Tomb Of Jesus

[Grandpa Harley]

Just to throw something that jarred in the report with me into the mix... Who's DNA did they test against to say 'Yes! This is Jesus!'?

 

After 2000 years, unless there's been an eugenics programme that would make the Third Reich look like Libertines of Miscegenation, the blood line will be in more than half the European population, let alone the Arab one. Additionally, who, in their right mind, would claim to be blood line, especially after the fate of the Disposyni at the hands of the RCC?

[Grandpa Harley]

Sorry, 'Desposyni'... I've not made enough posts to edit my own bad typing yet

[Amethyst]

Wow, I can't believe I missed this! Amethyst, I am so surprised at this! You seem to me, you are so strong and assertive! I get apprehensive when I see you've responded to my post... like, I tell myself to pay attention Amanda... this is going to be deep! :ohmy: You're always respectful, yet I see no signs of you ever having had self esteem problems, nor lack of having had read a ton of books! Maybe you have more than compensated? Maybe you can just relax now?

 

Yeah... I was telling someone else, I could never be self disciplined enough to be a fundy. My more youthful days, I use to ask God to show me why something was wrong or to take away the desire, and if that didn't happen... I figured he'd just have to understand. I never judged other people, as I've always knew I had enough problems of my own.

 

Could a person who was sincerely into fundamentalism, especially in their late teens/early twenties, get a sense of great accomplishments in self discipline? I suppose fundies didn't learn the hard way as much as I did. I came to a point where I felt like I had wasted some of my life attending a few more parties than I feel I should have.

 

Well, that is actually one of the reasons I am going to a therapist right now.

 

I think the issue is that when you have had a mental mindset for so long (20+ years in my case), it is very hard to break out of it. Even when I thought I had broken out of it, I find stuff coming up that made me realize I still had a lot of ingrained thoughts from fundy religion (and my highly critical mother).

[Mythra]

And he bought fine linen, and took him down, and wrapped him in the linen, and laid him in a sepulchre which was hewn out of a rock, and rolled a stone unto the door of the sepulchre.

 

Hey - that's another really good point, Amanda. There's biblical support that a rich guy donates a sepulchre for Jesus.

 

So, how in the hell can people say - "this cannot be the tomb of Jesus and his family, because they were poor" - and this statement is met with nothing but a lot of nodding heads??? Do these people even read their own bibles?

 

Do you know if Jesus was crucified near Jerusalem?

 

Well, of course, silly. Golgotha. It was supposedly just outside of the walls of Jerusalem in the bible.

 

Actually I think there are several sites in modern-day Jerusalem that claim to be the spot. The Church of the Holy Sepulchre and The Garden Tomb I believe are two of them. I'm confident that there is no shortage of authentic souvenirs for sale at all spots that claim to be the place.

[Ouroboros]

Just to throw something that jarred in the report with me into the mix... Who's DNA did they test against to say 'Yes! This is Jesus!'?

So true.

 

I guess they have to ask the Holy Spirit for a DNA sample: "Mr Holy Spirit, if I just could swab the inside of your cheek with this q-tip and we'll be done. Okay?"

[NotBlinded]

The reason I posted the story of Isis and Ra was to show that if this is the story that influenced the later story then it does no good to look at the later story and try to read it as a metaphor. We now have the document that influenced it. We know where it came from a thousand years earlier. It can no longer be said the snake is now this thing when we can look and say the snake is really that thing.

 

So when we look at the OT and the rules were laid out for the Temple and sacrifice and they were spelled out in excruciating detail, and a temple was built (three of them...two+Herod's) and those rules were followed, with few exceptions, from day one. Can we now look back and say to the guys who built the Temple and wrote those rules "What you really meant was...?" Because that's what happened. It happened 2000 years ago, once the temple fell, and it's happening now. I just can't justify it.

mwc,

 

Metaphor is used to instill in a person the way they should be in the society the are living in. This is why I am having a hard time understanding your position I think. When a metaphor causes a person to identify with what it is pointing to, it will cause a person to think in the way their culture thinks. That is why some of the metaphors used back then are archaic to us. We don't think in the same terms of this culture so when we read about what it meant to them, they make no sense. But, that doesn't change what the metaphor is pointing to, but it does change the way we can apply it to our own lives. We can still take the same metaphor they used and apply it to our lives. We just can't use it when we try to apply the same cultural understanding to it as they did. We have to let it talk to us in our culture.

 

What does sacrifice mean? I think it still means giving up a part of yourself for something or someone else. What could this mean to us? Giving up our money or our time to serve a greater purpose. What it could mean to the people of that time is to give up an animal. Animals were their wealth. Their greater purpose, that I can see, is giving up something to serve God. Without sacrificing anything, we can be seen as living only for ourselves...now and then.

 

As far as I know, a snake has always been seen as a metaphor for rebirth and the energy associated with life and the divine. When a snake is observed shedding it's skin, it is seen as dying and being reborn. The differences lie in the way each culture applied the understanding to their life in their society.

 

Don't get me wrong though because many, many times a metaphor is taken as a literal fact. How many people today believe that a snake literally talked? I'm sure many of them back then did also and I'm sure they took many other metaphors as literal fact. But, there were people, and still are, that understand the metaphor. This is a minority, IMO. I think that is changing though, because there seems to be a rise in the churches that see hell as being separate from God, not some literal pit of flame. And there are a lot of Jews and Christians, I think, that see the Garden of Eden as an allegory.

