Philo's guide to decoding the Hebrew Bible

[Forum Monk]

All -
Note: Highway 61 beats

The Bible everytime.



hoka hey

john

John - Dylan rules - here is one of my all time favorites from Blonde on Blonde

But wait...Moses, Jesus and Robert Zimmerman are jewish.

[Forum Monk]

seeker, imo, it serves nothing to be condescending toward christian beliefs. It is clear you don't really understand the beliefs of christians and hebrews. Still, I don't find you as obtuse as many atheists and non-believers who only parrot their religious points of view without doing any primary research of their own. (alas, many christians do the same.)

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.

I have nothing twisted. In fact by looking at the entire context instead of cherry-picking it is clear the discussion was not about the law at all. In fact the man says and Jesus does not refute, he DID follow the law. Nowhere does he nor I state his riches keeps him from obeying the law. The man misses the point entirely as do many. It has nothing whatsoever to do with money, it could have been anything which was keeping him from true life. For example, the principle is exactly the same as these:

• Mat 8-
  Then a teacher of the law came to him and said, "Teacher, I will follow you wherever you go."
  Jesus replied, "Foxes have holes and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has no place to lay his head."
  
  Another disciple said to him, "Lord, first let me go and bury my father."
  But Jesus told him, "Follow me, and let the dead bury their own dead."

Where is the admonition to follow the law? What do these men lack?

It is explained here:

• Mat 10 -
  "Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.

So now it should be clear that life is not in obedience to the law, but in following Christ.

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

Don't seem so surprised. I said this before when Ish kept stating that Paul makes no mention of the events of Jesus' life. For her it was evidence Jesus did not exist. Rather it is simply due to the fact they never met. Paul was not a follower of Christ while Jesus was wlking around in Israel.

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.

No. The clear message of Jesus, is that He was the way to life, not obedience to the law. It is christianity 101 and something every student of christianity, as you claim to be, should understand very well. The law was fulfilled in Him. No one can find life following the law. Paul never contradicts Jesus.

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

I did read it, many times. My guess is, you did not since you missed what was written before. But before I show you what I mean, just a commentary. Revelation is a very controversial and symbolic book that can be interpreted in many ways. Some say it is history, some say it is prophecy. Fortunately, the themes are consistent with the other books of the bible. In any case, if you had read in context once again, you would have noticed this just a few verses prior:

• I saw thrones on which were seated those who had been given authority to judge. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony for Jesus and because of the word of God. They had not worshiped the beast or his image and had not received his mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years. (The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended.) This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy are those who have part in the first resurrection. The second death has no power over them, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him for a thousand years.

And even one chapter prior to this it speaks of a great multitude in heaven rejoicing because it is time for the wedding feast of the lamb, for the bride has made herself ready. Who are all these people in heaven prior to the great judgement? It is common christian theology that the bride of christ is the church. So many christians believe and the teaching is supported by Paul that there are two resurrections. The first, is the resurrection of the righteous, the believers; the second is the resurrection of the dead, the unbelievers; who are judged following the judgement of Satan. Since they did not follow Christ, they are judged according to the law. It is fairly common theology, imo, and it is the second resurrection to which your quoted scripture applies.

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

I did? Where?

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.

I addressed this before. I guess it didn't register in the mad rush to refute the christian theology. The mystery is "Christ in you". There. Now its not a secret anymore. You are a non-believer and now you know the secret which was concealed through the ages. How gnostic is that? (You didn't even need to go through any initiation ceremony. ) This has been clearly revealed to every generation since the first century. What the quoted scriptures, were saying, is, apparently, the hebrews had no idea about this or its implications and apparently many, many unbelievers today fail to grasp the significance of it.

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

Where does anyone get their sense of morality and moral code. From where in nature comes the overriding imperative to punish evil? Whether is by killing it or locking it safely away for eternity. Which nation acts out of a sense of loving kindness toward evil? If god states that the consequence of sin is death, why do you think that detracts from his goodness and love? I tell my kid drinking and driving leads to possible arrest and jail time, at worst death. Does it mean I am not loving? No, it is a consequence of making the wrong choices, choices she is free to make. The laws of nature and god have been established since the beginning, so why is it we now expect that God should "skirt" the law and offer another alternative? Was it he that made the decision to behave contrary to law? If I were God and given the power to make the laws, I would make the same law, certain evil is punishable by death, or certain evil is punished by eternal imprisonment. Now, if my child should choose to perform a punishable act should I now disobey the law and say, oh sorry, only kidding. You don't expect me to punish the one I love do you? That would make me guilty of an another kind of evil. Fortunately for us, God is a righteous judge and he does offer mercy.

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.

