Any written evidence which can be relied upon?

[Beth]

Hello all!

I am making this my final post to this thread (I think!)  It is designed to offer the ancient scholars/philosophers/Christian theologians position on the method of interpretation that I have offered over the past two months or so.  It is quite long, but hopefully thorough.  I will start with a detailed account from Plato and then offer Jewish and Christian scholarly comments.

"Proper name interpretation" from within myths and stories was a pedagogical tool [a teaching tool] for various ancient teachers and their students.  I have traced this method at least as far back as Plato.

In the Platonic dialogue Cratylus, the specific question of the importance of names is discussed in full Socratic depth. In this dialogue, Socrates and Hermogenes seek an answer to the claim being made by Cratylus that names were "natural," that there is a "truth," a correctness of names, and that names do not originate as a human convention.  Simply put, if correctly given, a name is the same as the "essence" of a thing itself.  If incorrectly given, however, it will be obvious, as the person who carries a certain name will not be living their life according to the "meaning" of their name.  From the start Socrates admits that there is a "good deal of difficulty in this sort of knowledge," (Plato Cratylus 383a-383c) i.e., higher knowledge, or the mysteries, but in true Socratic style they wind their way through the argument as best as they can.  

The investigation begins with the suggestion that the Greek pantheon was actually designed allegorically in the Homeric epics. Socrates further speculates that Orphic poets probably invented proper names previous to Homer, (Plato Cratylus 400c) since they were of the opinion that the soul is imprisoned in the body, and that a name gives indication as to what a particular soul is truly like within/outside the body. Agreement is reached on this aspect and the discussion proceeds to analyze proper names such as Theophilus (Beloved of God) and Mnesitheus (mindful of God.)

Throughout dialogue, many Greek names are evaluated as being derived from a combination of Greek words, and in some cases it clearly works, but in most cases it seems forced and unnatural. As a result the argument becomes cumbersome and questionable, even for Socrates. After much effort on his part, by the end of the dialogue he is not at all convinced of the truth in names, but Cratylus is determined and continues to maintain his position; in a reversal of roles, it is Cratylus that says to Socrates in parting, "I hope, however, that you will continue to think about these things yourself."

At the beginning of this dialogue, the three men come to agreement on several matters that will also be echoed in Philo's later mysticism:

quote:"...I should say that this giving of names can be no such light matter as you fancy, or the work of light or chance persons.  And Cratylus is right in saying that things have names by nature, and that not every man is an artificer of names, but he only who looks to the name which each thing by nature has, and is able to express the true forms of things in letters and syllables" (Plato Cratylus 390e.)

"...not every man is able to give a name, but only a maker of names, and that is the legislator, who of all skilled artisans in the world is the rarest" (Plato Cratylus 389a.)

This is a Partial list of Proper Names and their meanings from the "Cratylus":

Acesimbrotus   curer of mortals
Agamemnon   admirable for remaining (patient and persevering)
Agis      leader
Anax      king
Anaxagoras      King of the public marketplace
Archepolis   ruler of the city
Astyanax   king of the city
Atreus      the stubborn
Atrestos   the fearless
Ateros      the destructive one
Cronos      to sweep (the pure and garnished mind)
daemons      knowing or wise (from daemones [Attic dialect])
Eupolemus   good warrior
Eutychides   the son of good fortune
Hector      holder
hero      born of love(fr. Eros from whom heroes sprang)
Iatrocles   famous healer
Mnesitheus   mindful of God
Orestes      the man of the mountains
Pelops      who sees what is near only (from "pelas=near")
Polemarchus   chief in war
Sosias      the Savior
Tantalus   most weighted down by misfortune
Theophilus   beloved of God [cf with David in Hebrew=my beloved]
Uranus      looking upward
Zeus      (forms a sentence from two other names)Zena=life and Dia=through, i.e., "the god through whom all creatures always have a life"

My addition:  ZCR (zakar) in Hebrew means "to remember." With the name "SoCRates" the root could be SCR.  With a bit of a play on sounds, 'zcr' could be implied by 'SCR'.
Why would this be pertinent?  What is at the base of Plato's epistemology?  REMEMBERING. We are born knowing. At birth we forget. For the rest of our lives we study and seek -- to remember.

***************

Philo of Alexandria, Hellenistic Jewish Rabbi and Scholar (died around 56 c.e.) was a very important voice during the 1st century and also I might add, a contemporary of the Apostle Paul.  Philo left ample evidence that the Bible was written with the intent to provide a "story" within which--what was then considered the "mysteries"--could be concealed within the text through allegorical interpretation.  What is that which was concealed in biblical scripture—what is that which was considered the mysteries?  In great part—what we know to be "Greek Philosophy."

Interestingly enough, the literal interpretation of scripture was actually the lesser "battle" being fought, for it was more important during this period to make claim to and defend "who possessed the "wisdom of philosophy" first—the Greeks or the Hebrews? By the first century c.e, Philo considered Moses the "wise legislator" par excellence, and that every word of the Pentateuch was Divine.  Philo shared the belief of other Jews that God had given the 'mysteries' to Moses first, and only then did it reach the Greeks.  The question of who first possessed 'philosophy' in general cannot adequately be answered.  It is clear, however, that the writers of Hebrew Scripture did indeed use etymologies and Plato did have Socrates discuss this method.  So, regardless of which came first, Plato's exposition in Cratylus does echo hundreds of years later in Philo's own position. Here are a few of the things that Philo had to say on this subject:

Regarding the relationship between a "name" and its "nature" in Legum Allegoriae 3.95 we read:

quote:"We must say, then, that here too we have a form which God has stamped on the soul as on the tested coin.  What, then, the image impressed on it is we shall know if we first ascertain accurately the meaning of the name."

In Quaestiones et solutiones in Genesi 2.77:

quote:"This is the literal meaning.  But as for the deeper meaning, potentially they are two—not so much men as characters.  And this is shown by the giving of names, which also clearly indicates the nature of things."

And also in Quaestiones et solutiones in Genesi 4.176:

quote:"But as for the deeper meaning it requires a more exact inquiry and examination, which we shall reveal and make clear through the interpretation of the names."

