2 scholars seem to making the same point that you are, Ishtar. The Jesus story is very much related to the Mysteries.

My own opinion is this. If an actual Jesus had lived, preached and performed the miracles that he is credited with in the NT, He would have 95% of the Jews of that era following Christianity. The Jews were ripe for a Messiah, looking for a Messiah and willing to follow a Messiah. That they rejected the Jesus story just seems too obvious that there was something amiss.

I think a sect of Jews, admiring many of the philosophies and ideas of the Mysteries, began to form their own. They looked for it in the Torah. All Mysteries had at their core, a mythical god that had a story to tell and that story brought the believers closer to 'truths' about god and offered a path to salvation, a higher level of morality and a way to suppress their sinful urges. These Gnostics also wanted to maintain their Jewishness, so blended a mythical Jesus Mystery with Torah. It also explains why the Jews rejected it.

I can understand this happening much easier than I can the current explanation of Christianity and Jesus. How could anyone witness the raising of the dead, the healing, the walking on water and not believe this was their awaited Messiah? A Jesus Mystery would be rejected by most Jews and as this is exactly what happened, I am becoming more and more convinced that it happened just this way.
I always like a dog so long as he isn't spelled backward.
Forum Monk
Posts: 1999
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 5:37 pm
Location: USA

Post by Forum Monk »

seeker wrote:It does when the meaning is plain and undistorted as in when Jesus says plainly that man will be judged by his works or when he says that the law wil not change one jot or tittle
Very rarely was Jesus so plain and this was not one of them as I have already shown.
Considering that Pythagorus existed around 500BCE and was Gnostic your refutation is clearly wrong. As to Gnostic doctrine the whole 'christ in you' line is clearly a repetition of that doctrine. I think your real difficulty is that you never really considered what some of those phrases really meant.
Why don't you post a link or two to support that. Then we could discuss something other than your opinion.
Yeah, I have to admit, when you arrogantly claimed that Jews didn't understand their own OT or that only a Christian could you ticked me off. The fact is that Christians probably have the least understanding of their own core documents of any religion. Catholics are even warned away from reading the bible and those Christians that do read it only do so in the most controlled circumstances.
This is the second mention of this so I can only assume you fully support the idea the Jews could understand and explain their own scriptures. That's really important to know. As for the remark, it was not my remark by a recapitulation of Paul's teaching which I posted point by point to the satisfaction of the only person who raised the issue.
Your refutations boiled down to taking quotes and reading meanings that simply weren't there into them.
More opinion? Then maybe you can explain what my quotes mean. If Jesus was so plain, why didn't he say "your riches are preventing you from obeying the law"? That's pretty plain. In fact, he never denies the man was following the law. You never answered my question, "what was the man lacking?"
Forum Monk
Posts: 1999
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 5:37 pm
Location: USA

Post by Forum Monk »

pattylt wrote:Has anyone here read "The Jesus Mysteries" by Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy? I am only a little way into it and it bears directly on this discussion. I am not aware of how accurate the information is but there are many footnotes of references for me to check out later. These 2 scholars seem to making the same point that you are, Ishtar. The Jesus story is very much related to the Mysteries.
Ish's so-called Orpheus-Dionysos crucifixion amulet was in that book was it not? I thought it was featured on the cover.
My own opinion is this. If an actual Jesus had lived, preached and performed the miracles that he is credited with in the NT, He would have 95% of the Jews of that era following Christianity. The Jews were ripe for a Messiah, looking for a Messiah and willing to follow a Messiah. That they rejected the Jesus story just seems too obvious that there was something amiss.
Do you think the Jews would have flocked to a messiah who did not manefest the character of a king and who would ultimately be killed at the hands of the Romans?
seeker
Posts: 394
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2008 9:37 am

Post by seeker »

pattylt wrote:Has anyone here read "The Jesus Mysteries" by Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy? I am only a little way into it and it bears directly on this discussion. I am not aware of how accurate the information is but there are many footnotes of references for me to check out later. These 2 scholars seem to making the same point that you are, Ishtar. The Jesus story is very much related to the Mysteries.