I think you are right about the good by definition part but not the rest.
There is a theme of law and obedience and punishment but this is NOT the overall theme. All of these things serve to illustrate how far from truth we are and utterly corrupted we have become. But the overall message, at least in the christian worldview, is the grand theme of salvation. From the very beginning, He had already made provision for us to accomplish our salvation and to us, this perfectly illustrates that God is good by deed and nature, not just by definition.

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.

God's rude behaviour? I thought Cain was ultimately the rude one. Actually if you check, they both give offerings. Only one was a "sacrifice" in that blood was shed. Now I don't know if this is what made Abel's offering acceptable (some think so) but one thing is clear. Cain's true nature was exposed when God refused his offering. Notice that Cain did nothing to make amends or try to understand and correct his improper offering. Instead he kills his brother and blames God for his punishment.

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

I'm not sure seeker, but I think you may stand in limited company with that opinion even among secularists. Most hebrews and christians, of course, believe the scriptures predate the divided kingdom, most secularists believe the scriptures where compiled during the time of the Babylonian captivity which predates the Hasmoneans by more than 400 years. But regardless of when it was written, I very much agree with your final sentence and extend it to say it was also written for every generation since.

[john]

All -
Note: Highway 61 beats

The Bible everytime.



hoka hey

john

John - Dylan rules - here is one of my all time favorites from Blonde on Blonde

But wait...Moses, Jesus and Robert Zimmerman are jewish.

Forum Monk -

I'm type B negative. I'm also 6' 2", blonde haired, and have an impeccable Northern European registry (French/Danish).

So, to unconfuse this confusion,

Check out the Scythians, who first bore the blood type B about 10k years ago.

Down South, the Iranians were first, relatively speaking.

But there was a thread that ran North.

Don't confuse religion

With phylogeny, please, and

Especially don't confuse the jewish faith

With religion in general, or blood types,

Or rock and roll.


hoka hey

john

[MichelleH]

All -
Note: Highway 61 beats

The Bible everytime.



hoka hey

john

John - Dylan rules - here is one of my all time favorites from Blonde on Blonde

But wait...Moses, Jesus and Robert Zimmerman are jewish.

Forum Monk -

I'm type B negative. I'm also 6' 2", blonde haired, and have an impeccable Northern European registry (French/Danish).

So, to unconfuse this confusion,

Check out the Scythians, who first bore the blood type B about 10k years ago.

Down South, the Iranians were first, relatively speaking.

But there was a thread that ran North.

Don't confuse religion

With phylogeny, please, and

Especially don't confuse the jewish faith

With religion in general, or blood types,

Or rock and roll.


hoka hey

john

Holy shit, you sound like my husband!

Sorry, back to the topic......

[john]

John - Dylan rules - here is one of my all time favorites from Blonde on Blonde

But wait...Moses, Jesus and Robert Zimmerman are jewish.

Forum Monk -

I'm type B negative. I'm also 6' 2", blonde haired, and have an impeccable Northern European registry (French/Danish).

So, to unconfuse this confusion,

Check out the Scythians, who first bore the blood type B about 10k years ago.

Down South, the Iranians were first, relatively speaking.

But there was a thread that ran North.

Don't confuse religion

With phylogeny, please, and

Especially don't confuse the jewish faith

With religion in general, or blood types,

Or rock and roll.


hoka hey

john

Holy shit, you sound like my husband!

Sorry, back to the topic......

Michelle -

God help us all.

I'm already previously married.

Maybe your husband has a point.

hoka hey

john

[Ishtar]

Well Monk, this has all been very nice! Excuse me while I pass the collection plate. Then Mrs Pettigrew can play us all out with an organ burst of Onward Christian Soldiers, and we can all join you afterwards on the vicarage lawn for tea and scones.

Right, now that you've stopped preaching your theology at us, and displaying your beautifully developed hermeneutics, I'd like to know - when are you going to start answering some of the points we've raised in this thread about the historicity of Jesus?

1. When are you going to tell us why the historians of the time have not recorded a single word about a Jesus and his disciples, although they do tell us about the Gnostics in the area, like the Essenes and the Theraputae?

2. When are you going to explain how Jesus lived in a place called Nazereth when that place did not exist in the early first century?

3. When are you going to give us the reason for why Plato had the Son of the Man suspended crossways across the universe 500 years before your man was supposed to have been suspended on the cross?

4. When are you going to respond to the similarities in the stories of Dionysus and Osiris, life-death-rebirth deities as told in in the surrounding region's mythologies before the time of Jesus? I'm not saying that the stories of these other deities exactly match that of Jesus. But that there are enough common themes to see where the story of Jesus came from.

5. When are you going to explain this ...




... being so similar to this ....



6. When are you going to tell us why the story of Jesus's crucifixion is so similar to the plays acted out of dying and resurrecting godmen at the Eleusian Mystery rites since 1900 BC?

