Adrian,
Hey there!! I made a detailed post about this "somewhere" BUT I cannot find it !!! [xx(]
quote:
The question though is this: is there any written evidence whatsoever relating to the bible, and in particular John? I asl because is said that the Essenes has their own copy of John's Gospel, and then of course there is the Nag Hammadi library etc..
I would like to know your source for this, as I have no knowledge of this. That would be cool though!!! [:)]
In short, with the Dead Sea Scrolls find and the Nag Hammadi, new evidence is being studied every day. I do not know of a specific finding in the Dead Sea Scrolls (which are assumed by many to be the Essenes) that speaks of the Gospel of John. Now...several of the Gnostic Gospels found at Nag Hammadi certainly "appear to be written" in the same "vein" as the GOJ. But to my knowledge, scholars do not know "for sure" who the Essenes were--and which texts were actually taught by them. I don't mean to be "flip" here, but the scrolls found at both the Dead Sea and at Nag Hammadi, did not come with an "index" or "a charter roll" and without specific identification, it is all literary analysis which is in essence speculation.
quote:
The biggest question is; how did the original bible come to be composed in Greek, and what was the basis for those works? Many people seem to overlook the fact that Greece is a good distance from the so called "holy lands" where everything was supposed to have taken place; what is now Israel to Greece must be several hundred miles across the Mediterranean.
This one is easier to answer!! Well--mostly[:)]!! I will start with the last question first. The seemingly geographical incongruency of Greece and the Holy Land is easily explained. After Alexander the Great "blew through" Egypt and the Holy Land (300's b.c.e.), Greek culture was forced upon all of the ANE (Ancient Near East which includes Palestine.) In Egypt, the city of Alexandria became a "boom town" of Hellenistic thought, combining Egyptian, Coptic and Jewish cultures (just to name the primary ones.)
LEGEND has it, from the "Letter of Aristeas" that Ptolmey (a great thinker and interested in all religions) wanted the Hebrew Scriptures translated into Greek for his Grand Library (that was ultimately burned to the ground[xx(]. The Legend is that 70 rabbi's were called in to translate the scripture into Greek, and that after 70 days, they had all come up with the exact same translation! It is from this that it is called the "Pentateuch." This is of course, only legend, and the only "evidence" we have of this is that letter of Aristeas. BUT, there is plenty of evidence that the scripture had already been translated into Greek by the first century c.e. as it was the only form that scripture was known to be found in (unless it was in the Temple in Jerusalem...) BUT, there is evidence that there were copies in Hebrew during the 3rd century c.e. (BTW: I have my own theory on this--but--I know better than to post it here!![8D] It is pretty radical!!LOL)
During the first century, Greek had long been the primary language. Latin was coming in, as the Romans were trying to overthrow the Greeks. So, for the first few centuries of the first millennium, these were the most commonly spoken languages: Greek, Latin, Aramaic (Hebrew was already a dead language by then, and Aramaic was a combination of Greek, Hebrew and Coptic??), Coptic, Syrian, and well I can't think of another one right now! But, the whole ANE was Greek culture driven, and then later Roman culture driven.
It is held that the Gospel of John was actually first written in Greek, as it is very Greek in thought, with the Neoplatonic and Stoic notions of the LOGOS (translated into English as "THE WORD." (I posted something in more detail on this too!![xx(]) [I also my theories on this one as well!![8D]]
Anyway, I hope I have answered your questions. This is all based upon the best of my knowledge...
Peace,
Beth
As far as I know all the books of the new testament where written several decades after the fact from oral accounts. And if you ever been involved in gossiping, you know how badly stories get changed after just a few tellings.
All the mythology in the new testament is just that: MYTHS. Many forms of them can be found in modern urban legends and conspiracy theories.
They say Elvis is alive, and some claim to have seen him. I remember in the early 80's some said that Bruce Lee had not died in 1973, but he was hidding and would come back in 1983 (sound familiar?).
Unfortunatley no one was taking notes when the historical Jesus was on earth. All we have is hearsay and gossip. Urban Legends and Myths used by the Roman Empire (read The Vatican) to control people. Remember how the Romans would integrate local deities into the Roman Pantheon? Similar to what the Catholics as they moved into new lands, only the local deities were made Saints and Martyrs.
travelinbob,
It is generally accepted amongst NT scholars that all the books of the NT were completed by AD 100, the earliest having possibly been written in the 40s, but definitely by the mid 50s. That is no more than 23 years after Jesus's death.
One must also remember that those cultures were, and still are to some degree, highly oral, very unlike western society. Any oral tradition was very accurate, and this during a time when many witnesses of Christ and any events surrounding him were probably still very much alive. As such, there is no reason to believe that any of it is mythological.
exothen,
There is plenty of evidence that it is mythological. Have you not read the many posts in these threads? You know, the ones that are speaking of inconsistences, lack of historical evidence, or the thread on the Use of Allegory and Metaphor in Bible?
Maybe you just don't want to read them, or maybe you just don't want to face it yet--that is okay--but--don't make the claim that there "is no reason to believe that any of it is mythological." There are too many learned people making posts in this forum for us to start that debate all over again. These threads are FULL of useful "reasoned information" to support this.
You seem to be potentially very bright, so please, do your own homework and you will find out for yourself. I have included in two different bibliographies many of the books that will provide you with "plenty of reason" and if you apply "your own reasoning abilities" you will one day understand that this is true.
Peace,
Beth
quote:
Originally posted by exothen
travelinbob,
One must also remember that those cultures were, and still are to some degree, highly oral, very unlike western society. Any oral tradition was very accurate, . . .
FALSE LOGIC
How can you be certain of the acuracy of the oral tradition if there is no written record to back it up. Or at least other oral traditions that back it up. The four gospels where allegadly written by four of his followers. Why is there no independent version of the events in the NT. As far as I know, there where more gospels but they gave different versions and conclusions. And since the followers to whom the 4 gospels are attributed where present at the events, they should have recorded it ASAP while the events where fresh in there minds without time and emotions clouding the facts.
As to Oral tradition as a means of historical record, one must remember that oral tradition holders where paid to entertain with their stories (i.e. minstrels or their like), therefore one must assume that the stories where given a more entrataining and profitable spin. Plus when it comes to middle eastern cultures, they had even better written tradition then the west. Plus you forget that in Judea at the time, the Romans where in power. They where known for there exahustivly detailed written record keepers, yet the bible does not contain any version of Roman records of the time for the Judean province.
Beth,
quote:
There is plenty of evidence that it is mythological. Have you not read the many posts in these threads? You know, the ones that are speaking of inconsistences, lack of historical evidence, or the thread on the Use of Allegory and Metaphor in Bible?
Yes, I have read most of what it is in these threads, but
I have yet to see any actual evidence, it has all been mere speculation - I have not seen any inconsistencies pointed out, the thread on lack of historical evidence is a joke (mainly becuase it got side tracked without a single person posting any refutation of the archaeological evidence presented, for which purpose you were brought aboard (you've been busy, it's ok [:)])), and the use of allegory and metaphor does not mean that the whole Bible is allegory and metaphor and is void of historical reliability.
Okay, how many people have read "The Illiad"?
My personally I consider the various bible's to be much the same as this book. In "The Illiad" there is much that is considered historical fact, more that is considered possible but speculation, but most of it is made up. We know that the Trojan wars took place, we also know that at least 20% of the people listed through out the book were actually alive in those times, and we can accept that it is possible that the descriptions of who killed who and how are possibly true. But we also know that a great many of the details were blown way out of proportion as a way creating the heroic figures that the people of the time believed them to be. We also accept that the many descripencies come from the story being handed down orally for several years before actually being written down.
In the end the overall view of the book "The Illiad" is considered historical fiction based on the events of the Trojan Wars.
The various bibles read the same way. We know that some of the major events actaully took place to some degree because of other historical evidence and accounts. We consider it fact that a man named Jesus lived in those times and was a major player in a spiritual revolution in the area. That is just name one thing from the bible that is considered historical fact. But what I don't understand is how that so many people can look at the book as a complete historical record of the times when the story telling style of the time was to idolize the main charaters in any story as these wonderous heroic figures.
There are too many things in the various forms of the bible to say that is one way or the other it is historically true or complete mythology. It is, like most books/stories from the time, a fanciful tale based loosely on actual events.
exothen,
You wrote:
quote:
without a single person posting any refutation of the archaeological evidence presented, for which purpose you were brought aboard
Think about this for a minute. How can I PROVE that things DIDN'T happen??? The burden of "proof" is on you and the archaeologists--not me. If you can tell me where I can find ANY archaeological data that supports ANY biblical event--as it is recorded in the Bible--then I would really love to know about it. That way-YOU can SHOW ME!![:)]
To the best of my knowledge, we have plenty of "evidence" that surrounding civilizations DID exist during the Biblical Period--BUT--we do not have any evidence of the biblical events themselves. The only exception to this is the Amarna Stele--and that is NOT conclusive evidence. It refers to the "Apiru" whom scholars "think" could very well have been the "Hebrews." The Stele tells of a group of people of "troublemakers" but that is all.
There are at least HUNDREDS of biblical events from both the Hebrew scripture and the NT. You would think that at least a good "solid" handful of these events would be recorded somewhere else besides the Bible.
A good guideline for valid "proof": If you find it ONCE--no dice. If you find it TWICE--you
might be on to something. BUT--finding it THREE times is a sure thing. This is VERY hard to do with ANY historical account--as the "Winner" usually wrote the history--especially that far back in time when the "winner" had the power to withhold and destroy all documents that were contrary to their account.
The biggest problem with Biblical scriputure "as history" is that no other culture or government records can collaborate biblical events. The best chance of proving the most of biblical "history" is to be able to dig for "The Temple in Jerusalem" that was destroyed in 70 c.e., and then below this, the first Temple--Solomon's Temple--supposedly destroyed a few hundred years earlier. Unfortunely, that is unlikely to happen anytime soon--these temples are "thought" to be buried beneath the Mosque in Jerusalem that was built upon the "rock" from which Mohammed supposedly did his thing. It will have to be a much different world than it is today for an archaeological dig of that magnitude to
ever happen. Until then, I maintain that the information about "Solomon's Temple" is referring to "something else." When I am "proven wrong" then I will be the first to admit--I was wrong. Until then...
Those who "believe in the historicity of scripture"--they will continue to "believe." For those who do not...well...the evidence against such claims has been mounting higher and higher as time goes on and NOTHING is found.
We all have a choice--to "believe" or not. "Belief" is NOT FACT.
I really don't want to come across with a heavy-hand...but once again, in my opinion, it is very simple--NO evidence--NO historical "proof." This is an intellectual choice on my part.
As to "what I
can offer" evidence of? I can offer evidence that metaphor and allegory WERE--FOR A FACT--used to write scripture and to communicate its ideas down through time. How did I finally reach this stage in my knowledge? Because I DID question the validity and historicity of scripture and so I finally found some of the answers to my many questions. I "knocked" and it was "answered unto me." I highly recommend this method. My 'beliefs' are now on a MUCH bigger scale. So, I will probably keep on "knocking" as long as there is still a breath left in my body...
Peace,
Beth
Beth,
quote:
Think about this for a minute. How can I PROVE that things DIDN'T happen??? The burden of "proof" is on you and the archaeologists--not me. If you can tell me where I can find ANY archaeological data that supports ANY biblical event--as it is recorded in the Bible--then I would really love to know about it. That way-YOU can SHOW ME!!
I do agree with you and I never intended for you to prove something that "didn't" happen, but there were some archaeological proofs given in the thread in question that no one responded to. It was Robert who first claimed there was no evidence and that he could prove it, but then shifted the BoP onto those who claimed archaeological evidence exists.
I don't have time for much with midterms in the next two weeks, but here is a little something. The tunnel to the Pool of Siloam in Jerusalem was just recently dated to the period that is mentioned in the Bible. I cut out the article from yesterday paper. There is much in terms of archaeology that verifies OT and NT persons and places.
As for other ancient writings, I am not too familiar and I'll have to do some digging. But there is cuneiform that mentions some OT places, as well as Ebla texts that mention not only OT cities, but also David, Esau and Saul. And, of course, there is the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in AD 70. As for events being verified, I don't know, but the fact that people and places have been verified certainly lends some credibility to these accounts.
exothen,
You wrote:
quote:
The tunnel to the Pool of Siloam in Jerusalem was just recently dated to the period that is mentioned in the Bible. I cut out the article from yesterday paper. There is much in terms of archaeology that verifies OT and NT persons and places. As for other ancient writings, I am not too familiar and I'll have to do some digging. But there is cuneiform that mentions some OT places,
Question: Do these findings
support the biblical accounts that took place in these places
OR, rather, does the Bible provide additional proof that these places indeed existed?
All the things that have been found dating from the biblical period, are things that can be supported
by scripture, BUT, the events
as recorded IN scripture are NOT what is being proven. In other words, "proving" that Phoenicia existed or learning more about Babylonian and Assyrian religions does not "prove" the events as recorded in the Bible. They prove that Phoenicia, Babylonia and Assyria did though. Do you see the difference?
As a matter of fact, why do these findings NOT record at least SOME of the events that directly pertained to these cultures??? e.g., when the Israelites supposed defeated these cultures, or were defeated by them, in the many wars depicted in the Bible. Or--why do these findings from other cultures not mention the Hebrews or Israelites at all? According to scripture, they were almost always in contact with one or another of these neighboring cultures.
As to the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Nag Hammadi find, all this proves is that
the scripture existed--but it does not prove that the events as depicted in the bible actually happened. I hope you can see the difference.
Good luck on your mid-terms....Study Well!![;)]
Peace,[:)]
Beth
Hi Beth
So the thread is reincarnating!!!I must admit that I am stunned by the way things are turning around. We did have this discussion before as you might recall. It seems to me that you do not want to agree to disagree after all. [;)]
Last time this was discussed I included a lot of research , literature lists etc but the major parts of it was not answered by you or Robert, who initially threw out the "bait" as he called it. I will be glad to oblige you and include this research as well as other things if you will do me the curtesy of answering it and not ignoring it, as you did before.
Contrary to your claims there are many archaelogic findings indicating the validity of the scriptures, and research on the net is easy. The problem is that you and Robert seem to have the opinion that any findings by Christians is flawed and not valid. Well we all believe something dont we. Maybe they were atheists before and believers after their findings?
So there it is. If we do have the conversation we should try to stay civilised and avoid condesending and snide remarks they lead to more unkindness.!!
Regards Mustardseed
Hi Beth and moderators
I have a feeling that every bit of proof is going to be dismissed but lets just see maybe we should start with this:
After nearly 2,000 years, historical evidence for the existence of Jesus has come to light literally written in stone. An inscription has been found on an ancient bone box, called an ossuary, that reads "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus." This container provides the only New Testament-era mention of the central figure of Christianity and is the first-ever archaeological discovery to corroborate Biblical references to Jesus.
The Aramaic words etched on the box's side show a cursive form of writing used only from about 10 to 70 A.D., according to noted paleographer André Lemaire of the École Pratique des Hautes Études (popularly known as the Sorbonne University) in Paris, who verified the inscription's authenticity. The ossuary has been dated to approximately 63 A.D,
Ancient inscriptions are typically found on royal monuments or on lavish tombs, commemorating rulers and other official figures. But Jesus, who was raised by a carpenter, was a man of the people, so finding documentation of his family is doubly unexpected.
In the first century A.D., Jews followed the custom of transferring the bones of their deceased from burial caves to ossuaries. The practice was largely abandoned after the destruction of the Jewish Temple in 70 A.D. No one knows for certain why the practice started or stopped, but it provides a rare period of self-documentation in which commoners as well as leaders left their names carved in stone.
The new find is also significant in that it corroborates the existence of Joseph, Jesus' father, and James, Jesus' brother and a leader of the early Christian church in Jerusalem. The family relationships contained on the new find helped experts ascertain that the inscription very likely refers to the Biblical James, brother of Jesus (see, for example, Matthew 13:55-56 and Galatians 1:18-19). Although all three names were common in ancient times, the statistical probability of their appearing in that combination is extremely slim. In addition, the mention of a brother is unusual--indicating that this Jesus must have been a well-known figure.
Laboratory tests performed by the Geological Survey of Israel confirm that the box's limestone comes from the Jerusalem area. The patina--a thin sheen or covering that forms on stone and other materials over time--has the cauliflower-type shape known to develop in a cave environment; more importantly, it shows no trace of modern elements.
The 20-inch-long box resides in a private collection in Israel. Like many ossuaries obtained on the antiquities market, it is empty. Its history prior to its current ownership is not known.
The container is one of very few ancient artifacts mentioning New Testament figures. One such object is the ossuary of Caiaphas, the high priest who turned Jesus over to the Romans, according to the Biblical account. Caiaphas's tomb was uncovered in 1990. Also, some 40 years ago, archaeologists discovered an inscription on a monument that mentions Pontius Pilate.
Regards Mustardseed
That box turned out to be a something totally different. When they were finally able to actually exainmin the thing the box itself dated a little before the correct time and the writing was added onto the box a few hundred years later.
The man who originally purchased the box later admitted to knowing the box's true origins. Information he had gotten from the man who sold it to him.
So with one sentence of hearsay and your comments you put aside the hottest debated archaelogic finding this century!! They are still debating the authenticity of the box look it up on the net. The problem we are facing here is this. People and places have certainly been certified right, you can find the remains of many of the sites mentioned in the Bible, but Jesus ministry was not physical. He never built a building, drove a car or owned a house. In the eyes of the system he was a criminal. Not much there to dig up. My opinion is that IT COULD HAVE HAPPENED. Thats all, I will repeat. It could have happened the way the Bible says it did.
Now the problem here on this forum is that Beth and the moderators especially but others as well do not actually debate this issue in my opinion. Instead they restate over and over the same opinions as TRUTH . Recently you Beth commented to someone asking about the valitity of the Bible
Beth said
If you want to learn about how man did indeed create scripture, and why it does not really conform to modern day Christian Doctrine, see the thread "Use of Allegory and Metaphor in Scripture" in this section. (Please dont get offended Beth! )
This is not debating . Some people here have built their lives beliefs and everything they have on the assumption that the Bible is a lie. They claim Jesus never existed, and they MUST attack the Bible and discredit Christianity, and they do it with a vengance. If they are wrong about Him they are on thin ice. They put up threads for "friendly exploration" of all other major and minor faiths including their favorite Buddhism and Hinduism, even Satanism has its own little blurp. I am not sure what goes on in the moderators forum but I see it in the public forum. We are being herded folks, a little to the left a bit to the right. watch for the stragglers and the strays.
