The Newly Found Book Of Judas

[Grandpa Harley]

Saul of Tarsus was just someone who put down Messianic movements, not Christians per se. Neither the Romans nor the Jews wanted a Messiahs muddying up the water.

Grandpa Harley... okay, so then 'Christians' were considered inclusive within this category.

The Nero record is at best suspect and at worst unlikely.

What sources do you use to site that statement? What I've read, Nero may not have been responsible for starting the fire, because fires were probably easily started accidentally. Yet, it seems that under his rule that some Christians were tortured into confessing to them anyway. It does seem to be a convenient fire for Nero and IMO held in suspect for its occurence, even though many times he was known for keeping peace. I'll agree that we don't know for sure he was responsible for it, but that the Christians were tortured into confessing to it seems to be the accepted concensus from what I've read.

The histories of Nero were written largely with a Christian gloss. Wiki covers what I've read (quoted for convenience... WIki isn't the always the most accurate but here it agrees with other stuff I have read

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Jesus

That is a gnostic view.

And? The bible is full of views from a multitude of perspectives. This may happen to be a Gnostic saying attributed to the character of "Jesus," as he gathered many sayings from other sects/cults/philosophies known at the time. Actually, that seems to be part of what is endorsing his efforts to reconcile all of them, as they each had something of benefit.

The idea that anyone can become a God is, doctrinally, an anathema to every modern,orthodox, Christian Cult I know. It is a wholly Gnostic stance, common to Mystic (Heretical?) Jewish, Christian, and Sufi Islamic sects. TBH, it reads less as a Roman objection, more a post Nicean objection placed in Roman mouths. The Romans were pretty syncretic, and that sort of idea wouldn't have raised an eyebrow...

The cannibalism thing is a warped version of he ritual supper where they eat their god. You maintain that bread and wine becomes lumps of flesh and blood, then you're up for the Cannibalism charge. The Christians STILL have grotesque custom

Their customs certainly seem to have lost their initial meanings and intent, IMO. I highly suspect that it was NOT about eating God. It seems to me there is another possible perspective in that from one loaf of bread representing the one body of the Christ nature, each person has one piece of it within them. These teachings of the Christ nature is what was eaten for the the nourishment of their spirit.

you have a God-Man saying 'This is my body, this is my blood' and the doctrine of transubstantiation hangs on in a several Orthodox Chrsitian Cults. It's ritual cannibalism, being bald about it. One of the reasons that Gaius Caligula banned the Attys/ Magna Mater cults was due to literal cannibalism, and self mutilation, at certain times of the year. All that body and blood nonsense was going to ring alarm bells. I doubt that your view is widely held among the great unwashed even in our lifetime. It's a very modern (apologist) gloss.

 

And no, it didn't it was just that it was Govt sponsored Christians persecuted people who had been defined as Christian up until Constanitne changed the rules...

Are you saying here, that there were only persecutions against Christians that met the government's definition of one, and then that definition was changed by Constantine?

Not sure what you mean, however what I meant was that the Empire had a problem with ALL sects of Christians prior to Nicea, mostly due to them fighting. After Nicea, one sect had the Emperor's ear, and thus had the power to wipe out everyone who disagreed. The Arians, the Gnostics, the Desposyni, and, likely, groups who's names don't survive in the record. it was quite a blood bath. Lynch mobs operating with government support, or at least with the Powers that be turning a blind eye.

Grandpa Harley, it seems you are well read and informed about many biblical subjects. I look at your posts with a high degree of respect to its insightful efforts. You, like me, find these subjects fascinating. Your view and my view differ, which makes debating/discussions interesting. Yet, I realize that we view things from quite different perspectives and I am in no way challenging your validity of your information. I'm just trying to understand it better, whether I accept your opinion of it at the moment or not. I've often said that I don't want people to think just like me... as that would be boring. I know... let me beat you to your response... you are quite confident that will never happen.

 

Flattery will get you anywhere... tell me about my eyes...

[Amanda]

The idea that anyone can become a God is, doctrinally, an anathema to every modern,orthodox, Christian Cult I know. It is a wholly Gnostic stance, common to Mystic (Heretical?) Jewish, Christian, and Sufi Islamic sects. TBH, it reads less as a Roman objection, more a post Nicean objection placed in Roman mouths. The Romans were pretty syncretic, and that sort of idea wouldn't have raised an eyebrow...

You've certainly given me food for thought... and something to sleep on tonight. This one section here, I'd like to get your ideas more specifically.

 

I understand that the concept of we too are gods, we are in a position to think it not robbery to be equal to god, and that the kingdom of god is within us is totally contradictory to every modern, orthodox Christian cult I know too. It seems to me that faction of people are just like the religious right (Pharisees) in the days of "Jesus". These concepts attributed to "Jesus" in the bible, are totally different than what we have ended up with today though. I'm sure you're aware of the twists and turns it has taken throughout history, to implement a person in power's own agenda.