7. When are you going to explain, if the mystery that requires no initiation is simply that “Jesus is within", why Mark's Jesus speaks of an inner mystery that can only be revealed to the few? Did he also add “Oh, and you might as well tell all those guys hanging out on Archaeologica”? And by the way, what the hell does that mean? Because I can assure you that Jesus in not inside me or I think I would have noticed.

8. When are going to tell us why John the Baptist talks of a second baptism of spirit and fire, when today's Christians only have one baptism?

These are all the questions you have so far failed to answer in your quest to prove the Bible to be literal history by referring solely to Christian dogma developed over 2000 years by apologists, who are continually having to apologise for the fact that their story does not hang together in the light of what we now know.

That the scriptures were allegorical and not literal was written about by many of the orthodox Early Church Fathers, such as Valentinus, Athenagorus, Marcion, Origen and Minicius Felix, before some of them were excommunicated later on.

Polycarp says in his epistle that the great majority of Christians embraced the idea of Jesus not existing in the flesh.

Origen, considered to be the most accomplished biblical scholar of the early church, says: “The Scriptures are of little use to those that understand them literally.”

St Athananius, bishop and patriarch of Alexandria, warned that “should we understand sacred writ according to the letter, we should fall into the most enormous blasphemies.”

These guys were foremost among the founding fathers of the Christian Church.

Even Paul explains that the story of Abraham and his two wives is allegorical in Galatians 4:22-5.

“Which things are allegory: for these are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; she is Hagar. Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia; she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children.”

Yet still you insist Jesus actually lived in the flesh and was a totally discrete phenomena to the other mythological godmen extant at the time ...despite not providing one shred of evidence to support this fact on this board.

[john]

seeker, imo, it serves nothing to be condescending toward christian beliefs. It is clear you don't really understand the beliefs of christians and hebrews. Still, I don't find you as obtuse as many atheists and non-believers who only parrot their religious points of view without doing any primary research of their own. (alas, many christians do the same.)

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.

I have nothing twisted. In fact by looking at the entire context instead of cherry-picking it is clear the discussion was not about the law at all. In fact the man says and Jesus does not refute, he DID follow the law. Nowhere does he nor I state his riches keeps him from obeying the law. The man misses the point entirely as do many. It has nothing whatsoever to do with money, it could have been anything which was keeping him from true life. For example, the principle is exactly the same as these:

• Mat 8-
  Then a teacher of the law came to him and said, "Teacher, I will follow you wherever you go."
  Jesus replied, "Foxes have holes and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has no place to lay his head."
  
  Another disciple said to him, "Lord, first let me go and bury my father."
  But Jesus told him, "Follow me, and let the dead bury their own dead."

Where is the admonition to follow the law? What do these men lack?

It is explained here:

• Mat 10 -
  "Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.

So now it should be clear that life is not in obedience to the law, but in following Christ.

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

Don't seem so surprised. I said this before when Ish kept stating that Paul makes no mention of the events of Jesus' life. For her it was evidence Jesus did not exist. Rather it is simply due to the fact they never met. Paul was not a follower of Christ while Jesus was wlking around in Israel.

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.

No. The clear message of Jesus, is that He was the way to life, not obedience to the law. It is christianity 101 and something every student of christianity, as you claim to be, should understand very well. The law was fulfilled in Him. No one can find life following the law. Paul never contradicts Jesus.

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

I did read it, many times. My guess is, you did not since you missed what was written before. But before I show you what I mean, just a commentary. Revelation is a very controversial and symbolic book that can be interpreted in many ways. Some say it is history, some say it is prophecy. Fortunately, the themes are consistent with the other books of the bible. In any case, if you had read in context once again, you would have noticed this just a few verses prior:

• I saw thrones on which were seated those who had been given authority to judge. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony for Jesus and because of the word of God. They had not worshiped the beast or his image and had not received his mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years. (The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended.) This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy are those who have part in the first resurrection. The second death has no power over them, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him for a thousand years.

And even one chapter prior to this it speaks of a great multitude in heaven rejoicing because it is time for the wedding feast of the lamb, for the bride has made herself ready. Who are all these people in heaven prior to the great judgement? It is common christian theology that the bride of christ is the church. So many christians believe and the teaching is supported by Paul that there are two resurrections. The first, is the resurrection of the righteous, the believers; the second is the resurrection of the dead, the unbelievers; who are judged following the judgement of Satan. Since they did not follow Christ, they are judged according to the law. It is fairly common theology, imo, and it is the second resurrection to which your quoted scripture applies.

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

I did? Where?

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.

I addressed this before. I guess it didn't register in the mad rush to refute the christian theology. The mystery is "Christ in you". There. Now its not a secret anymore. You are a non-believer and now you know the secret which was concealed through the ages. How gnostic is that? (You didn't even need to go through any initiation ceremony. ) This has been clearly revealed to every generation since the first century. What the quoted scriptures, were saying, is, apparently, the hebrews had no idea about this or its implications and apparently many, many unbelievers today fail to grasp the significance of it.