Regards Mustardseed
PS some might say that this last point is not in topic but I believe it is a valid observation and should be considered in the big picture. I say this without agression. Dont you find it "odd" that this thread and subject is being revived by Adrian, he surely must have known the extention of the previous thread. Adrian?
Okay sorry, I should have looked around. I was recalling that from memory and it was the last thing I had heard on the topic in the news. Which was a while ago. I also take very little information gleaned from the internet as being true. It's just not a reliable source of information anymore in my opinion. But the guy admitting he knew it was fake just kinda did the topic in for me.
Even though I consider myself to be a person with out religion one of the things that really chaps my butt about a lot of the objects or sites found is often the information lock down that ensues after thier finding. Many religions, people, and contries will not allow close inspect of these things. And many of these things fall out of the public eye as a result to become locked away and forgotten.
I personally would like to see the numerous volumes of text that the Vatican has locked away. I also would like to see the Ark site re-opened. But the Ark site is a case of a non-christian country locking down something that would go against thier faith if it is turns out to be authentic.
One of the things I don't get is why so many religions are constantly on the look out for things like this, even if they were to prove thier own religion true, just to keep them away from the public. I am interested in the sheer historic value of many of these things. But unfortunately thier potential religious value or non-value prevents this from ever happening.
No takers ....anyone......hello!!!
Cainam_Nazier wrote,
"That box turned out to be a something totally different. When they were finally able to actually exainmin the thing the box itself dated a little before the correct time and the writing was added onto the box a few hundred years later.
The man who originally purchased the box later admitted to knowing the box's true origins. Information he had gotten from the man who sold it to him."Mustardseed wrote,
"So with one sentence of hearsa and your comments you put aside the hottest debated archaelogic finding this century!!"I hate to break it to you Mustardseed, but all that Cainam_Nazier is saying is verifiable fact. Saying it ain't so doesn't make it true. In fact it's EASILY verifiable fact, I'll show you the proof if you want.
Second, this ain't the hottest debated archaelogical finding of this century. The debate over the true age of the Sphinx , the Medicine Stones of South America, the true origins of the bible as being stolen from Summerian texts and other cultures, ALL those rank as MUCH-MUCH higher. Again, saying it's so doesn't make it so, even if it is to you and your associates. Again, I'll happily provide the links if you want and you can beat your head against the brick wall of truth all you want then if that'll appease you. In fact, here's some great sites to get your intellectual curiosity churning...http://members.tripod.com/~kon_artz/cultures/cultures.htm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/
And here is a WONDERFUL page and a short and quoted description by the sites founders on radio carbon dating that should make it oh-so-easy for you to understand how it's done. I say that because often times, people JUST mention radio carbon dating without explaining it further...http://www.c14dating.com/
The 14C Method
There are three principal isotopes of carbon which occur naturally - C12, C13 (both stable) and C14 (unstable or radioactive). These isotopes are present in the following amounts C12 - 98.89%, C13 - 1.11% and C14 - 0.00000000010%. Thus, one carbon 14 atom exists in nature for every 1,000,000,000,000 C12 atoms in living material. The radiocarbon method is based on the rate of decay of the radioactive or unstable carbon isotope 14 (14C), which is formed in the upper atmosphere through the effect of cosmic ray neutrons upon nitrogen 14. The reaction is:
14N + n => 14C + p
(Where n is a neutron and p is a proton).
The 14C formed is rapidly oxidised to 14CO2 and enters the earth's plant and animal lifeways through photosynthesis and the food chain. The rapidity of the dispersal of C14 into the atmosphere has been demonstrated by measurements of radioactive carbon produced from thermonuclear bomb testing. 14C also enters the Earth's oceans in an atmospheric exchange and as dissolved carbonate (the entire 14C inventory is termed the carbon exchange reservoir (Aitken, 1990)). Plants and animals which utilise carbon in biological foodchains take up 14C during their lifetimes. They exist in equilibrium with the C14 concentration of the atmosphere, that is, the numbers of C14 atoms and non-radioactive carbon atoms stays approximately the same over time. As soon as a plant or animal dies, they cease the metabolic function of carbon uptake; there is no replenishment of radioactive carbon, only decay. There is a useful diagrammatic representation of this process given here
Libby, Anderson and Arnold (1949) first discovered that this decay occurs at a constant rate. They found that after 5568 years, half the C14 in the original sample will have decayed and after another 5568 years, half of that remaining material will have decayed, and so on (see figure 1 below). The half-life (t 1/2) is the name given to this value which Libby measured at 5568±30 years. This became known as the Libby half-life. After 10 half-lives, there is a very small amount of radioactive carbon present in a sample. At about 50 - 60 000 years, then, the limit of the technique is reached (beyond this time, other radiometric techniques must be used for dating). By measuring the C14 concentration or residual radioactivity of a sample whose age is not known, it is possible to obtain the countrate or number of decay events per gram of Carbon. By comparing this with modern levels of activity (1890 wood corrected for decay to 1950 AD) and using the measured half-life it becomes possible to calculate a date for the death of the sample.
As 14C decays it emits a weak beta particle (b ), or electron, which possesses an average energy of 160keV. The decay can be shown:
14C => 14N + b
Thus, the 14C decays back to 14N. There is a quantitative relationship between the decay of 14C and the production of a beta particle. The decay is constant but spontaneous. That is, the probability of decay for an atom of 14C in a discrete sample is constant, thereby requiring the application of statistical methods for the analysis of counting data.
It follows from this that any material which is composed of carbon may be dated.Herein lies the true advantage of the radiocarbon method, it is able to be uniformly applied throughout the world. Included below is an impressive list of some of the types of carbonaceous samples that have been commonly radiocarbon dated in the years since the inception of the method:
Charcoal, wood, twigs and seeds.
Bone.
Marine, estuarine and riverine shell.
Leather.
Peat
Coprolites.
Lake muds (gyttja) and sediments.
Soil.
Ice cores.
Pollen.
Hair.
Pottery.
Metal casting ores.
Wall paintings and rock art works.
Iron and meteorites.
Avian eggshell.
Corals and foraminifera.
Speleothems.
Tufa.
Blood residues.
Textiles and fabrics.
Paper and parchment.
Fish remains.
Insect remains.
Resins and glues.
Antler and horn.
Water.
The historical perspective on the development of radiocarbon dating is well outlined in Taylor's (1987) book "Radiocarbon Dating: An archaeological perspective". Libby and his team intially tested the radiocarbon method on samples from prehistoric Egypt. They chose samples whose age could be independently determined. A sample of acacia wood from the tomb of the pharoah Zoser (or Djoser; 3rd Dynasty, ca. 2700-2600 BC) was obtained and dated. Libby reasoned that since the half-life of C14 was 5568 years, they should obtain a C14 concentration of about 50% that which was found in living wood (see Libby, 1949 for further details). The results they obtained indicated this was the case. Other analyses were conducted on samples of known age wood (dendrochronologically aged). Again, the fit was within the value predicted at ±10%. The tests suggested that the half-life they had measured was accurate, and, quite reasonably, suggested further that atmospheric radiocarbon concentration had remained constant throughout the recent past. In 1949, Arnold and Libby (1949) published their paper "Age determinations by radiocarbon content: Checks with samples of known age" in the journal Science. In this paper they presented the first results of the C14 method, including the "Curve of Knowns" in which radiocarbon dates were compared with the known age historical dates (see figure 1). All of the points fitted within statistical range. Within a few years, other laboratories had been built. By the early 1950's there were 8, and by the end of the decade there were more than 20.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Figure 1: The "Curve of Knowns" after Libby and Arnold (1949). The first acid test of the new method was based upon radiocarbon dating of known age samples primarily from Egypt (the dates are shown in the diagram by the red lines, each with a ±1 standard deviation included). The Egyptian King's name is given next to the date obtained. The theoretical curve was constructed using the half-life of 5568 years. The activity ratio relates to the carbon 14 activity ratio between the ancient samples and the modern activity. Each result was within the statistical range of the true historic date of each sample.
In the 1950s, further measurements on Mediterranean samples, in particular those from Egypt whose age was known through other means, pointed to radiocarbon dates which were younger than expected. The debate regarding this is outlined extensively in Renfrew (1972). Briefly, opinion was divided between those who thought the radiocarbon dates were correct (ie, that radiocarbon years equated more or less to solar or calendar years) and those who felt they were flawed and the historical data was more accurate. In the late 1950's and early 1960's, researchers measuring the radioactivity of known age tree rings found fluctuations in C14 concentration up to a maximum of ±5% over the last 1500 years. In addition to long term fluctuations, smaller 'wiggles' were identified by the Dutch scholar Hessel de Vries (1958). This suggested there were temporal fluctuations in C14 concentration which would neccessitate the calibration of radiocarbon dates to other historically aged material. Radiocarbon dates of sequential dendrochronologically aged trees primarily of US bristlecone pine and German and Irish oak have been measured over the past 10 years to produce a calendrical / radiocarbon calibration curve which now extends back over 10 000 years (more on Calibration). This enables radiocarbon dates to be calibrated to solar or calendar dates.
Later measurements of the Libby half-life indicated the figure was ca. 3% too low and a more accurate half-life was 5730±40 years. This is known as the Cambridge half-life. (To convert a "Libby" age to an age using the Cambridge half-life, one must multiply by 1.03).
The major developments in the radiocarbon method up to the present day involve improvements in measurement techniques and research into the dating of different materials. Briefly, the initial solid carbon method developed by Libby and his collaborators was replaced with the Gas counting method in the 1950's. Liquid scintillation counting, utilising benzene, acetylene, ethanol, methanol etc, was developed at about the same time. Today the vast majority of radiocarbon laboratories utilise these two methods of radiocarbon dating. Of major recent interest is the development of the Accelerator Mass Spectrometry method of direct C14 isotope counting. In 1977, the first AMS measurements were conducted by teams at Rochester/Toronto and the General Ionex Corporation and soon after at the Universities of Simon Fraser and McMaster (Gove, 1994). The crucial advantage of the AMS method is that milligram sized samples are required for dating. Of great public interest has been the AMS dating of carbonacous material from prehistoric rock art sites, the Shroud of Turin and the Dead Sea Scrolls in the last few years. The development of high-precision dating (up to ±2.0 per mille or ±16 yr) in a number of gas and liquid scintillation facilities has been of similar importance (laboratories at Belfast (N.Ireland), Seattle (US), Heidelberg (Ger), Pretoria (S.Africa), Groningen (Netherlands), La Jolla (US), Waikato (NZ) and Arizona (US) are generally accepted to have demonstrated radiocarbon measurements at high levels of precision). The calibration research undertaken primarily at the Belfast and Seattle labs required that high levels of precision be obtained which has now resulted in the extensive calibration data now available. The development of small sample capabilities for LSC and Gas labs has likewise been an important development - samples as small as 100 mg are able to be dated to moderate precision on minigas counters (Kromer, 1994) with similar sample sizes needed using minivial technology in Liquid Scintillation Counting. The radiocarbon dating method remains arguably the most dependable and widely applied dating technique for the late Pleistocene and Holocene periods."(quote taken from the site.... http://www.c14dating.com/int.html )
quote:
Originally posted by Mustardseed
So with one sentence of hearsay and your comments you put aside the hottest debated archaelogic finding this century!! They are still debating the authenticity of the box look it up on the net. The problem we are facing here is this. People and places have certainly been certified right, you can find the remains of many of the sites mentioned in the Bible, but Jesus ministry was not physical. He never built a building, drove a car or owned a house. In the eyes of the system he was a criminal. Not much there to dig up. My opinion is that IT COULD HAVE HAPPENED. Thats all, I will repeat. It could have happened the way the Bible says it did.
Now the problem here on this forum is that Beth and the moderators especially but others as well do not actually debate this issue in my opinion. Instead they restate over and over the same opinions as TRUTH . Recently you Beth commented to someone asking about the valitity of the Bible
Beth said
If you want to learn about how man did indeed create scripture, and why it does not really conform to modern day Christian Doctrine, see the thread "Use of Allegory and Metaphor in Scripture" in this section. (Please dont get offended Beth! )
This is not debating . Some people here have built their lives beliefs and everything they have on the assumption that the Bible is a lie. They claim Jesus never existed, and they MUST attack the Bible and discredit Christianity, and they do it with a vengance. If they are wrong about Him they are on thin ice. They put up threads for "friendly exploration" of all other major and minor faiths including their favorite Buddhism and Hinduism, even Satanism has its own little blurp. I am not sure what goes on in the moderators forum but I see it in the public forum. We are being herded folks, a little to the left a bit to the right. watch for the stragglers and the strays.
Regards Mustardseed
PS some might say that this last point is not in topic but I believe it is a valid observation and should be considered in the big picture. I say this without agression. Dont you find it "odd" that this thread and subject is being revived by Adrian, he surely must have known the extention of the previous thread. Adrian?
I was busy so I I'll wade into the debate right about...NOW! LOL! First off Mustardseed, (and don't take this personally) but most non-Christians don't spend most of their time trying to prove that their faith/religion is right at the expense of the other faiths. They're not swearing up and down at the discrepencies between support for or against their faith like you have with the Satanic comment. I think they all realize, unlike you that there are MANY paths up the mountain. Unfortunately it appears that your path must exist at the SOLE exemption of ALL others. Furthermore, most non-catholic christian faiths can't even agree which version of christianity is right. I'm ALWAYS coming across sites that tell me if I don't accept THEIR way that I'm going to hell. EVEN IF I believed in God before and was baptized in another church. That's what points to the ludacricy of it all more than anythingelse, is the rabid over-zealousness of the fundamentalist and evangelical style christian faiths. That they'll even turn on and refuse their own is a sure sign of some systemic disorder or disease running rampant in the holy water in most of those respective churches. It not only turns most folks off, it makes them your arch enemy. Not at all what Jesus would've done...I believe in God, just not the rabid, foaming-at-the-mouth, fire and brimstone God of the Fundamentalist Christians. I will give credit to most of the Jewish and Catholic schools for including science in their curriculum and being more open with the "truth" of their faiths. I don't know what faith is the ONE, I doubt like hell any of them are the sole arbitours of the truth, but I know that the approach used by most faithful fundamentalist christians in this state (TEXAS) and elsewhere in this country is offensive, wrong, and ultimately combative and self-destructive in the end. If you want to win over hearts and minds, try logic, love and co-existance or tolerance... not fire and brimstone.
Here's some links you might find helpfull... Some are media based, some religous based, some "other". I hope they help you find the truth you so vehemently wish to push on others.
The Fake Jesus Box
http://www.bottomquark.com/article.php?sid=4012
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/10/1021_021021_christianrelicbox.html
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/06/0618_030618_jesusbox.html
The Shroud Of Turin
http://www.shroud.com/
http://sindone.torino.chiesacattolica.it/en/welcome.htm
http://www.shroudstory.com/
Well atleast someone answered with a simple down to earth answer[;)]. I will take a couple of days to read it and get back to you, however. Your assumptions about me and what I believe are a actually unfounded. You seem to be very agressive yourself allthough you do put in a little LOL and I find it quite the Overkill for you to include all the links and stuf on carbon dating. Feels like being barraged, with fluff. I was asking about the box, and have no problem with your answer, this sounds like at least some kind of research and is not only I think heard it was fake . Anyway I will check it out.Thanks
My apologies for sounding too aggressive, I just quitt smoking two weeks ago and extra sparring classes at Kung Fu ain't cutting it, serious, so sorry if you're the butt end off my angst. I really just meant to throw some links your way, and as suprising as this would sound... can you throw me some quality links supporting your case my way? Either p.m. them or put them here or both. I think after all the links I threw your way you could probably enlighten me with some links of your own. Deal?
Hi,
As a classical historian myself, I would just like to point out a few things about the NT and Exothen's comment about 'there's no reason to think that any part of it is myth'.
In actual fact, it is well known among the academic community that most of the NT stories ARE indeed based on myth, what is more, as any classial historian will tell you, the NT stories are basically re-hashed versions of *pagan classical myths* that were already well known up until this time.. they were justr repackaged for a new religion...
The reason for this is simple, in order for the new religion to be popular it had to contain certain elements that would be familiar to a classical readership, otherwise, it would never take off. In this way the NT is designed to *appeal* to classical readers by containing stories that they would all recognise.
In fact, all the main stories about Jesus's healing and miracle working, and much of the events and narrative, are common pagan elements. In reality there is no real evidence that Jesus did any of these things, all we know is that, if the man did exist at all, he was a philosopher/prophet, of which we have a few parrables to his name and that's about it.
All the stories about miracle/working healing, were VERY common classical themes: The greek healing god Ascelepius had these same attributes and travelled the land in human form, healing the sick and performing similar miracles to Jesus, Ascelepius is widely recognised as a 'proto-Jesus'.
The 'Virgin Birth' concept was another VERY comon classical theme. Zeus and Apollo plus many other gods frequently impregnated mortal women who later brough forth offspring with divine powers.
Also, the story of the birth being fortold by a star and the story of the shephards and wisemen attending the birth are also features of earlier birth stories of both Dionosyus (Greek god of wine - Roman Bacchus) and Zoaroaster, the persian god (of whom Judaism and later christianity got many of its ideas from)
In addition the 'last supper' story is a common pagan story; again, both Dionosyius and Zoaroaster had a 'last supper' before being betrayed by one of their followers.
As you can see, the evidence for much of the classical mythic content of the NT is actually pretty obvious if you actually KNOW anything about classical myth.
To be honest, its a pretty obvious occurance, seeing how it was the Roman empire that created what we now know as 'mainstream christianity' and we should not be suprised if the content reflects some of this.
Douglas
Good points Gandalf, I've always wondered if the Roman Empire isn't still alive today in the form of the Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox churches?
Roman Empire= (Western & Eastern Roman Empires)= Roman Catholic Church & Eastern Orthodox Church.........? I'll do some research on it, but am I far off?
Hello Ghostrider!
No you are not very far off, in fact you are quite right. The catholic church and the Orthodox church are two of the most important legacies of the roman empire.
Remember the old stories about the 'decline and fall' of the roman empire? Well, of course, it is now recognised that this idea is a bit of a falsehood.
For a start. in the event, only the westrn half of the empire faded away, with the last western emperor Romulus Augustulus (little Augustus) abdicating in 476.
The eastern half of the empire survived intact and lasted for another thousand years, before falling to the Turks in 1453.
The eastern empire had of course develped itself over this time to become distinct from its imperial 'father'.