 

Just for the record, I put "Jesus" in quotation marks because I don't know who the real person was, or if there were many people throughout history collectively superimposed on one core person, or maybe there were many people of that time that got lumped into one character we call "Jesus"... so I just refer to whatever that may be as "Jesus". Even if I just type Jesus, that's still what I mean. I'm just going with what we presently have access to now of the bible, and I certainly am not privy to all of that.

 

Yes, the Romans and the Greeks were pretty accepting of other people's gods. They often accepted them and sometimes even suggested they had the same god but called it a different name. However, they were pretty emphatic that there were gods that were superior to humans and could punish or reward humans at will. Jews had this same concept even though they were monotheistic and didn't accept other people's gods. (Although I wonder about this too, in that... in God's name they pray... Amen. Amen was clearly a mystery god of Egypt.)

 

Critical reading of the NT, without modern popular spin, seems to clearly indicate that these teachings were to self empower people. This is found in the comments suggesting we too are gods, that god was in us, and has to work through us. We are no longer at the mercy of a god out there somewhere, but to a god within us, that worked through us, that is part of us. I think Plato and Socratese were only about 400 years before Jesus and their concepts of reasoning were getting to be quite accepted. I think these concepts of reasoning were dared to be used in challenging what were the specifications of supposedly the laws of god. I have read where this was considered quite Atheistic, challenging these laws is to set one's self up to be equal to god. It would either elevate us, demote god(s), or somewhere in between. Either way, the pious nature of the people back then were not going for it... for the fear of their superior mighty god(s) on them!

 

Anyways, that, misunderstood ideas of cannabalism and such... plus the Christians soon coming to fight amongst themselves probably contributed to a lot of their persecution at that time. I don't know about the UK, but the Atheists here have probably had their share of persecution even in today's modern political/religous climate. No executions though. :wink: We had an American president that once said that if someone was an Atheist, they shouldn't be allowed to be a citizen of this country. I can imagine how much worse it was back then.

[Grandpa Harley]

There's a lot of Gnostic thought in the bible. The idea of 'within', however, was beyond the scope of anything that could be said in Aramaic.

 

I remember George the first saying that.

 

Marcion, the man who popularised Paul/Saul of Tarsus would have understood the Gospel of Judas as not alien to his concepts. The body was a fleshy prison to a fragment of God/ Nascent God. The only reason the letters of Paul were selected is due to the fact that Marcionite Christianity was a close run second.

 

As to the reason for the Christian persecutions; They'd have to be a pain in the arse to get Marcus Aurellius to have a poke at them. He was very much a man for civil order, yet he did away with the gladiator 'entertainments' and executions as popular entertainment (although he did use public executions as desultory warnings)

[NotBlinded]

There's a lot of Gnostic thought in the bible. The idea of 'within', however, was beyond the scope of anything that could be said in Aramaic.

If there is no differentiation between within and without, that would mean that God is everywhere. This seems to be in line with "the Kingdom of God is within you" and "turn over a rock and you will find me." Not one or the other, within or without, but a complete unity of both.

[Grandpa Harley]

There's a lot of Gnostic thought in the bible. The idea of 'within', however, was beyond the scope of anything that could be said in Aramaic.

If there is no differentiation between within and without, that would mean that God is everywhere. This seems to be in line with "the Kingdom of God is within you" and "turn over a rock and you will find me." Not one or the other, within or without, but a complete unity of both.

Give the lady a cigar...

[Amanda]

There's a lot of Gnostic thought in the bible. The idea of 'within', however, was beyond the scope of anything that could be said in Aramaic.

Grandpa Harley, all I'm saying is concerning what we have now in the bible... no matter from where it came. You've convinced me that you know the roots from where most all of it came, however, I'm just saying it is there now. I use to think Jesus traveled everywhere learning different spiritual teachings, yet now I wonder how much was added as these teachings spread to other cultures.

 

BTW, do you know the date of the original manuscript from which the KJV was written?

 

If there is no differentiation between within and without, that would mean that God is everywhere. This seems to be in line with "the Kingdom of God is within you" and "turn over a rock and you will find me." Not one or the other, within or without, but a complete unity of both.

NBBTB, you're the best! I could read your stuff all day long!

 

Of course I agree with you. I was just emphasizing how this idea of the god within and being equal to god, was perceived at the time in somewhat an Atheistic light. I think it still is today. If you point that out to a fundamentalist Christian, and that everything Jesus did, we too can do... they are shocked!

 

.... I shouldn't laugh because I use to believe some pretty incredible stuff too, and probably still do and just don't know it..

[NotBlinded]

There's a lot of Gnostic thought in the bible. The idea of 'within', however, was beyond the scope of anything that could be said in Aramaic.

If there is no differentiation between within and without, that would mean that God is everywhere. This seems to be in line with "the Kingdom of God is within you" and "turn over a rock and you will find me." Not one or the other, within or without, but a complete unity of both.

Give the lady a cigar...

Cherry flavored please.

[Grandpa Harley]

"BTW, do you know the date of the original manuscript from which the KJV was written?"

 

Textus Receptus in Greek was used to a large degree, the history of which is here. Again, there's nothing in there I've not seen before so I'd say it was reliable. The OT was from the Masoretic Text.