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

Where does anyone get their sense of morality and moral code. From where in nature comes the overriding imperative to punish evil? Whether is by killing it or locking it safely away for eternity. Which nation acts out of a sense of loving kindness toward evil? If god states that the consequence of sin is death, why do you think that detracts from his goodness and love? I tell my kid drinking and driving leads to possible arrest and jail time, at worst death. Does it mean I am not loving? No, it is a consequence of making the wrong choices, choices she is free to make. The laws of nature and god have been established since the beginning, so why is it we now expect that God should "skirt" the law and offer another alternative? Was it he that made the decision to behave contrary to law? If I were God and given the power to make the laws, I would make the same law, certain evil is punishable by death, or certain evil is punished by eternal imprisonment. Now, if my child should choose to perform a punishable act should I now disobey the law and say, oh sorry, only kidding. You don't expect me to punish the one I love do you? That would make me guilty of an another kind of evil. Fortunately for us, God is a righteous judge and he does offer mercy.

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.

I think you are right about the good by definition part but not the rest.
There is a theme of law and obedience and punishment but this is NOT the overall theme. All of these things serve to illustrate how far from truth we are and utterly corrupted we have become. But the overall message, at least in the christian worldview, is the grand theme of salvation. From the very beginning, He had already made provision for us to accomplish our salvation and to us, this perfectly illustrates that God is good by deed and nature, not just by definition.

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.

God's rude behaviour? I thought Cain was ultimately the rude one. Actually if you check, they both give offerings. Only one was a "sacrifice" in that blood was shed. Now I don't know if this is what made Abel's offering acceptable (some think so) but one thing is clear. Cain's true nature was exposed when God refused his offering. Notice that Cain did nothing to make amends or try to understand and correct his improper offering. Instead he kills his brother and blames God for his punishment.

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

I'm not sure seeker, but I think you may stand in limited company with that opinion even among secularists. Most hebrews and christians, of course, believe the scriptures predate the divided kingdom, most secularists believe the scriptures where compiled during the time of the Babylonian captivity which predates the Hasmoneans by more than 400 years. But regardless of when it was written, I very much agree with your final sentence and extend it to say it was also written for every generation since.

Honey its them

Goddam Christians again!

Fetch me my shotgun.

Time to put an end to

This Silliness.


They're just about as bad as

The rats in the barn...........





john

[seeker]

Note: Highway 61 beats

The Bible everytime.



hoka hey

john

You win

[seeker]

seeker, imo, it serves nothing to be condescending toward christian beliefs. It is clear you don't really understand the beliefs of christians and hebrews. Still, I don't find you as obtuse as many atheists and non-believers who only parrot their religious points of view without doing any primary research of their own. (alas, many christians do the same.)

I'm not being condescending FM but I'm also not drinking the kool-aid. As you suggested I've done my research but I do my research based on the source, not of the twisted reasoning that comes from the various flavors of priest one can dig up or the rationalizations they offer.

Thanks for not finding me obtuse but isn't that a little like telling someone they aren't as ugly as they look. Maybe instead of trying to find insults you might try to find valid arguments.

I have nothing twisted. In fact by looking at the entire context instead of cherry-picking it is clear the discussion was not about the law at all. In fact the man says and Jesus does not refute, he DID follow the law. Nowhere does he nor I state his riches keeps him from obeying the law. The man misses the point entirely as do many. It has nothing whatsoever to do with money, it could have been anything which was keeping him from true life. For example, the principle is exactly the same as these:

• Mat 8-
  Then a teacher of the law came to him and said, "Teacher, I will follow you wherever you go."
  Jesus replied, "Foxes have holes and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has no place to lay his head."
  
  Another disciple said to him, "Lord, first let me go and bury my father."
  But Jesus told him, "Follow me, and let the dead bury their own dead."

Where is the admonition to follow the law? What do these men lack?

It is explained here:

• Mat 10 -
  "Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.

So now it should be clear that life is not in obedience to the law, but in following Christ.

You really haven't thought about this much have you. What do you think the commandments say a person's attitude about God should be in relation to all else? You can't keep he commandments without exalting God above all else, your quotes are actually proving MY point not yours.

At no point does Jesus ever contradict himself and say that following the law isn't important, only later does that happen with Paul. All you've done is what Paul did, twist the actual meanings of the words to justify not obeying the teachings attributed to Jesus. Shame shame.

Don't seem so surprised. I said this before when Ish kept stating that Paul makes no mention of the events of Jesus' life. For her it was evidence Jesus did not exist. Rather it is simply due to the fact they never met. Paul was not a follower of Christ while Jesus was wlking around in Israel.

But Paul supposedly met the people that did and had the opportunity to learn about his life. It actually makes no sense that he wouldn't have done so. The notion that someone who didn't directly discuss doctrine with the Christian God would be more influential in developing that doctrine than the ones who did is almost as absurd as the Christian God.

