Philo's guide to decoding the Hebrew Bible

[Minimalist]

I think you are missing the point of what Constantine was trying to do. Religion, prior to Nicaea, was of no special importance in the running of the Empire. There were cults all over and the Romans could not have cared less.

Certainly the Greeks, with their myriad of city states never tried to incorporate a "national church" of any kind. Even going further back we see that wars were not undertaken because of religion but for land and treasure. When a city was overrun its temples were destroyed and its gods forgotten but the cause of the war was not religious in nature. It was just what we now call, collateral damage.

For some reason Constantine got it in his head that aside from being "Roman citizens" (which all free born males had been since Caracalla in 212 AD) he wanted everyone to be members of a state religion. That of necessity entailed ironing out the differences in christian sects and then persecuting anyone who still thought differently. It was at that time that your mystics became dangerous to the established order, not before.

[seeker]

Constantine was consolidating power in Rome by controlling its religion. Christianity built on the foundation of Judaism which was itself a religion created to keep people in line was perfect for this role as long as the priesthood was tightly controlled. The Gnostics were like cats, wandering wherever their curiosity might take them, Constantine wanted dogs, loyal and obediant

[Ishtar]

But I think you're missing the point, and I grant you it's a subtle one.

Cats are no threat to anyone ... they don't roam in packs like dogs. They're just a bit up themselves.

Iranaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus and Polycarp and Co began preaching against and trying to suppress and wipe out the Gnostics 150 years before Constantine and Nicaea. So the Gnostics were regarded as a threat long before Constantine - not a threat to an empire, but a threat to orthodox Christianity.

This was because all the Gnostic stories of a mythological (and thus not flesh and blood) dying and resurrecting godmen suspended, according to Plato, crosswise across the universe, who comes to save the pure goddess who has fallen into prostitution like Mary Magdelene, are Gnostic and Mystery stories which had existed hundreds if not thousands of years before 1 CE....So Iranaeus and Co knew that anyone with half a brain cell would look at those stories and realise that the Literalist Jesus was based on them - and that the only difference between the Gnostic Jesus and the Literalist Jesus was, for the first time, someone was claiming that this man actually lived.

Constantine, a hundred and fifty years later, realised the same thing. He wanted to use Christianity as a political force, but there were still these disparate groups going strong. However, it was his successor Theodotus who went into these countries and destroyed all traces of the literature. Later, the Byzantium emperor Justinian destroyed Plato's Academy for the same reason - to hide the fact that these so-called 'heretics', the Gnostics and the mystics, were in fact the true and the original Christians. And you can't have the true and original Christians at large when you're purporting to be controlling The Real Thing yourself.

So the Romans were destroying ideas, not people - unless the people got in the way of them destroying the ideas.

Another way to look at it is like this: Iranaeus and Co forged the sword. One hundred and fifty years later, Constantine took the sword and wielded it.

[kbs2244]

When the worst thing you do to someone is to torture them to death, and they believe this life they are “trapped” in doesn’t mean much, isn’t you power over them somewhat weakened?

[seeker]

Ish - How much dispute was there really before Constantine? I'm sure there was political infighting, bishops were required to refute heresies, but there was no political authority to suppress anything. In fact for the period up until Constantine Christianity was illegal and pretty much an underground religion.

kb - For a group of people so unconcerned with this life and so concerned with what happens in the next their zeal to send others to find out before they do is remarkable.

[Minimalist]

Constantine, a hundred and fifty years later, realised the same thing. He wanted to use Christianity as a political force,

Did he "realize" it or was it "payback" for xtian support in his struggle against Maximian? Max, being emperor, most likely had the support of the Sol Invictus crowd...diminished as they were by the disasters in Parthia of 50 years before.

It is odd to think that Tertulian and the rest maintained any sort of orthodoxy in the late second century. Their version grew to become the orthodox version (and probably because it represented the surest way to establish control...meaning money and power.... over the church) but they had no political power whatsoever to enforce their dogmas at that time.