However, although modern historians refer to the continuing eastern empire as the 'byzantine empire' as it was founded on the old city of Byzantium, the byzantines alays refered to themselves as Romans as did everyone else at the time, even if they were greek.
Constantinople was originaly named New Rome, however, it must be remembered that by about 300AD the idea of Rome had become dis-assosiated with the city on the Tiber in Italy (although it kept its prestige as the founder of the empire), by this time the WHOLE EMPIRE was Rome, and the capital was wherever the emperor happened to be, afterall full roman citizenship had been given to all citizens of the empire in 212AD.
Meanwhile, in the west, although it is the case that the germanic invaders carved out their own empires in western Europe from 406 onwards, with the Franks (French) taking Gaul, Vandals and goths taking Spain and noth Africa, ostro-goths taking Italy etc,
It must be remembered that the Roman aristocracy survived quite intact, perhaps losing a third of their landed estates but that was a small price to pay. The Germanic peoples needed the aristocracy to read and write and administrate for them and the roman aristocracy did this, and therefor continued to hold land and power as before.
They continued to hold power quit easily; whereas before they were esteemed members of the senate, now they became bishops instead, who had enormous power over everyone, virtually running regions under their care.
So basically, senators became bishops and the old aristocratic families continued as usual, reading and writing in latin as before and chilling out in their villas.
For this reason the church is a direct continuation of the roman senatorial aristocracy... They continued to wear their togas and it became a sort of uniform for church members.... in time this evolved into the priests robes we are all familiar with today!
However, there was a breach between east in west which eventially led to both sides becoming estranged.
For example, the orthodox church does not accept the concept of 'original sin' only the western church does. This idea can be traced back to Augustine who was writing just after the sack of Rome in 410 and had to find a way to explain why the christian god had not prevented the sack of the eternal city, especially as the empire was now officially the 'kingdom of god'. Augustine eventially came up with the idea that god is trying us and that the kingdom of god is NOT WITH US YET (it was the assumption, once the empire was christianised that the new empire was the kingdom of god) and that everyone is born sinful and will only emerge triumphant in Christ after many trials to test ones faith. Of course, this is a reflection of the turbulant times of the western empire as the germanic tribes were moving in.
In the east there wasnt an issue and they never felt the need to formulate such ideas to explain the western crisis; as far as they were concerned, their western brethren were failing due to bad management, which was true enough!
Anyway, thats my rant finished for now, I hope I didnt bore everyone!
Douglas
Not at all... not at all. You just cleared up more truth and facts about the catholic church for me in that short treatise, than all my research on the church has done in the past ten years. Thank you very much. Were did you get this information from? Any online sources?
Hi,
For the details of the early church and the development of christianity into a world religion under the Roman empire, you really want to check out books on the period, which is officially known amongst academics as the 'Later Roman Empire', also known as 'Late Antiquity'. This period is usually defined as running from 284AD (when Diocletian came to power) to the start of the Arab conquest in the 7th century.
Three good texts are 'the world of late Antiquity' by Peter Brown; 'The later roman empire', by Averil Cameron
and 'Diocletian and the Roman recovery' by Stephen Williams.
All three are really interesting and written in a good style that tries to avoid the usual monotonous academic style that is common in the field.
I'm not sure about online sources, there is probably loads but watch out for sites with heavy christian bias, which I have come across in the past.
The crucual period is the 4th century; even up until 313AD, christianity was still a minority religion within the empire, with only about 1/5th of citizens being members, and most of those were in the east, but the church grew to supremecy once it began to be officially promoted by the emperors, starting with Constantine and the Edict of toleration in 313.
BTW although from this point on christianity quickly became the most popular religion of the roman empire, paganism died hard and pagans still held high positions at court throughout the 4th century.
Most pagan temples also remained open thoughout the 4th century.
The era of great church building and active persecution of pagans and heretics only really began in earnest from the start of the 5th century onwards (after the sack of Rome) and it is only really from this point on that we can begin to talk about a 'christian society'.
Douglas
I have been sort of busy but much belated here are some of the things you asked about. I have copied this and will include links. I apologise for the volume but since very large posts seem to sometimes appear in this thread and it has been made sticky I decided this might be in order.I also realize we are moving away from the BOX and more to the original question, I will write more about the box later as I have not yet checked out your answers.
Over the years there have been many criticisms leveled against the Bible concerning its historical reliability. These criticisms are usually based on a lack of evidence from outside sources to confirm the Biblical record. Since the Bible is a religious book, many scholars take the position that it is biased and cannot be trusted unless we have corroborating evidence from extra-Biblical sources. In other words, the Bible is guilty until proven innocent, and a lack of outside evidence places the Biblical account in doubt.
This standard is far different from that applied to other ancient documents, even though many, if not most, have a religious element. They are considered to be accurate, unless there is evidence to show that they are not. Although it is not possible to verify every incident in the Bible, the discoveries of archaeology since the mid 1800s have demonstrated the reliability and plausibility of the Bible narrative. Here are some examples.
The discovery of the Ebla archive in northern Syria in the 1970s has shown the Biblical writings concerning the Patriarchs to be viable. Documents written on clay tablets from around 2300 B.C. demonstrate that personal and place names in the Patriarchal accounts are genuine. The name "Canaan" was in use in Ebla, a name critics once said was not used at that time and was used incorrectly in the early chapters of the Bible. The word "tehom" ("the deep") in Genesis 1:2 was said to be a late word demonstrating the late writing of the creation story. "Tehom" was part of the vocabulary at Ebla, in use some 800 years before Moses. Ancient customs reflected in the stories of the Patriarchs have also been found in clay tablets from Nuzi and Mari.
The Hittites were once thought to be a Biblical legend, until their capital and records were discovered at Bogazkoy, Turkey. Many thought the Biblical references to Solomon's wealth were greatly exaggerated. Recovered records from the past show that wealth in antiquity was concentrated with the king and Solomon's prosperity was entirely feasible. It was once claimed there was no Assyrian king named Sargon as recorded in Isaiah 20:1, because this name was not known in any other record. Then, Sargon's palace was discovered in Khorsabad, Iraq. The very event mentioned in Isaiah 20, his capture of Ashdod, was recorded on the palace walls. What is more, fragments of a stela memorializing the victory were found at Ashdod itself.
Another king who was in doubt was Belshazzar, king of Babylon, named in Daniel 5. The last king of Babylon was Nabonidus according to recorded history. Tablets were found showing that Belshazzar was Nabonidus' son who served as coregent in Babylon. Thus, Belshazzar could offer to make Daniel "third highest ruler in the kingdom" (Dan. 5:16) for reading the handwriting on the wall, the highest available position. Here we see the "eye-witness" nature of the Biblical record, as is so often brought out by the discoveries of archaeology.
"Probably the Dead Sea Scrolls have had the greatest Biblical impact. they have provided Old Testament manuscripts approximately 1,000 years older than our previous oldest manuscript. The Dead Sea Scrolls have demonstrated that the Old Testament was accurately transmitted during this interval. In addition, they provide a wealth of information on the times leading up to, and during, the life of Christ.
--Dr. Bryant Wood, archaeologist
Throughout Bible lands there are numerous "traditional" tombs of various Biblical personages, sometimes several for one individual! In many cases, there is no historical or archaeological evidence to back up the identification. There are various instances where there is strong, if not certain, evidence for locating the burial site of a person, or persons, named in the Bible.
Jesus Christ
Holy Sepulchre Church, Jerusalem
In Jerusalem today, there are two sites claiming to be the location of the tomb of Jesus: the Church of the Holy Sepulchre and the Garden Tomb. The Garden Tomb was identified as the tomb of Jesus only in the late 1800s and lacks historical credibility. A long tradition going back to the first century, however, maintains that Jesus' tomb is at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in the Old City of Jerusalem. In the 4th century, Constantine supposedly located the tomb site beneath a second century Roman temple. He constructed a church over it. This church has been restored and maintained over the centuries ever since. It is today shared by six faiths: Latin Catholics, Greek Orthodox, Armenians, SyriaCaiaphas the High Priest
Ossuary of Caiaphas the High Priest
Caiaphas was high priest for 18 years, A.D. 18-36. He most likely gained the position by marrying the daughter of Annas, head of a powerful high-priestly clan (John 18:13). Caiaphas is infamous as the leader of the conspiracy to crucify Jesus.
At a meeting of the religious leaders, Caiaphas said, "It is better for you that one man die for the people than the whole nation perish" (John 11:50). He was referring to the possible intervention of the Roman authorities, if Jesus' teaching should cause unrest. His words were prophetic in that Jesus did die for the people, all the people of the earth, as a sacrifice for sin.
The Caiaphas family tomb was accidentally discovered by workers constructing a road in a park just south of the Old City of Jerusalem. Archaeologists were hastily called to the scene. When they examined the tomb they found 12 ossuaries (limestone bone boxes) containing the remains of 63 individuals. The most beautifully decorated of the ossuaries was inscribed with the name "Joseph son of (or, of the family of) Caiaphas." That was the full name of the high priest who arrested Jesus, as documented by Josephus (Antiquities 18: 2, 2; 4, 3). Inside were the remains of a 60-year-old male, almost certainly those of the Caiaphas of the New Testament. This remarkable discovery has, for the first time, provided us with the physical remains of an individual named in the Bible.
http://www.christiananswers.com/
Since you were so kind to include a explanation about carbon dating I decided to include the article below explaining the problems og this method.
"The Problem of Carbon"
It seems that much is made of, and surety placed in, radiometric dating, normally associated with the isotope Carbon 14. Indeed, the results of dating materials and artifacts with this method is perhaps singularly the most compelling "evidence" for evolution—the vast majority believing that since so many fossils have been dated far beyond the chronology of the Bible, evolution must be true1. In a literal reading of the Old Testament of the Bible, the age of the earth would be around 6 to 9 thousand years; this is obviously quite incompatible with artifacts dated at hundreds of times such a figure. This leads many to assume a priori that the record of the Bible cannot be trusted at all; if it is wrong on the chronology, it is probably wrong about many other things. It would seem that this scientific assignment of dates is the Achilles Heel of theism.
On its surface, this is quite logical. That is, either science is wrong about the dates or the Bible is; if the Bible is wrong about the dates, certainly logic would dictate that the relative level of trust it could be given would be quite low. The Bible is a record handed down over 3,500 years, the people writing it having little if any scientific or mathematical capacity, which could hardly be considered supporting evidence of its veracity and accuracy. On the other hand, science is present, imminent, and tangible; it can be tested on the chalkboard and in the laboratory—the approach purely from logic and objectivity would seem to gravitate singularly towards its findings and reject the former. In the modern society, the great age of once living organisms is an established fact; to posit otherwise is to be wholly unscientific and less than honest and objective. Indeed, the average person has little need of the supporting scientific methodology and specific findings since the great ages of the artifacts are so universally accepted; the old age of the earth must be right.
In the positive, therefore, the older dates for the age of the earth are assumed right, any other posit must then necessarily be wrong, and this is essentially the pervasive and common belief. Perhaps however, a question should be asked, and the answer to it sought, from the negative; that is, asking the question "What if the dating methods and their findings are wrong?" Or even, "Could the dating methods be wrong?"
The methodology of Carbon dating will then be considered from this perspective such that its relative veracity and reliability will be examined in comparison to known and proven scientific and mathematical function. That is, since there is indeed a great presumption that the findings of radiocarbon dating are sound and in fact inviolate, the probity of coming to such a conclusion will be tested. The manifestation of such an approach will be not to prove without qualification that the dating method(s) are true or false, but rather to simply determine whether the intellectual assent to such findings is congruent with the fundamentals of logic and science. In essence, we will look not to what belief is commonly held, but rather why it is.
The approach here will be divided into two main categories, the inherent physical properties and methods, and the effects of human interactions or limitations.
INHERENT PROPERTIES AND ERRATA
Radiocarbon dating, especially using the Carbon 14 method, takes advantage of the radioactive decay of the isotope, which is seen as a constant. Every living thing takes in and expels Carbon 14 while it is alive, and a static level of the element is maintained. When the organism dies, the infusion is suspended, and the level is reduced according to the rate of decay, known as the "half-life." The amount of Carbon 14 in the artifact is measured and then compared to the presumed static level the organism maintained while alive; the comparison then yields the relative age of the specimen. Though this sounds very straightforward and scientific, there are several serious problems.
The first problem is seen in the very approach in the presumption that must be made in the level of Carbon 14 the organism had while living. Here we have a critical calculation that is based upon an assumption that an organism which lived thousands of years previous, of which there are no modern species to compare, developed a specific level of Carbon 14 from an environment we know nothing about. If for example, the presumption is inaccurate by only 10%, considering that it is the rate of decay that forms the mathematical constant, the inaccuracy of the calculation of age at the upper limit would be tens of thousands of years.
The very basis for the assumption above is another problem, and is perhaps the most embarrassing for the proponents of radiocarbon dating. To assume a particular level of Carbon 14 in an organism requires a precise determination of environmental (atmospheric) levels of the same. That is, to presume a particular level in a living thing requires a precise knowledge of the ambient amount of Carbon 14 in the air and environment. Scientists performing radiocarbon dating assume that the amount in the environment has not changed. This is compelling for several reasons, not the least of which is the convenience with which "science" apparently operates; we hear of massive changes in the earth, ice ages, catastrophic events that killed the dinosaurs, etc., but the environment never changed according to the same scientists.
Not only does the requisite level of assumption and presumption all but invalidate the accuracy of the claims of very old dating, but were there for example, an environmental phenomenon that affected the level of ambient Carbon 14, the results could be skewed exponentially. In fact, several such phenomena did indeed exist, proven by the same science that supports old-age radiocarbon dating! It would seem quite clear that some predisposition or predilection for particular findings in terms of dating artifacts is at work in this case. For example, consider that it is essentially accepted that an antediluvian water canopy existed surrounding the earth; this would have acted to either negate or at least significantly reduce the effect of cosmic, x-ray, and ultraviolet radiation in the upper atmosphere. Carbon 14 production would have been negligible, and therefore would not have been absorbed by living things; any organism living before the reduction of the canopy would in turn be dated exponentially older than it actually is. Or consider the effect a global atmospheric shield of dust created as a result of a meteor impact some scientists believe killed off the dinosaurs—levels of Carbon 14 in the atmosphere must certainly have been different, thereby invalidating the age/date test data. Isn't it funny how the same scientists who purport constant catastrophic changes in earth's history depend upon the inherent necessity that it was completely without any changes?
Moreover, it is established fact that the earth's magnetic field has been in a constant decline in strength2, which would have vigorously protected the earth from the same radiation, all but negating the production of Carbon 14 and thereby minimizing the ambient amount available for absorption by living things. Yet these two facts are virtually unknown in modern society, and it seems never associated with radiometric dating, apparently since it would put such method (and indeed its findings) in doubt as to its reliability.
Another fact, which proves quite embarrassing to "old-age" proponents in regard to radiometric dating, is the half-life of Carbon 14 itself. Not only is the actual half-life length itself in some contention, but the effect it would have on the upper limits of its capability in dating illustrates clearly the level of fraud that has been foisted on an unsuspecting society. Consider that Carbon 14's half-life is around 5,630 years3 (though estimates range from 5,300 to 5,700 years); in only ten cycles of this, there would be nothing left to measure in the extant specimen! This means that the absolute maximum age radiocarbon could date a specimen to would be around 56,300 years; yet daily society is barraged with reports that some new find was dated in the hundreds of thousands, and even millions of years using Carbon 14. Actually, after the sixth cycle or so, there would not be enough Carbon 14 in the sample to be measured; the upper limit then would be around 30,000 years.
This leads to yet another inherent problem in the use of radiometric dating which would seem virtually insurmountable, and is caused by the presence of environmental Carbon 14 itself, ironically, the phenomenon scientists exploit in the determination of date of origin. Simply stated, it is nearly impossible to preclude contamination that seriously affects the results of the measurement. The levels of Carbon 14 in any "old" artifact are extremely low; because of this, it is virtually impossible to prevent the test and measurement equipment from picking up residual or background environmental Carbon 14 not associated with the specimen. Further, most artifacts by their very nature are found in and around various forms of rock, which provide several sources of additional radiation. This has the concomitant effect of providing a source of neutrino radiation; Carbon 14 decay is accelerated in the presence of such bombardment, and again the effect would be to cause the specimen to appear much older than it actually is. This effect cannot be overstated in regard to the estimates of age—a less than 5% reduction in the extant amount of Carbon 14 in the specimen, owing to the "constant" of its half-life will yield a factor of 5 times the actual age. Imagine the effect on science if an artifact dated at 45,000 years is actually only 9,000; the possibilities are staggering.
The foregoing is but a few examples of the problems with Carbon 14; many more examples could be given, as well as some documented, glaring failures such as live clams being dated at 1,500 years, and parchment documents from the 17th century being dated to the 4th. The point however, is that radiocarbon dating has serious problems in terms of reliability and veracity, and its use is at best quite limited. On the other hand, there is an obvious dichotomy in these problems and the lack of common knowledge regarding them; it would seem that there should be some explanation why the vast majority of society is so unaware of the spurious nature of the science behind radiocarbon dating. That is, since science is ostensibly clinical and without emotion, the most likely cause of the dearth of knowledge of the limitations, fallacies, and vulnerabilities in this method is man himself—a manifestation of his own biases and predilections. This is the subject of the next division.
THE HUMAN EFFECT
Whereas in the foregoing the physical and scientific limitations and problems of using Carbon 14 dating has been examined, the human effect and influence on the science is often underestimated; this could be illustrated essentially in the rhetorical "Why?"
That is, since the use of Carbon 14 in radiometric dating has several glaring and seemingly irreducible problems that almost certainly cast doubt on its results, this begs the question of "why" it is used at all, or at least why it would be considered accurate. It would seem quite clear that some bias is at work in the published results of dating activities, and therefore the motivation for fostering erroneous (or at least misleading) findings is suspect.
It would also seem however that it is not so much what the proponents are trying to present as much as what they are trying to prevent. That is, the view is held because a suitable alternative is not available—evolution depends on the great age of living things—the alternative is creation by God, and this is unacceptable to many, especially it seems, scientists. (Though there are indeed many scientists who believe in special Creation by God). This lack of alternative is sufficient motivation for some to ignore the obvious problems with radiocarbon dating, as long as their "religion" of the theory of evolution remains intact. It is somehow appropriate that the theory itself has the same type of problems as the dating methods that support it. The question of "why" is however yet unanswered; it boggles the mind to think that many scientists, ostensibly known for their dedication to truth, objectivity and scholarship would entertain such a problematic system, seemingly at all costs.