 

Normally lexicons/concordances of the NT only go back to the Greek unless there is a known Hebrew word that is being translated (usually OT quotes)

 

It also cannibalised a good amount of Tyndale. Wm. Tyndale used a lot of different Greek texts, and was painfully honest. However, Receptus was the final arbiter. Bear in mind that Textus Receptus was the 'authorised' Greek version. The shadow of the Vulgate was still heavy on biblical scholarship, and it was blasphemous to say that it wasn't 'correct' (it was riddled with transcription errors, and glosses to support the Nicean view)

 

So, nothing much before 1511 as far as the NT

[NotBlinded]

Of course I agree with you. I was just emphasizing how this idea of the god within and being equal to god, was perceived at the time in somewhat an Atheistic light. I think it still is today. If you point that out to a fundamentalist Christian, and that everything Jesus did, we too can do... they are shocked!

Oh Amanda, I know that is what you believe too...it's under your avatar, and well, I know and love your insights!

 

I agree that it would have been seen as an atheistic stance. Kind of like what Alan Watts sometimes puts forth, "atheism in the name of God". No reverence for an idol of any kind, physical or mental. That can, and still probably does, be seen as atheism. But, in some of us, that isn't exactly what it is.

 

I am just curious as to how this unity became divided amongst people that didn't really have a separate understanding of within and without by putting God in a temple? But I agree with you about it being an understanding such of that of the literalists.

 

Dr. Neil Douglas-Klotz says this in an interview on his book Desert Wisdom:

 

Q: What does this have to do with people's relationship - or lack of relationship - with organized religion today ?

 

NDK: Whether we know it or not, we are all influenced by our culture's distorted version of Middle Eastern spirituality. From the very first verse of Genesis, we all subconsciously learn the division of "heaven" and "earth." Whether atheist or fundamentalist, we begin to act from this supposed gulf between an idealized utopia which is unreachable and the human predicament we are stuck with. This gulf further alienates us from each other, from nature and even from our own bodies, about which we are taught to feel ashamed.

 

Q: You say that this is a distorted version. What have you found that is different in these Middle Eastern writings ?

 

NDK: The main Middle Eastern languages spoken by the prophets of Judaism, Christianity and Islam are very poetic, multi-leveled and open-ended. One word can have many different meanings. The words of a prophet or mystic in this tradition - stories, prayers and visionary statements - were intended to challenge their listeners to understand them according to their own life experience. This is still a tradition of translation today in Judaism and Islam - that one statement can be heard or understood in several different ways. I have attempted to restore this oral, open-ended quality, which would have been heard by the original hearers of the Genesis story, the words of Jesus and the words of the Quran. It is bit like restoring the natural wildflowers, plants and trees to a particular area after it has been over-cultivated.

 

For instance, the Hebrew words that Genesis uses for "heaven" and "earth" can in context be understood as the two major ways our universe has developed. "Heaven" refers to the way in which everything is united as though by one sound, one ray of light or one vibrating wave. "Earth" refers to the individuality of every being - the way that the universe has mysteriously produced such abundant diversity that no two clouds, blades of grass or fingerprints are exactly the same. The Hebrew word for "heaven" refers to our sense of "we," the word for "earth" to our sense of "I." It is the same as the way physicists talk about seeing light as particle and wave simultaneously. How we deal with this seeming paradox on a personal level is one of the big mysteries and challenges of life.

An interview with Neil Douglas-Klotz

 

They seemed to have taken the open-ended thoughts expressed in these words and closed the door on them. They took what shouldn't have been divided and did just that. There is diversity within unity, but upon accenting the diversity as a stand alone entities (not of God), they destroyed the unity (conceptually). This continues today.

 

.... I shouldn't laugh because I use to believe some pretty incredible stuff too, and probably still do and just don't know it..

Girl! You and me both!

[Grandpa Harley]

"Of course I agree with you. I was just emphasizing how this idea of the god within and being equal to god, was perceived at the time in somewhat an Atheistic light."

 

Actually, it's pantheist... everything is god... There is an element of Sanskrit words that the word not only means an object but 'God in the form of...' the object. The word "nāraṅgaḥ" not only means 'orange tree', but also means "God [The Divine Unity] in the form of an orange tree"... All the universe is made of the stuff of Vishnu, the Great Unity

[Amanda]

"BTW, do you know the date of the original manuscript from which the KJV was written?"

 

Textus Receptus in Greek was used to a large degree, the history of which is here. Again, there's nothing in there I've not seen before so I'd say it was reliable. The OT was from the Masoretic Text.

 

Normally lexicons/concordances of the NT only go back to the Greek unless there is a known Hebrew word that is being translated (usually OT quotes)

 

It also cannibalised a good amount of Tyndale. Wm. Tyndale used a lot of different Greek texts, and was painfully honest. However, Receptus was the final arbiter. Bear in mind that Textus Receptus was the 'authorised' Greek version. The shadow of the Vulgate was still heavy on biblical scholarship, and it was blasphemous to say that it wasn't 'correct' (it was riddled with transcription errors, and glosses to support the Nicean view)

 

So, nothing much before 1511 as far as the NT

Wow Grandpa Harley... were you a religion professor or something like that?

