Philo's guide to decoding the Hebrew Bible

Ishtar · Post by **Ishtar** » Fri Aug 01, 2008 10:40 am

I think we have to face the facts that none of the Gospels or perhaps any of the New Testament was written by those of Jewish blood, let alone were humble fisherman who followed Jesus by the lake of Galilee.

They neither seem to know the geography or the history of the area - and as for Jesus teaching in on the side of the lake in Galilee, well it would have been in the middle of a building site if their dating is true. The city of Tiberias was being built there at the time.

This is from The Myth of a Historical Jesus by Hayyim ben Yeshoshua:

The New Testament story confuses so many historical research periods that there is no way of reconciling it with history. The traditional year of Jesus’s birth is 1 CE. Jesus was supposed not to have been more than two years old when Herod ordered the slaughter of the innocents. However, Herod died before 12 April 4 BCE. This has led some Christians to redate the birth of Jesus to 6-4 BCE.

However, Jesus was also supposed to have been born during the census of Quirinius. This census took place after Archelaus was deposed in 6 CE, ten years after Herod’s death.

Jesus was supposed to have been baptised by John soon after John had started baptising and preaching in the 15th year of the reign of Tiberias, i.e. 28-29 CE, when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judaea, 26-36 CE. According to the New Testament, this also happened when Lysanius was tetrarch of Abilene and Annas and Caiaphas were high priests. But Lysanius ruled Abilene from c 40 BCE until he was executed in 36 BCE by Mark Antony, about 60 years before the date for Tiberias and about 30 years before the supposed birth of Jesus.

Also, there never were two high priests; in particular, Annas was not a joint high priest with Caiaphas. Annas was removed from the office of high priest in 15 CE, after holding office for some nine years. Caiaphas only became high priest in c 18 CE, about three years after Annas ....

Many of these chronological absurdities seem to be based on misreadings and misunderstandings of Josephus’s book Jewish Antiquities which was used as a reference by the author of Luke and Acts.

And Doanne states this:

Luke 2:1 shows that the writer (whoever he may have been) lived long after the events related. His dates – about the 15th year of Tiberius and the government of Cyrenius (the only indications of time in the New Testament) are manifestly false.

The general ignorance of the four Evangalists, not merely of the geography and statistics of Judaea, but even of its language – their egregious blunders, which no writer who had lived at that time could have conceived of making – prove that they are not only such persons as those who have been willing to be deceived would have them be, but they were not Jews, had never been in Palestine, and neither lived at, or at anywhere near the time to which their narratives refer.

seeker · Post by **seeker** » Fri Aug 01, 2008 10:44 am

What I find really remarkable is that with such obvious manipulation of texts and canon people still regard the bible as anything other than fiction.

Ishtar · Post by **Ishtar** » Fri Aug 01, 2008 10:48 am

seeker wrote:What I find really remarkable is that with such obvious manipulation of texts and canon people still regard the bible as anything other than fiction.

It's because they don't take the next step, from fiction to mythology. If they understood it as mythology, it would make more sense. Just labelling it as 'fiction' .. well, it's pretty bad fiction don't you think?

Myth has more power than fiction - all those who work in advertising know that. It appeals to deeper psychological archetypes in people, so you can control people with it. Mind you, that wasn't the purpose it was originally intended for, but Christianity destroyed spirituality and tried to hide it by deleting the second initiation.

seeker · Post by **seeker** » Fri Aug 01, 2008 11:09 am

Ishtar wrote:
seeker wrote:What I find really remarkable is that with such obvious manipulation of texts and canon people still regard the bible as anything other than fiction.
It's because they don't take the next step, from fiction to mythology. If they understood it as mythology, it would make more sense. Just labelling it as 'fiction' .. well, it's pretty bad fiction don't you think?

Myth has more power than fiction - all those who work in advertising know that. It appeals to deeper psychological archetypes in people, so you can control people with it. Mind you, that wasn't the purpose it was originally intended for, but Christianity destroyed spirituality and tried to hide it by deleting the second initiation.

I would argue that great fiction is mythmaking. Characters like James Bond, Frankenstein, Dracula etc are archetypes strong enough that the mere mention of them brings up entire sets of persona, lifestyles etc that they represent. The difference is that the Yaweh/Jesus archetype is that of savior of mankind (while the three I listed are as likely to kill you as save you). In the archetypal manipulation sense a good beer ad achieves a similar manipulation.