It may be that the answer can be found, appropriately enough, in the same place as the account of the creation of man, the Book of Genesis. In the story about the fall into sin, it would seem that the motivations are essentially the same:
"And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil." (Genesis 3:4-5, King James Version, emphasis mine throughout).
Here are the two great motivations that underlie the motivation for following after evolution and its requisite dating: for absent God, there is no accountability; absent God creating, then evolution and man would be the height of achievement, the top of the scale. Note that the serpent is trying to convince Eve that she will not be held accountable, that the results God had warned of would not be applicable to her; man has sought to be free from accountability ever since. Note also that man's (Eve's) status would change, that he would be as high up the scale as any other created thing, perhaps beyond. Evolution provides both of these things at once, and apparently man's desire for them is greater than he has for the truth. Just as the progenitor of mankind, Eve, was misled by the serpent, society today is being misled regarding the sufficiency and truth of what science really purports; the great irony is that it is apparently for the same reason.
William B. Tripp, Ph.D, D.Th.
18 March 2002
Notes:
1 Various studies have revealed that the data and results of radiometric analysis is essentially the only commonly and universally offered defense for the evolutionary view. The vast majority of respondents cannot cite any other facet or evidentiary for holding to the theory of evolution.
2 Most scientists believe that the rate of decay is such that it would render the field about ten times stronger at the time of the Flood of Noah than it is today. Most models of decline show that the earth's field loses half its strength every 1,400 years—which would quite obviously support a young earth theory—prior to about 10,000 years there would have been no field at all.
3 Webster's II New Riverside University Dictionary, (Boston MA: Houghton Mifflin Company 1984) 229. Most volumes include the half-life under the definition for "Carbon 14."
Hope it is a help
Regards Mustardseed
Mustardseed,
I know that you really want the biblical events to be real. But my friend, all you have provided evidence for is that "Ebla" the "Hittites" "Ashdod" and "Assyria" existed, as well as the fact that personal names such as Sargon, Belshazzar and Nabonidus were in use. On the name "Canaan" you have provided evidence of this being a name--not a place. Biblically speaking, Canaan was a rather large geographical territory.
What is needed here is evidence of the patriarchs themselves as well as Daniel and Isaiah as actually existing. To prove that "great wealth" existed does not prove that Solomon existed.
quote:
"Probably the Dead Sea Scrolls have had the greatest Biblical impact. they have provided Old Testament manuscripts approximately 1,000 years older than our previous oldest manuscript. The Dead Sea Scrolls have demonstrated that the Old Testament was accurately transmitted during this interval. In addition, they provide a wealth of information on the times leading up to, and during, the life of Christ.
All the Dead Sea Scroll proves is that the Hebrew scriptures existed--that has never been in doubt. What is in doubt is the historical validity of the events and people as recorded in the scripture. We have no problem proving that Egypt and the Pharoahs existed--but if Isreal and Judea were as large and influential as the bible implies--then where is evidence of these two cities? Where is the evidence of the royal lineage of Hebrew Kings? Where is evidence of the Israelites, who were said to be numbered in the hundreds of thousands? (That was A LOT of people back then.)
The same holds true for the NT period. To prove that "Caiaphas was high priest for 18 years" does not prove that he ever sent Jesus to Golgotha. When something is found in those ossuaries that boasts of, or at least records the event of arresting Jesus, all that is proven so far is that Caiaphas and his family existed.
quote:
There are various instances where there is strong, if not certain, evidence for locating the burial site of a person, or persons, named in the Bible.
When and if these burial sites ever identify biblical persons, then the sway of this whole debate will change sides.
But until then, I am sorry Mustardseed, proving that the Ancient Near East existed--or that the scripture itself existed--does not prove that the events of the bible really happened. When real evidence is found to support biblical events--it will be splashed all over every newspaper, television and internet connection across the globe. And no--even the "liberal press" will not be able to keep a lid on it, for the media is "sensationalism motivated"--and that would be quite sensational...
Peace,
Beth
Thank you Mustardseed, since you've given me quite a bit of information and I'm busy lately, allow me untill sometime within the next few days to properly respond. You have some interesting counters that require some deeper research by myself and these I will debate further, given some time to check them out as best I can. Thanks for the info Mustardseed.
~Kevin
Hi Beth
Lets reason together . You asked in your posts on another thread that we should keep things nice. I agree. Well in the light of that I find it "not nice" for you to say that I "really want it to be true". Does this not indicate that I am not looking for the truth, but solely trying to bolster a false assumption?. In other words that I am "fake" in saying I am seeking the truth.
I agree with you . Lets be nice, lets give the other the benefit of the doubt. I want the truth as much as anyone and I will assume you want the same as I . Lets talk these issues and not try to attempt to "guess" what we "really" wamt.
I will think about your reply to the things I posted. I just copied some things down from the page, and did not really think about the points you brought up.
Peace Mustardseed
Mustardseed,
I am sorry that you read so much into that comment. I truly did not mean anything hurtful by it.
I will clarify by saying that there was also a time when I too wanted it to be true. From the time I was a little girl though (age 10), I knew something was wrong about it. I did not have the mental capacity to understand "why" or "how"--but I knew that something was amiss.
For the next 30 years I continually asked God, most urgently sometimes, "WHAT IS IT"--"WHAT IS IT" about all of this that haunts me so? I prayed and prayed--Why couldn't I see things the way everyone else did? It has caused upheaval and alienation for me in my family, and it caused me to be an oddball throughout my Christian theological education. Since I couldn't quite "put my finger on it" there were many times when I truly wanted my suspicions to be wrong. I wanted to see "proof" that everyone else was right. But no matter how much I prayed--I never could just accept the bible as factual and historical.
A few years ago, I finally received my answers, and believe me, even though I was more prepared than most, it still threw me into a major spiritual crisis that took many months to deal with. Now my question to God has changed--it is now--"WHY DID IT ALL GET SO MESSED UP?" While I have my suspicions, this question has yet to be fully answered...
Please know I take very seriously the fact that what I have to say will cause spiritual crises for others. That is why I must write my book in a way that is as non-threatening as possible--IF that is possible at all. So, in essence, know that I too once wanted it all to be true as well, and further that I take the implications of all of this very seriously.
By the way: For all those years that I beseeched God for answers, I had no idea that the phrase "What Is It" is the meaning of the word "Manna." I asked--and I received--a little bit every day--for three decades of days. Throughout my entire life, I have been "wandering in the wilderness" and did not even know it.
Take it from me and my life experience, be careful what you ask for--you just might get it--you might even be getting it now and not recognizing it as such. So my best advice? Always be prepared for your prayers to be answered, and know that those answers are oftentimes right before our very eyes.
Peace,
Beth
Ok Beth. Have it your way. When I question your motives, you dont want to talk to me but take it personal. When I respectfully ask you to grant me the same curtesy , you say I read things into what you say.
This is a double standard.
I am not you. I am not a insecure 10 yr girl. I have very little in common with you . It makes me angry that you assume so much, but I will no longer stoop to displaying my anger on the board. However I find you unfair in your arguing method and I find your testemonies condecending. It seems you have made up your mind that you are right and I am wrong. My judgement is that I consider your points, I do not claim to have all the answers and continue to explore. So have it your way. Pontificate expound and lecture.....I will continue to search.
Regards Mustardseed
PS I am also very aware of my responsibility. If what I believe to be true is really true, when they realise this it could potentially throw a lot of folks on this board and yourself into a severe tailspin and potential crisis. So in that we agree.
Beth, Your spiritual journey sounds fascinating. We all struggle with concepts and ideas. It's great you opened yourself up to your real experiences.
Mustardseed, You seem to be doing a great job on the message your trying to convey. It just may be too deep or alien for many on these forums to appreciate. Spiritual progression by all is a very personal step.
Anyone here does seem to have a sincere interest in the right path.
Your personal experiences I haven't run across on the forums yet.Is there a place you can direct me to find what you have written so far? Did you see what I wrote in OBE discussions the other day?
If your interested, I'll try to find it for you. It may be something that you can relate to. It's something about how I've discovered how to interpret things that happen in our lives. It's a difficult concept for most to grasp. You seem intense enough on things that it may mean something to you. I thought Beth was into this sort of thing when I got here, but her metaphors are based on something totally different. Let me know if you want to hear my ideas.
I miss the posts by Timeless. She had some very interesting things to share. I wonder if she left?
Dear Wisp Thanks for your comment I would be very interested in hearing about your experiences, just point me to the thread. Mine are all over ha some especially in a thread "lover astral regions"
Dear Beth
I just saw last night that you are leaving for a few months and decided to write this up for you. I was meditating this morning and examining my life, I do that once in a while , and you were heavily on my mind. I feel led to share with you some of the more "meaty" parts of what I believe to be Gods nature and hope you will not be offended by me doing so.
Through my life I have seen a lot of s... and like most of us, I have been through ups and downs. I have seen hypocracy as well as selfishness and more pointedly, evil in various degrees. I have also seen selfless service to mankind, love that passes understanding and saintly behaviour in the extreme. I noticed a few very important and surprising things.
Some people can be way off in their judgement of a situation and speak very eloquently and seemingly with wisdom while they are totally in the wrong, and much to my amazement I found .........God seems to accept this and even facilitate their prolification. (Politicians would sometimes fall into this category but preachers of religion are not far behind). People make wrong choices every day. Some right under our nose, .......and God lets them!!
The Bible and the world are full of sinners and saints heroes and villains. The difference seems to be that some "missed the mark" but kept going in their pride and after a while they became hardened in their opinion and ........."becourse they believed not the love of the truth God sent them strong delusion that they might believe a lie". Others did not.
For a while this used to disturb me. It seemed to me unfair that I should have to labour so much to find out the truth about everything, from choosing a used car, voting, being in a relationship or even ,figuring out what mischief my kids are up to next. I felt that it would be much better if God could somehow just paint the liars and cheats black and the saints white. Then I could work with it. I thought about this on and off for years, and really felt a black and white universe would have been a smarter way for God to do it[;)], till one day I started looking for the benefits, (a positive approach)to this enigma.
The positive results in my life were many. It certainly kept me on my toes, seeing the importance in finding the truth for myself. I also learned a lot from the bad mistakes of others, car buying from crooked salesmen comes to mind here, and generally I became more adept in using my mind, prayers and mental facilities a lot more. I seemed to grow stronger in my faith as well . However, men still continued making wrong choices after I learned this and I kept asking why? Why God I got the lesson and I understand now[:)]. Again I looked at the benefit for this time for the ones making bad desisions. What good is a wrong choice? Well it makes you careful not to repeat it. You learn things like caution and how to use wisdom.So ....benefit all around. No such thinh as a wrong choice then?Or what?
Did that mean that we "should do evil that good may come" (Ofcourse not tho I am still asking about that one[;)]). What about the one who leads others astray. Is he held accountable? I believe he is, it seems that way, in criminal court as well as karma, how things come back to "bite" you. Jesus had very little but very harsh things to say about people like that but I will not qoute this to you, you know the Bible well. As you very well know it is littered with false prophets and various degrees of false teaching. There is right and also wrong in any equation. If there is a truth there have to be falsehood. He said "If you had admitted to being blind you would have had no sin but becourse you say "we see" therefore your sin remains".
If you go write a book, I would warn you . If you make claims that states "I see, follow me or my way", make sure you are also ready to face the fact that you might be wrong and potentially could be leading people astray into a ever spiraling mass of wrong desisions, and you might be held accountable. Choose your words carefully!!!and do not become a blind leader of the blind.
I do not claim to understand all your thoughts but it seems to me that you have stumbeled unto some truth. However it might be scattered grains and not the mother lode so be wise how you interpret this truth, and how you explain it to others. Being a teacher is a awsome responsibility and can be a heavy burden. In any case be assured of my sincere regular prayers for you in the comming months. I wish you all the best and good succes with your project.
Regards Mustardseed
Gandalf,
Your whole post is post hoc and is totally misleading. Just because there are some similarities with pagan myths doesn't mean that Christianity arose from these myths. And not all academics believe that the stories are derived from other myths, so, no, it is not a fact.
The Bible stands on it's own quite well.
quote:
The Bible stands on it's own quite well.
exothen, good statement.
http://www.astralpulse.com/forums/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=8258
This is the link I was telling you about MS.
It may need a little further explaination, but I have to run out of town for awhile. When I get a chance, I'll explain more of what I'm talking about.
One thing I can say now is this. In this same dream book is the meaning of mountain. However, it doesn't fit necessarily in this circumstance of explaining something. This very thing is the cause of some confusion about learning how to understand your own meanings.
We all have unique meanings to our subconscious messages (in form of dreams often). Mountain, to this particular author meant something from her prospective. Learning how to learn your own subconscious language is what I'm trying to get across.
The exciting part is that I have been able to get answers to things that happened in my life by interpreting them like a dream. That's why, when I get a chance to read of any of your experiences, maybe I can pick up a hidden meaning or understanding.
Oops! Almost forgot to mention this MustardSeed. This piece you just wrote is excellent. I identify totally with everything you said.
Making the right choices have been very much my life journey too.
It pays off in the long run. I have the same questions you have though.
Exothen,
You say my article is misleading; however, I believe it is also misleading to say that there is no influence from classical myth in the NT, as if it arose fully sprung from nowhere.
I can assure you that the similarities are such that to deny the conclusion that there is classical influence in the NT stories is just an example of close-mindedness and refusal to look at evidence that doesn't agree with you belief-set.
How do you account for the similarities then? Just coincidence?
Later pagan writers going back and 're-writing' the myths to deceive?
Please elaborate.
Douglas
That's a load of wishful rubbish. It's very factual that there is nothing too original about Islam, Christianity, or Judaism. Judaism formed out of a desert tribal God and was not monotheistic in the least until far later in it's history. It's concepts of heaven, hell, angels, satan, messianism, and judgement all come from integration of persian zoroastrian/chaldean beliefs during the exiles. These Zoroastrian beliefs later shape Christianity, which itself is heavily molded according to the paganistic fellow cults of it's time. Eventually, Islam tries to knot these beliefs into the final revelation of God, and in doing so wind up corrupting and anthropomorphising to perhaps the most extreme extent to date.
Yet, nor were the Aryan's original, with the integration of their gods with those of the Indus peoples. The fact, however, remains that the Eastern area of the world continued an undateable (indus valley art has been found depicting advanced yoga poses) tradition of inner spiritual seeking, which has bred philosophy, subjective religion, and spirituality. This while the Western religions relied on frenzied prophets, heavenly signs, and war.
Tab_
IMO, I've always felt that the eastern religions, or should we say philosophies, have always been far more spritually advanced than the more crass religious dogmas of the western world.
Douglas
Mustardseed, it would appear we don't completely disagree on everything afterall. For we both believe in God, so maybe there is hope afterall... but as to your comments previously... thank you for being thorough and direct, but I dissagree with you on many points (except for the first point) and here they are...
Mustardseed Wrote...
"Since the Bible is a religious book, many scholars take the position that it is biased and cannot be trusted unless we have corroborating evidence from extra-Biblical sources. In other words, the Bible is guilty until proven innocent, and a lack of outside evidence places the Biblical account in doubt."
~This is especially necessary (to argue it's validity) since unlike OTHER historical documents the ardent supporters of the Christian Bible, in the U.S.A. and in some other countries would like to see so many LAWS and Regulations passed in accordance with it. LAWS, POLICY and REGULATIONS that will affect the MAJORITY of Americans who do (while they may believe in a GOD of some form, be it Christian or otherwise...) do not follow the text of the Christian Bible to the letter. And if ANYONE wishes to make the case for Bible-influenced LAWS, POLICY and REGULATIONS that AFFECT ME and many others... then you had BETTER prove that the Bible is at least 65% accurate. I would and many others would NOT wish to have a document with less than that for accuracy and credibility defining the course and means of how we can live our lives.
In fact, it is impossible to prove the Bible is even that accurate. And I'll give you the sites that would support me. And these aren't even Bible-hating sites, they are THE final scholarly authority on the bible. They make any other scholar seem amateurish in comparison... argue if you wish, but even most fundamentalist-bible scholars look to them as an authority on the subject. And if that's the case, that what I just said is in fact correct (and it is...) then maybe just MAYBE... folks better lay off the bible-as-a-historically-viable-document. It is a historical document. Written throughout different time periods, and by the hands of many authors. But accurate, it was not.
It was a document used to support and validate a religious movement that has brought SO much more pain, suffering, and bloodshed as well as hate than it has brought peace and love. Jesus, whoever he is, and wherever he is now, would be thoroughly disgusted with the Christian movement, the Jewish movement, and the Islamic movement. Those three faiths have come a long way since that, but at least they mostly admit that science is right. So why are the fundamentalist protestants saying that...? All three faiths being close cousins of the same root faith... here's those links, but first a quote from that Catholic site...
http://www.epiphanychurch.org/question/question59.htm
"The Church does not agree with those who say that the evolution model denies that God is the creator or that it denies the spiritual reality of the human soul."
And this quote...
"Doesn't the theory of evolution go against the biblical account of creation?
This question can be answered only if we understand clearly what the Bible actually says about creation. A careful reading of the account in the Book of Genesis indicates clearly that the so-called "six day" account of the creation is a poetic description of the origin of the world, which makes two points very clear: first, that everything in the universe was created by God and that, therefore, contrary to what some other religions teach, nothing in creation is to be worshipped as though it were a god or a part of God. The story of the creation in the Book of Genesis in the Bible is not, and was never meant to be, a scientific document giving the scientific details of how the universe came into being and how it has developed since its origins.
The view prevailing among most theologians today is that there is no conflict between the evolution model of the origin and development of life "
http://www.2think.org/pope.shtml
- A VERY good Jewish site supporting the Bible and Darwin's Theory of Evolution as compatible.
http://www.hanefesh.com/edu/Evolution.htm
- on life elsewhere in the universe...say... Mars?
http://www.jewishsf.com/bk960816/usmars.htm
- a Islamic site where they go into NOT that Darwin was wrong, they talk about things he missed, and that he wasn't the FIRST to theorize it, and that the Quran teaches it as well as the BIG BANG...