 

Anyway, what I meant was, what was the original manuscript from which we gleaned our NT, and I suppose ultimately the KJV. The reason I have like using the KJV is that it has concordances with lexicons that allow me to research each word back to its prime root. I have a great book here, but have now become lazy and usually just use the online (not-so-good) lexicons. I prefer to research its meaning for myself. Now back to my point, it says here this:

The original texts were written in Koine Greek by various authors after c. 45 AD and before c. 140 AD. Its books were gradually collected into a single volume over a period of several centuries.

This dates the earliest copied material we now have access, back to 45 - 140 AD, right? I know it says it is written in an early form of Greek known as Koine Greek, however the associated lexicons to the NT do go back to many prime roots of words found in Hebrew.

 

Okay, take for example this verse found here:

 

Luke 17:20

And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:

17:21

Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

 

Now we just want to see what exactly does "kingdom" mean, so we do the lazy way and just click on the word to see from what phrasiology was that word derived for our self, which this lexicon says this:

 

royal power, kingship, dominion, rule

not to be confused with an actual kingdom but rather the right or authority to rule over a kingdom

of the royal power of Jesus as the triumphant Messiah

of the royal power and dignity conferred on Christians in the Messiah's kingdom

a kingdom, the territory subject to the rule of a king

used in the N.T. to refer to the reign of the Messiah

 

This section will also have from where this definition has evolved by clicking on the number associated with the word's origin:

 

leader of the people, prince, commander, lord of the land, king

 

Which also has listed this word's origin by clicking on the number, and it says this:

a stepping, walking

that with which one steps, the foot

 

This particular word does not ultimately list its prime root, and I don't know why because most do or at least say of uncertain origin. Additionally, this site use to trace the word back to its prime root meaning and stipulate if it was from Hebrew origin or not... and now this version of this lexicon does not. I suppose that if they are too good, people won't buy their software or books. Yet, it use to be better than this.

 

Anyway, this then allows me to perceive a more detailed discription of the intentions that word used in the KJV wished to convey. And I will tell you that many times it is NOT what it seems to be by the surface reading. This particular instance it seems clear that the kingdom of god within us is the god, the king, the messiah, the christ is within us all and I think safe to conclude who we all are at the core of our essence in ALL of us... and in everything too. I think these teachings illude to everything too, but my gosh... they didn't want to push their luck! Look what happened to Bruno and Capernicus!

[Amanda]

I am just curious as to how this unity became divided amongst people that didn't really have a separate understanding of within and without by putting God in a temple? But I agree with you about it being an understanding such of that of the literalists.

NBBTB, I love your whole post... as usual.

 

I just want to say that I think the mindset of the majority of people at that time... and now too for that matter... was that God(s) were up there somewhere, extremely superior to us, we relied on them/him, fought battles for them/him in hopes of being rewarded by them/him and to alleviate punishment by them/him. Hence we become helpless and subject to their discretions, and it is important to honor them in a significant way or else

 

Considering this in the first step to implementing the understanding of unity of all things, it would be that shocking suggestion that we are gods too, and equal to them too! :ohmy: Once self empowerment became the consequences of this notion, it would become much easier to understand that we are not gods above anything else, but just part of the one God. It illudes to this in the OT too, in the temple of babel and in Eccles. where it says that our soul has no preeminence over that of animals. All that seems to have gotten down played a lot.

[Grandpa Harley]

"BTW, do you know the date of the original manuscript from which the KJV was written?"

 

Textus Receptus in Greek was used to a large degree, the history of which is here. Again, there's nothing in there I've not seen before so I'd say it was reliable. The OT was from the Masoretic Text.

 

Normally lexicons/concordances of the NT only go back to the Greek unless there is a known Hebrew word that is being translated (usually OT quotes)

 

It also cannibalised a good amount of Tyndale. Wm. Tyndale used a lot of different Greek texts, and was painfully honest. However, Receptus was the final arbiter. Bear in mind that Textus Receptus was the 'authorised' Greek version. The shadow of the Vulgate was still heavy on biblical scholarship, and it was blasphemous to say that it wasn't 'correct' (it was riddled with transcription errors, and glosses to support the Nicean view)

 

So, nothing much before 1511 as far as the NT

Wow Grandpa Harley... were you a religion professor or something like that?

 

Anyway, what I meant was, what was the original manuscript from which we gleaned our NT, and I suppose ultimately the KJV. The reason I have like using the KJV is that it has concordances with lexicons that allow me to research each word back to its prime root. I have a great book here, but have now become lazy and usually just use the online (not-so-good) lexicons. I prefer to research its meaning for myself. Now back to my point, it says here this:

The original texts were written in Koine Greek by various authors after c. 45 AD and before c. 140 AD. Its books were gradually collected into a single volume over a period of several centuries.

This dates the earliest copied material we now have access, back to 45 - 140 AD, right? I know it says it is written in an early form of Greek known as Koine Greek, however the associated lexicons to the NT do go back to many prime roots of words found in Hebrew.