Recall that the only bona fide persecutions of xtians took place in the middle of the 3'd century under direct orders of a handful of emperors and mainly at a time when the empire a) needed money and b) was faced with serious military reversals in the east. One could take the cynical view was that the emperors didn't give a shitcare less that xtians believed in some silly god...but their property could be seized for the benefit of the emperor and the state.

[Forum Monk]

I notice you didn't address the fact that the Gospels have Jesus saying that faith alone is not enough, I guess that means you think Paul trumps Jesus.

Since you are attempting to refute my claim with the gospels, I will use the gospels as well in my future posts. Further since I have posted evidence that they were written before the second century.

As I have said, your attempt at refutation is based on a lack of understanding of christian principles of law and faith. Jesus spent a fair amount of time discussing the law and pointing out that people's understanding of the law was as flawed then as it is now. While it may have been a principle to attain life, through obedience of the law, Jesus pointed out that the law was much more restrictive than people had believed, hence the statements about lusting in the heart is guilty of adultery and berating a brother is equal to murder. Jesus was saying, yes find life by obeying the law because the adherent would soon realize the hopelessness of such a way and seek another. The law was as simple as loving god and your fellowman, but as difficult as requiring one to manage their very thoughts. The true purpose of the law and impossibility of falling it was clarified by Paul:

Rom 3 - 19Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. 20Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin.
21But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, 23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25 God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— 26he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.

The purpose of the law, according to christian worldview is to impart sin consciousness on the hearer and follower of the law and thus reveal God's grace. This is the path to life. Paul says nothing contrary to Jesus.

Rom 5- 20The law was added so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more, 21so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

What you seem to be saying is that when God dictated the law to Moses he left Moses with a flawed understanding of his word.

I am not saying that at all, you did. In fact, God was revealing Christ to the people of Israel throughout the exodus period as illustrated in the manna, the water from the struck rock, the serpent on the pole (the slaying of sin - btw), etc. This is typical of many ways christ was revealed in the law and prophets and the people could not see at the time. It is only after Jesus that it is revealed and is now the foundation of much of christian beliefs - built on the foundation of hebrew experience and teaching. For this, christians owe the hebrews an enormous debt of gratitude in my opinion.

[Forum Monk]

In several previous posts, some posters have delighted in pointing out the perceived violence and murderous nature of God which once again demonstrates a lack of basic understanding of his purpose and true nature. This is critical, imo, in illustrating the alledged equivalence of the Demiurge and YHWH is completely unfounded.

The God of the hebrews and christians is a moral God who hates sin (defined as a nature contrary to God's nature) and the punishment for sin is death. "The soul that sins shall die". Like it or not, and regardless of the opinions of people, it is way God is. But that is not the only way he is.

According to the beliefs of hebrews and christians, God had basically been silent from the time of Abraham until Moses, some 500 years. Many generations had been raised up on nothing other than some verbal tales of who God was as revealed to Abraham. At the time of God's choosing, He elected to reveal himself through Moses and so basically during the next 100 years set himself apart and above the egyptian and mesopotamian gods of the era. Most importantly he exposed his morality and disdain for sin which was revealed through the law.

Later, through his prophets he more fully exposed his loving kindness and merciful nature. The overwhelming message of the prophets, for any who care to look with an open mind, is not death and violence but peace, patience, grace, and the overriding principle that mercy overcomes judgment. The message of repentence.

Jesus said - "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing..."

Even in a purely secular world there are consequences to wrong-doing and breaking laws. What morality demands this? In my opinion is inherent in our core natures. But it goes beyond crime and punishment and extends into natural law where every action has a reaction or consequence which we don't always understand. God has revealed such things to his people.

When one stands up and proclaims the OT god as murderous, jealous and spiteful, he does a disservice to God and those who believe in him because he has either failed to recongnise God's whole nature or he willfully chooses to ignore it. In the first case, it is ignorance, in the latter is the case, it reeks of agenda.

[Minimalist]

Nice sermon, Monk....but what crimes did the women and children of Ai committ?