"In contrast, the Quran describes the formation of the universe as a big bang, beginning with the creation of the heavens and the earths. The plurality of these terms is stressed in order to indicate that there are numerous galaxies. Next, the formation of water, the development of the land, and the creation of plants and animals took place (7:54, 41:9-12, 21:30, 44:7, 78:37). This account coincides with current scientific data. For example, according to the Quran, humans were created in the fourth period on earth, and geologists have concluded that humans appeared in the quaternary, or fourth, era. Furthermore, the Quran indicates that water was the first thing created on earth, and this is also supported by the scientific conclusion that water is the basis of life. Plus, the Quran advocates evolutionary change (15:19-21), unlike the Christian scriptures. Not all religions conflict with science, as has been shown of Islam. Many of the ideas present in the Quran have been adopted by evolutionists. Today, many Christian scholars have reluctantly compromised traditional theories and are willing to accept the scientific data concerning evolution; however, they maintain that the biblical accounts are symbolic and inspired by God."
http://www.icgt.org/MonitorPastArticles/IslamicEvolution.htm
Go ahead, debate me on Darwin's Theory of Evolution, debate me on the Big Bang, debate me on carbon dating... but I too have some religious heavy-weights in MY corner backing up the theory I support. We (religious authorities and myself) may not agree exactly on everything, but they wouldn't agree with fundamentalist thinking. Good to see Reason and Science haven't left their true home, the churches.
Mustardseed wrote....
"The first problem is seen in the very approach in the presumption that must be made in the level of Carbon 14 the organism had while living. Here we have a critical calculation that is based upon an assumption that an organism which lived thousands of years previous, of which there are no modern species to compare, developed a specific level of Carbon 14 from an environment we know nothing about. If for example, the presumption is inaccurate by only 10%, considering that it is the rate of decay that forms the mathematical constant, the inaccuracy of the calculation of age at the upper limit would be tens of thousands of years.
The very basis for the assumption above is another problem, and is perhaps the most embarrassing for the proponents of radiocarbon dating. To assume a particular level of Carbon 14 in an organism requires a precise determination of environmental (atmospheric) levels of the same"
~ Here then is some verified FACT that should allay your fears and points... .
"The last problem to solve is the amount of C-14 in comparison to the amount of C-12 in the atmosphere. C-12 levels need to be verified as constant over the last 50,000 years or so. Going back to our analogy, this would be like seeing a new dead person with the 20 dollars in his pocket. However, how would we know that in ancient times, the taxman didn't collect every 50 years instead of the 500 years that he does now? In the case of C-14 dating, we somehow have to determine that the amount of C-12 in the atmosphere 50,000 years ago is fundamentally the same as it is today's atmosphere. At this point, our analogy starts to lose its exact correlation here but radiometric dating should be more understandable now. This is exactly one of the loudest arguments that Young-Earth scientists use against C-14 dating today. They claim that the amount of C-12 in the atmosphere decreased dramatically when the flood of Noah took place.
How much C-14 was there at the time of Noah's flood?
The first point to be dealt with is the "carbon level increase" assuming a global flood. To answer this argument scientifically we need to compare carbon ratios of today to those dating before the flood took place. If we are able to determine that the C-12/C-14 ratio is close to the same as it is today, we will have falsified (proved wrong) Brown's flood/carbon hypothesis. It turns out we do have a way to compare the carbon levels of today to pre-flood times through tree rings.
Tree Rings and C-14
The study of climatic changes through tree rings (Dendrochronlogy) started in the 1920s. In simple terms, dendrochronolgists can determine past seasonal climates by looking at the rings of trees. In certain species of trees, a ring will appear wider if the weather has been wet. During a dry season, a ring will be much narrower. A ring is established by the change from spring to winter. During the spring, a tree adds new, large cells to the outer layer. As winter approaches, the cells are smaller in contrast; thus establishing each year that has passed.
The science of dendochronology does not have an "agenda" to either prove evolution or disprove Young Earth creationism. They are simply studying the recent history of climatic changes. The neutral position of this science is good for both sides of our examined arguments. An interesting side point is that they are able to date volcanic explosions by examining its effects in affected rings.
There are no known living trees over 5,000 years old, so how could anyone know about building a tree chronology back to pre-flood times? The answer lies in building a chronology from dead trees onto the live trees. The method for building tree chronology is very simple and extremely sound as well. The key is to find a standing dead tree that had an overlapping life with a living one. By using this method, rings can be compared or visually overlaid (think of two viewgraphs) to add the number of standing dead trees rings to the number of rings of live trees. Another verification is to find the ring damage in both sets of trees resulting from the volcanic activity along with matching rings. Once these dates have been established, more tree ring chronology can be added by comparing fallen dead tree rings to the standing dead tree rings (See Figure on tree rings.)
This allows us to build a chronology of trees past 9,000 years, past the time of Noah's flood. This allows us to see if there is a dramatic difference in C-12 by examining trees that existed before Noah. Scientists can check how many C-14 per C-12 atoms there were in the atmosphere during every century all the way back through the tree ring chronology by checking the carbon-14 dating wood from these very old trees. Using this method in the Bristlecomb Pine trees, carbon-14 dating has been checked back to over 9000 years ago"
(the link were you will find this info and SO much more...) http://www.nightskypix.com/radiometric.htm
They, the scientists that use carbon dating have double checked and triple and... (so-on) checked the validity and accuracy of carbon dating against carbon-based objects that BOTH camps (the fundamentalist Christian groups and the ardently Scientific groups) knew the age of. In other words, it was used on objects both camps knew the precise age of and was found to be dead-on accurate. A test that should allay any doubts to it's precision and validity.
Mustardseed wrote...
"Moreover, it is established fact that the earth's magnetic field has been in a constant decline in strength2, which would have vigorously protected the earth from the same radiation, all but negating the production of Carbon 14 and thereby minimizing the ambient amount available for absorption by living things. Yet these two facts are virtually unknown in modern society, and it seems never associated with radiometric dating, apparently since it would put such method (and indeed its findings) in doubt as to its reliability."
~Not so, (I refer you to the above quote} besides, most communication buffs, and amateur rock hounds, scientists, professional or otherwise have known this. Anyone who does any amount of spelunking in the Canadian Shield, a place that I used to call home for nearly three decades and is famous for rendering modern compasses obsolete due to the strong magnetic interference of the area, an effect that is only ENHANCED or DIMINISHED by the ambient magnetic field of the earth.
Mustardseed, not everyone is a geographically or earth-science ignorant as that statement of yours would suggest. Maybe in the circles you run in it is a problem, but in mine... you either know where you're going or you and you're hunting client could be in DEEP excrement. In short, REALLY, REALLY LOST. And as the hunting guide, or outdoors-adventure guide (that would be you...) you'd be out a few thousand dollars, maybe with a lawsuit pending, with your reputation going down the crapper fast, and maybe, just maybe in some REAL physical danger. And they're not the only ones who would need to know that. But still, enough folks know that the Earth's magnetic field has been in decline for long enough now, that it makes for a strange statement to assume that the scientific community wouldn't know that. In fact, right now we're traveling through a region of space that is INCREASING the magnetic field disturbance right through our entire Solar System. A situation that has been causing the increasing frequency of Solar Storms which affect a LOT of areas. So, no, that's a wrong statement to make about the scientists. Maybe about general lay-people, but not scientists as a whole. And especially not those responsible for carbon dating.
Mustardseed wrote...
"Here are the two great motivations that underlie the motivation for following after evolution and its requisite dating: for absent God, there is no accountability; absent God creating, then evolution and man would be the height of achievement, the top of the scale. Note that the serpent is trying to convince Eve that she will not be held accountable, that the results God had warned of would not be applicable to her; man has sought to be free from accountability ever since. Note also that man's (Eve's) status would change, that he would be as high up the scale as any other created thing, perhaps beyond. Evolution provides both of these things at once, and apparently man's desire for them is greater than he has for the truth. Just as the progenitor of mankind, Eve, was misled by the serpent, society today is being misled regarding the sufficiency and truth of what science really purports; the great irony is that it is apparently for the same reason."
William B. Tripp, Ph.D, D.Th.
18 March 2002
~Great points by a Doctor of Theology (religious studies) no less... but the science he claims is not being held accountable pales in comparison to the crime of an absent God who is not being held accountable for the actions of his flock. I can, even if some don't believe it, I can with facts and logic prove my points, and if I'm wrong, I'll ask for the proof of it, I'll then check it out and if it is correct... I'll change my point of view. But this isn't the case for fundamentalist Christianity... doesn't it bug you that the light of reason steers so far away from the dogma of the existence of creationism?
Case in point..." Note that the serpent is trying to convince Eve that she will not be held accountable, that the results God had warned of would not be applicable to her; man has sought to be free from accountability ever since."
Sounds to me like a guilt-inducing device cleverly woven into the statement to gently guide people away from thinking for themselves and ALWAYS trusting what God, and by association his faiths stewards... the CHURCH has to say.
I do believe God exists Mustardseed, but I also believe in reason, logic and compassion. I believe that God gave us a brain to think, dream and be curious. And to deny what is fact is to ultimately deny what God himself created...
No one had a chance to debate that theory of Creationism, it was rammed down our throats centuries back by a barbaric church who'd persecute anyone who questioned it. And maybe it's because of that LONG history of violent oppression that the seeds for an Anti-Religious movement sprung up. And that could explain the knee-jerk "love-it-or-hate-it" attitude/reaction that has greeted the theory of evolution and the creationist theory.
Some day perhaps, a better theory will come about to surpass the theory of evolution, or at least augment it and bring it into better clarity. But it certainly won't be a creationist viewpoint. Not by any stretch of the imagination. Reason, logic, truth, justice, and the democratic process will win out over dogmatic fundamentalism and isolationist thinking any day of the week.
Lastly, chew on this... to: Mustardseed and your followers... if you doubt this, do your homework. You're information has been proven in error for the most part and unsubstantiated by and SIGNIFICANT or established scientific or religous body. And I will continue to debate this with you using all the tools in fact, reason, logic and science that there are at my disposal to do so. If you would just have your belief without trying so vehemently to MAKE THE WHOLE WORLD BELIVE in you I think you'd find that the "live and let live" philosophy would reward your movement. But as long as you INSIST that it's doctrine truth and as long as movements such as yours continue to chip away at the public knowledge, I and/or folks like myself will be there to debate you and bring the public discourse and knowledge back to a reasoned, logical, and compassionate place. Instead of the dogmatic, embattled, illogical and highly divisive message I hear from so many a fundamentalist.
""Dealing with another "Faulty" reason for discarding Carbon Dating
When I started reading Young Earth literature, I found the arguments against carbon dating very strong. I remember reading a book that told of a Yale study about carbon dating. They quote the study as coming up with three significantly different ages when dating a single sample. It turns out this is true, but very incomplete. Any good report on science will have been based on an beginning to end understanding of a given study. I thought as I read, 'How can anyone rely on this method? It is obvious that Carbon dating is inaccurate!' It becomes obvious that the authors were either very dishonest or simply found only enough facts to use to rebut the studies findings. This would be like someone quoting half a Bible verse to suit the needs of their argument when taking the whole verse clearly disproves their position. When I read Stoner's book a couple of years later I was appalled at the bad research that was put into this study by my Christian brothers. Quoting Stoner again:
'This acid wash was apparently misunderstood in one young-earth argument which claimed that, "Yale University dated an antler three different times and got three different ages - 5,340 years, 9,310 years, and 10,320 years." We might picture in our minds a very confused scientist until we check the original source where we find that the three dates were:
o the antler when it was contaminated with recently formed limestone - 9,310 years,
o the antler after the limestone had been washed out - 10,320 years,
o and the limestone itself which had been washed out into the acid - 5,340 years.
And so, when we look more closely, this turns out to be a perfectly reasonable set of measurements.'
Limestone contains a great deal of Carbon-14 and needs the acid wash to get the accurate results. It is very easy to come across this kind of 'take what only half the facts and ignore the rest of a study' tactics by creationists too many times."
"Potassium-Argon Radiometric Dating
For dates older than about half a million years, the potassium-argon dating method is an effective way to date volcanic materials. Why is this important? Because if we can find fossils that are very close in distance to the material left behind by volcanic eruptions, dates of these fossils can be closely estimated to be close to the age as the surrounding volcanic material. In other words, if we find a animal fossil 4 inches below the hardened lava, we can assume that the timing of both the animal's death and the volcanic eruption is close. The date of the volcanic material is ascertained through the potassium-argon dating method. Quoting again from Donald Stoner:
'By measuring the amount of potassium-40 in the sample and the amount of argon which is released when the sample is re-heated in a laboratory, it can be determined how long ago a particular volcanic eruption occurred. As of 1996, a new potassium-argon technique, single-crystal laser-fusion dating, gives a margin of error less than one percent. Errors as small as +/-10,000 years are claimed in dating three-million-year-old volcanic ash... The K-Ar method is useful for determining the ages of the various strata in a segment of the geologic column. When a volcano erupts, ash is spread over a large area of ground. Later, it may become buried. Thus, volcanic ash can often be found between layers of earth. If a pure sample of that ash can be analyzed, then a real date can be assigned to that level of the column. A scientist will know that any fossil found "below" that level is older than the ash. That fossil must have been buried before the volcano erupted or the ash would not have fallen on layers above it. Likewise the scientist knows that fossils which he finds in layers "above" the ash are more recent. Occasionally a scientist will be lucky enough to find a fossil sandwiched closely between two datable layers and can know the age of his find quite accurately.'
As you may have figured out from this quote, dating of older fossils can be determined by the accuracy of this method. Therefore, the fossils of dinosaurs and such are shown to have lived more than 500,000 years ago.
Other Radiometric Dating Techniques
There are over 40 radiometric dating in use today. Can all these techniques be wrong? If so, what is the basis for discrediting each of them. For a Christian perspective of of the most sound techniques, see Radiometric Dating A Christian Perspective by Dr. Roger C. Wiens of the Division of Geological & Planetary Sciences California Institute of Technology."
http://www.nightskypix.com/radiometric.htm
Dear GR
If you want to look back in the threads I have been involved in you will find some things that might surprise you.(check it out)
I NEVER claimed that I have proof, I never agressed and started bashing astral pulsers. I have always claimed "I believe" others however including Beth as well as BR has spent a considerable amount of time attacking my right to Believe stating I have no proof!!!!and I am a fool for believing things I cannot prove. I am on no quest. Have no agenda. I came here to learn about OBEs as I was having some and after sending a thanks to RB was barraged with various Buddhist prozelytism Hindu doctrine as well as all sorts of other beliefs. I was challenged and Baited as RB called it, I came to compare notes. My belief ....your belief. I have at times felt pushed to include points from various christian sites, to add to the information but have been met with an almost hatefull and very agressive attitude. Beth sent me PMs telling me she feels I am two faced and will nolonger talk to me becourse I dare to question....only question her research and statements. In my opinion an all too sensitive PHd wall flower with no real attachments or value in real life (sorry Beth but you are not talking to me anyway[;)]). All theory !!!Give me a break and get off your white horse GR. Lets be friends and lets just explore the possibilities. And if we do not agree /.....for goodness sake lets behave as adults and agree to disagree.
Regards Mustardseed
I don't know where I was being offensive or sitting 'on-high' in my previous statements (at least those on page 3), point them out then if that's what you believe.
But you need not fear me being "offended" to the point of not talking to you. I just treat verbal or written debates like Randori. I get serious, I get physical, and when the dust settles, if you've whooped my butt with facts and truth. I will hand it to you. If not, the beer's on you, so-to-speak.
I don't see you-yourself as being particularly offensive at all. But I reread what I wrote, and other than challenging, I fail to see the offense. I just stated what I believed, backed it up with links, quotes, or both. I threw in my own personal conjecture and opinion and left it at that. I would like to get to know you and where you stand on neutral ground, so why don't we p.m. each other... sounds about as good as any other way of learning about each other.
...
Thats cool w me, pm sounds fine I actually enjoy your posts!. PS we won the world series anyway[;)]
Mustardseed,
You wrote:
quote:
In my opinion an all too sensitive PHd wall flower with no real attachments or value in real life
THAT kind of comment is why I do not want to engage with you anymore--NOT because you have asked questions that I refuse to answer. I have tried my level best to answer all of your questions to the best of my knowledge, but "you can't see" what I am showing to you--or you just won't. It is the personal attacks on this public forum and then the all "too nice--let's be friends" Private Messages
that you have sent to me that brought about my response of your being "two faced" and--my wishing no more contact with you. You throw insults around in public, and then try to smooth them over in private. I don't play stupid games like that Mustardseed. I choose my friends very carefully, and at some point the buzzer must go off in all "debates" and/or the bell must ring at the end of all classes. Between your position and mine--the buzzer has gone off for the last time--our "debate" is over. I do wonder, however, who you will "blame" after tomorrow night when I go on sabbatical and how long you are going to hide behind a comment that RB made to you two months ago??? Your "enemies" have left the building for a while...
Shinobi--
Very nice comparative presentation of Buddhism and Christianity! I learned a lot ! Thanks! I find comparative studies between the ancient occidental and oriental fascinating. I agree that this does not prove that they are the same, and instead of trying to figure out "what religion came from what other/older religion" this makes me really wonder about some even bigger questions, such as--"Are these ideas offered to us globally during certain periods of time, ideas that are very much the same but only interpreted against the backdrop of different cultures?" And--if this is the case, then is it "human nature" to only accept the aspects that are most "pleasing" to a particular culture at a particular time?"
I wonder about this because I have no doubt that there is--right now--a great deal of activity between this plane of existence and others. I also highly suspect that this was also the case during say 500-300 b.c.e. and 100 bce-200 ce (just to name two other periods.) I want to know more about this activity and how and why it takes place as it does. Do you ever wonder about this? Ghost Rider,
Great argument on Evolution vs creationism! Catholicism, ironically, is a lot more "hip" to a non-literal reading of the bible than protestantism usually is. Most especially about the first five books, Genesis - Deut. There is most definately a frenzied desperation on the part of fundamentalists to hang on with all their might to a doctrine that will just not stand the hands of much more time. I agree wholeheartedly with you that reliance on a literal, inerrant interpretation of the bible is way out of line for the 21st century. The madness has got to stop. There are, however, some really good theologians, ministers and scholars who are doing all that they can to save Christianity from dying altogether. Whether good or not, I am one of these. I do not want to see it die, I want to see it re-formed again, into a religion that speaks ancient wisdom to post-modern ears. From my research I know that the ancient Christians had OBE's, visions, lucid dreams, and yes--felt that they were having to fight off at times, otherworldly demons. But this information is found in the biblical texts themselves, brillantly preserved through the use of allegory and proper name interpretation, and the works of ancient scholars proves that they knew about this too. So much of what this board is all about, are the very same things that the earliest Christians were also exploring, contemplating and trying to figure out together. I 'believe' that there is a lot that can be salvaged from Christianity once the hard-nosed defenders of an illogical dogma finally "open their eyes." Keep debating this--you are very good at it--and I will go write my book. It will take all of us, across the entire globe, to untangle the huge mess that has been created. Peace to all,[:)]
Beth p.s. I really like this "color thing"!! I wish I had used it much earlier...[:D]
Right you are Beth and my bells went off about 2 months ago when you first started your tirades, or "crusade", or whatever. I think you are just not used to have anyone question you!. You sound like a teacher who gets angry every time someone dares to insinuate you could be wrong. One of our younger members commented to me in a PM : "she sounds like my mum". I find that an interesting observation. You see since you get so offended by being questioned,and it takes so little to throw you off course and you get so bitter against folks who do not see eye to eye with you, but instead have the opinion that all opposition must be refuted all dissent has to be argued down and silenced and there is only one way to "interpret" the Bible, you bring yourself and your own motives into question!!!you become a modern day backward inquisition. You become the persecutor!!!But this will ofcourse never be actually read and taken serious by you, I do not expect you will be even considering the possibility that this could be true. Instead you will most likely slam the computer shut in a fit of hurt pride and maybe sit there and get all tearful, thinking resentful thoughts. It is my opinion that a person who is so easily hurt and offended as you are are not very strong spiritually, thus my statement. They have no real cutting power in real life, their life is so often steeped in "self" that they end up wasting away like a flower without water. Life is all in books and theories. I still say to you, I am so sorry we did not get along I honestly am, but I am not going to have a good relationship with you at the cost of my principles. So have it your way, dont ever talk to me again, or come down from your high hill among us normal people to compare notes not to pontificate lecture and expound, be a fellow traveler!.