 

Okay, take for example this verse found here:

 

Luke 17:20

And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:

17:21

Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

 

Now we just want to see what exactly does "kingdom" mean, so we do the lazy way and just click on the word to see from what phrasiology was that word derived for our self, which this lexicon says this:

 

royal power, kingship, dominion, rule

not to be confused with an actual kingdom but rather the right or authority to rule over a kingdom

of the royal power of Jesus as the triumphant Messiah

of the royal power and dignity conferred on Christians in the Messiah's kingdom

a kingdom, the territory subject to the rule of a king

used in the N.T. to refer to the reign of the Messiah

 

This section will also have from where this definition has evolved by clicking on the number associated with the word's origin:

 

leader of the people, prince, commander, lord of the land, king

 

Which also has listed this word's origin by clicking on the number, and it says this:

a stepping, walking

that with which one steps, the foot

 

This particular word does not ultimately list its prime root, and I don't know why because most do or at least say of uncertain origin. Additionally, this site use to trace the word back to its prime root meaning and stipulate if it was from Hebrew origin or not... and now this version of this lexicon does not. I suppose that if they are too good, people won't buy their software or books. Yet, it use to be better than this.

 

Anyway, this then allows me to perceive a more detailed discription of the intentions that word used in the KJV wished to convey. And I will tell you that many times it is NOT what it seems to be by the surface reading. This particular instance it seems clear that the kingdom of god within us is the god, the king, the messiah, the christ is within us all and I think safe to conclude who we all are at the core of our essence in ALL of us... and in everything too. I think these teachings illude to everything too, but my gosh... they didn't want to push their luck! Look what happened to Bruno and Capernicus!

TBH going back to Hebrew as a root word for the NT is like taking a Japanese translation of Moby Dick, and then translating a word back to the English of Chaucer rather than Melville. Aramaic evolved from Hebrew, but it as as close as Chaucer is to Melville

 

and in my previous life I was a corporate trouble shooter - any problem too nasty, too ugly, too screwed or just too bloody for anyone who wanted a career to risk, it was mine. Travelling a lot, I had a lot of time to read.

[Grandpa Harley]

I am just curious as to how this unity became divided amongst people that didn't really have a separate understanding of within and without by putting God in a temple? But I agree with you about it being an understanding such of that of the literalists.

NBBTB, I love your whole post... as usual.

 

I just want to say that I think the mindset of the majority of people at that time... and now too for that matter... was that God(s) were up there somewhere, extremely superior to us, we relied on them/him, fought battles for them/him in hopes of being rewarded by them/him and to alleviate punishment by them/him. Hence we become helpless and subject to their discretions, and it is important to honor them in a significant way or else

 

Considering this in the first step to implementing the understanding of unity of all things, it would be that shocking suggestion that we are gods too, and equal to them too! :ohmy: Once self empowerment became the consequences of this notion, it would become much easier to understand that we are not gods above anything else, but just part of the one God. It illudes to this in the OT too, in the temple of babel and in Eccles. where it says that our soul has no preeminence over that of animals. All that seems to have gotten down played a lot.

If you read Genesis, the reason mankind gets kicked out of Eden before we could eat of the tree of Eternal life and become as Gods... hence the NT is a real volte face since you get eternal life FREE by believing in Geebus. *sigh*

[Amanda]

TBH going back to Hebrew as a root word for the NT is like taking a Japanese translation of Moby Dick, and then translating a word back to the English of Chaucer rather than Melville. Aramaic evolved from Hebrew, but it as as close as Chaucer is to Melville

I guess I just see it different. I like to see how our english words evolved too. Understanding the evolution of a word helps me understand the culture from which it came, at the time it was spoken. Additionally, I seem to differ greatly with these ultimate choices of words the KJV interpretators chose for these biblical concepts. It is clear, IMO, they were influenced by the spin of these teachings of their day.

and in my previous life I was a corporate trouble shooter - any problem too nasty, too ugly, too screwed or just too bloody for anyone who wanted a career to risk, it was mine. Travelling a lot, I had a lot of time to read.

So you were a hired gun, sent as their tough guy, eh? Person to person too, and not just an email or two from you in their email box. I can see it now. Just kidding! So did you initially dive into the search for god to help you in your challenging endeavors there, or was it a fleeting interest that happened to stick?

 

If you read Genesis, the reason mankind gets kicked out of Eden before we could eat of the tree of Eternal life and become as Gods... hence the NT is a real volte face since you get eternal life FREE by believing in Geebus. *sigh*

Another metaphorical perspective is that the tree of the knowledge of good and evil produced the ability to 'judge'. The forbidden fruit of judgement is 'condemnation'. Eve initially tasted it when she judged herself not good enough, because she thought she wasn't like god. Adam then went on to condemn god and the woman god gave him. Later Eve blamed the devil. We've been blaming god, someone else, or the devil made me do it ever since.