 

It's more about the how people interpret the story than what is really meant. It's the understanding that will make people act in certain ways. The majority of people take things literally it seems. The meaning is still there regardless of how it's interpreted. The symbolic nature of the snake is found everywhere and I'm sure it was understood by the people that wrote the stories as being symbolic. It's the masses that take it as literal. And when this happens, you have a culture (or more) that lives with the literal understanding. Common Christianity is a very good example. This is how the story was understood and society reflects that understanding. IMO, it's not a very good understanding even if everybody understood it that way.

 

Guarding the sacred ground was a dragon-snake. Let us take a moment to consider the significance of the reptilian talisman. The snake simultaneously represents many forces. The shedding of the skin is, of course, a universal symbolism for renewal. But as a talisman, as a power in our evolutionary heredity, the snake represents the transition from worm to spine, from dim flesh to acute nervous system and spinal awareness. As a spinal metaphor, the snake is associated with a range of energies from fleshy pleasures to higher pleasures, from sensual sexuality to mystic integration, from rushes of energy to deep rest. The whole range of energies, low and high, and the stillness of primal rest was anciently symbolized in it esoteric fullness by the caduceus (and the risen snake of the royal Egyptian headdress). Likened to the kundalini of the Indian yogis, all are esoteric indications of the nervous system in full unfoldment, representing mystical openness to the divine.

Mythological and Historical Accounts of Delphi, the Center of the World

From wiki:

 

The serpent is one of the oldest and most widespread mythological symbols. There is some overlap of the themes that mythological serpents represent in various cultures. The snake's venom is associated with the chemicals of plants and fungi[1][2] [3] that have the power to either heal, poison or provide expanded consciousness (and even the elixir of life and immortality) through divine intoxication. Because of its herbal knowledge and entheogenic association the snake was often considered one of the wisest animals, being (close to the) divine. It's divine aspect combined with its habitat in the earth between the roots of plants made it an animal with chthonic properties connected to the afterlife and immortality. This is also expressed by the way a snake sheds its skin and comes forth from the lifeless husk glistening and fresh, making it a universal symbol of renewal, rebirth and the regeneration that may lead to immortality.

Serpent Symbolism

From the same wiki page:

 

Ningizzida was the ancestor of Gilgamesh, who according to the epic dived to the bottom of the waters to retrieve the plant of life. But while he rested from his labor, a serpent came and ate the plant. The snake became immortal, and Gilgamesh was destined to die.

Let me put the whole story here that you posted above about Isis and Ra:

 

In myth, we have an echo of this practice in the story of Isis and Ra. In this story, Ra is old, so decrepit that as he goes on his daily travels, his spittle dribbles onto the ground. The needs of humankind are neglected; the universe itself is fraying a bit due to the inability of the solar power to maintain order.

 

Isis, a magician, a wise woman, is distressed by this state of affairs. She looks at the neglected fields, scorched by accident by Ra. She looks at the dried bed of the Nile, evaporated by Ra in a frenzy of heat. She looks at the parched, sunburned skin of the human people of earth, the dried-up breasts of mothers whose babes cried unsatisfied, at the dehydrated animals, dying in their tracks as they quested for water. She looks at the rainclouds far away whose moisture would not even reach the ground before it was burned away by Ra's mad power. With one word, he can set all right again. But he will not speak the world. His bones are old, he likes the heat. His eyes are growing dim, and he needs his own great blaze of light to let him see. He will not speak the word.

 

Isis, a magician, a wise woman, a daughter of Ra, conceives a desperate plan. She knows the art of image magic, and can create life out of inanimate objects. But for the supremely immune Ra to be affected by her arts, the image must have something of him in it. One day, Isis follows after Ra and gathers the earth that he has moistened with himself. She fashions from it an image of a small snake, the very toxic dart, and brings it to life.

 

Isis lays the snake in his accustomed path, with the instruction to bite Ra as he passes. This he does, and the snake springs up and clamps its fangs into the divine flesh. Ra, surprised, makes his way back to his abode, where a tremendous fever takes him. He shudders in his limbs, he cannot believe the virulent poison can be harming him, Lord of the Gods. His own fire should be sufficient to burn away any other, but it is not. He has control over all the things of the universe, but not this one. Too delirious to even begin to find out why this creature's poison can harm him, he welcomes Isis, who rushes in, to apparently comfort him.

 

"Oh, my father, what is it? What causes you so much pain?" "I wandered today and was bitten -bitten by a snake!" "But father, how can the venom of a mere snake harm you, who rules all beasts?"

 

"Daughter, I do not know ---AHHH! The pain! It burns me! I burn from within like fire! Heal me!" Isis goes through the motions of healing him, but it is useless, as she well knows. "Father, I cannot heal you. The power of the poison is too strong!" "What am I to do! What am I to do! I cannot bear it!" "There is one thing that might work, father. Give me your name. In your name I may be able to command the fire to cease." "Unnnnngh....I am the Lord of Light, the Power of Fire...." "Yes, yes, everybody knows those. Those aren't working. Give me your name, your one true name." "AAHAHHAGH! No....not my true name -...not even to you, my daughter....AHHAHGH!" "Give me your name, father! Your one true name, your one secret name, the name before all other names, give it to me that I may save you!" "Ahhhhh...... aaaaa ....all right......my daughter.....come close......AHHH....."