Mustardseed, settle down there!
ok, egos have been bruised, things have been said on both sides etc...
The best thing is for you both to leave each other alone for a while, like you say, although for eternity might be a bit over the top!
Perhaps in a few weeks/months/years things will have settled down a bit in order that a reasoned discussion can take place.
------------------------
Anyway,
Beth, I agree with your comments about symbolic meanings verses literal ones. Certainly in Europe, especially amongst 'catholics' and even amongst the 'protestant' community, the general consensus amongst christians is that the bible and christianity is of a more symbolic, metaphorical and ultimatly more spiritual nature. As you quite rightly say, most reasonable people do have problems accepting that the OT is literal fact, for example!
However, there are still a small hardcore group who are still attatched to the idea of the bible as literal fact. This small group is nevertheless highly vocal, but they ARE a minority amongst the
christian population here.
I'm sure I will be slated for this one, but I do think that some people prefer to take a completely literal view of the bible as it is a 'no-brainer', it requires no depth of thought, rather it is just a question of learning passages by rote and obeying 'the commandments'. This is the tool by which the organised church has controlled the masses for centuries, but this period is coming to an end, and I might add, they know it.
They see any interpretation other than literal as a direct attack on their beliefs; they do not have the will-power to spend time looking at the deeper symbolic meanings; such an approach requires too much effort, and besides it is more challenging and dangerous, as it requires free-thought and a willingness to come to your own conclusions rather than someone else doing it for you.
As you will know, the conflict between the literalists and the 'symbolic/metaphoricals' has raged in christian circles since day one. During the Roman period (esp before nicea 325), there were several 'strains' of christianity but eventially conflict arose between the 'gnostics' (who viewed the texts in a more symbolic/metaphorical manner) and the hardcore, literalists; as for Emperor Constantine himself, he couldnt really care, he just wanted a consensus!
Eventially the gnostic branch were hunted down and persecuted.
However, I have always wondered about the the 'chicken & egg' situation here.... Can anyone really prove who came first... gnostics or literalists?
Modern day gnostics say that the scriptures were always written in a highly symbolic manner for initiates while the lay-man took them at face value.
Literalists have always said that the scriptures have always been designed to be taken at face value because they are, quite simply, FACT. The gnostics on the other hand are just a bunch of subversive heretics who started reading meaning into things that were'nt there and they have quite rightly burned in the purifying flames of righteusness (to use the language of early christian texts!).
Will we ever know which came first?
Regards,
Douglas
Thats an interesting point actually. Lets assume people "chose" to interpret literally? I tend to agree with you that at least some make this choice becourse it is a "no brainer" as you call it. I was talking to wy wife about this yesterday. It seems that this is a common thing here in the states. It is a neat little package great for folks who wants the faith wrapped up nicely and then get on with their material life.
However on the other hand i am also surprised why is ist that so many reject the notion of a literal bible, and in forums like this voice such agressive rejection of it. I believe they think if the Bible is literal God must have stopped speaking and that is all there is!!!"there are no more worlds to concour"so to speak, which is not true. The churches has succesfully spread the notion that they have a monopoly on spirituality, that any spirituality within their walls are ok, but must be limited to known manifestations such as prayer and maybe some speaking of tounges. Anything done outside of this confine is by definition evil. No OBEs no deeper mysteries no nothing, and people want real spirituality and reject this falsehood and leave in droves. They seem to have created a system much like the political world we live in, by which they keep a few warmed and well fed , but throw the masses into the cold snow to fend for themselves.
However this is a principle of LIFE and seems to be a by product of humanity. The minute the Christians left the arena and started sitting in the grandstands, their morals and faith was tarnished, and God had to call out a new "church" they then in time migrated from the opressed to the opressors and the whole thing repeats. I see this principle in many aspects of life, politics, contries wars teachers pupils, sports etc.
As for myself I think my reason differ, but maybe not. Maybe I want a nice little package, I am praying about it. I do know for sure that there are much much more to the truth than can be contained in just one book and I believe that God speaks today. I am not really very concerned with finding proof, as I prove my faith daily, but I want to have the freedom to believe the literal Bible without being disrespected, hailed as a fool or have folks insinuate that I do not want the truth, their truth, but "WANT" the Bible to be true. I stated that I find it odd that so many insist on proof in thread after thread post after post while at the same time give heed to a multitude of very questionable theories, masters, reincarnation, OBEs, reptillian invasions , UFO abductions, no proof needed. But I find that this question of mine is ignored. Beth did not answer that but instead got offended by my choice of words. She has put words in my mouth that are not true, saying "my enemies have left" I have no enemies here, at least I do not count them enemies. I have things to say but feel ignored and I do get a bit irritated at that. Anyway I will calm down. Maybe you could answer my question and the last 3-4 posts. Is there someone here who has the grace to take a laugh at themselves. I was praying about the issues above and was "led" to the story of how God fed the Israelites the Manna from Heaven. It seems that the manna represents the TRUTH of God. Every generation can only take what they need and anyone who tries to hoard it (churches and seclusionists and others who believe their truth is exclusive) will find that the food they thought they had has turned rotten. The Spirit of God will make it appear again though, and if they will labour (search explore and compare notes) for it they can always be well fed . God has no grand kids every generation has to find Him for themselves, and become a child of God on their own merit.
Regards Mustardseed
Mustardseed,
I find it an interesting point you make about me (and others) demanding evidence about the bible while acccepting other theories without the same degree of verification.
You are quite right in pointing out this hypocracy!
I suppose it depends on the nature of the evidence. I have some experience of the astal through my own exploring; I have used this experience to construct a world view, as we all do.
My astal experiences, I regard as valid evidence *for me* because it is learned through *personal experience*. When I read of other accounts and they seem to co-orelate with my own then I give them a higher weight of validity *within my own world view*.
However, it is impossible of course to apply some kind of academic standard in tyring to validate such personal data as this is something that can only be learned though personal experience.
I would say that the bible, because it is a written text, CAN be tested by normal textual criticism and there is no harm in doing so. Because it is out there in the 'objective world' and has its own history etc which can be studied, I dont see any problem with applying standard critisism to it; any logical conclusions that arise from the study of it are quite valid.
What am I saying?
well, I still think it is right to criticise textual evidence in the normal manner, but it is invalid to apply the same criticism about personal experience that *may have arison from studying such text.*
ie this is really about personal experience vs information.
so personal revelations experienced by anyone, whether it is through studying the bible or asrtal dynamics is quite valid as it is learned through personal experience, but simple textual material itself is just that, and can be validated by the normal academic method.
I suppose its two kinds of testing methods for two different forms of data, you cant use the same method for testing both, as both are so different.
Also, the main problem is that texts on the astral/spirit guides etc are all describing the non-physical world and therefor there is no way to validate them through normal means, you either believe it, based on your own experiences, or you don't.
However, texts (like the bible) which pertain to 'the real world' ,that is the physical world, because they claim to detail events in our own world, CAN be subjected to normal analysis, and therefor, they should.
hmmm, I don't know if any of that makes sense, I have a valid point I'm trying to make here but I dont seem to be able to articulate it properly today!
Regards,
Douglas
Gandalf,
I do understand what you are saying. There are several different ways of "knowing what we know." (Academically speaking, epistemic methods.) I know that I have personally experienced many things, both from astral connections as well as from academic study. I found, much to my own comfort, that the ancients experienced much the same thing. A quick excerpt from my book about Philo will have to suffice for now:
quote:
Philo relates that periodically he had mystical experiences in connection with his exegetical activity. In De specialibus legibus 3:1-6 Philo recounts his mind's inspired ascents, in which he travels in the upper air, sometimes together with heavenly bodies. These ascents lift him up from the cares of the physical world, and further give him a "bird's eye perspective and a hermeneutical key to the Law of Moses." According to De cherubim 27-29 Philo at times heard a voice speaking in his soul; oftentimes his soul seemed "god-possessed," prompting his mind to grasp a deeper meaning of a text or an idea. Finally, Philo reports having had "ecstatic experiences with loss of consciousness" in conjunction with an experience of "Light." Peder Borgen believes that with such a variety of mystical experiences, the accounts refer to actual personal experiences of Philo, and not merely literary compositions made up by him as an author. It is very easy for a critic or skeptic to dismiss accounts such as these to the realm of literary creativity, or even an overactive imagination, but this only serves to prove that the critic has never before had such an experience. In the life of a mystic, personal experiences are just that—and to other mystics, accounts such as these are taken at face value.
I have spent several hours this morning preparing another post that will follow this one, but I went ahead and made this post first because I think it is a very important aspect of being able to rise above the literal interpretation of scripture. This is how the ancients did it, and yes, I have been very blessed to have also experienced some of these most exceptional "ways of knowing." The method in which knowledge comes to me, I "Know" from my own experience. The method of interpretation that I offer here does come from "my experiences" but more importantly it is the method of interpretation that came to some of the ancients in the same way. I have marveled time and time again at this most remarkable phenonmena that has repeated itself time and time again through history.
Peace,
Beth
The above has been excerpted from: Fire on the Water: Proper Name Exegesis and Language Based Mysticism, Beth Phillips, copyright 2003, all rights reserved.
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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.
Mustardseed_
I will be replying to your comments regarding your missionary work shortly (when I can get some spare time)...
Douglas
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
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.
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.
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
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]
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
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?
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
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
...
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
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
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.
Pardon?
Douglas
quote:
Originally posted by 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.
You know, you had me untill you said that, lol! Man's idolatry of God and/or Gods has placed mankind in more trouble and pain than ANYTHING else. In fact I'll go the complete opposite of you and state that if mankind would learn to love himself, express himself, and respect himself and his fellow human brothers and sisters with a FRACTION of the zeolous reverence that mankind has shown GOD... then we'd be in a better place right now. A much better place. Remember, when a soup kitchen is openened, when a new after-hours school is opened up in a grimy, rundown part of town for adults who dropped out of high school. When a vaccine is found, or a baby is born... it is MAN who created and continues that. God, is NOWHERE to be found. In all the videos of ALL the births I've seen, GOD isn't in them. I don't see him at the unemployment lines helping folks out, and I CERTAINLY don't see him risking his life in combat to give medical aid to a fallen comrade.
To place the credit for ALL the good in the world in God's hands is to FORGET that it was HUMANS who did that. It is servile, and disrespectful to the achievements we, as a race have accomplished. Yes, MAN has caused many a problem, but that's more to do with the fact that we're mortal and fallable. Not perfect.
I always get a kick out of it when I hear someone thanking Jesus or God or Allah for the good that's happened, for the success that THEY accomplished, etc... Yet, when tradegy happens we're not supposed to blame God, or if it did happen for a reason, it was God's will. As if that makes it right.
Why is that most believers take the standpoint that all the GOOD in life is because of GOD, and all the BAD in life, well, that's another guy's fault, or Satan, the greatest FALL-GUY/SCAPEGOAT of all time...
Bulls**t I say, stop being down on humanity and realize the strength that MANKIND posesses. Untill then all you'll be is a servant, and not a master...
Exactly..
I subscribe to the neoplatonist theory that we (all of humanity) IS god, we are all aspects of god filtered down through the pyramid of creation. All these individual sparks of life as aspects of god, testing itself.
Therefor, we should not praise god as if god is somewhere above looking upon us and judging us. We should praise ourselves and our achievements as things belonging to US; as we ARE god, there is no division.
This is where christianity and all other monotheistic religions f**k up IMO.
They are so hung up on the monotheistic vs polytheistic thing that they are blind to the fact that the reality lies somewhere between the two.
IMO I think a panatheistic view is more realistic, in that everything IS god or god IS everything.
It then follows that going up the heirarchy you will come across beings/aspects of god who are higher in power than us, some in fact are 'godlike' as far as we are concerned, in this way to say there are many gods is quite correct.
In fact you can say there is many gods AND one god... at the same time!
When you come down to basics, the term 'god' is just a word.. I have long held the opinion that this term should be discarded as it has a bad history.
Douglas
GhostRider,
Just because MOST people don't know who or what God is,doesn't make it God's fault. If anything, that too shows how faulty man's thinking is, along with everything else. Those in the know (not meant to sound superior but with a different view) and are into the essence of who God truly is, have a different prospective. Church could be a different place, or maybe not be necessary if enough people really recognize God.
Man use's God like they use everybody else. Your right about how people should learn to love and respect themselves, and this would lead to love and respect of others. Your right about expression too. Too bad man's world doesn't allow free expression of man. This is a society or culture problem, not God's. I find most people are constrained by senseless and absurd laws (based on badness as opposed to goodness). Man's work has it's own set of limits as well. They must conform to a fake hierarchy (the need to be right all the time). This being an imitation of God's hierarchy, which has a totally different purpose, if most people were not so ignorant. By ignorant I do not mean stupid, I mean not knowing (God's language is misunderstood too.) There wouldn't be a soup kitchen in God's system. There wouldn't be a need for a vaccine in God's system either.[:)] God's not in it because man is running the show, nothing wrong with that. God's into miracles, but only if man takes the first step.
Man is into mortality by choice. Man's imperfection is not the problem, man's attitude is the problem (about self and God).
I find it hard to explain my view compared to yours. To me there is more than one side to God. God too has a good side, it's just that man seems to keep bring out his worst side.
Gandulf,
I have to agree with about everything you said.I can't see why pantheism has to exclude the concept of God as a person. I never could understand why someone can't believe in somone like God, although it requires no energy or effort.This holds true about the salvation by Jesus. Can't one just "plug it in" and then move on? Isn't this the same stubborness as you claim about christians? [:)]
It's interesting that universal law parallels God's law.
I catch your concepts and I do know it's hard to describe.You did give me the picture. I have my own mental picture of it. It's constructed like a pyramid as well.
I hope I didn't come off too harshly Wisp. But my point being was mainly that while I believe in a God that rules over us. I don't think he'd have given us a brain, curiosity, compassion, etc... if he didn't expect us to take the lead with it. My thought is is that he's like a father figure, taking a hand's-off approach to us, and allowing us to learn our own mistakes. Hoping that one day we equal the abilities of the being (or beings) who created us, and hopefully proud of us if we exceed our design capabilities...
Wisp_
The reason I dont subscribe to the ideas of god as a 'person' or god as Jesus, Allah sending the prophets etc is that I think the level of consciousness at the top, the ALL as it were, is really so far away from our concept of 'personality' that there is little use in trying to compare them.
For this reason, I find the notion of the 'All' taking an active interest in the afairs of 'itself' down at this microscopic level as unrealistic.
I think that beings/aspects of itself much further down the line, and closer to our level, interact with us on a more frequent level and these beings are often mistaken as 'god', although of course, as I said, you could be said to be correct in this according to my line of thought, but only in the same way that we are also 'god'. so these beings are not 'better' than us and they certainly dont expect worship of any kind.. worship is a purely human concept imo.
If we regaqrd the pyramid of consciousness as a tree, what is often refered to as the 'tree of life', then we are all leaves, each with our own consciousness but all together we are one. Though meditation it is possible to stop being a leaf and feel what it is like being the tree.
However, most people who have experienced being the 'all', although they find it a most awsome experience, equally find that the 'all' has very little resemblence to god in the western sense of a character with his own personality and so on... this concept is far too human.
So, in the end, we are responsible for our own affairs and our own morality, our own experiences as we are all god testing itself and trying to grow. It is this resaon that IMO rules out concepts of 'divine intervention' etc as this defeats the purpose of learning.
Its a well known fact that you learn best through your own mistakes; having someone else fish you out of problems or lending a hand at every opertunity is self defeating.
However, some people have a problem with this concept as it means they have to take responsibility for their own actions.. I know this sounds basic, but some people actually find this notion scary as they are used to 'god' doing this for them.
If anything good happens it is down to god, if anything bad happens it is the 'devil' (and not god's fault as has been pointed out).
The defects of this idea are glaringly obvious as humanity is devolved of all responsiblity for anything, apart from the act of worship and loyalty to 'god', which is empty and meaningless by itself.
Douglas
Gandalf,
I see your point about the personality thing. Thing is, what about a point of reference or a messaging system. How do you make contact? If all you have is what you have, shouldn't you have something happening? This is my idea about hierarchy....messaging. The triangle or pyramid is as far as I've gotten, it's multi faceted. If it didn't work for me I wouldn't use it, but it does work. Yes, your right about the vastness and size. So far in what I've found is God the personality (I can perceive), and voice (I can hear). Anything beyond that is beyond my steps of discovery. This is in the spiritual sense. You don't need physical proof. You say unrealistic, I say the path is not paved.
Worship is never how I have seen it either. Maybe that does go back to old concepts. It's a word that should be re-defined, like how about contacting. Isn't this word being replaced by worship more these days, "talking to God" for instance?
What's wrong with human? Maybe you are setting human possibilities too low. If there is something more, it's beyond my comprehension. Anything more is getting lost in a maze. Shouldn't one keep a frame of reference?
Mistakes yes, but big ones or little ones? I'll take the little mistakes. The price of the big ones may be too high cost wise. No one has come back to say they were right have they? If so, who has come the closest to this? And, was this measured?