 

Condemnation drains the emotional life, for those who are condemned and for those that refuse accountability to the situation in just blaming someone else. The tree of life is the same tree, yet judgment is now for overcoming problems, being accountable and judging unto victory, hence yielding emotional life. The character of Jesus ends condemnation by the concept of grace, which is that everyone is just doing the best they can, forgive them for they know not what they do. Can't condemn someone for not doing better than their best, but we can forgive them and they can be still held accountable for their actions. Nothing magical or supernatural though.

[Grandpa Harley]

If you're going to slot someone, you do them the courtesy of looking them in the eye as you rip them from groin to throat, even in business... However, these days, when I'm not charming rescue cats, or trying to look after my mother, I'm practice manger for an Osteopathic and Holistic Therapy Centre... One can service the needs of soulless blue chips for only so long before you lose what makes you human in the first place... Nothing personal, only business may have worked for the Godfather, but when everyone becomes a number on a balance sheet who's only as good as their last failure, then it's time to hang up the six guns. I'm not saying if the right offer came in tomorrow I wouldn't consider it... but I really don't like that guy much...

 

Religion has been an interest since I nearly got expelled from school age six for being doubtful that THAT was how babies were made and that Tax systems didn't work by sending people all over the damned country (to a place they didn't currently live)... The serious research was relaxation from my engineering qualification, and I picked it up again when I was doing my (Computer Sciences) degree. It was something I could puzzle over and it WASN'T computers...

[Grandpa Harley]

TBH going back to Hebrew as a root word for the NT is like taking a Japanese translation of Moby Dick, and then translating a word back to the English of Chaucer rather than Melville. Aramaic evolved from Hebrew, but it as as close as Chaucer is to Melville

I guess I just see it different. I like to see how our english words evolved too. Understanding the evolution of a word helps me understand the culture from which it came, at the time it was spoken. Additionally, I seem to differ greatly with these ultimate choices of words the KJV interpretators chose for these biblical concepts. It is clear, IMO, they were influenced by the spin of these teachings of their day.

and in my previous life I was a corporate trouble shooter - any problem too nasty, too ugly, too screwed or just too bloody for anyone who wanted a career to risk, it was mine. Travelling a lot, I had a lot of time to read.

So you were a hired gun, sent as their tough guy, eh? Person to person too, and not just an email or two from you in their email box. I can see it now. Just kidding! So did you initially dive into the search for god to help you in your challenging endeavors there, or was it a fleeting interest that happened to stick?

 

If you read Genesis, the reason mankind gets kicked out of Eden before we could eat of the tree of Eternal life and become as Gods... hence the NT is a real volte face since you get eternal life FREE by believing in Geebus. *sigh*

Another metaphorical perspective is that the tree of the knowledge of good and evil produced the ability to 'judge'. The forbidden fruit of judgement is 'condemnation'. Eve initially tasted it when she judged herself not good enough, because she thought she wasn't like god. Adam then went on to condemn god and the woman god gave him. Later Eve blamed the devil. We've been blaming god, someone else, or the devil made me do it ever since.

 

Condemnation drains the emotional life, for those who are condemned and for those that refuse accountability to the situation in just blaming someone else. The tree of life is the same tree, yet judgment is now for overcoming problems, being accountable and judging unto victory, hence yielding emotional life. The character of Jesus ends condemnation by the concept of grace, which is that everyone is just doing the best they can, forgive them for they know not what they do. Can't condemn someone for not doing better than their best, but we can forgive them and they can be still held accountable for their actions. Nothing magical or supernatural though.

 

I don't remember the 'He said, She said' parts of Genesis...but it's a long time since I've looked at Genesis as as much more than a waste of paper, without the redeeming feature of being soft, thick and absorbent...

Thing is the metaphor falls over when you see that it was the risk of immortality that got us kicked out, not the tree of good and evil ... Same with Babel. God of the OT is scared of something in humanity, thus he tries to keep them down... and there's no indication that the original tale was intended to metaphorical for the bulk of the proles...

[Amanda]

However, these days, when I'm not charming rescue cats, or trying to look after my mother, I'm practice manger for an Osteopathic and Holistic Therapy Centre...

Grandpa Harley, I've adopted my son's dog when he moved into a condo and started working 14 hour days. I love my four legged furry friend, however, I was trying to avoid additional responsibilities. *sigh* I check on my mother often too. I love holistic approaches and am also interested in alternative health treatments. Do you do any of that too?

Religion has been an interest since I nearly got expelled from school age six for being doubtful that THAT was how babies were made and that Tax systems didn't work by sending people all over the damned country (to a place they didn't currently live)...

Hmmm... at 6 years old, I don't think I had quite figured Santa Claus out yet.

 

I don't remember the 'He said, She said' parts of Genesis...but it's a long time since I've looked at Genesis as as much more than a waste of paper, without the redeeming feature of being soft, thick and absorbent...

Good one! I've heard that some people use it to roll up things with, and that it burns rather well. But, hey... it seems the ink would be a detriment. Fortunately I'm long past those days.

Thing is the metaphor falls over when you see that it was the risk of immortality that got us kicked out, not the tree of good and evil ...