In a rather long excerpt, but worthy of including, Philo expounds the importance of biblical names to the mysteries while he addresses the proper name "Abraham." This comes from Quaestiones et solutiones in Genesi Gen 3.43:

quote:"What is the meaning of the words, 'Thy name shall not be called Abram, but Abraham shall be thy name'?  Some of the uncultivated, or rather, of the uninitiated and of those who do not belong to the divine chorus ridicule and reproach the one who is blameless in nature...Oh what great devilishness and impiety (it is) that some presume to bring forward slanders against God, being deceived by the superficial aspects of names, whereas it would be proper to thrust their minds into the depths in search of the inner facts for the sake of greatly possessing the truth.  And yet the (names) which are ready to hand (and) which someone is said to have granted (in) writing—why do you not believe that (they are the work of) Providence and that this is to be honored?"

From this we glean that Philo truly believed that biblical naming is the work of God, while also making clear that the "uninitiated" are not on the same level as those who are initiated members of "the divine chorus." This establishes a division between those who possessed mystical knowledge and those who did not.

Finally, the most cogent excerpt is found in De congressu quaerendae eruditionis gratia 44:  

quote:Now let no sane man suppose that we have here in the pages of the wise legislator an historical pedigree.  What we have is a revelation through symbols of facts, which may be profitable to the soul.  And if we translate the names into our own tongue, we shall recognize that what is here promised is actually the case."

Philo speaks here of "translating the names into our own tongue" of which was commonly Greek, but he was actually speaking of the Hebrew tongue as his own etymologies show.  While the Cratylus dialogue of Plato illustrates how taxing on the mind the investigation of names can be in Greek, this is not the case in Hebrew.  In Hebrew it is really quite simple:  Look up the three primary consonants in a good Hebrew Lexicon. There are often several potential meanings for each name.

********
From the Apostle Paul, see Galatians 4:21-31 and Acts 18:12-16.
********

Origen of Alexandria, one of the earliest Church Fathers (late 2nd to mid 3rd century) had this to say in his treatise, First Principles, IV, II, 7:  

quote:"These mysteries which were made known and revealed to them by the Spirit, the prophets portrayed figuratively through the narration of what seemed to be human deeds and the handing down of certain legal ordinances and precepts.  The aim was that not everyone who wished should have these mysteries laid before his feet to trample upon [Matthew 7:6], but that they should be for the man who had devoted himself to studies of this kind with the utmost purity and sobriety and through nights of watching, by which means perchance he might be able to trace out the deeply hidden meaning of the Spirit of God, concealed under the language of an ordinary narrative which points in a different direction, and that so he might become a sharer of the Spirit's knowledge and a partaker of his divine counsel."

One of Origen's most important homilies using this method was on Numbers 33, the travelogue of the Israelites after they fled from Egypt.  In his prelude to this homily, Origen attempts to prepare his listeners as to why a cumbersome list of proper place names such as this is far more than just that:

quote:...when the Gospels or the Apostle or the Psalms are read, another person joyfully receives them, gladly embraces them, and rejoices in assembling from them, as it were, remedies for his weakness.  But if the book of Numbers is read to him, and especially this passages we have now in hand, he will judge that there is nothing helpful, nothing as a remedy for his weakness or a benefit for the salvation of his soul. He will constantly reject and spit them out as heavy and burdensome food, because they do not agree with his sick and weak soul...But we cannot say of the Holy Spirit's writings that there is anything useless or unnecessary in them, however much they appear obscure to some. What we ought rather to do is to turn the eyes of our mind toward Him who ordered this to be written and to ask of Him their meaning...And it is God's to give to those who ask and to open to those who knock."

*********
In St. John Chrysostom's (d. 407) Homily IV on the Gospel of Matthew he writes:

quote:"And also with regard to the very names, if any one were to attempt to translate their etymologies, even thence would he derive great matter of divine speculation, and such as is of great importance with regard to the New Testament: as, for instance, from Abraham's name, from Jacob's, from Solomon's, from Zorobabel's. For it was not without purpose that these names were given them."

**********
Finally, clear evidence of the use of etymological interpretation of names also comes from Augustine (which I have posted elsewhere, but will gladly repeat.)  In his treatise On Christian Doctrine, BK II, Chapter 16 he writes:

quote:"And we cannot doubt that, in the same way, many Hebrew names, which have not been interpreted by the writers of those books, would, if any one could interpret them, be of great value and service in solving the enigmas of Scripture. And a number of men skilled in that language have conferred no small benefit on posterity by explaining all these words without reference to their place in Scripture, and telling us what Adam means, what Eve, what Abraham, what Moses, and also the names of places, what Jerusalem signifies, or Sion, or Sinai, or Lebanon, or Jordan, and whatever other names in that language we are not acquainted with. And when these names have been investigated and explained, many figurative expressions in Scripture become clear."

Augustine also used this method of interpretation in his Exposition on Psalms 83—A psalm of Asaph. He begins by interpreting this proper name explaining that "Asaph" means "congregation" in Hebrew, "synagogue" in Greek and "Church" to Christians. Augustine then further expounds eighteen proper place names listed in this Psalm as foretold proof of the enemies to Christ." 1
************

All of these early scholars and/or Christians used proper name exegesis to understand and create allegories that revealed esoteric meaning within scripture. These ancient scholars believed that the original authors of scripture, most especially Moses, intentionally used these methods as sacred keys to understanding the totality of scripture.  This trend arose again in Christian exegesis for a time during the middle ages until the seventeenth century when the Church took the official stand that there were no other levels of meaning than the "true" narrative sense.  For attitudes toward and application of the four-fold interpretation of scripture in Christianity, see Henry De Lubac, Medieval Exegesis, Volume 1: The Four Senses of Scripture.

If anyone is really interested to look into this further, I suggest purchasing a recently republished book by Alfred Jones (from 1865) which provides over 3,000 biblical names with their meanings.  In this book he shows where the meanings come from the Hebrew spellings and is representative of the whole Hebrew vocabulary.  Jones does not draw any overall conclusions from this work, but the ancient scholars have already done that for us.  The book, Jones' Dictionary of Old Testament Proper Names. Grand Rapids: Kregel, Inc., 1997, is only about $20 US dollars and available from Amazon.com.