Joshua 8

And it came to pass, when Israel had made an end of slaying all the inhabitants of Ai in the field, in the wilderness wherein they chased them, and when they were all fallen on the edge of the sword, until they were consumed, that all the Israelites returned unto Ai, and smote it with the edge of the sword.

25And so it was, that all that fell that day, both of men and women, were twelve thousand, even all the men of Ai.

or

Deuteronomy 20:16 (King James Version)
King James Version (KJV)

16But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth:

Well, there is example after example of this wanton murder and I'm sure you get the idea, and the only saving grace I can find is that none of it ever happened. But still, what does that say about a people who would imagine such a 'god' and invent these stories about him?

[seeker]

Since you are attempting to refute my claim with the gospels, I will use the gospels as well in my future posts. Further since I have posted evidence that they were written before the second century.

Actually the evidence you posted was refuted. As to using the bible, since we are discussing the fact that it contradicts itself that seems appropriate.

As I have said, your attempt at refutation is based on a lack of understanding of christian principles of law and faith. Jesus spent a fair amount of time discussing the law and pointing out that people's understanding of the law was as flawed then as it is now. While it may have been a principle to attain life, through obedience of the law, Jesus pointed out that the law was much more restrictive than people had believed, hence the statements about lusting in the heart is guilty of adultery and berating a brother is equal to murder. Jesus was saying, yes find life by obeying the law because the adherent would soon realize the hopelessness of such a way and seek another. The law was as simple as loving god and your fellowman, but as difficult as requiring one to manage their very thoughts. The true purpose of the law and impossibility of falling it was clarified by Paul:

Rom 3 - 19Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. 20Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin.
21But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, 23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25 God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— 26he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.

The purpose of the law, according to christian worldview is to impart sin consciousness on the hearer and follower of the law and thus reveal God's grace. This is the path to life. Paul says nothing contrary to Jesus.

However Jesus said:

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

So we have Paul using hermeneutics to twist the meaning of the simple clear direct statement in Matthew.

Even Revelation 20:12-13 chimes in with ",,,and they were judged every man according to their works. "

These are simple direct statements, not the convoluted warping of meaning we see from Paul and ine of them comes directly from God himself according to your own belief. Why would you favor Paul over god?

I am not saying that at all, you did. In fact, God was revealing Christ to the people of Israel throughout the exodus period as illustrated in the manna, the water from the struck rock, the serpent on the pole (the slaying of sin - btw), etc. This is typical of many ways christ was revealed in the law and prophets and the people could not see at the time. It is only after Jesus that it is revealed and is now the foundation of much of christian beliefs - built on the foundation of hebrew experience and teaching. For this, christians owe the hebrews an enormous debt of gratitude in my opinion.

You realize, when you say that the prophets didn't see it at the time you are repeating the charge I made, that God gave them this divine revelation but left them with an imperfect knowledge of what it means. Your claim that it was supposed to be this way actually begs the question, what makes you think you get it all now and that your understanding is more complete than that of Moses.

[seeker]

Nice sermon, Monk....but what crimes did the women and children of Ai committ?

My favorite bit is when he has the bears come and eat the kids calling his prophet 'baldy'

[Forum Monk]

However Jesus said:

Matthew 19:17
If you want to enter into life, keep the commandments.
So we have Paul using hermeneutics to twist the meaning of the simple clear direct statement in Matthew.
Even Revelation 20:12-13 chimes in with ",,,and they were judged every man according to their works. "
These are simple direct statements, not the convoluted warping of meaning we see from Paul and ine of them comes directly from God himself according to your own belief. Why would you favor Paul over god?

Sorry, but you are incorrect. This snippet of Matthew which you have posted is completely out of context so I will post the complete context here:

• "Why do you ask me about what is good?" Jesus replied. "There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, obey the commandments."
  
  "Which ones?" the man inquired.
  
  Jesus replied, " 'Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, 19honor your father and mother,' and 'love your neighbor as yourself.'"
  
  "All these I have kept," the young man said. "What do I still lack?"
  
  Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."
  
  When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth.
  