 

Isis leans her ear to her father's mouth. He speaks syllables to her. She straightens up in disgust. "Father, if you do not give me your true name, you will die of this burning. Don't play games with me, Isis of the Words of Power. I'll know the true name when I hear it. That's not it." "AHHHHHHGHHGHHGHG! I will tell it! I will tell it!" Isis leans in. She hears the mystical syllables, and this time, she rises up, satisfied. "What are you waiting for! Now heal me, daughter! Heal me!" Isis speaks the words, the syllables of Ra's one true name. The poison flees his limbs, the sweat dries on his brow, he lies back in relief, free. "Now, daughter, speak the words back to me, give me back my one true name, my one secret name." "Father, one day I may need to heal you again. If you have lost all consciousness, how could you tell it to me then? No, I will keep this word." And Isis left her father's bedside. She went and stood alone in the sunlight. She looks at the neglected fields, scorched by accident by Ra. She looks at the dried bed of the Nile, evaporated by Ra in a frenzy of heat. She looks at the parched, sunburned skin of the human people of earth, the dried-up breasts of mothers whose babes cried unsatisfied, at the dehydrated animals, dying in their tracks as they quested for water. She looks at the rainclouds far away whose moisture would not even reach the ground before it was burned away by Ra's mad power. Isis says the Word, and the Word is good.

 

So Isis has been associated with snakes from apparently the very beginning of her career as a goddess. In Egypt, her images often include the snake, especially the cobra. The cobra is often depicted on the base of the crown of Isis. The sacred uraeus, which, when worn by queens, indicates their identification with the divine, is a near- constant companion. In images from the Graeco-Roman era, priestesses are depicted carrying serpents in procession. Serpents entwine around surviving altars, or rise up around the body of Osiris.

 

Even in ancient Egypt, the symbol of the snake indicates power, sometimes referred to as the "flame". Many of the representations of snakes in conjunction with Isis are symbols of what we sometimes call "Kundalini" - the serpent line band of energy that connects our power centers together.

 

One of the most important forms of Isis as snake goddess is that of Thermouthis, the serpent goddess of the fields, often represented as a cobra crowned with the headdress of Isis.

Who Put the Hiss in Isissss

Here the snake is associated with rebirth and divine connection. Everything was dried up and dying because of the "mad power" of Ra. After that, I assume all was well because "Isis says the Word, and the Word is good."

 

Please forgive me if I am being dense in not understanding you.

 

Just to stay on topic...so, how 'bout that Jesus box?

[Amanda]

I think the issue is that when you have had a mental mindset for so long (20+ years in my case), it is very hard to break out of it. Even when I thought I had broken out of it, I find stuff coming up that made me realize I still had a lot of ingrained thoughts from fundy religion (and my highly critical mother).

You know Amethyst, you couldn't have said that at a better timing for my own life! I think I have more fundy beliefs than I had thought. I've always thought Jesus was probably a real person, NOT a God, just a person, but I did think he survived the crucifiction to go on and live a fairly normal life. Researching Mythra's post, I stumbled across what seems to be the reality provided by currently finding this tomb, if it is of "Jesus," is that he probably didn't survive this crucifiction at all. When he died on the cross, or whatever, that was it. Done. Finished. His physical life ended. There was no physical reviving and walking away. That was just a fairy tale, I guess. I must say, for some odd reason, that effected me. Maybe that was a legend built around a guy that was kind of like a Martin Luther King? I guess our culture cultivates a tendency to believe more legend as truth than I had thought. I can see where a full blown fundy would have real problems dealing with the implications of that.

 

As far as mistakes our parents made raising us... I've had to deal with lots myself. Guns and knives had been used as threats in my house (not towards me), mostly against my dad who had problems fueled by alcohol. However, as I got older and began considering the lives my parents had to endure growing up, I'm truly amazed they turned out as good as they did!

[Amanda]

Hey - that's another really good point, Amanda. There's biblical support that a rich guy donates a sepulchre for Jesus.

 

So, how in the hell can people say - "this cannot be the tomb of Jesus and his family, because they were poor" - and this statement is met with nothing but a lot of nodding heads??? Do these people even read their own bibles?

 

I think I have read the bible, but Mythra, I too just thought Jesus had survived this crucifiction... that he was in a place that was so emotional healthy, his body was functioning with optimum strength, that he actually survived this crucifiction to even perhaps walk away. What was I thinking... especially after being on here for almost two years and dealing with the likes of you?

 

I just assumed that particular tomb didn't count... that he went on living and died somewhere else. But doing some research to your question, it dawned on me. :ohmy: I'm sure a fundy could never even considered this. Actually, I think the truth of this revival was only spiritual is even within researchable considerations of the manuscript from which the KJV was taken. I'll admit it even blew me away!

 

Do you know if Jesus was crucified near Jerusalem?

 

Well, of course, silly. Golgotha. It was supposedly just outside of the walls of Jerusalem in the bible.

 

Well, I kept trying to find Calvary on the map and couldn't find it! Hey, give me a break, I was in shock and it was almost 1:00am my time...

[NotBlinded]

Amanda,

 

Jesus may not have been crucified either. He may have went on and had a regular life with Mary and had a son. This tomb would reflect that either he didn't die or he wasn't crucified to begin with...wouldn't it?

[Amanda]

But now you've jumped into yet another context which is that of Paul's. The synoptics are one thing, G.John another and Paul another. This is part of the problem I'm talking about.

MWC, that's why I said I'm not debating you or contesting your perspective of any of this, because I resign to the fact you are way more knowledgeable than I on these historical situations and perspectives of the common man surrounding these teachings. I take your word for it. I'm just saying that within these teachings, as I see it, it seems to be pretty congruent that a corporate body is the second coming. What may have been the popular persuasion of the majority of people at that time, I defer to you. Yet, maybe these teachings didn't fall suit to the popular positions of that area at the time?