***********

I took the time to pull these excerpts together from my book this morning because I do not want to leave any impression before I go that I am just "making this up" or that this is just "something that I believe."  

I feel I must state one more time:  This is what the earliest Jews and Christians thought and wrote about biblical scripture.  I am just offering this to you from my own extensive research into the writing of biblical scripture. I do this here, and will finish my book, because it has yet been made available on any mentionable wide scale.  It is time that this knowledge is once again made known.

My AP friends, I am a scholar and a seeker—--not a preacher or a prophet.   See what this research offers you.  If it helps you to re-approach biblical scripture with a new eye and a new outlook, then I have done a good thing by presenting it here.  If on the other hand, it offers you nothing, then please pass it by as inconsequential.

Peace be with all of you,
Beth

1--All of the above has been excerpted from: Fire on the Water: Proper Name Exegesis and Language Based Mysticism, Beth Phillips, copyright 2003, All Rights Reserved.

[JoWo]

Hello Beth, I posted the following under Quantum Metaphysics.  Perhaps the message is also of interest in the Religion Forum.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Hello Beth, welcome!

It is always nice to communicate with a kindred spirit []. I read a few of your recent posts in the Religion Forum and I wonder whether you ever considered a "shortcut" to the early Christianity teachings. During an online discussion of Quantum Metaphysics a few years ago, someone mentioned Carpenter's book, "Dialogue on Awakening: Communication with Jesus." As with all channeled messages, you have to make up your own mind about the authenticity of the source. For me, the book's contents match perfectly my own spiritual experience and understanding, and they are an enlightened extension of Quantum Metaphysics. It is fascinating how far off contemporary church doctrines are from what I consider Christ's message.

Concerning your Flatlands note, I referenced Edwin Abbott Abbott's early 20th century book "Flatland" in my writings for an explanation of multi-dimensional reality. Using such analogies, it is possible to postulate logic relationships between dimensional levels, which provide explanations of quantum events and ultimately lead to the basic tenets of all world religions.

I am looking forward to compare more notes with you [].

Greetings!

Jo.

[Mustardseed]

Hi Gandalf
I understand that very well and would maybe agree in part, however the experiences that you count as personal, are by now in a lot of books as texts, people from many walks of life make claims about lots of stuf and book titles are all over this board. Right above this note as a matter of fact. This would then make it a step further on the way to becoming accepted doctrine would it not. Beth is writing a book as well, and her theories, that she will try to present as the truth as she sees it, becomes yet another school of thought. All these books texts etc are allowed the fredom to stand as an opinion, people might agree some might not, but noone adhering to any of these doctrines beliefs or whatever from David Icky to Beth Phillips will be raile at attacked and subjected to a barrage of protest. I think it is unlikely at least. Most will be happy to just let that be the belief thoughts contemplations and research and personal experience of "someone".  May I have the same graceful grant of equality. It seems that some on this board believe and teach that "everybody is God" the only one who is  "only a man" is Jesus.[]This last quib was a joke but thought provoking after all. We cannot only grant fredom to ourselves. Freedom to believe must be for all.
Regards MS

[Beth]

Hey everyone!

I know that last night was going to be my last post for a while, but I was thinking about the things that have been said here and feel a need to make a few more comments before I go.  

Yes--my research does show that the bible was written for a totally "other" reason than to chronicle the historical background of a particular people.  For this "other reason" the writers used the element of "story" to create a "cover" for other writings that "at the time" were not readily acceptable, and not very easily understood.  

Ultimately what my research shows, is that whatever was going on during these early centuries, pre-100 and post-100, was SO remarkable that the people who experienced this had an overwhelming need to communicate it—in secret.  But why and how?  

The writers were in an even more precarious situation than we are today.  So many people could not read or write, and there was "real war" around every corner.  To go against Caesar, who held himself as the closest thing to God on this earth, was a certain death sentence, and to "reveal information" that made Caesar look like a "very minor role player" in their lives--would cost them their very lives.  

So--How could they communicate what they knew without being killed? They created seemingly harmless "stories" that spoke of "a man" – a man who performed miracles -- that taught the same wisdom that they had obtained.  This way, they could still communicate these things, and usurp the power that Caesar held over them, but without knowledge of the Hebrew language, one could not understand the "hidden meanings" of the stories. In essence, Caesar would never know. This makes so much sense to me.

WHAT WAS IT that they KNEW that put them in so much danger?  I believe they KNEW about the astral realm and that it had indeed, without doubt, communicated with them. In their "stories," they "named their entity" "Jesus"--or in their own language "Salvation."  This entity represented "their salvation" from the earthly oppression and persecutions of the Caesars, hence the name.  Unfortunately, it still got many of them killed, for the message "would not go away" it still spread like wildfire.  So after a few hundred years, the "stories" became "REAL" in "real time" which put an end to the great revelation, and it all became history--or rather--impossible to verify "history."  

SO, their whole understanding of everything that had been communicated to them from the astral realm is hidden in the words of "seemingly harmless stories" and the "names of characters in those stories." What is SO remarkable about this now?  We still have this ancient wisdom, safely preserved within the names of these biblical stories.

So, can we verify the stories as being historical -- no.  Can we verify that communications between us and the astral do indeed happen? Can we verify "what" these "hidden meanings" tell us? ABSOLUTELY!!  

In a broad sweep, when we are urged to "pray in the name of Jesus" we are being urged to "pray in the name of salvation."  For other examples, "Uriah" means "God is Light."  "Abijah" means "Knowledge of God."  The names "Mannaseh" the father of "Amon" and then "Josiah" together form the sentence, "The forgotten knowledge of the Mind of God."  "Israel" means "those who see God" and the "Son of God" means "one who recognizes God."    

When I approach the bible, I truly feel like I am approaching a divine book--not a historical book--but a book that is full of ancient divine wisdom that was available thousands of years ago, and not only still available today, but also much more verifiable and "safer" to possess.  