Hmmm... that could be debatable.

Surely a tree named the knowledge of good and evil is a metaphor, no? What fruit does this knowledge produce... judgement? The forbidden fruit has to be condemnation... as by one man condemnation came unto all men. What separated us from god, is the belief that we are not at one with God already... that's all. You know... the name of god... "I am." Anyway, if you take Genesis in regards to the evolution of man at that time, it makes more sense, IMO. Ahhhhh... boring.

Same with Babel.

Metaphorically it just says that when people start to say they are better than someone else, it will just sound like babble. I think it is a pretty good fable, perhaps superimposed on an actual event of a zigguat falling somewhere.

God of the OT is scared of something in humanity, thus he tries to keep them down... and there's no indication that the original tale was intended to metaphorical for the bulk of the proles...

Remember, the OT is taking place soon after the last ice age and only after a wheat mutated making it possible to sow and harvest, allowing a stable lifestyle. Abundant wheat gave man the time to ponder deeper things, and now concerned with attaining possessions and the civility necessary for this ability to establish a fixed community. Titus 1:14 seems to suggest that most of those old stories were just Jewish fables, like Noah's Ark, Jonah and the whale, Temple of Babel, Adam and Eve, and the more obvious ones are really quite evident. Metaphors, allegories, and fables seem to be the only way we can make sense of them.

 

End of Bible studies.

 

So, are you into alternative health care treatments too?

BTW, please let me know your opinion of the book of Judas too. Have you started reading it?

[Grandpa Harley]

However, these days, when I'm not charming rescue cats, or trying to look after my mother, I'm practice manger for an Osteopathic and Holistic Therapy Centre...

Grandpa Harley, I've adopted my son's dog when he moved into a condo and started working 14 hour days. I love my four legged furry friend, however, I was trying to avoid additional responsibilities. *sigh* I check on my mother often too. I love holistic approaches and am also interested in alternative health treatments. Do you do any of that too?

Religion has been an interest since I nearly got expelled from school age six for being doubtful that THAT was how babies were made and that Tax systems didn't work by sending people all over the damned country (to a place they didn't currently live)...

Hmmm... at 6 years old, I don't think I had quite figured Santa Claus out yet.

 

I don't remember the 'He said, She said' parts of Genesis...but it's a long time since I've looked at Genesis as as much more than a waste of paper, without the redeeming feature of being soft, thick and absorbent...

Good one! I've heard that some people use it to roll up things with, and that it burns rather well. But, hey... it seems the ink would be a detriment. Fortunately I'm long past those days.

Thing is the metaphor falls over when you see that it was the risk of immortality that got us kicked out, not the tree of good and evil ...

Hmmm... that could be debatable.

Surely a tree named the knowledge of good and evil is a metaphor, no? What fruit does this knowledge produce... judgement? The forbidden fruit has to be condemnation... as by one man condemnation came unto all men. What separated us from god, is the belief that we are not at one with God already... that's all. You know... the name of god... "I am." Anyway, if you take Genesis in regards to the evolution of man at that time, it makes more sense, IMO. Ahhhhh... boring.

Same with Babel.

Metaphorically it just says that when people start to say they are better than someone else, it will just sound like babble. I think it is a pretty good fable, perhaps superimposed on an actual event of a zigguat falling somewhere.

God of the OT is scared of something in humanity, thus he tries to keep them down... and there's no indication that the original tale was intended to metaphorical for the bulk of the proles...

Remember, the OT is taking place soon after the last ice age and only after a wheat mutated making it possible to sow and harvest, allowing a stable lifestyle. Abundant wheat gave man the time to ponder deeper things, and now concerned with attaining possessions and the civility necessary for this ability to establish a fixed community. Titus 1:14 seems to suggest that most of those old stories were just Jewish fables, like Noah's Ark, Jonah and the whale, Temple of Babel, Adam and Eve, and the more obvious ones are really quite evident. Metaphors, allegories, and fables seem to be the only way we can make sense of them.

 

End of Bible studies.

 

So, are you into alternative health care treatments too?

BTW, please let me know your opinion of the book of Judas too. Have you started reading it?

There is significant evidence off the coast of India that there was something approaching a civilisation during the last ice age. Certainly bloody big (for the time) stone cities... so man may not have been that primitive at the time frame.

 

With ref to the Pentateuch, it's time frame is off... One may as well apply Zacharia Stitchin's God's of Sumer theory to the book as it being a metaphorical text... it hangs together well enough.

 

"Metaphors, allegories, and fables seem to be the only way we can make sense of them. "

 

Sorry, but that is an apologist's stance... it's making up pretty stories to try and shoehorn tales that have a long history of being taken literally... How does on arbitrate which tale is myth, allegory, legend or complete fabrication? Seems to me that if one has to make that many arbitrary choices no matter how 'clear' (to whom?), that the text is flawed beyond any sensible (treating it like any other ancient document) redemption. It's a Rorschach Inkblot test... you see a man tilting at windmills, I see a dog with it's head split open... and both a fleeing from the ture horror, that it's meaningless and random ink on paper...