  Then Jesus said to his disciples, "I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."
  
  When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and asked, "Who then can be saved?"
  
  Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."
  
  Peter answered him, "We have left everything to follow you! What then will there be for us?"
  
  Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or fields for my sake will receive a hundred times as much and will inherit eternal life.

It should be blantantly obvious, the context is NOT about obeying the law as the man claims he was doing so but was still lacking. What was he lacking?

Paul could not possibly be applying hermeneutics, much less twisting them, unless of course you acknowledge that Paul had access to the text of Matthew's gospel.

Your reference to Revelation is non-sequitor as it discusses the judgment of the non-believers.

You realize, when you say that the prophets didn't see it at the time you are repeating the charge I made, that God gave them this divine revelation but left them with an imperfect knowledge of what it means. Your claim that it was supposed to be this way actually begs the question, what makes you think you get it all now and that your understanding is more complete than that of Moses.

• Luke-
  He said to them, "This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms."
  
  Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures. He told them, "This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. You are witnesses of these things.
  
  1 Cor -
  but God has revealed it to us by his Spirit.
  The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God.
  
  2 Cor-
  And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.
  
  Eph -
  In reading this, then, you will be able to understand my insight into the mystery of Christ, which was not made known to men in other generations as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to God's holy apostles and prophets. This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus.

Since we now look back at it, it is obvious to us and that is how I know. But even today there are other things which remain unclear to us so some mysteries are yet to be revealed. There are many questions, no christian can answer - like "what crime did the people of Ai commit?" - I don't know.

Let me ask you some questions, Min -
Why do the hebrew scriptures reveal so many shortcomings and failures of the hebrews; their captivities and enslavements, their crimes, their destruction? It's hardly an inspiring picture, not exactly the kind of history that would inspire loyalty and pride and a sense of empowerment under God's government. Or do you think those are lies as well?

[seeker]

However Jesus said:

Matthew 19:17
If you want to enter into life, keep the commandments.
So we have Paul using hermeneutics to twist the meaning of the simple clear direct statement in Matthew.
Even Revelation 20:12-13 chimes in with ",,,and they were judged every man according to their works. "
These are simple direct statements, not the convoluted warping of meaning we see from Paul and ine of them comes directly from God himself according to your own belief. Why would you favor Paul over god?

Sorry, but you are incorrect. This snippet of Matthew which you have posted is completely out of context so I will post the complete context here:

• "Why do you ask me about what is good?" Jesus replied. "There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, obey the commandments."
  
  "Which ones?" the man inquired.
  
  Jesus replied, " 'Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, 19honor your father and mother,' and 'love your neighbor as yourself.'"
  
  "All these I have kept," the young man said. "What do I still lack?"
  
  Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."
  
  When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth.
  
  Then Jesus said to his disciples, "I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."
  
  When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and asked, "Who then can be saved?"
  
  Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."
  
  Peter answered him, "We have left everything to follow you! What then will there be for us?"
  
  Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or fields for my sake will receive a hundred times as much and will inherit eternal life.

It should be blantantly obvious, the context is NOT about obeying the law as the man claims he was doing so but was still lacking. What was he lacking?

Wow, you really have this twisted around don't you. It is definitely about following the law. He isn't telling the man to sell his possessions because he doesn't have to follow the law, he is telling him to sell of his possessions because they keep him from following the law.

Paul could not possibly be applying hermeneutics, much less twisting them, unless of course you acknowledge that Paul had access to the text of Matthew's gospel.

Ah, so you admit Paul had no knowledge of Jesus life. Cool

In that case what is Paul talking about? Jesus plainly stated that one must obey the commandments but you chose Paul. Does that mean you think Paul knows the mind of God better than Jesus does.

Your reference to Revelation is non-sequitor as it discusses the judgment of the non-believers.

Actually if you bothered to read your own bible it says 'all' the dead

You realize, when you say that the prophets didn't see it at the time you are repeating the charge I made, that God gave them this divine revelation but left them with an imperfect knowledge of what it means. Your claim that it was supposed to be this way actually begs the question, what makes you think you get it all now and that your understanding is more complete than that of Moses.