"Jesus" is still very much with me--I have not lost that.  You need not loose Jesus either.  But the name "Jesus" is to me "a name" that signifies "salvation."  I do not know what the "real name" is of the entity that was present in the lives of the writers, or the entity that I go to for rest, comfort, guidance and advice--but I do know that that all of these things are a very big part of my life nonetheless.  So for me anyway, my research has "given me Jesus" -- today -- not taken anything away except my doubts about an ancient past as "history."

I truly "believe" (and am still working to understand all of this so I can better say that "I KNOW") that it is the "Christ" aspect of "the name" that should be prayed about, contemplated and sought after.  But we cannot do that until we remove our faith from a "literalized story" and place our faith in higher things that will allow for that "Christ" to be available in our lives.

Arguing about whether "he really fed 5,000 with a few fishes or not" is totally unproductive—and a "belief of that" goes against all reason.  What we can do however, is think about "what this story really means."  These ancient allegories are not going to be "static." They can have more than one meaning, and will speak to individuals in different ways.  But until we attempt to understand what the ancients are really saying to us with these stories, we will continue in circular arguments of counter-productivity as well as looking for things that cannot be found.  

Finally, it is the divine nature of language that enables us to have a much richer understanding of the nature of our realities, and we still use the wonderful tool of "story" to do just that.  

On "story" and "fiction"--I must reassert that "story is not a bad thing" nor is "fiction" necessarily a lie.  It is a way of communicating ideas--and it is the "meaning of the story that is most important"--not necessarily whether "it really happened or not." Fiction is a great teaching tool--a teaching tool that is so universal that the ancients -- from all over the globe -- knew this, and used it. In this context, it enables us to tell of "supra-physical" things in ways that we as "mundane entities" can relate to and understand. Without "story" we would never be able to conceive of such things. In other words, tell me about a dream you had, and you would be telling me a "story" of your nocturnal experience.  I cannot verify your dream, but, as a story, I can certainly learn from it.  Do you see what I mean?  

It is my thought that Jesus was/is a very evolved master, who could have/can still, come into this world in a variety of manifestations.  I truly think that higher entities can do a great many things that totally baffle us here on this plane of existence.  My research does not take that away.  If anything, it points to this being more the case.  

I truly hope I have not been writing all of this into an abyss...

Peace,
Beth

[Mustardseed]

Very interesting Beth . I will as usual have to read it a few times to grasp it all. [] Not being a native english speaker does make me have to be sure I know what people are really saying. Generally I understand the point though and certainly can see how you can come to that conclusion, and who knows maybe you are right. We will see some day!!

The only problem I have and the thing that stands out to me and "yells to me over the clatter of my mind" is this. ...

If we assume that your theory is right, then .....there is no right and no wrong. There are no rules and further more there are no recompense for wrong nor reward for right. There is no beginning and no end so to speak and no absolutes. This theory becomes the foundation of a universe where man is his own God and makes his own rules, anarky and confusion.

Deep deep down in my gut I believe this to be wrong, I know there are rules...there is such a thing as right and wrong....and man does reap what he sows. We are not God !!!. My belief in this is summed up in a scripture that I will qoute you. I have tried not to do that but will make an exception. I am not qouting it to use as proof but becourse it explains what I also happen to believe and see in my daily life.

"God is clearly seen and being under stood by the things that are made"

Nature in not in confusion. There are natural laws and there are reward and there is certainly punishment for wrong. I am not talking about hell here nor karma, as I said in a previous post I do not believe in hell like some do. But more along the line of daily punishment like play with fire and you might get burned sort of thing.

This would also return us to pagan lives we would all embrace whatever faith , or make our own. We would worship nature and so forth maybe angelic beings ufos and aliens. We would revert to being savages. Tribals, worshipping the spirits. I know that is not what you suggest but I ask if this is not a natural conclusion to make? All the things Jesus came (IMHO) to do away with!  I know these faiths seem to prolifirate here on the pulse but a world ruled by them would in my opinion return the world to .......well lets call it savagry.

But maybe you think it would be the dawning of a NEW AGE where all these different spiritual realities could be united with scientific society to create a NEW WORLD ORDER enlightenment to the masses.!!

In that case it fits pretty good. I respect you for your research and look forward to your book, but with all due respect remain ......unconvinced!

Regards (Still a literal Christian[])
Mustardseed

[Gandalf]

This would also return us to pagan lives we would all embrace whatever faith , or make our own. We would worship nature and so forth maybe angelic beings ufos and aliens. We would revert to being savages. Tribals, worshipping the spirits. I know that is not what you suggest but I ask if this is not a natural conclusion to make? All the things Jesus came (IMHO) to do away with! I know these faiths seem to prolifirate here on the pulse but a world ruled by them would in my opinion return the world to .......well lets call it savagry.
Mustardseed
---------------------------------------------------------------

Mustardseed... what you've just said is totally out of order and betrayes a typical ethnocentric, western view of the world (the typical view of the British empire in the 19th century), where all 'civilised' people are nice polite, well dressed christians, and everyone else, including indiginous tribes are 'savages' or are somehow 'mistaken'...

By this token, I presume you would support your colonialist brethren who periodically travel to visit native tribes in order to 'enlighen' them out of their 'superstitious ways' and while in doing so, completely failing to understand that their 'superstition' is in fact a part of a complex cultural system which is just as advanced as your own; however, due to complete misunderstanding you dismiss it as superstiion, delusion and primitavism.

This is called ethnocentrism and you have a bad case of it!


Can I just say that such views have been thoroughly discredited for at least the past 60 years; longer in fact, ever since the publication of 'witchcraft and the azande' by Evans-Pritchard, where he totally blew away the myth of western cultural superiority, INCLUDING that of 'religion' vs 'superstition'...

I can say that you would be ripped apart by any anthropologist if they heard what you just came out with!

This is a shame MS, as I thought you were perhaps an enlightened christian, in that you respect other societies way of life and culture, but it seems by your statement that you are in fact just another ethnocentric, christian fundamentalist who wants to bring the 'true faith' to all the 'poor mistaken savages'...

So when are you off on your next mission?

Douglas

[Mustardseed]

Dear Gandalf
I was fully expecting your outburst and the response of many others will probably be similar. I know I am opening another can of worms with this comment , maybe I am a etno....whatever you call it[]. It seems to me that you and many like you understand and glorify these cultures and their "wisdom" from a purely philosofical point of view. I had this discussion with Robert once but with the same result.