As I mentioned before, people use God like they use other people. You can't make someone not do this. It's a choice they make. People choose to please other people too. This one is a difficult one to get past. It's better I would think to please God than man. To please God is to please your higher self as well, this is in the right direction to me. That's as far as we have come I think.
We're only given as much as what we're safe with. And when push comes to shove, I'm not above worship if I'm headed for a collision.[:)] Some things are beyond our control, no doubt about it.
GhostRider,
You write like someone with a crystal aura. You make change like a shapeshifter, are you?
I agree with what you say in the last post. Your passion for people is wonderful (or so it seems). Not so for me, but I do care about people though. You seem to have the flame or spark for what it's all about. It seems your harshness toward God is a little displaced though.What's going on there?
This is a very interesting subject really and very central to Christianity. If you will refrain from bashing (disagreeing is ok[:)] )listen here.
Your concept of God is true. He is far above us. Actually he does hardly care. In a way he is a unpersonal God and more like a energy. A source, a River or what-have-you!. He is the energy source of the entire universe. He is also somewhat of an enigma to the human brain and feelings. We do not understand Him nor can we concieve his ways. I say he , but we could say she it or whatever. He has no form he is in a sense of the word everything and in everything. I know it sounds oriental but hear me out. He is "in" the very molecules that your body and computer is made of, but he is limited. He has limited himself to certain rules. There are the natural laws , gravity etc and there are the Spiritual laws. The law of retribution, fx . Man is still figuring out the natural ones and OBE ability seem to be somewhere in the middle there, along with telekinesis clairvoiance etc. These are not nessesarily spiritual laws but is connected to the physical body( do this, sit there, concentrate etc)
It seems (the Bible says) that God created man with a little bit of himself inside, but also with Free will. He also created a way for man to be re united with God, Jesus. He (suposedly!)came to earth lived like a man with free will like us. He was later united with God and he is now the acces to God for those who believe and use him. In a sense He in the mediator or the translater or the channeler. He channels Gods truths. His voice is the holy spirit. That is his tool so to speak.
We have free will and are like radio recievers, or rather born with the ability to be recievers. It is like we are powered by batteries (limited power supply) and with faith we can tune in to His broadcasting station. We might think that it is us but it is really His energy broadcasting. However we must continually live our life tuning the Radio. No automatic tuning there [;)]. God moves, it seems as if he changes but he does not change, he moves. His power moves like mighty wawes in the spirit, and it is important that we keep tweaking the signal. Some hit the station by "accident" so to speak, and some look and search. In some the station resonates and they know by intuition this is their station. Others do not. It has also occurred to me that He might be broadcasting different programs at the same time.
So it is true that we are removed from him but we are in his presence through Jesus, who is omnipresent. He can not only multiply himself like negs but his copies all have the same power as the original.
That is just my take on it, and only my opinion.
Regards Mustardseed
Hello Mustardsed_
I think we both agree on the concept of 'god' or 'original primal energy' or 'the All' or however you want to define it. Of course this theory is called panatheism and is quite compatible with monotheistic AND polytheistic ideas as I have described, esp. how these are all just terminologies anyway.
IMO, while I feel that the 'All' or god is to far away from us to be interested, there are beings/aspects of ITself, much further down the line and closer to us that DO take an interest in our affairs to a limited degree.
I think that these beings, some of which may include 'ex humans' often communicate to people using a suitable medium which is generally the popular religions of the time. So in the classical world for example, some of these beings may have communicated to people as an aspect of Zeus or Athena or whatever was appropriate.
In the Christian era, they communicate as being aspects of Christ, or the virgin Mary or somtimes other Saints in Catholic or orthodox chistianity.
In the Arab world, they may communicate as Allah, in Hindu as Shiva etc etc.
Where we differ Mustardseed is that you accept the historical reality of a physical Jesus, which I don't accept; I guess this is just a matter of personal preference. However, even although this is the case, I can still accept the message of christianity, in fact IMO you can still be a christian without having to believe in the historical side of things, because IMO the message is the most important aspect, and this message is transmitted through christianity as well as other religions.
From here we progress to the quality of the medium, ie which religious system best translates the message.
but this is another discussion!
Douglas
I agree with you. You do not have to be a Christian to believe. It says "even the devils believe and they tremble". However there is a point that is a bit obscure. Some, according to the Bible have "a form of Godliness but denying the power there of" It seems to fit what you describe. You see since you do not Believe in Jesus the way some do, you are also prohibited (by your own faith, or lack of faith) to acces this power!!. It is all about this faith we are talking, Right!!
Lets for a while leave the historical facts as we do not seem to be able to get anywhere!! It was a long time ago. There might and there might not be any! so lets talk about how it works, and if it works! Circumstantial evidence you might say. How does faith work?. What does it give you the power to do, believe, acces or endure or whatever. What knowledge what power what insight.
If I might ask you to read a short passage in the Bible I would like your opinion on it it is the 13th Chapter of 1 Corinthians,and you can find it on the net in a Gooble search . If you dont mind, try to read it from the King James translation. If there is anything you would like me to study I will. The chapter is very short but covers our conversasation very well, adding a very different dimension to it.
Regards Mustardseed
MustardSeed,
Great posts! I like your analogy using radio > transmission.
God's presence can make you tremble. I think I was right with God at the time of my spiritual experience(s). I didn't know what a "knee knocking" experience meant until then.
I read the bible chapter you suggested. I couldn't believe it when I saw verse 12. I've been thinking about that verse for some time now. I just didn't know where to find it! Thanks MS!
When I think about God, I think about me standing at the edge of the universe (as we know it). Maybe some people look at it while standing on earth. Maybe it's just one's point of view?
MS, thanks again for your exhilarating words.
Gandalf,
I may be wrong but I've always been under the impression that man had failed God long before our present time. Jesus was a last ditch effort to salvage mankind. This is the love and sacrifice that we (as christians) are grateful for.
Just as the Jewish are not under the same law as christians, could it be that you are have a history or past which makes you not under the same restrictions or requirements? Maybe that's why what we believe doesn't make sense to you.
I will get hold of that passage you mentioned and read it as soon as I get a moment!
Douglas
quote:
Originally posted by wisp
Gandalf,
I see your point about the personality thing. Thing is, what about a point of reference or a messaging system. How do you make contact? If all you have is what you have, shouldn't you have something happening? This is my idea about hierarchy....messaging. The triangle or pyramid is as far as I've gotten, it's multi faceted. If it didn't work for me I wouldn't use it, but it does work. Yes, your right about the vastness and size. So far in what I've found is God the personality (I can perceive), and voice (I can hear). Anything beyond that is beyond my steps of discovery. This is in the spiritual sense. You don't need physical proof. You say unrealistic, I say the path is not paved.
Worship is never how I have seen it either. Maybe that does go back to old concepts. It's a word that should be re-defined, like how about contacting. Isn't this word being replaced by worship more these days, "talking to God" for instance?
What's wrong with human? Maybe you are setting human possibilities too low. If there is something more, it's beyond my comprehension. Anything more is getting lost in a maze. Shouldn't one keep a frame of reference?
Mistakes yes, but big ones or little ones? I'll take the little mistakes. The price of the big ones may be too high cost wise. No one has come back to say they were right have they? If so, who has come the closest to this? And, was this measured?
As I mentioned before, people use God like they use other people. You can't make someone not do this. It's a choice they make. People choose to please other people too. This one is a difficult one to get past. It's better I would think to please God than man. To please God is to please your higher self as well, this is in the right direction to me. That's as far as we have come I think.
We're only given as much as what we're safe with. And when push comes to shove, I'm not above worship if I'm headed for a collision.[:)] Some things are beyond our control, no doubt about it.
Smart, but to help answer a previous question, it's not so much God I have a 'beef' with, it's the people who misuse him and us in his name for their own glorification and dirty little needs. At least an invading army is more 'honest' in that it is a direct and clear grab for power that ALL can see. The fundamentalists in this country and in others aren't direct. They're connivying, back-handed and fork-tongued in the way that they go for the power, and the power they want indeed. They try by influencing the thoughts of the young and old. Creating fear, and mistrust. Seperating folks into camps... perverting the work of real christians. Not that I'm the one and only person who can bestow legitimacy to movements but I and others like me see this happening and it really isn't any better than what the twisted Islamic fundamentalists are doing.quote:
Originally posted by wisp
GhostRider,
You write like someone with a crystal aura. You make change like a shapeshifter, are you?
I agree with what you say in the last post. Your passion for people is wonderful (or so it seems). Not so for me, but I do care about people though. You seem to have the flame or spark for what it's all about. It seems your harshness toward God is a little displaced though.What's going on there?
Hmmm... can you clarify that, me-no-compute...must be that I'm overworked and can't think straight anymore...lol!
Fundamentalists huh? I'm having to think about them from my own personal dealings. I think God has put me at a distance from most of these kind a long time ago. They are an ineffectual (toward good) bunch aren't they? I don't think I like them either. [:)]
I think they do the things you have mentioned. If you can feel your anger, think what God must be feeling? But one must not fall in the same trap as those in the pit. Emotions causes reactions, and regret often times. Thinking (reason) makes a plan and finds a solution. All the while (by good intent), God is dealing with it. Or put another way, universal law comes into play actively.
Are they responsible, or are they just mad? How does one deal with insanity? If their not insane, are they a show to watch? A lesson maybe. You have obviously picked up on their schemes. It's about control, money, and power. They are a collection of insecurity, the desparate, the weak minded, all with a leader with the same problems (plus some).
Tracking evil is a difficult task. So far, God takes care of evil, while the people can only watch. I'm not talking about any particular scenerio or example. I have a few fundamentalists types in my neighborhood. Their creepy as hell. I personally think their possessed. Gee, have I said enough bad things here? [:)]
About all their good for is to show what not to be, or what not to do. But, to get really down to it, the secular population does the same thing (expression of insecurity, weakmindedness,control, etc.). Maybe if one can learn what these concentrated groups do, one can learn more of the same problems dispersed in society at large. That is, if one can see problems in society too.
quote:
Hmmm... can you clarify that, me-no-compute...must be that I'm overworked and can't think straight anymore...lol!
Nevermind, just thinking out loud I guess. [:)]
I'm sorry Adrian, got a little off topic here. I have been looking at the material (Nag Hammadi links offered). I've read a little bit about the Essenes from a friend I email. I'll check on some resources about your question.
Dear AP Members,
I came here the first part of September to share my master's thesis research which reveals a startling discovery about biblical scripture and the writers of that scripture. I had only just begun to share this research when I was heavily criticized and personally attacked for what I had found. Somehow this has turned into "my gospel" or "my belief system."
While this research does reveal a belief system, it is not one of my own making. It was a belief system held by ancient Hellenistic Jews, who were also the earliest Christians. It's message is nothing "new" to us in this day and age, for all we need do to study the same kind of thought is take some philosophy courses, or read some books on Platonism, Stoicism, and the neo-forms of these philosophies. It also coincides well with current thought through Quantum Physics and advanced spiritual exploration such as we have all encountered here on this forum.
Yes, this way of thinking does indeed conflict with what later Christianity offered to its believers. The conflict is massive, for it takes a literary style of communication through allegory and story and took this to be real literal events. It is the same as if 300 hundred years in our future, a group of people took a series of novels by say John Grisham, and made them "history." Archaeological excavation would reveal a lot of things that supported the possibility that the events in these books actually happened, such as numerous documents and artifacts of Washington D.C. or the Supreme Court. But their characters would not show up in any census and no other global historical records would show any evidence of the characters actually existing. Add to this 1,500 more years of insisting on the "history" of these events, and you would have much the same problem we have today—except—John Grisham's novels were not written for any other purpose than to offer us a good story. Biblical scripture on the other hand, was written for a much different reason.
These threads all show a great deal of anger and resentment--not to the originators of this mess--but at each other--the inheritors of all this confusion.
While my research is indisputable evidence of this fictional literary style, my ability is extremely limited here on the AP to offer the actual findings because I do not have a Hebrew and Greek language font to show you what I mean. I tried to illustrate examples with only a small group of words, giving both the English and the Hebrew meanings, in conjunction with the ancient writers who left us this information. The writings of Philo and Origen are not "hidden in the Bible." Their writings can be found in university and public libraries all over the globe. What is hidden in the bible is the Greek philosophy behind their writings.
I have been given a great responsibility by finding this information--a responsibility that I do not take lightly. As these threads show, this will not be an easy task for me--not because the research is not sound--but because people will not take the initiative to really look at what it reveals. It really messes things up for Modern Christianity--it takes away the foundation of it through taking away the literal truth of the writings. BUT--it gives us SO much more. It gives us views of reality that we can really understand today--whereas 2,000 years ago it would have soared right over the head of the masses of uneducated people. We are educated today--we can understand these things much easier.
Where my resentment and anger comes in, is that this conflict has to come into play at all. The accounts of Jesus never should have been peddled as real-life events, and yes, that makes it false doctrine, or "a lie" as many would want to put it. I have tried in my heart and mind to be compassionate to the bishops that sat on those councils so many hundreds of years ago. I truly do not think they knew how all of this would come down. But perhaps my compassion is misplaced. Maybe they did know. Either way--the confusion has gotten so far out of hand now--I am not sure it will ever be cleared up. Christianity is a religion with a vast number of members. My task is very overwhelming.
Mustardseed and Wisp, you are just two of the people that I have encountered vis-à-vis my research and your reactions illustrate to me how difficult my task really is. I will not of course, be in forum communication with all of my readers, I will write a book and it will be hashed out in a number of ways. It is both you and me that I am sad for. You--because you have been sold a story as truth—Me, because I have been given the truth of that story. My heart is very heavy as I write these words, because we three have entered into a battle of wills--you against me and me against you. This is not what I wanted when I first came here--nor is it what I want now.
I came back to the AP the other night for a reason I was not sure of. Idealistically, I thought perhaps I could share with you some of what I am putting in the book. I now know that this is impossible. You are not interested in my research, and while others may be, I will not post it here again for the two of you attack and take it off subject.
But wait--maybe I will post a bit more of it anyway. You are just two people on this forum. There are many others who really are interested. So to these others, keep in mind when you are reading this that these words were written a few thousand years ago, and the style of writing is much like that found in the Bible. Remember also that some metaphors are still present. See what these metaphors say to you on a personal level. So, here goes:
****************
1:1 An accounting of the origin of salvation and anointment—the discernment of the beloved and discernment of the Knowledge of God:
2 Knowledge of God is knowledge through enlightenment; enlightenment of this knowledge is equal to the measure of one's capacity for praising God and receiving God's protection ,
3 Praising God is the knowledge of breaking forth and rising in understanding of the signs and breaking forth the knowledge of the enclosures which protect the knowledge of exaltation. An exalted knowledge of a liberal people, a willing people with knowledge of divination, divined knowledge of the garments of scripture.
5 These garments are the knowledge of certain inquiry in understanding the exposition of such an inquiry into the knowledge of service, a service with knowledge of the great wealth of knowledge in being a crowned Beloved. Being a beloved of God is possessing knowledge of peace through having understood that GOD IS LIGHT.
7This peace is the knowledge of an expanding people, an expanding people with the knowledge that GOD IS KNOWLEDGE. Knowing that GOD IS KNOWLEDGE provides knowledge of healing, a healing knowledge of the judgment of the Lord. This Judgment of the Lord is knowledge of The Lord's exaltation, which is knowledge of the Power of The Lord
9The power of the Lord is a knowledge that the Lord makes complete through the knowledge of possession; a possession of the knowledge of the strength of the Lord.
10This strength is derived from knowledge of that which has been forgotten, a forgotten knowledge which has been concealed. This concealed knowledge is of the fire of the Lord. The fire of the Lord, is knowledge that was established by the Lord in his protection during the exile from the Gate of God
12After the exile from the Gate of God: The Lord established knowledge of making request of God.
So, request of God this knowledge of being born at the Gate of God.
13Being born at the Gate of God is knowledge that is vanishing.
A vanishing knowledge of God's establishment.
The knowledge of God's help.
The knowledge of righteousness.
The righteousness of being established by God.
The knowledge of being known by God.
The knowledge of God's help.
The knowledge of God's gifts—gifts according to a measure of one's capacity.
16One's capacity of knowing that God will add to the mind that of the fullness which generates salvation, which in turn is called anointing.
17Love in knowledge of God to my Beloved, Love from your Beloved exiled at the Gate of God and Love to all those exiled for the anointment.
********************
I have added very little to this translation, only a few connecting words, such as "and" "so" or "for." 99.999% of this is actually what you get when you translate these names from their Hebrew form into English. I cannot give you the proof sheets on this because I do not have a Hebrew font, and you do not possess a Hebew lexicon, but these sentences are found when you translate from Hebrew, all the names in Matthew 1:1-17--or the genealogy of Jesus. These names are not a Davidic bloodline as we have been told that they are--these names were used to encode information that coincides with neo-Platonic and Stoic thought that was then formed into what we know today as some form of Gnostic thought. Was it the secret society of the Essenes that wrote these scriptures? I really cannot say. But I do know that someone encoded this information through the use of proper names in an otherwise interesting epic of stories.
Whew...there--I have shown you now. This is not speculation, and this is not "my opinion." This, my friends is FACT. This is not limited to the New Testament writings either. This was a literary style of mystical communication that is carried over from the Hebrew Bible or what Christians call the Old Testament. It is called Merkabah Mysticism or the Chariot of Knowledge about God. There are over 3,000+ biblical proper names and numerous lists throughout the entire Bible where most all of them reveal something of this nature. Some names were used in smaller amounts to create theologies and expound upon certain philosophical ideas. Some of these I have already given to you from the writings of Philo, Origen, Jerome and Augustine. Clues to it are in The Bahir, Sefer Yetzira, and other Jewish midrash that we still have today. The later Kabbalists also knew of this method, and they used it as well. There is also a great deal more to say about this which includes other literary methods such as gematria--a numerical/literary system. That is why I am in the process of writing an entire book on this subject, to provide all the backup and research that I have found, some of which I have already shared with you here. Yet, I have truly only chipped the tip of this massive iceberg.
Mustardseed, several weeks ago you became quite upset about all of this, saying that this attacks your entire belief system--your entire life's work. Believe it or not, I cried for you that night. I cried for you and for me--for all of us--because of what we have all inherited. I do not want to hurt anyone--that is SO NOT me. But I also do not think that I was given this information to keep to myself. Yes--this research is in answer to almost 40 years of questioning, and over ten years of intense study. I needed to know--I kept asking--and I received my answer. It has caused me to spiral into more spiritual crises than I can say. While I did not channel it or anything like that--all of my personal experiences that I have chosen not to share here led me to complete this research in a myriad of ways. Unfortunately, I cannot provide the spiritual counseling or help that many may need after reading this research. I guess we will all have to turn to God for that. That is what I have had to do.