The real power of the Christian myth is the brutal enforcement of it over 1500 or so years through torture, death etc and the continuing manipulation of facts to deliberately mislead people.

Ishtar · Post by **Ishtar** » Fri Aug 01, 2008 11:26 am

seeker wrote: The real power of the Christian myth is the brutal enforcement of it over 1500 or so years through torture, death etc and the continuing manipulation of facts to deliberately mislead people.

Yes, and the longer it goes on and the more brutally (and subtly) it is enforced, the deeper it goes into our 'race memory' or 'genetic memory' - I'm not sure if this exists physiologically but it sure does on abstract level, like collective consciousness.

Archetypal symbology is even more powerful than words, because pictures trigger the irrational right hand side of the brain rather than the logical left.

So that if someone like yourself who isn't a Christian, and who has maybe never even been a Christian, sees this ...

... it can only mean one thing. It's not just any old cross, but a cross that represents something that's burned into our psyches and triggers a whole load of emotions ...

Actually, the cross has been used in mystic symbolism for much longer back than the Christian era when they hijacked it to their purposes.

seeker · Post by **seeker** » Fri Aug 01, 2008 11:38 am

I'd agree with that. Even in this era our conversation would be enough to potentially cause us problems, especially here in the US (maybe not as much in the UK). I suppose a mere couple of hundred years since the end of the Spanish Inquisition is not really enough time to overcome 11 or 12 hundred years of suppression. I guess I'm just being impatient

Ishtar · Post by **Ishtar** » Fri Aug 01, 2008 12:45 pm

Yeah... we can say what we like over here as most of the clergy don't believe in God anyway....

So long as we don't criticise Mohammed ... then we get killed.

seeker · Post by **seeker** » Fri Aug 01, 2008 12:51 pm

Well someone has to keep up standards

Post by **Minimalist** » Fri Aug 01, 2008 1:19 pm

Yes, and the longer it goes on and the more brutally (and subtly) it is enforced, the deeper it goes into our 'race memory' or 'genetic memory' - I'm not sure if this exists physiologically but it sure does on abstract level, like collective consciousness.

Well...to be fair, once the xtians lost the power to burn heretics at the stake their grip on Europe started to wane. I'm not sure what went wrong on this side of the pond.

I've often thought that the fundie preachers don't hate their muslim brethren so much as they envy them their ability to punish dissenters.

seeker · Post by **seeker** » Fri Aug 01, 2008 1:43 pm

Minimalist wrote:I'm not sure what went wrong on this side of the pond.

The Europeans sent their worst nuts here.

Ishtar · Post by **Ishtar** » Fri Aug 01, 2008 2:15 pm

seeker wrote:
Minimalist wrote:I'm not sure what went wrong on this side of the pond.
The Europeans sent their worst nuts here.

Forum Monk · Post by **Forum Monk** » Fri Aug 01, 2008 4:06 pm

Ishtar wrote:But that's only the same as today's Christians, who also can't see any allegory or mythology in their scriptures, despite the fact that they can see from the gospels that Jesus taught in parables (another word for allegory) and he even explains in Mark why he did so.

If you are speaking of certain fundamentalists, you would still not be 100% correct. Even the most strict literalists know the bible is full of allegories and parables. they call them "types and shadows". Less literal christians are much more open to certain texts being allegorical, that the fundamentalists do not accept as allegorical.

It doesn't prove anything as, imo, the last people to understand their own religion are those that are in it.

Ok. So only those who don't practice it are qualified or capable to understand it? Are you serious?

They have to take so much on blind faith that it hardly puts them in a good position to argue objectively.

Very interesting comment. The role of faith is so important and essential to christian doctrine, that one principle alone, illustrates more than any other, how different christianity is from gnosticism, which requires reasoning and knowledge for salvation. The christian is saved by faith.

It's like the colour green. The colour green is made up of yellow and blue. But once the yellow and the blue are mixed up, the colour becomes green and there is no trace of the yellow or the blue.

Your whole argument so far has been based on the fact that no-one can see any yellow or blue in the colour green - therefore, you say, it was never there....even though we have historical evidence for yellow and blue in Judaea and close by at that time but, funnily enough, no evidence for the colour green.