Yes it is true as you mentioned that I have been a missionary in the east India and Nepal for more than 20 yrs. However I never built a church told anyone to wear a necktie or embrace western lifestyle, of which I am very critical. I worked in hospitals with prostitutes and the street people, castless and drugusers. My main job was merely to tell people what a bacteria is and how you prevent preagnancy as oposed to selling your kids or mutilating them to become better beggars. My etno...whatever life consisted in helping people with neg problems countering various forms of vodoo style curses as well as  encouraging the rich in these countries to help build schools and hospitals and show love to their own downtrodden dying masses. Incidently I was not always a missionary there but lived as a young traveler for several years in these countries both in monestaries and on the street, and witnessed first hand how people suffered under the cruelty of their hypocritical religious task masters , lamas as well as bramins. I came there to seek enlightenment and was faced with a harsh reality of what these religions have really done to these lands. Something you need to see and feel to even remotely comprehend.

I perfectly know that this is hard for you to understand, but if you love these religions so much why not go live like a castless in Calcutta or a buddhist beggarmonk. I worked with Mother Theresa for a period of time and it only strenghtened my faith that Christianity not Churchanity  have something to offer the world. Or what?? do you say should we also ask her followers to leave, stop showing mercy healing helping and comforting, becourse they are Christians??. If there were no Christians in India and Nepal you would have such a explosion of backward movement that the country would be plunged into turmoil.

Now you can just dismiss this, then sit around on your little "historian" tush and read books about the Holymen of India while you speculate on the creation of God, here in your rich luxorious country, padded in every way, soft and shielded from the harsh realities of 9/10 of the world. Then you can open your computer and hautily taunt me, who together with many others, spent half my life trying to help these people, suffering through sickness and anguish, just for LOVE and as you see, without ever getting any credit for it. We are in good company my friend, our master was also revieled spoken evil off and yet he was faithful even till death.

Selah!

Regards Mustardseed

[Shinobi]

...

[Beth]

Shinobi,

Thanks for your comments.  I came back tonight to check and see if Passionate Fool had read my post in another thread.  I am glad I checked this one as well.  I am fascinated to know this about Buddhism.  Eastern thought has not been my concentration, but it will be one day! []  I will keep the AP informed as to the progress of the book--it will most certainly NOT be an easy one to write!  BTW: Elaine Pagels is an excellent scholar.


Mustardseed,

I must comment on one part of your next to the last post. You wrote:

quote:If we assume that your theory is right, then .....there is no right and no wrong. There are no rules and further more there are no recompense for wrong nor reward for right. There is no beginning and no end so to speak and no absolutes. This theory becomes the foundation of a universe where man is his own God and makes his own rules, anarky and confusion.

This would not be the case at all. What we have in religion's of the past ARE already "manmade."  God has been offered to us in "man's image" for centuries now, even so far as to say that God has already incarnated as a man.  Most people even refer to God as "HE."  That is the very reason that Christianity is having such a hard time right now.  What you say "will be a result" of my theories, has already happened in the whole of Christian doctrine.  We already know that that does not hold up, for many people have a deep profound feeling that GOD is MUCH bigger than MAN has ever been.

The implication of my research actually allows for "God" to make the rules instead of men.  If you no longer had the scripture to take as literal fact, then you would have no where else to turn except to God.  Without the "book" Mustardseed, you still have "God."  My theory cannot take God away from you or from anyone else.  God IS and will always BE.

As far as the Bible holding truths--its holds a great many truths.  But the one truth that it does not offer us is a historical truth.  But the truths of right and wrong offered in many cases are still good moral guidelines--guidelines that can be, and are, offered in other philosophies and other systems besides the bible.  

As for recompense and reward--let God be the judge in ways that are perhaps unique to each individual.  I think we are playing God when "we" claim to know what God really wants of us.

As far as there being no absolutes--I cannot say for sure--but I do know that the "bar to gauge absolutes has been raised to a whole new level."    

As far as I am concerned, GOD is the FOUNDATION of the Universe, and the truth of God is probably not going to be found in just one religion-- on a tiny blue/green planet-- in a certain solar system--of only one of a billion other galaxies.  

The UNIVERSE is SO vast Mustardseed.  Who can truly say what "THE TRUTH" really is?  The best way to begin to find out though, is to ascertain that which is NOT the truth.  

In my opinion, the power of what we call "God" is very real--and I have never said otherwise.  I do not claim to know exactly what God is--but I do know one thing that GOD is NOT--and that is-- GOD is not a man.

If we can manage to get out from under all the preconceived ideas of God that have been offered to us in the past, written by man, and allow for God to be present in the here and now, and let "God" reveal to us what "God" is, then perhaps we can all one day join together and create a much better world to live in. Until then we will remain "stuck" in these ceaseless circular arguments.

I can only hope that in my absence, you will try to think BIGGER Mustardseed.  In moments of hope, I think you really do understand what I say, but for some reason you are fighting it with every ounce of your energy.  For some reason, you just don't want to "let go--and let God."  It is now my turn to say: I will pray for you Mustardseed.  And I mean this from the bottom of my heart.


Peace,
Beth

[GhostRider]

Now this is what I like about this place.  It makes you stop and think, sometimes retooling what it was that you once thought etched in stone.

Shinobi said, "So with regard to the Bible, is it necessary to assume that the bible is 'fiction'? Maybe it is fiction, maybe it isn't, but I find that insisting one way, or the other, detracts from the message itself. Especially in light of the fact that it appears that demonstrating either angle is difficult, if not impossible. Beth, Gandalf, Mr Bruce, and others point out, correctly, that any evidence currently available in support of the historicity of the Bible is contested, at best. And yet, perhaps they have forgotten the logical truism that 'lack of evidence of the existence of unicorns cannot be taken as evidence for their non-existence'. Or perhaps I just haven't seen their approach to this angle."