 

Well, if we're going for metaphor, I can definitely see it (no pun intended). The spiritual body of "christ" will be purged of the things that make it impure for the sake of the whole. If this doesn't happen the entire spiritual body will suffer and not enter into the "kingdom." So, better that some die off spiritually, than no one "moves on."

I agree with part of that. If one person is out there molesting little girls, perhaps it keeps the whole body of people from entering into the kingdom. So it is better some 'pluck their eye out' so that we'd have a better chance of collectively moving on... but it would be better if the person just worked on their 'spirit' so that plucking their eye out is unnecessary. However, we don't want anyone to be disposable, they may just have to go through the fire of judgement for additional purification. Most of us have learned that we want to go through the fire as little as possible.

 

I'm glad you liked them but the point was that any jesus wouldn't have had to move two steps in any direction to find them. Egypt ruled the land at one point and so their influence never entirely went away. If he wanted to see them he could have simply went down to Egypt, to the Temple of Karnak, and not on some wild goose chase into India. Given the two choices Egypt is by far the more logical destination for him to go.

Perhaps, however, it is said that in the Tibbetan Buddhist documents that Jesus/Isas was there in India. It wouldn't surprise me if he were in Egypt too. IDK.

 

The reason I posted the story of Isis and Ra was to show that if this is the story that influenced the later story then it does no good to look at the later story and try to read it as a metaphor. We now have the document that influenced it. We know where it came from a thousand years earlier. It can no longer be said the snake is now this thing when we can look and say the snake is really that thing.

I thought your snake wasn't real... it was made by Isis from spit and dirt. I'm under the impression there are many myths involving lots of snakes that are similar to these biblical renderings. It is my inclination that many of these myths are likely spun into the mix. Although, I'm not positive of it.

 

So when we look at the OT and the rules were laid out for the Temple and sacrifice and they were spelled out in excruciating detail, and a temple was built (three of them...two+Herod's) and those rules were followed, with few exceptions, from day one. Can we now look back and say to the guys who built the Temple and wrote those rules "What you really meant was...?" Because that's what happened. It happened 2000 years ago, once the temple fell, and it's happening now. I just can't justify it.

I aplogize, yet I think I'm missing something...

 

Oh yeah? From dictionary.com:

 

death –noun

1. the act of dying; the end of life; the total and permanent cessation of all the vital functions of an organism. Compare brain death.

2. an instance of this: a death in the family; letters published after his death.

3. the state of being dead: to lie still in death.

4. extinction; destruction: It will mean the death of our hopes.

5. manner of dying: a hero's death.

6. (usually initial capital letter) the agent of death personified, usually represented as a man or a skeleton carrying a scythe. Compare Grim Reaper.

7. Also called spiritual death. loss or absence of spiritual life.

8. Christian Science. the false belief that life comes to an end.

9. bloodshed or murder: Hitler was responsible for the death of millions.

10. a cause or occasion of death: You'll be the death of me yet!

11. Archaic. pestilence; plague. Compare Black Death.

—Idioms

12. at death's door, in serious danger of death; gravely ill: Two survivors of the crash are still at death's door.

13. be death on, Informal.

a. to be excessively strict about: That publisher is death on sloppily typed manuscripts.

b. to be snobbish about or toward.

c. to be able to cope with easily and successfully: The third baseman is death on pop flies.

14. do to death,

a. to kill, esp. to murder.

b. to repeat too often, to the point of becoming monotonous and boring: That theme has been done to death.

15. in at the death,

a. Fox Hunting. present at the kill.

b. present at the climax or conclusion of a situation.

16. put to death, to kill; execute.

17. to death, to an extreme degree; thoroughly: sick to death of the heat.

 

The problem with all languages is context. Not all these apply in every situation. Also, Strong's Concordance is biased so hopefully you take that into account.

 

mwc

I guess the extent of the ambiguity of today too was not so evident to me because I live in the context of the presuppositions that are automatically understood in our era. That is why I try to cross reference these teachings and also read the evolution of about every word in the verse I am studying. Once I studied the opening of the seven seals, a short chapter in Revelations, and it took me about 40 hours... and that wasn't counting the last part that had the seven trumpets! Forget the trumpets, I thought at the time!

 

Amanda,

 

Jesus may not have been crucified either. He may have went on and had a regular life with Mary and had a son. This tomb would reflect that either he didn't die or he wasn't crucified to begin with...wouldn't it?

NBBTB, I just read your post to MWC about metaphors (thanks ), and realize you could very well be right here too. Crucifiction here could possibly be a metaphor of the story that implies he had utterly crucified his 'carnal selfish' nature, and even determined to be so by the highest authority of the world also. And, I guess that should this tomb be considered a place where this man, onto which legend was built, was placed in death, could still have been donated to him and his family by a very wealthy man.

 

Now, if there is an authentic person of which legend has embellished, what do you mean that he may have never even died?

 

Mythra has put me into a bit of a shock here, so am I missing something else?

[Dave]

Sorry if this has been covered already.....

 

A preacher just explained to me that the bible does not go into details on the ascension and that a body may have been left behind. Also, the bible says that those ladies did not go into the tomb but just saw it was open and left. He also explained that an ossuary is just a box for bones, not bodies so that if there was one for jesus it would not be in the tomb but with a collection of other ossuaries.

 

Then he justified all that with this line: "What is not written in the bible is often more important than what is." With that kind of rationalization nothing can ever go against the bible since the just make it up as they go along.

[NotBlinded]

Now, if there is an authentic person of which legend has embellished, what do you mean that he may have never even died?

Oh...I'm sorry Amanda! I meant that maybe he didn't die on the cross not that he didn't die at all! Sorry 'bout that.