My own opinion is this. If an actual Jesus had lived, preached and performed the miracles that he is credited with in the NT, He would have 95% of the Jews of that era following Christianity. The Jews were ripe for a Messiah, looking for a Messiah and willing to follow a Messiah. That they rejected the Jesus story just seems too obvious that there was something amiss.

I think a sect of Jews, admiring many of the philosophies and ideas of the Mysteries, began to form their own. They looked for it in the Torah. All Mysteries had at their core, a mythical god that had a story to tell and that story brought the believers closer to 'truths' about god and offered a path to salvation, a higher level of morality and a way to suppress their sinful urges. These Gnostics also wanted to maintain their Jewishness, so blended a mythical Jesus Mystery with Torah. It also explains why the Jews rejected it.

I can understand this happening much easier than I can the current explanation of Christianity and Jesus. How could anyone witness the raising of the dead, the healing, the walking on water and not believe this was their awaited Messiah? A Jesus Mystery would be rejected by most Jews and as this is exactly what happened, I am becoming more and more convinced that it happened just this way.
Hi Patty

I read The Jesus Mysteries about a year ago. Its actually not badly researched but it is poorly footnoted. their discussion of Gnostic ritual is really decent, IMO worth reading the book just for that.

I agree with you, Christianity is definitely not Jewish and has more in common with Zoroastrianism's Shayosant beliefs
seeker
Posts: 394
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2008 9:37 am

Post by seeker »

Forum Monk wrote:Very rarely was Jesus so plain and this was not one of them as I have already shown.
Matthew 19:17 If you want to enter into life, keep the commandments.

The meaning is plain.
Forum Monk wrote: Why don't you post a link or two to support that. Then we could discuss something other than your opinion.
You need but ask. Here
Forum Monk wrote: This is the second mention of this so I can only assume you fully support the idea the Jews could understand and explain their own scriptures. That's really important to know. As for the remark, it was not my remark by a recapitulation of Paul's teaching which I posted point by point to the satisfaction of the only person who raised the issue.
You've actually made that remark a few times.
Forum Monk wrote: More opinion? Then maybe you can explain what my quotes mean. If Jesus was so plain, why didn't he say "your riches are preventing you from obeying the law"? That's pretty plain. In fact, he never denies the man was following the law. You never answered my question, "what was the man lacking?"
What he did plainly say is obey the commandments and sell of your goods. Clearly the implication was that perfection is not to be found in the material world but in the spiritual. Simple
Forum Monk wrote:
Pattyit wrote:My own opinion is this. If an actual Jesus had lived, preached and performed the miracles that he is credited with in the NT, He would have 95% of the Jews of that era following Christianity. The Jews were ripe for a Messiah, looking for a Messiah and willing to follow a Messiah. That they rejected the Jesus story just seems too obvious that there was something amiss.
Do you think the Jews would have flocked to a messiah who did not manefest the character of a king and who would ultimately be killed at the hands of the Romans?
If he was actually the messiah the Jews had been waiting for yes, they would. That leaves us with a dilemma though. Once again you are claiming that God gave the Jews an unclear understanding of their own scriptures and that Jesus intentionally misled his followers. Given that what you makes you think such a creature would even be trustworthy?

Now I want you to really think on this, its not an attack but a serious question.
pattylt
Posts: 55
Joined: Fri May 23, 2008 5:15 pm
Location: Colorado

Post by pattylt »

Do you think the Jews would have flocked to a messiah who did not manifest the character of a king and who would ultimately be killed at the hands of the Romans?
If he actually performed the miracles as stated? And resurrected after 3 days. You bet they would. I would have believed if I had witnessed it. That's one of the biggest issues to me. How did all these people witness this (or have trusted family members who did) and then reject him as Messiah? Christians seem to assume that everything Jesus is quoted as saying was so foreign to the Jews that they couldn't accept it. Not so, most of what he (not Paul) preached was very acceptable Judaism.