Shinobi, thanks for helping me to re-examine the issue.  You put it in a subtle yet easy-to-grasp way of looking at it.  Leaving me to think, "why the hell didn't I think of it that way?  It makes so much sense."  Not that I have given up looking at the subject the way I used to completely, you've just helped me add one more lens to look at it with, so thank you.

Beth, that was a beautifully sculpted theory, and although I can't say as I understand it completely, it sure did sing to me.  If that's half as good as your book, jott me down for a book now.

[Gandalf]

Mustardseed_
I will be replying to your comments regarding your missionary work shortly (when I can get some spare time)...

Douglas

[Mustardseed]

Dear Beth
OOps I deleted stuf, that I was gonna edit. Still havn't figured out how to use the forum. Anyway Beth I will pray for you too . I understand your points and agree with some and disagree with others. I Hope all goes well with your book and look forward to reading it. As an end to our conversations I would like to rephrase your last parting comment to me. Try to thing about this and look in the mirror.

(Beth said)
I can only hope that in my absence, you will try to think BIGGER Mustardseed.  In moments of hope, I think you really do understand what I say, but for some reason you are fighting it with every ounce of your energy.  For some reason, you just don't want to "let go--and let God."  It is now my turn to say: I will pray for you Mustardseed.  And I mean this from the bottom of my heart.

(Paraphrased)Dear Beth
I can only pray that in my absense you will try to reach out to Jesus and realise how wrong you are. In moments of faith, I really think you do understand and hear Jesus's voice, but for some reason you are fighting Him and rebelling with every ounce of your energy. For some reason you just dont want to submit to His Word, and "let go and let God". It is now my turn to say I will pray for you, and I mean that from the bottom of my heart.

Now to me Beth a statement like this would be a blow below the belt. It would really "suck". It would be a statement showing all too clearly my own feeling of superiority, and a quite condesending attitude, and I have never adressed you like this!!.

If I had said something like this I would have been flamed by a host of others and enraged many. In essence this attitude was what got Allannon banned. Yet you can get away with it with as much as a question. Very softspoken and "sweet" but in every way as closed in your own opinion as he was.

This statement and others like it is not comparing notes, this is not debating or discussing or respecting views different than your own, but a selfrighteous stating of ones own "rightness". and then a last "I will pray for your "salvation". As I said before I find it quite insulting and sort of Churchy in a non Christian way Ha []As far as being super offended I am not. You no longer offend me much. I also am starting to understand better what the real issues are here and try to adjust accordingly.

Regards Mustardseed

[GhostRider]

This thread has wandered from proof of historical and factual evidence to almost a proof or validation of faith or lack of faith and even defending having an alternate faith view...

 I don't think it's necessary to have to ask people to defend their faith or support it.  But, if a faith (or spiritual movement) is being used as a political tool, then it is INCUMBENT upon those of that faith to defend it's historical validity.  I, nor anyone on this site would want to be dictated to by anything less than the truth.  Not the truth as seen through one individual's eyes, or the eyes of an entire movement.  That's not what I mean, what I mean is that the "truth" or the "fact" of life is what I wish to be guided by in my day-to-day affairs. Not someoneelse's faith-based belief.  A rock, tree, and water exist, that is a fact, and my belief or lack of belief in that doesn't change the nature of those objects as being an observed fact.  In short, the tree doesn't care if I believe it exists for it to exist.  Like the sun rising and setting, these are facts that I choose to be governed by, laws of the universe.  

And as far as my spiritual affairs goes, I'll take my chances and go with my heart and intellect on that one.  And be comfortable knowing that what is important for me to believe isn't nesseccarily important to Beth, or Mustardseed, or Gandalf, or Wisp or anyone else.  That we all have our right to "believe" what we want and express that as long as it doesn't hurt anyone, that's what's important.  Or at least, that's one of the important things here.  

But when it comes to historical facts, hell, I have a hard enough time proving that my personal beliefs (that are still forming) are factual enough sometimes, let alone to actually believe that someone else's was accurate enough to be allowed to dictate social laws and norms.  If someone finds a belief that is supported by fact and historical evidence, then all the power to them.  But I don't think it will happen, and I don't think it's needed.  I think that faith and belief are removed from that because of it's highly individual and personal nature.  When they are forced upon large numbers as fact, that's stepping out of it's own bounds.  Faith and belief are largely determined by what an individual values as important, and we ALL know how varied each individual can be.  So why does faith and belief need to be written in stone as fact and historically supported evidence?  

 Ultimately, that's what's great about this country and partly why I came to it.  That I do or don't have to believe anything I wish to (as long as it doesn't harm or negatively affect anyone) as I wish to do it is one great thing about America.  My only problem is when it's 'forced' as fact and law, when the 'facts' and historical proof don't support it.  Then I have a problem with it, and yes, then it is necessary for it's followers to defend it vigorously.  Sorry, but that's how I see it.

[wisp]

GhostRider,
Thanks for your words of wisdom. I agree. It's refreshing to hear truth.

The only thing I want to add is this. Any person who knowingly contributes to political machinery which causes hurt or subsequent damage to even one person, will be held responsible (not the victims). Finger pointing and blaming any particular group will only lead to dragging out the difficult process of coming to truth and understanding.One can do this with or without the benefit of personal beliefs in my opinion. Spirit attacts and killing have gone on far too long.

Thanks again for your insight Ghostrider, and...I don't think you have anything to be sorry about, it makes sense to me too.

[Gandalf]

Ultimately, that's what's great about this country and partly why I came to it._
Ghostrider_
-----------------------------------

Hi Ghost rider, by 'this country' I presume you mean the United States. Its good to remember that this is atually an international forum (founded in Australia by RB of course); I agree with you that the religious freedom aspect is certainly a great aspect of the US although it is not unique in this, as many countries in Europe (such as UK, France and Germany, Norway etc) as well as other countries like Australia and NZ also do well in this regard.

In fact Australia is probably the 'new age' capital of the world, in the sense that it is a melting pot of different ideas right now, much to the dismay of christian fundamentalists (and to the delight of everyone else).

However, all countries including the US still need to work at the religious tolerance aspect. Even in the US the consitution states 'all are equal under GOD' therfore excluding athiests and also polytheists like Hindos or even budhists (who reject western notionsd of 'god' completly)

Now of course, no right minded person would take it that way, all I'm saying is that some nuts use this as an excuse and once again, fundamentalist christians are particularly bad..