 

And you know, I took up a whole lot of page space with my post to say what you just said to mwc right here:

 

Yet, maybe these teachings didn't fall suit to the popular positions of that area at the time?

Right to the point. Sheesh...I need a few pointers from you!

[Amanda]

A preacher just explained to me that the bible does not go into details on the ascension and that a body may have been left behind. Also, the bible says that those ladies did not go into the tomb but just saw it was open and left.

Dave, thanks! I wish you would have told me that a long time ago! I've been finding that out the hard way. That seems to make sense. Gosh, it still amazes me that I just assumed Jesus walked away and never challenged that aspect! Well, I don't want to have to admit to that any more.

 

Now, if there is an authentic person of which legend has embellished, what do you mean that he may have never even died?

Oh...I'm sorry Amanda! I meant that maybe he didn't die on the cross not that he didn't die at all! Sorry 'bout that.

I was worried there for a minute...

[Dave]

Dave, thanks! I wish you would have told me that a long time ago! I've been finding that out the hard way. That seems to make sense. Gosh, it still amazes me that I just assumed Jesus walked away and never challenged that aspect! Well, I don't want to have to admit to that any more.

 

That's just what a preacher explained to me. I don't believe a word of it. According to tradition jesus ascended, body and all. It doesn't matter, they'll just change the tradition and continue on as if nothing happened.

[mwc]

What may have been the popular persuasion of the majority of people at that time, I defer to you. Yet, maybe these teachings didn't fall suit to the popular positions of that area at the time?

Let me see if I can just say this another way then. Instead of talking "god" lets say that you tell me that in the 20th century people liked at particular type of music. That's a pretty broad statement isn't it? So I try to narrow it down to a when in the 20th century but you keep jumping around and around. First we're in the 1950's and so I get an idea of the type of music in my head but suddenly you mention something from the 1920's and I get a little confused then you head into the 1970's and I'm totally mixed up by this point. To you music is music but it's not to me. They have categories. Rock. Jazz. Disco. You see? And Disco certainly had nothing to do with 1920 unless you can make a case that people that made Disco "borrowed" from the older style (much like a lot of Hip Hop and sampling for instance).

 

So when you say something like "maybe these teachings didn't fall suit to the popular positions of that area at the time?" I'd have to ask "Which time?" Lumping everything together is just muddying the issue from my point of view.

 

So it is better some 'pluck their eye out' so that we'd have a better chance of collectively moving on... but it would be better if the person just worked on their 'spirit' so that plucking their eye out is unnecessary. However, we don't want anyone to be disposable, they may just have to go through the fire of judgement for additional purification. Most of us have learned that we want to go through the fire as little as possible.

Some people don't want to be "spiritual" nor does "fire" temper them in the manner you expect (or should I say prefer?). It hardens them most completely. They must be removed for the good of the whole. But all this is reading in to the text.

 

Perhaps, however, it is said that in the Tibbetan Buddhist documents that Jesus/Isas was there in India. It wouldn't surprise me if he were in Egypt too. IDK.

And he had a house and died in Japan. He visited North America according to the Mormons. He's been everywhere. It's irrelevant.

 

I did a quick Google just now and all I could find equated to this: "This is an English version of an Urdu treatise written by the Holy Founder of the Ahmadiyya Movement in Islam, Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (1835-1908)." So basically a couple hundred years ago someone claims that they have something from several thousand years ago that prophecies that jesus will come. A German guy from a couple hundred years ago also claims that he went to India and spoke to the people jesus hung out with (the descendants of rather) and this is evidence, how?

 

Maybe jesus lives in my closet? I just say he's a myth to throw people off the track.

 

I sure hope I'm missing something here.

 

So when we look at the OT and the rules were laid out for the Temple and sacrifice and they were spelled out in excruciating detail, and a temple was built (three of them...two+Herod's) and those rules were followed, with few exceptions, from day one. Can we now look back and say to the guys who built the Temple and wrote those rules "What you really meant was...?" Because that's what happened. It happened 2000 years ago, once the temple fell, and it's happening now. I just can't justify it.

I aplogize, yet I think I'm missing something...

Lets say that for some reason we ex-c's get put into a colony and for the same strange reason I get made leader. One day I decide that at noon everyday we will go outside, stack bricks into a pile, kill a chicken on top, then unstack the bricks. My decree is made and written down. So we do this everyday.

 

Hundreds of years go by and our descendants start to wonder exactly why it is they have to do this "thing" every day at noon. So they start to apply meanings to this whole act. Well, maybe the bricks represent this and the action of stacking and unstacking them represent that. The killing of the chicken means this and doing it all at noon means some other thing. They work it all out. The just want meaning in these meaningless, pointless, actions they have to do. God told them to do it is a handy way of dealing with some of this.

 

Even more time goes by and their descendants are just sick of the whole thing. They don't want to do it anymore. The old ways that helped their ancestors get by just are fulfilling for them. They need something more. So they decide that there's no need to stack and unstack. There's no need to kill the chicken. That all these things can be handled a different way. So they re-work the story yet again to compensate for this. Now the bricks mean this and the chicken that and noon yet another thing. It's now about them. The bricks, the stacking, the chicken and noon all relate to them personally. It "connects" them to a larger picture.

 

All this ignores what is actually written in the original text. It's spelled out that I wanted you to pile up bricks at noon, kill a chicken on top and then unstack the bricks.

 

Of course the reason I wanted you to do all this isn't in the text. I was just pissed off one day and wanted you guys to do a bunch of work in the noon sun. Also, since it was noon I figured I might as well have you kill that stupid chicken for some lunch too. Since it worked out why not have you do it everyday?