No. The clear message of Jesus, is that He was the way to life, not obedience to the law. It is christianity 101 and something every student of christianity, as you claim to be, should understand very well. The law was fulfilled in Him. No one can find life following the law. Paul never contradicts Jesus.

I've already shown you that Paul does contradict Jesus. What you are spouting is Church doctrine, not what is found in the bible.

I did read it, many times. My guess is, you did not since you missed what was written before. But before I show you what I mean, just a commentary. Revelation is a very controversial and symbolic book that can be interpreted in many ways. Some say it is history, some say it is prophecy. Fortunately, the themes are consistent with the other books of the bible. In any case, if you had read in context once again, you would have noticed this just a few verses prior:

• I saw thrones on which were seated those who had been given authority to judge. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony for Jesus and because of the word of God. They had not worshiped the beast or his image and had not received his mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years. (The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended.) This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy are those who have part in the first resurrection. The second death has no power over them, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him for a thousand years.

And even one chapter prior to this it speaks of a great multitude in heaven rejoicing because it is time for the wedding feast of the lamb, for the bride has made herself ready. Who are all these people in heaven prior to the great judgement? It is common christian theology that the bride of christ is the church. So many christians believe and the teaching is supported by Paul that there are two resurrections. The first, is the resurrection of the righteous, the believers; the second is the resurrection of the dead, the unbelievers; who are judged following the judgement of Satan. Since they did not follow Christ, they are judged according to the law. It is fairly common theology, imo, and it is the second resurrection to which your quoted scripture applies.

This is a good example of what I've been talking about all along though. You have illustrated your own flawed reasoning beautifully. Let's start with the bride of Christ nonsense. If it is the Church then which one? There are thousands of Christian denominations, many of them mutually exclusive. The assumption that it is the Church only works in an era when there was only one church.

As to your whole rapture fantasy, read again mon ami. All revelations says is that the first resurrection gets to be on the judging panel and that they needed to have recieved the word of God which obviously includes the commandments. It also says that each of the second resurrection are judged by works.

I did? Where?

read your own quotes

I addressed this before. I guess it didn't register in the mad rush to refute the christian theology. The mystery is "Christ in you". There. Now its not a secret anymore. You are a non-believer and now you know the secret which was concealed through the ages. How gnostic is that? (You didn't even need to go through any initiation ceremony. ) This has been clearly revealed to every generation since the first century. What the quoted scriptures, were saying, is, apparently, the hebrews had no idea about this or its implications and apparently many, many unbelievers today fail to grasp the significance of it.

You addressed it but then don't see what it is you've said. As in Gnosticism the mystery is indeed 'the Christ in you'. That divine spark that comes with the understanding of the Jesus mysteries. You have just proven Ishtar's main point.

Where does anyone get their sense of morality and moral code. From where in nature comes the overriding imperative to punish evil? Whether is by killing it or locking it safely away for eternity. Which nation acts out of a sense of loving kindness toward evil? If god states that the consequence of sin is death, why do you think that detracts from his goodness and love? I tell my kid drinking and driving leads to possible arrest and jail time, at worst death. Does it mean I am not loving? No, it is a consequence of making the wrong choices, choices she is free to make. The laws of nature and god have been established since the beginning, so why is it we now expect that God should "skirt" the law and offer another alternative? Was it he that made the decision to behave contrary to law? If I were God and given the power to make the laws, I would make the same law, certain evil is punishable by death, or certain evil is punished by eternal imprisonment. Now, if my child should choose to perform a punishable act should I now disobey the law and say, oh sorry, only kidding. You don't expect me to punish the one I love do you? That would make me guilty of an another kind of evil. Fortunately for us, God is a righteous judge and he does offer mercy.

Nice sermon but it doesn't much deal with reality. Motality and ethics come from the need for survival and particularly the fact that to survive we need to get along with each other socially.

I think you are right about the good by definition part but not the rest.
There is a theme of law and obedience and punishment but this is NOT the overall theme. All of these things serve to illustrate how far from truth we are and utterly corrupted we have become. But the overall message, at least in the christian worldview, is the grand theme of salvation. From the very beginning, He had already made provision for us to accomplish our salvation and to us, this perfectly illustrates that God is good by deed and nature, not just by definition.

Wrong

Like I said, you really need to read the bible straight through. the salvation theme is only a late Christian invention. The OT never really refers to it because its focus was on the revival of a Jewish kingdom

God's rude behaviour? I thought Cain was ultimately the rude one. Actually if you check, they both give offerings. Only one was a "sacrifice" in that blood was shed. Now I don't know if this is what made Abel's offering acceptable (some think so) but one thing is clear. Cain's true nature was exposed when God refused his offering. Notice that Cain did nothing to make amends or try to understand and correct his improper offering. Instead he kills his brother and blames God for his punishment.