• Luke-
  He said to them, "This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms."
  
  Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures. He told them, "This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. You are witnesses of these things.
  
  1 Cor -
  but God has revealed it to us by his Spirit.
  The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God.
  
  2 Cor-
  And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

So you are now saying that God gives secret knowledge to his best buddies and the rest can get screwed. Not very nice.

Eph -
In reading this, then, you will be able to understand my insight into the mystery of Christ, which was not made known to men in other generations as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to God's holy apostles and prophets. This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus.[/list]

Now what could this 'mystery' be? Could that be a reference to the kinds of mysteries found in mystery religions? You know, concealed knowledge that only the saved can know? Kind of like the knowledge God keeps from non-believers. Yup.

Since we now look back at it, it is obvious to us and that is how I know. But even today there are other things which remain unclear to us so some mysteries are yet to be revealed. There are many questions, no christian can answer - like "what crime did the people of Ai commit?" - I don't know.

A better question then is can't a 'loving' god find a better way to do things than wiping other people out?

Let me ask you some questions, Min -
Why do the hebrew scriptures reveal so many shortcomings and failures of the hebrews; their captivities and enslavements, their crimes, their destruction? It's hardly an inspiring picture, not exactly the kind of history that would inspire loyalty and pride and a sense of empowerment under God's government. Or do you think those are lies as well?

One of the things Christians miss out on by not reading their bibles straight through is the overall themes. Starting with the Adam and Eve story the bible sets up the concept that God is good, not because he does good in our eyes but because he is good by definition. The whole idea is that everyone, including the snake, was doing what they saw as being good in their own eyes but the bible message is that the only good is in obedince.

Another good example is the Cain and Abel story. They both give sacrifices but God decides he likes Abels better. Cain feels slighted and kills Abel. Ince again the point here is not about Cain's actions but about God's. Cain was supposed to accept God's rude behavior but he doesn't and so is punished.

The OT isn't a history of the Jews, its meant as an explanation of God and Old Israel, that Old Israel failed because they kept doing what was right in their eyes instead of obeying God. Stories in the OT keep repeating. Over and over again situations recur, the OT history, while not circular, suggests that history repeats itself, that the Jews will get another chance. The bible isn't written for people in Old Israel to read but for a new Israel, the Hasmonean israel.

[john]

All -

"Highway 61 Revisited"

Oh God said to Abraham, "Kill me a son"
Abe says, "Man, you must be puttin' me on"
God say, "No." Abe say, "What?"
God say, "You can do what you want Abe, but
The next time you see me comin' you better run"
Well Abe says, "Where do you want this killin' done?"
God says, "Out on Highway 61."

Well Georgia Sam he had a bloody nose
Welfare Department they wouldn't give him no clothes
He asked poor Howard where can I go
Howard said there's only one place I know
Sam said tell me quick man I got to run
Ol' Howard just pointed with his gun
And said that way down on Highway 61.

Well Mack the Finger said to Louie the King
I got forty red white and blue shoe strings
And a thousand telephones that don't ring
Do you know where I can get rid of these things
And Louie the King said let me think for a minute son
And he said yes I think it can be easily done
Just take everything down to Highway 61.

Now the fifth daughter on the twelfth night
Told the first father that things weren't right
My complexion she said is much too white
He said come here and step into the light he says hmm you're right
Let me tell the second mother this has been done
But the second mother was with the seventh son
And they were both out on Highway 61.

Now the rovin' gambler he was very bored
He was tryin' to create a next world war
He found a promoter who nearly fell off the floor
He said I never engaged in this kind of thing before
But yes I think it can be very easily done
We'll just put some bleachers out in the sun
And have it on Highway 61.



Note: Highway 61 beats

The Bible everytime.



hoka hey

john

[john]

All -

In addition........

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

"Who borrows the Medusa's eye

Resigns to the empirical lie

The knower petrifies the known

Th subtle dancer turns to stone".


Et alia......


john