 

The point of my story is how do we take some of those very detailed instructions that are written in the OT, that are about the care of the Temple and the sacrifices within, that were written by the people that played a hand in the construction of the Temple and now say "What they REALLY meant was..." and place other words and meanings in their mouths? If you read the Torah it is quite specific about the rituals.

 

What is being said and done by the Jews is in-line with what was going on elsewhere in the world at that time. To say that it really means something else, that it's a metaphor, means that not only is the Torah metaphor (and these authors were all sneaky) but that all sacrificial systems in the ancient world were someone supposed to be metaphor but they all got caught up in a literal system of sacrifice and missed the point. All of the cultures missed the boat. But there's no evidence I know of to support that claim. Cultures seemed to go from sacrificial cultures to non-sacrificial over time.

 

To say they really meant for it to be allegory and not literal means they were way ahead of their time (not likely...research shows that Israel/Judea were a bit behind the times compared to their neighbors when they started would have started writing many of these texts) or you're applying a standard to them that doesn't apply. It's like applying our standards of slavery to them as well. It doesn't work. But to see that slavery declines over time makes sense.

 

Once I studied the opening of the seven seals, a short chapter in Revelations, and it took me about 40 hours... and that wasn't counting the last part that had the seven trumpets! Forget the trumpets, I thought at the time!

It makes more sense once you take the letters off. Then you take the first chapter or two from the beginning and end off (since they're xian...along with a few other bits), then the rest is primarily Jewish. Read it with a Preterist mindset (even if you're not Preterist). If you know Josephus and the First Roman War it helps since you need less Preterism to get in your way. Then a little Philo and other Jewish mysticism for the "magic" numbers (like seven) and other symbols. Realize that at least two to four books have been glued together to make the whole and "walla!" you have an easy read. It makes perfect sense at that point.

 

mwc

[Grandpa Harley]

And he had a house and died in Japan. He visited North America according to the Mormons. He's been everywhere. It's irrelevant.

 

for the interested, when Francis Xavier arrived in East India he encountered temples that venerated Jesus and Mary. Exactly *how* the tradition got there seems unclear, but the saint thought it ante-dated Nestorian Christians. For me, the traditions of St Thomas are the probable source, whether St. Thomas existed in any form we'd recognise is debatable.

 

The nature of myths built upon myths built upon myths... In 25 years of study, the only thing I know with any certainty is that what we are told is almost certainly NOT true. However, there is more chance of positively identifying Jack the Ripper than uncovering anything conclusive about 1st Century Judea, even if there wasn't the systematic destruction of evidence post Nicea.

[mwc]

NBBTL, thanks for the informative post. There was quite a lot so I didn't quote much.

 

Metaphor is used to instill in a person the way they should be in the society the are living in. This is why I am having a hard time understanding your position I think.

...

Don't get me wrong though because many, many times a metaphor is taken as a literal fact. How many people today believe that a snake literally talked? I'm sure many of them back then did also and I'm sure they took many other metaphors as literal fact. But, there were people, and still are, that understand the metaphor. This is a minority, IMO.

This stood out at me though. I get these basic concepts. One thing I'm trying to understand is how we KNOW that the people who wrote the bible, any of it, weren't in the latter category. If they looked at the Isis/Ra story, for instance, and KNEW it was a metaphor as opposed to a literal story on some level (they likely took from the Babylonian archive so the Gilgamesh epic is a better match but it really doesn't matter).

 

We can say that they wrote a metaphor but they could have been writing a literal story to their knowledge. In which case we should also read it literally as that was the intent of the author. To reinterpret their work seems dishonest. And since their work is in with other literal work where to draw the line? Where WE decide? That also seems dishonest. Who are WE to decide their intent? If this person truly believed in talking animals then we do them a disservice to not read their work at face value. So how can we decide what is, and what is not, to be metaphor?

 

Once decided then how is it interpreted? By modern standards, the standard of the day it was written or the time the symbols came into play? If we want to truly understand the meaning it seems the middle one is the correct answer. So for the Genesis snake story we'd need to understand, and put ourselves, not in a "universal" mindset as your sources suggest but rather a 6-8th century BCE Hebrew in either Judea or Babylon to fully appreciate this story.

 

At any rate we'd need to know if any of the symbols used were in any way altered from then to now because if snakes were seen to be as something else in that time period and/or regions we'd be getting a corrupt message despite the "generic" usage otherwise ascribed to snakes. Taking the symbols for granted could be dangerous practice especially in a collection of works like the bible (written in a wide variety of places, over such a time span...by anonymous authors to boot).

 

I guess if it's simply about "getting out of it what I want to get out of it" then it doesn't matter what the original author intended. It doesn't matter what a snake means. None of that matters at all. But then the whole concept of metaphor as a communication method and such starts to break down.

 

The other thing I noticed in what you quoted was that in the modern author he had a lot of very elaborate "things" to say. But going back to Gilgamesh it was very simple. I guess I touched a bit on this above but read your message again and compare the two, the modern and the ancient. See which group is trying to find a lot more in the writings than what might actually be in those writings. I think people are looking awfully hard to find things that aren't there. Too much information can be a bad thing.

 

Just to stay on topic...so, how 'bout that Jesus box?

My satellite box is all set to record it. All I have to do is sit through the thing. I hope it's not as painful as his last special.

 

mwc

[NotBlinded]

mwc, according to Philo, Moses wrote the Torah as allegory didn't he? link

 

You have the history down wonderfully, but maybe the missing element in what I've been trying to say is this: The psychological aspect of humans. Again, I recommed Joseph Campbell for applying the psychological aspect to mythology and a new recommendation of Carl Jung (link) and maybe even some of Frued. These are two psychologist that Cambell drew from.