God was incredibly rude. He arbitrarily refused Cain's offering. Given that God supposedly is omniscient God should have known that it would drive Cain to murder so not only was he rude but he was culpable in the murder of Abel. Clearly it was an event that could have been prevented with only the smallest bit of diplomacy.

I'm not sure seeker, but I think you may stand in limited company with that opinion even among secularists. Most hebrews and christians, of course, believe the scriptures predate the divided kingdom, most secularists believe the scriptures where compiled during the time of the Babylonian captivity which predates the Hasmoneans by more than 400 years. But regardless of when it was written, I very much agree with your final sentence and extend it to say it was also written for every generation since.

Actually you need to keep up on your reading. Ten years ago a majority of biblical scholars were touting a pre-exilic authorship for the bible but that has been steadily coming down. Now the majority are arguing that parts of the Pentateuch, namely the Deuteronomic history may be pre-exilic but that the greater majority of the bible is Hasmonean. All would agree though that the extensive redactions of the bible that occurred during the Hasmonean period altered the source material to reflect the Maccabean point of view

[Ishtar]

The mystery is "Christ in you". There. Now its not a secret anymore. You are a non-believer and now you know the secret which was concealed through the ages. How gnostic is that? (You didn't even need to go through any initiation ceremony. ) ,,,,and apparently many, many unbelievers today fail to grasp the significance of it.

You addressed it but then don't see what it is you've said. As in Gnosticism the mystery is indeed 'the Christ in you'. That divine spark that comes with the understanding of the Jesus mysteries. You have just proven Ishtar's main point.

The second century Christian Gnostic sage Monoimos teaches:

Stop searching for God outside yourself. Look for him within. Examine who says, "My God, my consciousness, my understanding, my psyche, my body." Investigate the source of your experiences of sorrow and joy, love and hate, waking up though you don't will it, and sleeping though you don't will it. If you closely investigate these things, you will find him in yourself. The unity in variety. Like a central point. Thus you will find in yourself a way out of yourself.

Actually Seeker, as I'm sure you recognise, this is pure advaita.

But this is more than just an intellectual realisation and, in fact, it cannot be grasped intellectually. It is a state of consciousness that is achieved through a spiritual initiation of fire and spirit, like this one described in Acts:

[Forum Monk]

Well Monk, this has all been very nice! Excuse me while I pass the collection plate. Then Mrs Pettigrew can play us all out with an organ burst of Onward Christian Soldiers, and we can all join you afterwards on the vicarage lawn for tea and scones.

Right, now that you've stopped preaching your theology at us, and displaying your beautifully developed hermeneutics, I'd like to know - when are you going to start answering some of the points we've raised in this thread about the historicity of Jesus?

I realise many may revolted by the explanations of christian theology but it is necessary to make the point which I have been making from the beginning: christian beliefs are not born in gnostic beliefs. The theology is as different as night and day. The point has been made over and over but falls on deaf ears.

Many religions and beliefs were competing for attention in the 2nd and 3rd centuries and it is inevitable that some "borrowed" elements of the others to attract adherents. But the arguments from your and seekers points of view have centered on timelines and yet you continue to move the goal posts all over the place as it suits your point of view. I am not presenting the theology froma Roman Catholic perspective as it incorpates a boat-load of tradition and obviously post-dates the age in question. Instead I have tried to remain as true as possible to essentials of the theology using only the christian scriptures as evidence.

To further support my charge of misrepresentation and moving timelines is this curious bit of evidence:

5. When are you going to explain this ...

Nice picture by the way. Probably most people would not even realize it is not an actual photograph of an actual archaeological artifact. It is in fact an artist's rendition. The artifact in question no longer seems to exist, either having been lost or destroyed in Berlin sometime following WWII.

It is enormously curious, I cannot find a single peer reviewed analysis of the object and so must rely on second-hand accounts of its description and analysis by the German scholars who held it. In fact, the only places on the internet where it can be found are primarily atheist websites which like to hold it up as proof of a pre-christian mythology of a crucified godman. But hey, I guess since cherry-picking evidence is the order of the day why not.

Most of this silly dribble perpetuated about the Dionysos cults, I have address previously in one of your other many anti-christian threads but you continue to cling to the falsehoods with a deadman's grip. I really suggest you go back and read Ovid's Metamorphoses if you would like the true story of Dionysos and Orpheus. There you find out, neither were crucified. In fact, no greek god was crucified. Dionysis was in fact, shredded limb from limb as an infant and was "resurrected" from a single body part by Zeus. Other than that, his association with the wine cults is about as close to the Jesus story as it gets.

So about the amulet. It is third century. Practically all scolars who have had any priviledge of actually looking at the thing have agreed it is third century or even later.