This problem is indeed one of the major paradoxes of the United States:
I agree with you that its level of tolerance is high, it has to be due to the myriad of cultures that join it, and you are quite right to say that this is a fundamental part of what the US is all about;

however the flip side, which I think is a reaction to this tolerance aspect, is a streak of christian fundamentalism which certainly can be found in some areas, particularly the south; christian fundamentalists are just as bad as their muslim brethren, luckily in the US the system is able to contain them from doing anything too awful, although sometimes it does happen, such as the infamous case of the crucifiction of that gay guy; during the trial of those involved, some fundamentalists ministers were flying in to pledge their support for the accused!!! btw if anyone can remind me of the name of this guy and when it happend I would be grateful!

Other tolerant countries need to work at it as well. As Adrian will be able to attest, On the Isle of Man (UK), a groups of christian fundis' broke into a Wiccan conference and started an exorcism and chanting the lords prayer etc, frightening many people there including children, with their frenzy; in the end many of them were arrested as such behaviour breaks UK religious toleration laws, although of course, Im sure Mustardseed would have supported it.

Also in the UK, the Archbishop of canterbury forbade the use of the Cathedral for the filming of the Harry Potter films due to their 'occult associations'... come on guys!!!
In the same vein, in the US some southerners were burning harry potter books... as you can see, this kind of frenzy is scary and can be found even in the most 'civilised' countries!

There is still much work to be done!

Douglas

[Mustardseed]

You Said)Other tolerant countries need to work at it as well. As Adrian will be able to attest, On the Isle of Man (UK), a groups of christian fundis' broke into a Wiccan conference and started an exorcism and chanting the lords prayer etc, frightening many people there including children, with their frenzy; in the end many of them were arrested as such behaviour breaks UK religious toleration laws, although of course, Im sure Mustardseed would have supported it.

(MS)Oh really. I see by this and other posts that you do absolutely not know nothing about me.! I was patiently waiting here my friend for a comment to my last post, as you had promised but instead you have the nerve to just put out such a snide remark. I would suggest that you think about this a bit, becourse in my book you are the one who is out of line, by making such comments. This supports my allegation , that anyone here who does not want to be questioned or even consider the points of others are in reality "closed up" not a fellow traveler, not debating not sharing but resorting to rudeness as their arguments run out.
Regards Mustardseed




[/quote]

[Gandalf]

Mustardseed, nobody's arguments have run out, they just haven't had time to reply yet!

Regarding your missionary work, I am firmly opposed to this; of course they do some very good work and I am sure that you have done much in this field as you have pointed out.

The problem is that missionaries have an ulterior motive for carrying out their work, as another and equally important part of their mission, as well as assisting the poor, is to actively convert them from their 'mistaken beliefs', and bring them 'unto the lord' etc. I believe this is fundamentally wrong and leads to a lot of social alienation as such cultures end up being stripped of their identity and are told that their ancient customs and culture are 'mistaken'.

Africa is still deeply troubled by its missionary, colonialist past, which is being addressed by development agencies with advice from social anthropologists. This 'culture of participation' involves giving the local population a say in how they would like to see their social problems addressed, rather than the old style cultural supremacy attitude of wading in and imposing a whole new system.

This brings me to my second point; the missionaries, although they do a lot of good work, are marred by their proselytising; however, they are not unique in their field. Development agencies, in hand with anthropologists, have been engaged in such work for many years and provide exactly the same assistance without the Christian indoctrination and undermining of local culture; it is this secular approach which is today, by far the greatest contributor to this area, which is supplemented by 'missionary's' (in the loose sense of the word as they also include other faiths on occasion) and other charities.

Mustardseed, as you are a Christian, you can't deny and indeed, you must agree and support the idea of actively converting people to your faith at the expense of their own 'mistaken' one. This area is what makes Christianity so antagonistic and conflict driven. Btw I don't think this of Christianity alone, but rather all the religions based on the Persian/Mesopotamian mythologies, which also includes, Judaism and Islam; all three owe their origins to the ancient mythologies and faith systems of Mesopotamia, with Zoroastrianism being a particular influence on late Judaism for example, as this is where they got their monotheism from, the Semitic tribes were never originally monotheistic.


On a final note, one hypocritical aspect of Christianity which I find serves to reveal the perverse core of this religious system is the claim that it is the religion of 'pure love', often it is quoted as being the religion of unconditional love;
unconditional yes, but only on the *condition* that you become Christian. This means that the Christian god apparently damns to hell the majority of the Earth's population, whom he created, on a continual basis.. He doesn't sound much like the god of pure, unconditional love to me, or any kind of true love for that matter;

Also, as Christians are intent on linking their deity with the god featured in the Old Testament (although this was originally done purely to give the new religion some solid background and weight)  they have really set up problems for themselves on a moral basis;
This means that Jesus, who preaches love, toleration, peace etc (although only on a limited bases as I have described) is also the same god who ethnically cleansed whole villages, killing, men, women and children, and who advocated divine wrath, vengeance, death to homosexuals, and lots of other nasty stuff.

In this sense, the cover story that the OT was the 'old law' which is fulfilled and Jesus represents the 'new law' smacks of complete hypocrisy, as now god has had a personality change and has decided to reverse some of his harsher polices; however, this god still has blood on his hands. For this reason, Christian morality is based on a very unsound basis, although most modern Christians have tried to accommodate this as best they can, and make the best out of a bad job..

Douglas

[wisp]

Gandulf,

quote:Other tolerant countries need to work at it as well. As Adrian will be able to attest, On the Isle of Man (UK), a groups of christian fundis' broke into a Wiccan conference and started an exorcism and chanting the lords prayer etc, frightening many people there including children, with their frenzy; in the end many of them were arrested as such behaviour breaks UK religious toleration laws, although of course, Im sure Mustardseed would have supported it.

When I read this, my first thought you were just kidding.The accusation seemed so far fetched from who I perceive MS to be, therefore was meant to be funny. Now I see how you used it to open up an avenue of discussion. Wouldn't starting another thread be just as an effective way to get your message across?