 

The creation of myth, poetry, song and anything creative comes from a different part of the human psyche. It's not the same part of the mind that would make someone put a chicken on bricks just because they said so. Although that could happen!

 

If I start offending you, please let me know because I really, really don't want to do that. And more than likely, there is something that I'm just not understanding and it will finally click with me!

[NotBlinded]

NBBTL, thanks for the informative post. There was quite a lot so I didn't quote much.

 

Metaphor is used to instill in a person the way they should be in the society the are living in. This is why I am having a hard time understanding your position I think.

...

Don't get me wrong though because many, many times a metaphor is taken as a literal fact. How many people today believe that a snake literally talked? I'm sure many of them back then did also and I'm sure they took many other metaphors as literal fact. But, there were people, and still are, that understand the metaphor. This is a minority, IMO.

This stood out at me though. I get these basic concepts. One thing I'm trying to understand is how we KNOW that the people who wrote the bible, any of it, weren't in the latter category. If they looked at the Isis/Ra story, for instance, and KNEW it was a metaphor as opposed to a literal story on some level (they likely took from the Babylonian archive so the Gilgamesh epic is a better match but it really doesn't matter).

I think it can be recognized by writing style in which a deeper meaning can be seen to appear. I would think one way to recognize this is by what it refers to. If it refers to something that cannot happen in reality, then it must be a metaphor. A metaphor wouldn't be something along the lines of, you float like a could, a metaphor would be, you are a cloud. The former is a simile and the latter a metaphor.

 

When the metaphor refers to something of this world, maybe it is recognized by the writing style?? I have to do more reading on that.

 

We can say that they wrote a metaphor but they could have been writing a literal story to their knowledge. In which case we should also read it literally as that was the intent of the author. To reinterpret their work seems dishonest. And since their work is in with other literal work where to draw the line? Where WE decide? That also seems dishonest. Who are WE to decide their intent? If this person truly believed in talking animals then we do them a disservice to not read their work at face value. So how can we decide what is, and what is not, to be metaphor?

I think there are signals to us and I'm not to learned on those yet. I think it would have to do with meaning. It has to point beyond itself in order to gain full understanding. I would think a disconnect would appear in the story if it were to be taken literally. There is a huge disconnect with a literal interpretation of a talking snake, IMO.

 

Once decided then how is it interpreted? By modern standards, the standard of the day it was written or the time the symbols came into play? If we want to truly understand the meaning it seems the middle one is the correct answer. So for the Genesis snake story we'd need to understand, and put ourselves, not in a "universal" mindset as your sources suggest but rather a 6-8th century BCE Hebrew in either Judea or Babylon to fully appreciate this story.

This is where if we were to take the metaphor as what was meant to the people of that time, they would do no good for us. They are meant to evoke a feeling in the reader that causes a person to recognize something in themselves and their lives at the time they are reading it. If they don't, they are of no use to us. This is why some people will say that we need a new myth that is applicable to our day and age. We could use the same symbols, such as the snake, but it would be surrounded by our cultural themes. The symbol of the snake as rebirth could still be applicable to us. The cheribs gaurding the garden could still work for us as an acceptance of both good and evil in the world. Isn't one of the cheribs smiling and the other growling? Or maybe that's in a buddhist temple...I get confused sometimes!

 

We really can't appreciate the story fully because we are so removed from it. Although the symbols are still there we can only interpret them as to what it means to us. We can get an idea what it meant to them if we understand their culture and way of life. But, in order for the symbols to have meaning to us, we have to apply them to our lives.

 

At any rate we'd need to know if any of the symbols used were in any way altered from then to now because if snakes were seen to be as something else in that time period and/or regions we'd be getting a corrupt message despite the "generic" usage otherwise ascribed to snakes. Taking the symbols for granted could be dangerous practice especially in a collection of works like the bible (written in a wide variety of places, over such a time span...by anonymous authors to boot).

Yes, there are many places the bible uses snakes as metaphor. Moses and his rod, Jesus calling people vipers. It has an evil meaning in many places, but it also has one of power and energy and divine connection.

 

I guess if it's simply about "getting out of it what I want to get out of it" then it doesn't matter what the original author intended. It doesn't matter what a snake means. None of that matters at all. But then the whole concept of metaphor as a communication method and such starts to break down.

It does matter though because this is what speaks to the psyche. Like a poem does. It sucks to analyze a poem because it then doesn't mean a dang thing! I usually sit there and go...what the hell does that mean. Although I do write some myself, but I don't know what anyone else would get out of it.

 

It is culturally dependent, but yet universal to humanity. I hope that little bit of seemingly nonsensical statement made sense!

 

The other thing I noticed in what you quoted was that in the modern author he had a lot of very elaborate "things" to say. But going back to Gilgamesh it was very simple. I guess I touched a bit on this above but read your message again and compare the two, the modern and the ancient. See which group is trying to find a lot more in the writings than what might actually be in those writings. I think people are looking awfully hard to find things that aren't there. Too much information can be a bad thing.

I see what you're saying, although I think it depends of what they are talking about. Aren't there morals to most stories? I usually miss most of the morals myself though!

[NotBlinded]

And he had a house and died in Japan. He visited North America according to the Mormons. He's been everywhere. It's irrelevant.

 

for the interested, when Francis Xavier arrived in East India he encountered temples that venerated Jesus and Mary. Exactly *how* the tradition got there seems unclear, but the saint thought it ante-dated Nestorian Christians. For me, the traditions of St Thomas are the probable source, whether St. Thomas existed in any form we'd recognise is debatable.