In some reports, Robert Eisler in Orpheus the Fisher concluded that depiction alone was proof the object was created after the Christian era. In fact, Eisler believes the amulet does depict the crucified Jesus but if Eisler has said this, he did not always believe it.

Otto Kern, another German scholar (supposedly as recently as 1993) stated the amulet was almost certainly a fake, citing other scholars who question its authenticity.

Since I thought it impractical to rely on any Wiki or similar web-based commentary, I decided to look at one of the principle scholarly analyses of the amulet -

Orpheus and Greek Religion by William Keith Chambers Guthrie, L. Alderlink

To this part of the inquiry belongs a mention of the curious and much-discussed seal or amulet in Berlin. The design on this seal (fig. 19), which is dated in the third of fourth centuries A.D., shows a crucified man. Above the cross are a cresent moon and seven stars, and across and below it is the legend OPOEOC BAKKIKOC. This has usually been supposed to be the work of some Gnostic sect exhibiting a syncretism of Orphic and Christian ideas. Just as Christ is to be seen in Christian monuments with the attributes of Orpheus, so here, by a tribute from the other side, Orpheus is represented in the attitude of Christ. Eisler (Orpheus, 338 ff.) has with great ingenuity argued a purely pagan origin for the design. Arguing by analogy from an isolated tradition preserved in Diodorus (3. 65) that Lykurgos, the enemy of Dionysos, was crucified by the god, and from stories that Dionysos himself and other Dionysiac figures were 'bound to the tree', he suggest that there was also and old tradition of the crucifixion of Orpheus. It is only by accident that in the wreck of Greek literature which has come down to us no memory of it has been preserved. The strongest point in favour of this is that Christian representations of the Crucifixion in art do not go back beyond the fifth or sixth century. It had of course a tremendous prejudice to overcome-the historical founder of a new religon depicted as a common malefactor on the gallows. Yet if we are to believe that our complete ignorance of the crucified Orpheus is an accident, it is surely not too much to believe that our lack of earlier representations of the Christian Crucifixion may be an accident too. It is clear that no story of the cruxifixion of Orpheus or Dionysos was known to Justin Martyr. He declared (Apol. I. 54) that the story of Dionysos was invented by 'demons' to correspond with a certain prophecy in Genesis (49. 10 f.), in order to bring the true Christ into doubt. For this reason they brought into it, other stories of those whom they called sons of Zeus the divine paternity, the virgin birth, the passion and so forth. 'But' he goes on (ch. 55), 'the Crucifixion they never imitated, nor ascribed it to any of the sons of Zeus; for it was not understood by them, since all the sayings relating to it are told in symbols'. This testimony goes forth to weaken a case for which even its learned author did not like to claim volle Sicherheit, and we cannot regard the puzzle of the seal as solved; but the suggestion itself, and, like much of Dr. Eisler's learning, deserve to be more widely known.

Eisler's early analysis and belief is based on wishful thinking as NO attested evidence of a crucifixion myth is known. Not even from the time of Justin Martyr.

This blending and mixing which occurred in the 3rd century may have had some influence in the traditions of certain christian denominations and sects on a regional basis, though I have shown the core beliefs are fundementally different from the early gnostics. In the centuries following the death and resurraction of Jesus, it becomes nearly impossible to sort out the chicken and the egg but the charge can easily be made, that very many elements of the mytery religions were "lifted" lock, stock and barrel from christianity. You must realize that facts of the turmoils and religious conflicts which erupted in this period of history, calls into question the authenticity and accuracy of your own evidence and the above amulet is a case in point.

[Ishtar]

Monk, you need to know when you're beaten. You need to see that your house is sinking into the sand upon which you so unwisely built it.

There are none so blind as those who will not see, as they say.

So instead, you come swaggering back on to answer only one of my eight questions with a copy and paste from Apology.com complete with "the story was planted by demons" to confuse the true believers. Puhhleese!

As Marcion said:

"When Jesus descended into hell, the sinners listened to his words and were all saved. But the saints, believing as usual that that they were being put to the test, rejected the words and were all damned."

You need to know that the Osiris/Dionysus cult was attested by Herodotus five hundred years before the Jesus story is set. And I didn't say anything about any of them being crucified ...just that these are life-death-rebirth deities. So that's that straw man kicked out on its ass.

Why would do you think that anyone here is revolted by your doctrinal utterances? Do you think of us as diabolical wraiths, the Devil's own on horseback who quiver and scream at the sight of a cross? Personally, I've just been slightly bemused and scratching my ear that you think you can answer a historical question with dogma and get away with it. But even then you built your own trap and walked straight into it.

You said that the heart of Christian Literalist Jesus' teaching is that Christ is within. As Seeker told you, and I confirmed, this is also at the heart of the Christian Gnostic teaching. Yet still you jump and down and wave your arms in the air and make insults about deaf ears, when the only deaf ears have been your own.