[Grandpa Harley]

I tend not hand out much personal info... Writing that stuff on the internet is like writing one's home address on a public toilet wall...

 

and the Book Depository hasn't despatched it yet...

[Amanda]

I tend not hand out much personal info... Writing that stuff on the internet is like writing one's home address on a public toilet wall...

If your real name isn't Grandpa Harley, I think you'll remain in obscurity. :wink:

 

A lot of people say things on here... it shows we're human. Heck, I've revealed much more personal insights into my life than what you've said... and so has most longtime members here. Your info is safe with us... and do you think anyone out there in cyber world really cares? Are you a really, really famous person? IMO, why give it a second thought?

[Grandpa Harley]

I tend not hand out much personal info... Writing that stuff on the internet is like writing one's home address on a public toilet wall...

If your real name isn't Grandpa Harley, I think you'll remain in obscurity. :wink:

 

A lot of people say things on here... it shows we're human. Heck, I've revealed much more personal insights into my life than what you've said... and so has most longtime members here. Your info is safe with us... and do you think anyone out there in cyber world really cares? Are you a really, really famous person? IMO, why give it a second thought?

A long sordid story of nuisance phone calls...

[Jun]

(Amanda - Although I wonder about this too, in that... in God's name they pray... Amen. Amen was clearly a mystery god of Egypt.)

 

The root of the word comes from Hebrew אמן (Ahmein), which means to nourish and make strong, and refers to truth. In English it would be said "truthfully" or "verily."

 

When Jesus said "Verily, verily I say......" It would be translated back as "Amen, amen........."

 

When amen is stated at the end of something it is just to reafirm its truthfulness. "Blah blah bla.....truly!"

 

The mystery god of Egypt you refer to was AHMAN-RAH which is often written Amen Ra.

[Amanda]

(Amanda - Although I wonder about this too, in that... in God's name they pray... Amen. Amen was clearly a mystery god of Egypt.)

 

The root of the word comes from Hebrew אמן (Ahmein), which means to nourish and make strong, and refers to truth. In English it would be said "truthfully" or "verily."

 

When Jesus said "Verily, verily I say......" It would be translated back as "Amen, amen........."

 

When amen is stated at the end of something it is just to reafirm its truthfulness. "Blah blah bla.....truly!"

 

The mystery god of Egypt you refer to was AHMAN-RAH which is often written Amen Ra.

Jun... thanks for sharing that insight! I love to see how words evolved! It's interesting to me to see how a word migrates into different languages too. However, there is also a god named Amen in Egyptian Mythology, and was later associated with the sun god, hence Amen-Ra. But notice the similarities to the one I was talking about that is found here:

Amen

(A.K.A Amon, Amun, Ammon,& Amoun)

 

 

Amen's name means "The Hidden One." He was the patron deity of the city of Thebes from earliest times, and was viewed as a primordial creation-deity by the priests of Hermopolis. His sacred animals were the goose and the ram.

Up to the Middle Kingdom Amen was merely a local god in Thebes; but when the Thebans had established their sovereignty in Egypt, Amen became a prominent deity, and by Dynasty XVIII was termed the King of the Gods. His famous temple, Karnak, is the largest religious structure ever built by man. According to Budge, Amen by Dynasty XIX-XX was thought of as "an invisible creative power which was the source of all life in heaven, and on the earth, and in the great deep, and in the Underworld, and which made itself manifest under the form of Ra." Additionally, Amen appears to have been the protector of any pious devotee in need.

Amen was self-created, according to later traditions; according to the older Theban traditions, Amen was created by Thoth as one of the eight primordial deities of creation (Amen, Amenet, Heq, Heqet, Nun, Naunet, Kau, Kauket).

During the New Kingdom, Amen's consort was Mut, "Mother," who seems to have been the Egyptian equivalent of the "Great Mother" archetype. The two thus formed a pair reminiscent of the God and Goddess of other traditions such as Wicca. Their child was the moon god Khons.

 

So, it would be interesting to know which came first, the Hebrew word or this Egyptian god? Also, the initial Semite movement did believe in many gods, although from their Akkadian ancestors being so close to the Sumerians, I wonder if the Egyptian gods had any influence amongst that group? Maybe the Hebrew word and this Egyptian god just stemmed from the same root but the two were never related to each other more than that?

[Kuroikaze]

(Amanda - Although I wonder about this too, in that... in God's name they pray... Amen. Amen was clearly a mystery god of Egypt.)

 

The root of the word comes from Hebrew אמן (Ahmein), which means to nourish and make strong, and refers to truth. In English it would be said "truthfully" or "verily."

 

When Jesus said "Verily, verily I say......" It would be translated back as "Amen, amen........."

 

When amen is stated at the end of something it is just to reafirm its truthfulness. "Blah blah bla.....truly!"

 

The mystery god of Egypt you refer to was AHMAN-RAH which is often written Amen Ra.

 

Holy crap, how many languages do you know Jun? Seriously you make me feel terribly lazy

 

I'm only fluent in english...and sometimes I'm not sure I'm even very fluent in it.