 

The nature of myths built upon myths built upon myths... In 25 years of study, the only thing I know with any certainty is that what we are told is almost certainly NOT true. However, there is more chance of positively identifying Jack the Ripper than uncovering anything conclusive about 1st Century Judea, even if there wasn't the systematic destruction of evidence post Nicea.

Hi Grandpa! Welcome to forums!

 

This deserves more than a welcome, but the 5:00 whistle is blowing! I hope to return to it later!

[Grandpa Harley]

From my admittedly poor Aramaic and Hebrew knowledge (entirely second hand, truth be told), nether language is geared to the kind of ideas that the Greeks liked. There isn't even a common view of time, nor is there a common view on afterlife, nature of God, concept of Hell, nor any other ideas that 'allegory' is the same concept cross culturally.

 

In some respects, the Greco-Romano lensing of the New Testament is akin to trying to explain our science in terms of culture that has no word for any number greater than four, or any distance more than 3 river bends away. Or explaining arc welding to octopodes...

 

and Notblindedbythelight,

thanks for the welcome!

[Amanda]

That's just what a preacher explained to me. I don't believe a word of it. According to tradition jesus ascended, body and all. It doesn't matter, they'll just change the tradition and continue on as if nothing happened.

 

Dave, there seems to be indications that a physical resurrection was not initially intended to have followed from his crucifiction. Without going into lexicons via concordances, such sayings as these also say it:

 

Mark 16:12

After * * that he appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country.

16:19

So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.

 

Matthew 28:17

And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted.

 

Luke 24:30

And it came to pass, as he sat at meat with them, he took bread, and blessed it, and brake, and gave to them.

24:31

And their eyes were opened, and they knew him; and he vanished * out of their sight.

 

And hopefully they will change tradition till it becomes closer to the truth. Maybe this recent tomb will cause it to happen a bit faster. It's been awhile since Galileo's influence. Gosh, they're still struggling with Darwin's too.

[Dave]

....And hopefully they will change tradition till it becomes closer to the truth. Maybe this recent tomb will cause it to happen a bit faster. It's been awhile since Galileo's influence. Gosh, they're still struggling with Darwin's too.

 

It does sound like he could have left a body.... but what about that doubting Thomas thing? Could you stick your hand in a hole in a ghost? The answer will be; "With god all things are possible."

 

Some good may come out of all this; "True Believers" will not change their beliefs, however some liberal believers on the edge may see all the backpedaling and changing stories and they'll no longer be able to keep holding on to straws and give up the ghost so to speak.

[Amanda]

 

Hi Grandpa Harley! Welcome here, and I'm looking forward to more of your posts. You seem well informed.

 

I remember earlier you commenting on the DNA. The DNA doesn't prove it's Jesus, it is to prove that he and Mary Magdalene in the tomb were not family members, but probably married to each other, and supposedly had a son. I think they are checking the ossuary claiming to be James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus to see if its DNA is similar to that of Jesus to be possible in being his brother.

 

They think it is Jesus, even though Jesus was a common name. It seems the family tomb has written Jesus, son of Joseph, and Mary, his mother, with Mary Magdalene, their child, and I think James his brother. While all these names are common names, they say the statistical probability of all these people being together in this manner would show that 599 out of 600 times, this would be the 'real' guy Jesus.

 

That's why we are saying it could possibly be him.

[mwc]

mwc, according to Philo, Moses wrote the Torah as allegory didn't he? link

Actually, it would be midrash which is something a bit different. His work should have been seen as more an explanation but not a replacement for the texts he wrote about. If, however, someone misunderstood the purpose of his writing they could be misled. I realize this sounds like splitting hairs, and perhaps it is, but it's not my word.

 

You have the history down wonderfully, but maybe the missing element in what I've been trying to say is this: The psychological aspect of humans. Again, I recommed Joseph Campbell for applying the psychological aspect to mythology and a new recommendation of Carl Jung (link) and maybe even some of Frued. These are two psychologist that Cambell drew from.

I took a little, tiny, bit of psych in college many years ago. I remember doing so well in one class I just walked out on the final and still getting an "A." Would that count for anything? Turns out I didn't needed those classes or the social anthropology type classes I took since I was an IT major. I guess I should have read the course catalog closer.

 

I did all this some time ago though so I admit I am probably more than a bit rusty in my understanding of all this. My IT skills aren't too bad though.

 

The creation of myth, poetry, song and anything creative comes from a different part of the human psyche. It's not the same part of the mind that would make someone put a chicken on bricks just because they said so. Although that could happen!

Don't be so sure. While people have the "creative" aspect they are tempered by reality. They must survive. They have a "boss" in many cases. In my example I happened to be the leader. You all were my followers. No matter what you're creative side said it was overturned by my leader side. I said stack bricks and that's what you did. It wasn't until time passed that others got to apply creativity to that otherwise mind numbing task. It could have happened even earlier though. You could think to yourself "Perhaps there's something mwc knows that we don't?" And you put your mind to work on finding a meaning behind my stupid task. The human mind is simply built to find patterns and meaning. It's no surprise when we find them even when none is there (like in clouds).

 

If I start offending you, please let me know because I really, really don't want to do that. And more than likely, there is something that I'm just not understanding and it will finally click with me!

Nope. No offense. You've go a very long way to go if that's what you're trying to do. I understand that, especially on these boards, it can take awhile to hammer out what might be a very easy thing to explain in person and sometimes you have to come at it from a lot of different angles. It's just the nature of things.

 

mwc