You have been like someone is a garden examining a sunflower, and then looking at the root and saying: "But this flower cannot possibly have come from that root because there are no yellow petals on it."

Right from the beginning, you were trying to reset this argument into one that you thought you could win - by comparing the twisted and deformed monster that Literal Christianity has become to present day Gnostic Christianity.

And all the way through I was saying, into your deaf ears, "No, you need to come down and look at the root. The flower won't tell you anything."

Well, in the end Monk, the flower did tell us something - that the heart of Christianity is that of the secret wisdom (sophia) of the 'Christ' (Logos) within, and that is common to both Gnostic and Literal.

I'm glad to see that Literalist Christianity has not completely abandoned her Gnostic roots.

So you've lost, Monk. Try to take it like a man.

[Forum Monk]

Seeker - how long should we continue this tit for tat?
In my opinion your style is to misrepresent yourself and me. You claim to be a biblical scholar and yet you disrepect and revile the supposed object of your study which makes it clear your purpose is not to study it but rather seek out controversies and alledged constradictions to support an atheistic ideology. In fact, you know nothing about christian theology nor hebrew theology as evidenced by the continuous cherry-picking of scriptures to support your anti-religious agenda. You misrepresent me, knowing nothing about my personal life or beliefs and how I came to my conclusions and then set up numerous strawmen and put words in my mouth then berate and beat them with your own agenda-filled interpretations.

Nevertheless, I can and will continue if it serves the interest of the discussion. I will take it as deep as need go using the scriptures to support my contentions as I began this discussion showing the dissimilarities between early christian and beliefs and gnostic beliefs as presented by Ishtar. I just feel the other members of this board may find it contentious and unnecessary to continue this back and forth with each claiming they are right and the other is wrong. I will not concede my point of view, but I am willing to suspend this line of discussion if it has no hope of progressing.

[Forum Monk]

Monk, you need to know when you're beaten. You need to see that your house is sinking into the sand upon which you so unwisely built it.

There are none so blind as those who will not see, as they say.

So instead, you come swaggering back on to answer only one of my eight questions with a copy and paste from Apology.com complete with "the story was planted by demons" to confuse the true believers. Puhhleese!

Ishtar - you are wrong as I copied nothing from anyone, rather transcribed directly from the book and offered my own commentary. Of course Dionsysos cults existed long before christianity. Your error is the misguided, obviously copied idea that Dionsysos was a model for the Jesus ideology. There is no support for this. So no, I am not beaten.
You can retire your little amulet of crucifixion - it is debunked.

As for your other points - in due time. Seems to me, I am the only one here offering counter arguements as you seeker and min enjoy this little bash the christians party (with occasional distractions from others). Very curious you do not attack other religions with the same zeal. It doesn't matter though, as I am not here to offer myself for martyrdom and I am not arguing a particular dogma nor arging a literal, fundementalist point of view. Spare me the "sinking sand" slaps and assorted ad homs. You think this is a contest that must be won or lost. Why?

[Ishtar]

Ishtar - you are wrong as I copied nothing from anyone, rather transcribed directly from the book and offered my own commentary. Of course Dionsysos cults existed long before christianity. Your error is the misguided, obviously copied idea that Dionsysos was a model for the Jesus ideology. There is no support for this. So no, I am not beaten.
You can retire your little amulet of crucifixion - it is debunked.

As for your other points - in due time. Seems to me, I am the only one here offering counter arguements as you seeker and min enjoy this little bash the christians party (with occasional distractions from others). Very curious you do not attack other religions with the same zeal. It doesn't matter though, as I am not here to offer myself for martyrdom and I am not arguing a particular dogma nor arging a literal, fundementalist point of view. Spare me the "sinking sand" slaps and assorted ad homs. You think this is a contest that must be won or lost. Why?

Monk, this thread is about whether Gnostic Christianity is at the root of Christianity - so why would we be even mentioning, let alone attacking, other religions in this thread? It would be OT.

You have lost that argument - in fact, you never really got going. Have you read Ovid?? No. You're copying from Christian books verbatim on a subject you knew nothing about until I introduced you to it a few months ago And then you accuse others of 'parroting'....!

I'm not withdrawing the amulet, or any of my other seven questions which you cannot so far answer. And you are wrong, there is plenty of support for the Osiris/Dionysus cult being at the root of Christianity, along with the philosophies of Gnostic cults like the Essenes and the Theraputae. It's just that there's no support among biblical scholars, trained by the Literalist Church.

I think you've used quite arrogant and provocative language with Seeker, and now you're asking him whether you should give up because:

. I just feel the other members of this board may find it contentious and unnecessary to continue this back and forth with each claiming they are right and the other is wrong.

Monk, if other members of this board feel it to be unnecessary, they will just not bother to read it. As it is, there have been more than 150 views on this thread since 10.00 am GMT today. So there you have your answer.