Page 58 of 83
Posted: Sun Aug 24, 2008 10:51 am
by seeker
Ishtar wrote:Minimalist wrote:Solomon also says that Hiram of Tyre employed them for his temples and palaces.
Solomon, if he existed at all, was at best an illiterate bandit chieftain. Any words he may have "said" were written centuries after the events in question by men with an agenda of their own.
But the point I've been trying to make is that Literalism follows Gnosticism - it steals the clothes of Gnosticism which is much much older.
So while some Jewish Literalists (in this case) may have decided to use these ancient myths at some point to gain or maintain political power, these stories didn't necessarily start off that way. They started off as mythological tales passed down in an oral tradition in order to keep some sort of deeper teaching alive - that's what myths are. And when something is a myth, every idea expressed within the story is meaningful. Every aspect of the plot and the characters is deliberately put in for a reason, unless it is just scene setting.
So when I say something like: "Solomon also says that Hiram of Tyre employed them for his temples and palaces" - I assume most people know me well enough (and are also au fait with this subject well enough by now) to understand all of the above without me having to say:
"In the mythical story about the fictional character Solomon who in the plot of the story in the Old Testament builds a magnificent temple...."
But then we can go on to ask:
Why did the mythologists make Joseph a tekton?
Why did they give a mention to the DAs in the story of Solomon?
Why did they make Luke a theraputae?
Were they trying to tell us something?
This is where myth, to me, is so much more interesting than history. In history, shit just happens. In mythology, everything happens for a reason.
But they also made up a lot of those myths. The whole David-Solomon tale was pure mythmaking simply using the language of pre-existing myths with new characters. The myths themselves weren't all that important, they wee just a format for pushing whatever theological ideas were extant at the time.
You have to be a little careful when you analyze a lot of these myths because, in a way, they are all based on each other
Posted: Sun Aug 24, 2008 11:10 am
by Ishtar
seeker wrote:
But they also made up a lot of those myths.
Not a lot of them ... all of them. Very carefully and deliberately. That's the point of what I've been talking about here for weeks.
seeker wrote:
The whole David-Solomon tale was pure mythmaking simply using the language of pre-existing myths with new characters.
Yes, and that's what I'm trying to uncover ... the pre-existing myths that were eventually used for a political purposes.
seeker wrote:
The myths themselves weren't all that important, they were just a format for pushing whatever theological ideas were extant at the time.
You have to be a little careful when you analyze a lot of these myths because, in a way, they are all based on each other
You're telling me. I know, and I've been showing it here with the stories about Joseph/Joshua-aka-Jesus ben Nun/Jesus.
But you are in the mythological section - it's what we do in here!
seeker wrote:
The myths themselves weren't all that important, they were just a format for pushing whatever theological ideas were extant at the time.
Not important to who? They are important to those interested in what theological ideas were extant at the time, which is what this thread is all about. How myth was used to spread these ideas. It's those ideas that I'm interested in and that's the purpose of this section of the board.
Posted: Sun Aug 24, 2008 11:17 am
by Minimalist
Were they trying to tell us something?
I doubt it. I really doubt that they had any conception at all of writing for posterity. More likely they were trying to tell people living at their own time something which has been lost either in the sands of time or even more likely through the repeated translations into different languages.
I seem to recall that the idea that "Joseph" was a carpenter was a fairly late addition to the myth since that would have made him a tradesman and of a completely higher social order. There was a jesus special a few years ago which opined that "tekton" in this case was merely the closest Greek word for what was a "day laborer."
We don't know where these traditions came from. As an example:
"Matthew" is the only gospel writer to mention the magi.
Matt.2
[1] Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem,
"Tradition" in the west at least, says that they were kings, named Caspar, Melchior and Balthasar and from Persia.... none of which is mentioned by dear old Matty, who does not name them, say which country they came from, call them kings or even say there were 3. This is later chrome attached to the story by xtians seeking to upgrade their god into something with a better pedigree.
So I'm not going to get overly excited about one specific word or two in the text because we don't know what they meant, when they wrote it, what the original Aramaic terms was or what political purpose was being served. Too many unknowns.
Posted: Sun Aug 24, 2008 12:02 pm
by Ishtar
Minimalist wrote:Were they trying to tell us something?
I doubt it. I really doubt that they had any conception at all of writing for posterity. More likely they were trying to tell people living at their own time something which has been lost either in the sands of time or even more likely through the repeated translations into different languages.
Yes, by 'us' I meant 'them'. Sorry not be clearer!
Minimalist wrote:
I seem to recall that the idea that "Joseph" was a carpenter was a fairly late addition to the myth since that would have made him a tradesman and of a completely higher social order. There was a jesus special a few years ago which opined that "tekton" in this case was merely the closest Greek word for what was a "day laborer."
Oh right... I see... and was that on the same channel as the documentary that said the Sphinx must have been Khufre because they both had a beard?
Posted: Sun Aug 24, 2008 12:29 pm
by seeker
Ishtar wrote:
Not a lot of them ... all of them. Very carefully and deliberately. That's the point of what I've been talking about here for weeks.
Its the why of it that we have differences over. The written story was more for political purposes than theological is my point. The authors of the bible were using theology as a tool for control and were happy to distort that theology wherever they thought they needed to.
Ishtar wrote:
Not a lot of them ... all of them. Very carefully and deliberately. That's the point of what I've been talking about here for weeks.
Its the why of it that we have differences over. The written story was more for political purposes than theological is my point. The authors of the bible were using theology as a tool for control and were happy to distort that theology wherever they thought they needed to.