You negate a person's life this way you know.
Your talking about things far beyond those things you have any control (correct me if this isn't so), and essentially telling another person their life mission was for nothing.

I had someone do that to me once. It only hurts in the beginning, God fills in the empty spaces later.

Honest opinion is one thing.The way it is carried out is another. Life is about the path. It's not about destroying or hurting people along the way.

The things you said are interesting enough, but negated because of the way you used the information (for me anyway). Your message is overshadowed. Is there some reason you couldn't have presented your views at another place or time? Why at the expense of Mustardseed?

Your not the only one who has done this. A blanket statement is one thing, to entrap someone, then make accusations is another.  

The universe is versatile.

Personally, I find Mustarseed's journey quite exceptional.
Between the dodging of spears and arrows, he may be able to teach a thing or two. Can you place yourself in this same position? I know I can't. MS is being very honest about his life. How many people do that?

[Gandalf]

I was over the top with that remark there Mustardseed. It wasnt meant to be taken that seriously but after reading it back it does seem a bit extreme, so I apologise for that comment.

However, I still stand behind the rest of my statement which is basically that I disagree with the principles behind missionary work, esp when there is perfectly good secular work being done alongside which I have already meantioned.

However I think it just comes down to a matter or personal preference here and I recognise that Mustardseed has done a lot of good work, more than many of the rest of us here have had the opportunity to do, and that in this way he has served his god; which is to be commended, no matter what faith is being discussed.

Douglas

[Mustardseed]

Hi Douglas
I am such a dis concentrated (is that a word?) person ha. Your post is soo long and I will spend all my afternoon answering each point and probably make a mess of it. (gotta change a waterpump shorten 2 hallyards and put in a porthole)  

Let me just say a few things. First of all apology accepted , we all get hotheaded and .....water under the bridge. As far as my work you made me think!!!Good thing. However this is my conclusion!

I basically wanted to serve humanity thats all. I felt so full of love for my fellow man that I went and gave my life to serve him. Honestly!. I never never asked anyone what they believed before I helped them, never asked them to become my converts or anything like that. In my book Jesus just went and healed and helped people and dried their tears. He never was heavy on the conversion but had love and people loved him in return. In India often people would come and ask what God I believed in. I would explain and they were thrilled to find a God that would not only allow but also encourage them to help those in need and would sincerly ask if they could become Christians so they could take part in our work. If they stayed Hindu they would get in trouble, as the Bramins teach that the ones suffering are recieving the punishment from past lives of selfishness, and to help them was the same as letting them out of jail. This is IMHO so fundamentally against our human inbuilt code of ethics, and has a devastating effect on the people there. So much so that they would often  be sneaking out to share bread, food or a couple of rupees with a beggar outside their door a, at night so noone would see them and tell the priests! Think about it!!!

All that said and done Douglas I certainly understand your points and how you could think that way. I must admit that I find however that your reasoning is very flawed by not having "been there" so to speak. There is so much I want to explain but it would be easier if we were talking[]. As far as other help organisations I once had a director of my country's forign aid program tell me, "I have 14 people paid and 3 sociologists , (They were building wells). Give me a couple of Missionaries and you can have the lot of them!". It is commonly accepted that paid workers in this field are horribly in effective and last for very few years, some only months, but the Missionaries stay for decades and start very good projects. No offence but there is a lot more to this kind of work than you know of and not having experienced any of it in person, can cause you to make observations and conclusions that are flawed.

On a personal point I have only the most vehement disgust for folks who does stuf like you mentioned , what a abuse of kids and adults. Granted I do not believe as they do, and if they ask me why, I will be only too happy to explain,  but in my eyes this "inquisition" style Evangelical conversion is a travesty to the truth.!!!So sad and so misguided. However this is in my eyes the HUMAN FACTOR not the religion . Comparable to the radical Muslims.

Incidently some of my very best friends are Muslims, atheists, pagans and hindus. What would that make me.!

Regards Mustardseed

[Shinobi]

...

[Gandalf]

Mustardseed & Shinobi_

You both make good points guys and I accept that I have made certain snap judgements recently.. what you both say sounds good to me!

Douglas

[GhostRider]

Cool...peace in our times!  LOL!  I'm in the same boat at times Gandalf.  It's so easy, in my outrage of 'modern' Southern Christianity (not all of it, just the messed up fundamentalists version) that sometimes I lash out at ALL of christianity.  And it isn't all bad.  It definately needs to be cleaned up, but what faith doesn't?  Hopefully, the level-headed and compassionate-hearted will prevail.  That's why I'm glad folks like Beth are theologians.

Furthermore, I don't know if written proof is as important as it was a week ago to me.  Why the sudden change?  Well, it's not that I don't view the historical proof as being unimportant, it's just that I see the whole affair as being far more devisive usually than it should be.  And if that's the case it's sort of like nuking the city block to kill the roach-infested house.  Overkill.  And you don't win anyone over to your argument with negative overkill.  Yes, logic will hopefully prevail, and no, I don't think I should let-up on zealots.  But I don't see a zealot in Mustardseed or Wisp, and getting angry at them ain't going to get them any closer to the negotiating table (not that that's happening a whole lot lately, but it has, and even on their part too...)and maybe that anger, will blind us to a fact or two that they put forward.  

I still believe that the historical facts don't support a literal translation of the bible.  And I know I could go on and on with the facts and proof of my case, but would that bring anyone any closer to even wanting to 'test-out' my theory (not too mention believing me...?)of faith.  And would that get them any closer to heaven, or me to the truth?  I doubt it.  So, since I've put forward my proof, facts, quotes, theories, and beliefs... I'll just step back a little, for now and let the dust settle on this.  Since I doubt that hammering it out for much longer would bring me any closer to my goal of learning the truth and then sharing it with my sisters and brothers here at the Astral Pulse.

~Peace

[wisp]

Society is blocked in because of restraints placed by ideas constructed by men. Man's (and women) idolatry of man has put society where it is.

Churches don't take prisoners. Churches take in prisoners.

Create something, like a new idea. Apply what you know, not what someone else knows.

[Gandalf]

Pardon?

Douglas