FM, may I recommend you read "The Misunderstood Jew, The Church and the Scandal of the Jewish Jesus" by Amy-Jill Levine. She is a professor of Divinity of NT theology and is an orthodox Jew. It is an interesting read and gives a good perspective on Jewish thought at the time of Jesus.
I always like a dog so long as he isn't spelled backward.
Ishtar
Posts: 2631
Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2007 1:41 am
Location: UK
Contact:

Post by Ishtar »

PattyIt and Seeker

I haven't read The Jesus Mysteries, but these ideas we're discussing here are very much 'out there' among many people and with that book, Freke and Gandy were just picking up on that. Actually, imo Freke and Gandy (and the author of the Da Vinci Code) were influenced by two earlier books: The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail by Baigent, Leigh and Lincoln, and an even earlier book called Genisis: The First Book of Revelations by David Wood. My avatar picture comes from the cover of that book and the word Genisis is a pun on the name Isis, as it shows how Christianity's roots derive in part from the Mystery Rites of Osiris and Isis (Mary Magdelene was depicted as a sacred prostitute in the temple of Isis).

I can thoroughly recommend Genisis: Here's a snippet of an Amazon review of Genisis:
It is tragic that this outstanding piece of detective work has not received more publicity while other books, not nearly as informative and well documented top the sales charts. For anyone who is interested in the Rennes le Chateau area and the mysteries that surround it ... this is a must read along with it's companion and second volume ... "Geneset: The Second Book of Revelations". Not since Henry Lincoln's "The Holy Place" has a book so well captured the mood and revealed it's secrets. It is truly an inspired work that should find itself on anyone's bookshelf who considers themselves enlightened. ... A master work ... A Work of Genius !
I have, however, read Freke and Gandy's second book, which is very good and very well footnoted. It's called Jesus and the Goddess and it goes into how the Goddess (Sophia) aspect worked with the Logos (Christ) in Gnosticism. Once you read this, and then go back to the Gospel stories, it becomes blatantly obvious that the story of Jesus is Gnostic/Mystery and that the only reason it was not so noticeable before was because the story of Mary Magdelene (the Goddess aspect to his Godman) is variously downplayed by the Literalists, and censored out and turned into the un-named Beloved Disciple.

In Plato's story of the Son of Man suspended crossways across the universe, the cross is the barrier between the heavenly realms and the lower realms into which an aspect of Sophia has fallen. Sophia's aspect, as the fallen woman in the lower realms, is called Achamoth.

In the Gnostic story, Christ or the Son of Man is suspended over the cross and saves Achamoth by reaching down to pull her up and through it and then he passes her into the safekeeping of Sophia, who has remained in the heavenly realms completely unsullied - it was only her aspect that fell.

In the Literalist story, Christ or the Son of Man is suspended on the cross to save us and just before he dies, he also passes the prostitute (fallen woman) Mary Magdelene into the safekeeping of the pure, unsullied Mary the Virgin, with the words: "Woman, here is your son"; to the Beloved Disciple he says, "Here is your mother."

We are pretty sure that the 'son' was in fact a woman, aka Mary Magdelene, and that this word was just one of many thousands changed by the scribes over the years to cover up the Gnostic roots of their story, and also to relegate the role of women.

In John 19:25, his depiction of the crucifixion, none of the male disciples were there but only the three women, and within this context, it is obvious that the beloved disciple is one of these women.

"Near the cross of Jesus stood his mother, his mother's sister Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. When Jesus saw his mother there, and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said... (John 19:25)"

In the Nag Hammadi Gospel of Philip, Philip confirms that the Mary Magdelene is Jesus's companion.

"There were three who always walked with the Lord: Mary his mother and her sister and Magdalene, the one who was called his companion. His sister and his mother and his companion were each a Mary." (NHC II.3.59.6-11)

So anyway, this is why in the Jesus story, you only have the Marys at the foot of the cross. And they also tried to simplify things by giving both (or even three) aspects of the goddess the same name.


Btw, Seeker this book is so well foot-noted that the footnotes take up half the book.

:D
Last edited by Ishtar on Mon Aug 11, 2008 4:57 am, edited 2 times in total.
Post Reply