Ishtar wrote:
You're telling me. I know, and I've been showing it here with the stories about Joseph/Joshua-aka-Jesus ben Nun/Jesus.
But you are in the mythological section - it's what we do in here!
What I'm saying though is that because of the fact that the major holy books were all written (or rewritten if you prefer) in the Greek period the similarities you end up finding may not be the original ideas those religions had but more of a reflection of the theology that was around at the time they were written/edited. It may only seem that there were common threads.
Ishtar wrote:
Not important to who? They are important to those interested in what theological ideas were extant at the time, which is what this thread is all about. How myth was used to spread these ideas. It's those ideas that I'm interested in and that's the purpose of this section of the board.
Ah but you are looking for the root theological meaning behind the myth aren't you? The problem is that when you look at the bible and other concurrent myths you end up getting the same theological viewpoints because the editors of that time only knew those viewpoints. the earlier viewpoints that people had are more likely to be found in their rituals, in the things that they do that aren't accounted for by their scriptures.
Posted: Sun Aug 24, 2008 12:44 pm
by Minimalist
Ishtar wrote:Minimalist wrote:
Oh right... I see... and was that on the same channel as the documentary that said the Sphinx must have been Khufre because they both had a beard?
As a matter of fact it was this series.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/14/arts/ ... 4gate.html
Of course, it ignores the contradictions and "assumes" (always dangerous ) that there was a core reality to be told.
Posted: Sun Aug 24, 2008 12:53 pm
by Ishtar
I know what I'm doing, Seeker. I've been studying mythology for more than 35 years and I know the pitfalls - which doesn't stop me sometimes falling arse over tit into them ...but it is my major interest in life.
I think, from the little I know of you, that your's is political history and that religious history is only tangenital to that - and on top of that, you're quite the minimalist, even more than Min.
So we're coming from very different places.
But the purpose of this thread, and this section of the board, is to discuss mythology, however extraordinarily tricky it is.
Posted: Sun Aug 24, 2008 1:01 pm
by Ishtar
What Jesus's Birth May Have Looked Like?
Min, I wouldn't even allow a programme with a name like that into my living room.
Posted: Sun Aug 24, 2008 1:12 pm
by john
Ishtar wrote:I know what I'm doing, Seeker. I've been studying mythology for more than 35 years and I know the pitfalls - which doesn't stop me sometimes falling arse over tit into them ...but it is my major interest in life.
I think, from the little I know of you, that your's is political history and that religious history is only tangenital to that - and on top of that, you're quite the minimalist, even more than Min.
So we're coming from very different places.
But the purpose of this thread, and this section of the board, is to discuss mythology, however extraordinarily tricky it is.
Ishtar -
Did you really mean
Tangenital,
Or the more common
Tangential?
j
Posted: Sun Aug 24, 2008 1:32 pm
by Minimalist
Min, I wouldn't even allow a programme with a name like that into my living room.
It's important to know what the other side is thinking, Ish.
They actually went into quite a bit of historical detail.....and ignored the fact that history did not support the tale!
They taught their actor to speak Aramaic which is quite a trick since Aramaic is now only spoken in a very small part of Syria.
Posted: Sun Aug 24, 2008 1:33 pm
by Ishtar
john wrote:
Ishtar -
Did you really mean
Tangenital,
Or the more common
Tangential?
j
Oh dear!
Mind you, maybe 'tangenital' might be more interesting?
Posted: Sun Aug 24, 2008 1:47 pm
by Minimalist
Ishtar wrote:john wrote:
Ishtar -
Did you really mean
Tangenital,
Or the more common
Tangential?
j
Oh dear!
Mind you, maybe 'tangenital' might be more interesting?
Freud is laughing his ass off.
Posted: Sun Aug 24, 2008 2:05 pm
by Ishtar
Minimalist wrote:Min, I wouldn't even allow a programme with a name like that into my living room.
It's important to know what the other side is thinking, Ish.
They actually went into quite a bit of historical detail.....and ignored the fact that history did not support the tale!
They taught their actor to speak Aramaic which is quite a trick since Aramaic is now only spoken in a very small part of Syria.
Yeah... and totally irrelevant when the NT was written in Greek.
Typical of people in denial to go to so much trouble over one irrelevant detail, meanwhile totally ignoring the main point (no Freudian pun intended
) that there is no historical evidence for their man at all. Psychotherapists call it 'displacement activity'.
Posted: Sun Aug 24, 2008 3:03 pm
by seeker
Ishtar wrote:I know what I'm doing, Seeker. I've been studying mythology for more than 35 years and I know the pitfalls - which doesn't stop me sometimes falling arse over tit into them ...but it is my major interest in life.
I think, from the little I know of you, that your's is political history and that religious history is only tangenital to that - and on top of that, you're quite the minimalist, even more than Min.
So we're coming from very different places.
But the purpose of this thread, and this section of the board, is to discuss mythology, however extraordinarily tricky it is.
I wasn't really prepared to discuss my tan.
We are coming from different places but I think we are both searching for a bit of truth. I'm just suggesting that the weight of other material in mythology does not necessarily exist in ritual.
You've really been studying this stuff since you were one?
Posted: Sun Aug 24, 2008 3:47 pm
by Minimalist
and on top of that, you're quite the minimalist, even more than Min.
Both Lemche and Davies have new books coming out so we're going to see how much the discrepancy has narrowed.
When Davies started everyone called him an asshole. Now, everyone except the fundies ( and yes...you know who I mean) is falling into line.