Or its like orapples. Oh wait, there's no such thing because you can't mix apples and oranges. Seriously, though, there was a blending or rather a metamorphases of the hebrew into christian. The roots of christian are very clearly revealed to be hebrew in origin.

seeker · Post by **seeker** » Fri Aug 01, 2008 7:46 pm

Forum Monk wrote: If you are speaking of certain fundamentalists, you would still not be 100% correct. Even the most strict literalists know the bible is full of allegories and parables. they call them "types and shadows". Less literal christians are much more open to certain texts being allegorical, that the fundamentalists do not accept as allegorical.

Both groups pick and chose what they want to read as allegory or literal.

Forum Monk wrote: Ok. So only those who don't practice it are qualified or capable to understand it? Are you serious?

She's right. People who practice a religion are often so deeply involved in it that they aren't able to get any perspective.

Forum Monk wrote: Very interesting comment. The role of faith is so important and essential to christian doctrine, that one principle alone, illustrates more than any other, how different christianity is from gnosticism, which requires reasoning and knowledge for salvation. The christian is saved by faith.

Leaving aside for the moment that the doctrine of faith is contradicted by the bible itself

Matthew 19:17
If you want to enter into life, keep the commandments.

Romans 2:6, 13
Who will render to each one according to his deeds. ... For not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified.

You have a problem don't you. If you question you may lose faith which makes you unable to really examine your own beliefs, as Ishtar stated above.

Forum Monk wrote: Or its like orapples. Oh wait, there's no such thing because you can't mix apples and oranges. Seriously, though, there was a blending or rather a metamorphases of the hebrew into christian. The roots of christian are very clearly revealed to be hebrew in origin.

Really? If the NT and the resulting Christian belief are Hebrew in origin perhaps you can explain why Hebrews do not have a doctrine of original sin or why they have a concept of Messiah that is completely different from the Christian concept.

Forum Monk · Post by **Forum Monk** » Fri Aug 01, 2008 7:59 pm

Minimalist wrote: The whole idea of a "Jew" from Tarsus being sent to Damascus to persecute christians is pretty lame from the outset.

The romans rarely interfered in religious law. You have repeated, on this board, asserted that romans allowed a great deal of religious freedom to the nations under their rule.

Paul went to Damascus as a religious official given authority by the chief priest so seek out a jewish sect in Damascus that was blaspheming the jewish (hebrew) god. A religious crime within the umbrella of jewish orthodoxy. The sect would later be called christians.

Forum Monk · Post by **Forum Monk** » Fri Aug 01, 2008 8:38 pm

seeker wrote:Both groups pick and chose what they want to read as allegory or literal.

You are misleading. Its not a haphazard choice or designed to suit the moment. It is based on hermaneutical principles.

She's right. People who practice a religion are often so deeply involved in it that they aren't able to get any perspective.

So you would say, non-adherents have better perspective of taoism than a taoist priest or Tibetan Buddhism than the Dalai Lama, or better perspective of the Catholic doctrine than the pope. That's a bit arrogant, and disrespectful in my opinion, not to mention virtually impossible.

Leaving aside for the moment that the doctrine of faith is contradicted by the bible itself

Matthew 19:17
If you want to enter into life, keep the commandments.

Romans 2:6, 13
Who will render to each one according to his deeds. ... For not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified.

You have a problem don't you. If you question you may lose faith which makes you unable to really examine your own beliefs, as Ishtar stated above.

These statements illustrate a lack of understanding about what the role of god's law was and of faith. Religious jews and christians alike are free to question; it does constitute lack of faith. Perhaps you have spent too much time dealing with rigidly, dogmatic, fundamentalists who hold such views? Although. I doubt even the most stalwart fundamentalist never questions God.

Really? If the NT and the resulting Christian belief are Hebrew in origin perhaps you can explain why Hebrews do not have a doctrine of original sin or why they have a concept of Messiah that is completely different from the Christian concept.

The fact that new concepts arose under christiandom, does not negate it being hebrew in origin. There are many such concepts most of which are centered around the concept of the messiah as Lamb of God. The entire justification for the christian concept of messiah is found in the OT. I guess as pattylt has corrected me, the jews apparantly had a different interpretation, and did not recognize their fiillment in the life of Jesus. The interpretation of these scriptures and other doctrines have also been defined by revelation to the disciples and have become essential truths to christians.