I am really taking a chance on posting this here. It may be received in much the same way as all the other things that I tried to share with you. But here it is nonetheless. I am truly sorry if this disturbs anyone--but I did not write these scriptures, and I was not the one who proclaimed that the names were real people. My burden to reveal this is very heavy, but I must always keep in my mind and heart that--I am but the messenger--not the creator of the message.
May Peace Eventually Be With Us All,
Beth
*The above translation of Matthew 1:1-17 is excerpted from Fire on the Water: Biblical Proper Name Exegesis and Language Based Mysticism, by Beth B. Phillips, copyright 2003.
Thanks Beth... consider me already interested in your book when it gets completed. Thank you for your post. And I think you are right, there's a lot of anger placed upon both sides. It makes me sad to think that fundamentalists, through ignorance (willfull or accidental) 'screwed-up' such a beautiful message. What's even more disheartening is that in today's day and age of better historical record keeping and sharper science that there are people who still adhere to the false teachings AND seek to perpetuate their ignorance as well as parlay it into real power.
We need more authors like you Beth.
~GhostRider (Kevin)
Greetings Beth,
Brilliant post; thank you very much indeed for that.
You can be certain that all of your posts are appreciated highly by the silent majority. Please, please keep it all coming as time permits.
Mustardseed and Wisp are just two examples, with the greatest respect to them, of millions of others out there, all of whom will feel the same way. However, we must not and cannot hold back on the truth. Humanity is going backwards, and towards the darkness, the root cause of which is the creed, dogma and extreme misinformation of the orthodox churches. Materialism is another major problem, yet it can be traced back to the churches. If people knew the true path as immortal Spiritual beings, and what we all need to do to progress our destinies, the world would not be in the state it is in today. The church however, as I have said before, provided everyone with a convenient, no effort, packaged belief system, without any basis, but which has caused people to be ingnorant of their true nature and destiny, by accepting the convenience of a packaged belief system rather then making the ongoing effort to seek the truth and follow their own path. Mankind had been severely held back for the last 2000 years. People enjoy convenience, and the church and its doctrines have been most convenient, even with convenience stores, churches, in all convenient locations, issuing a convenient book of rules to follow in order to buy a ticket to "heaven" rather than being consigned to "hell" as a non-believer.
Beth; Your work is both courageous and very much needed by humanity. Your book will make a massive impact, and hopefully be a major contribution to the turning point, where mankind once again faces the light with the truth and sense of true purpose and destiny.
Keep up the most valuable work. I for one look forward to seeing more of your excellent contributions here, and of course to your book.
Mustardseed, Wisp et al. I do understand your feelings, however, the information presented by Beth and in particular her forthcoming book are groundbreaking and extremely important in the grand scheme of things as well as being extrmely courageous. Such a book written hundreds of years ago could have altered the course of history, and the planet would be an infinitely better place for everyone. I know it is hard and I respect your positions, but please, please do not confuse the facts so eloquently conveyed by Beth for the benefit of us all as an attack on either yourselves or your beliefs. The nature and importance of the work being carried out by Beth is such that there is no other way of presenting it, I would present it in the same way. There is no room for being less than robust, especially when we are dealing with the truth.
Keep going Beth!
With best regards,
Adrian.
Dear Beth and Adrian and all of the silent majority out there
I seem to have been singeled out by you all so I find it polite to answer.
First Beth . I know we have a problem. The problem is probably a mix of of things. First your pompous way of expressing yourself and secondly my proud way of not wanting to listen to anyone who push me! I do have some problem with your research and I was open enough to tell you not expecting you would herald it out as a big thing but so be it. IT is true that if what you say is true is really true I have to make some adjustments[;)] I have committed myself to the truth so ......lets see.
My point is this only. I totally believe that the words in the Bible are divine and mysterious, I also think they are multi faceted and therefore I see no reason why they could not be just another level of the truth. Please try to understand this Beth. Why does any of this suprise you so much. It is supposed to be divine and beyound men.
I think a bit further and reason like this. If you are right then the Bible is not nessesarily ant standard to go by. There is no right no wrong. It is a fabrication made by men and we are reduced to nothing more than globs of neutrons and cromozomes .
I feel that there is right and there is wrong there is absolutes and there is a God. Your¨indisputable truth seem to me to be nonconclusive. I never deniecd your research was groundbreaking but I reserve myself to make my own conclusions . I do not want anyone , you or a Church to tell me what I should believe, and what the Truth is. Is that too much to ask.
So all that to say good luck with the book I will look forward to it , but be careful with your conclusions and stay away from thinking that you or your research is infailable. History is full of folks who thought they were the answer to the worlds problems and who sincerly believed they had been given a mission to lead the masses.
And for goodnes sakes stay away from the elitist thing it really sucks.
Mustardseed,
As I have tried to say many times before--taking away the bible as a literal history book does NOT in any way take away God--unless you can only have God as incarnated through a man 2,000 years ago.
I my reality, GOD is SO VAST that we cannot ever truly know everything there is to know about God. The best that we can do is discover what God is NOT. And God was or is--No One Man or Woman.
Yes, these scripures were written by humans--but that fact does not reduce us "to nothing more than globs of neutrons and cromozomes." These writers were very enlightened individuals--they saw God as LIGHT and as KNOWLEDGE--as MIND. We speak in these same terms 2,000+ years later! They were brilliant humans and that says a great deal about who and what we all really are--we are spiritual beings for a time living in bodies of flesh.
As I have already posted here on this forum, some of these writers tell us of their mystical experiences of "Light", "Lucid Dreams" and "Out of Body Flights." They tell us about you and about me--about most all of us--in potential at least. They speak of the "silent or small still voice" that we hear within us, that leads us, guides us, and gives us the spiritual information that we receive. They tell us about the soul and the body and they speculate as to how and why we can have a soul, where it comes from and what happens to our soul after we leave this "mortal coil." Origen of Alexandria speculated that there were 42 different levels (or perhaps dimensions?) that we must all travel through between here and the Godhead. He finds this in the Book of Numbers, chapter 33, by translating the "place names" of the 42 camps of the Israelites after they fled from Egypt. One of my earlier posts discusses this in detail, but I will remind you here that the meaning of "Israelite" is in this ancient Hebrew mysticism "the mind that can see God." And to be a "son of God" is to be able to "discern God." The meaning of "Abraham," who God called out from "Ur" (which means "light or fire") is "the knowledge of the seer" and "Uriah" means "God is Light."
By the Church generating the interpretation of these scriptures as being historical truth and the only Word of God--as you say "mysterious" and "beyond men"--it remained "beyond men" for many centuries. A great deal of harm has come from this fact. Why was there such a mystery about this? Because by the 3-4th centuries, Christians had become so alienated from their Jewish roots that no one knew how to read Hebrew! It was therefore a mystery. Later, this mystery worked to the Church's advantage, keeping people dependent upon their interpretation and the "wisdom of the priesthood."
As far as your warning me to be careful of my conclusions and from thinking that my research is infallible, all I can say is that I wish others had said the same thing to those founders of the Catholic Church so many centuries ago. As an author, I would be remiss if I drew no conclusions at all--but the majority of the conclusions to be drawn from this is not of my making, but rather of those who wrote the scriptures in the first place.
I hope that somehow through this research God and humankind will be freed from the ancient pages of a book that was actually created to do just that--but before too long, it was misunderstood and then severely misued. But when we take away the historical claims of these scriptures--we have no where else to go but to God, and to the other realms of existence to which we all belong. I trust that God can and will handle any crises that arise from this.
May God Be With Us All. Selah and Amen,
Beth
Beth_
Thanks for your return and imput, it is apreciated by everyone here, I for one have found this thread very intertesting and entertaining, even when the flak starts firing on all cylinders!
I am wondering if you could give me your opinion on somthing:
As part of my Ancient history degree (Greek & Roman history) I studied a module on Paganism and Christianity. Now the gist of the course was that christianity was one of many 'oriental cults' that filtered into the Roman empire, along with Mithraism, Isis, Serapis, Jupiter Dolichenos etc. Of course, christianity eventially emerged as supreme (Due mainly to imperial patronage) and was moulded into a state religion by constantine et al. At this point the empire turned inot a christian theocracy, or if I was being a bit more unkind, a christian fundamentalist state.
After the Edict of Toleration was issued in 313 and espectially after 325 (Nicea) the arguments started; eg the Arian heresy (Eusibios supported Arian's theory), the donatists etc.
This is where the gnostics come in. Now, as I stated a while back, I think there is still some controvesy amongst academics as to whether the original scriptures were written with a gnostic subtext as it were or if the gnostics were just a bunch of philosophers/theosophists who took the already written, literal scriptures and re-interpreted them for their own ends, perhaps reading into the texts things that were not originally intended.
What is the current view on this as far as you are aware? I don't know if you have read Robert Turcan's book 'Cults of the Roman empire' but certainly his view seems to be that the gnostics were just a bunch of philosphers who adopted christian sacriptures for their own ends, he doesnt seem to hold them with any high regard as such.
The premise of your book seems to be in opposition to this view.. is that correct? Is Turcan's view the general academic opinion of gnostics?
Douglas
PS btw Mustardseed, I will get back to you about that bible passage when I get a chance to read it; I've just been REALLY busy, this is my first time on the board for ages!
Does nobody think that jesus for example was just a person who was very spiritually complete and could astrally project?
Heal? have empathy and everything else that goes towards us being total humans.
This is what I believe and it goes the same for every other religion out there. They and their "christs" have all these things in common.
We, People, have in the past turned these people into the figures they are tody since religion got a foot hold on this world.
mohammehed, buddah, and jesus were all people.
What made them different?
Why do we still know about them to this day?
Forget Religion... this
These people were great leaders, strong people who knew what this world was about and why we are here.
But because of ignorance and and the fact that the majority have conveniently forgotten that the right way to live was to be aware and to love and to be always at peace with yourself and the world- the energy that we call this world.
These people were connected in every sense of the word.
We silly people, well you know who, - goverments, the church and greedy souls have lost the true message.
But through site like this and people who make it their priority to get to the truth I see a bigger awareness and everybody is noticing, they dont know what it is.
I think I see it in things like people wanting to eat organic food, and in working life for some people who get the benefits from there employers who are also aware of stress and how that effects you.
As far as oral communication goes when trying to get information about the past as far as I know about oral story telling tradition being Irish and having a strong oral tradition you could find before these stories were written down was that the people who knew these stories learned them by heart from generation to generation. But I just think the collection of stories in the bible were not meant to be read literally like they are fact, but they are for the purpose of learning from the story like a parable. i know parables have their own compartment but it seems so obvious that these strories were lessons.
Then again maybe I'm completely wrong lol.
well I think I've written enough now dont want to go off on a tangent too much, Take Care.
Cailin.
You misunderstand me Beth. I do see what you are saying but somehow it does not rhyme with me. Let me explain it another way.
If the Bible is written by men, and in a fiction (albe it a good one as yopu say) it is still only someone elses understanding of the divine and does not nessesarily have to be obeyed. If the Bible says thet Love is the most important thing, to Love God and your neighbour as yourself etc one does not have to take that as a commandment. Self enlightenment is more important.
This commandment is for me the central point in the Bible. (As far as I understand the 10 commandments are null and void).
If one assumes that it is a story only. God has no particular like or dislike , he is reduced to a energy` sort of like electricity and cannot be approached . I approach him through Jesus but that would be then unnessesary. People would have to start making their own religion and try to figure things out, maybe even by how things do not work, trial and error, and we would all have the possibility of making our own rules, go our own way and do our own thing.
People with more entelligence education and money (to get this intel and edu) would be ahead of the game.You mentioned this in your other post.
(Beth said)
We have tip-toed around you guys for too long. Good people have spent many hours on this board offering you and Mustardseed (and whoever else) a great deal of very important information -- FREE OF CHARGE. We are the ones who have invested the time, the effort, and the expense to educate ourselves. We bought the books, took the classes, and studied the languages--for you. We decided to share all that we have learned with you, because we know how very hard it is to get the education that we have. We also know that it is not feasible for everyone to do. But what do you do instead of be grateful for the free education that you are receiving? You insult and criticize instead of learn of things you do not know. Instead of filling these pages full of empty and petty criticism, you should be taking advantage of what is offered to you here. You should be asking more questions of us instead of bringing the valid questions of others to a screeching halt with your circular arguments and marytr complexes. (end qoute)
The poor would be serfs and there would be no reason for helping anyone becourse people would be where they are at becourse of karma. I see chaos, pain and ignorance in such a world, and intuitivly believe this to be a falsehood.
This is not to accuse you or anything but in a way I believe that this is gonna be the "plastic peace" offered the world by the Antichrist. It says "he will come in peacefully and obtain the kingdom by flatteries" it also says "he will cause witchcraft to prosper" and finally it says that he will "persecute all who does not worship his image" his way and his religion. "the time will come where people will kill (Christians) thinking they are doing Gods service" the monotheistic religions will be a thorn in the hand of such a system and the ones who does not follow Him.
This is prophecy from the Bible that I think you are quite familiar with. I see the rise of such a world emminent. I see it happening before my very eyes. Worship of the creation instead of the creator. Mother earth etc. I think that this movement will also have its servers (world servers?) and that it needs "proof" in the form of books as well as research and it needs people to write this research, "the new Gospel" so to speak.
I realise we are at odds in this and that you will have very persuasive arguments and allegories why this is not so. All I can say is ....Well .....lets see. I am a patient man. For now I will look forward to you book, and stay alert and in my own way "test the spirits".
Nothing seems conclusive to be , interesting maybe even groundbreaking, but nonconclusive neverthe less.
Regards Mustardseed
Hey everyone!
Gandalf,
Hey there![:)]
How have you been?
No, I do not think that Christianity was filtered into the Roman Empire as much as the Roman Empire came into an area where the roots of Christianity were already formed. Not necessarily Judaism proper, but rather, a Hellenistic Judaism that was in the form of a mystery religion that was already well established by the first century. The Isis and Osiris cults were already well established as well.
Mithraism, as I understand it, was the Roman Empire's version of a mystery religion, actually sharing some of the symbolism that was just universal at the time. I also do not think that Christianity in its original form ever "ruled supreme," for what Christianity had ultimately turned into by the 4th century, was most definatly NOT the same Christianity that it was in the beginning.
Most scholars don't think very highly of the gnostics, and most especially Christian scholars, but they and Robert Turcan have not really studied the topic to its fullest extent or they would not be so quick to make such judgments. Did you read my post on page six of this thread? If so, you will see that the encoded message in the genealogy of Jesus is indeed gnostic in nature, a Greek philosophical brand of gnosticism, and yes, it appears that the gnostics/mystics were actually the ones who wrote the scripture with their esoteric knowledge embedded within a literal level of story. So, no, they were not "reading anything into scripture." It was already there, they knew it was there, and they were just expounding upon it. That's my take on it anyway[8D]!!!
Mustardseed,
You wrote:
"This is not to accuse you or anything but in a way I believe that this is gonna be the "plastic peace" offered the world by the Antichrist. It says "he will come in peacefully and obtain the kingdom by flatteries" it also says "he will cause witchcraft to prosper" and finally it says that he will "persecute all who does not worship his image" his way and his religion. "the time will come where people will kill (Christians) thinking they are doing Gods service" the monotheistic religions will be a thorn in the hand of such a system and the ones who does not follow Him."
First of all, if you are referring to my research, I don't think it will be "ushered in peacefully" at all. Your own reaction is indicative of this. Statistically speaking, I suspect there will far more people that do not like my book, than those who will.
As an alternative to your theory however, have you ever considered that you are reading a 2,000 year old prophecy that has already come true? That the events of the beast actually began centuries ago? That you are still waiting for the mysterious events of the beast to occur, and that they are actually almost at an end now?
I ask these questions because there is a very good possibility that the creation of the Christian Church was the anti-christ that the writer of The Revelation spoke of, for as it has turned out, The Church has provided a very "plastic peace" that you speak of. How can I possibly say something so outrageous? Because look around you, you see a well established Church and you also see war, famine, hatred, and avarice. Look back through history, and you will find all the things that were supposed to happen after the anti-christ was released "for a time" and most all of them have happened while the Church has supposedly been in charge of our spiritual welfare. Why aren't things better yet? Whatever the Church's plan was/is for our spiritual welfare—it has not worked. Our world is in a mess Mustardseed, and yet the Church has been around for many centuries now, continually promising that it will all get better when The Revelation begins to unfold.
Throughout the 1,700 years after the development of the Christian Church, all of these things that you write of have already happened. The Church and its priesthood have been built, most especially during the Middle Ages, on the very "flattery" that you speak of. And today it is even more so than ever. Look at the untold vast wealth of the Vatican, the whole pomp and circumstance of the papacy, and the ritual kneeling to and kissing of the papal ring. If this is not flattery, I do not what it would be. And Protestantism has its own form of flattery primarily that it is the "only way" and the "only truth" and that all non-believers are lost, ungodly, and will burn. I would say that this is self-flattery at its best.
It is also quite possible that the "image" of Jesus, hanging grotesquely on a cross is "the image" that as you point out "had to be worshiped or--be killed." Millions of people have died because they refused to accept this as truth, or to worship in this manner. And yes, witchcraft did prosper during the Middle Ages, (has actually always prospered) and the Church made sure that they tortured and burned as many of them as they could find, and I might add, many of those who were actually innocent of witchcraft as well.
We hear all this hoopla today about jihad, or holy war. Holy wars have been fought for many centuries, and most of these holy wars were led by the Christian banner, and won by the Christian banner. The history of the Christian Church is not pretty Mustardseed, and when The Revelation is read with the past 1,700 years in consideration, then it could easily be said that the prophecies have, for the most part, already been fulfilled.
Need more evidence?
Isn't it true, that according to the NT stories, Jesus, his disciples, and Paul, were all urging people "away" from organized religion, AWAY from the temple and synagogue, away from the "letter of the law" and away from the politics of man, and urged them toward the "spirit of the letter" and the reality of God and the Holy Spirit instead?
What is the Christian religion Mustardseed, if not an organization of tens of thousands of churches, of an organized, systematized religion, that has certainly carried a great deal of political weight through the years, and as a matter of fact, still does. The letter of the law Mustardseed is the literal interpretation, the one and only "true" interpretation according to the Church. Whether you actually attend Church or not is not the point, the point is, if you accept the literal interpretation of scripture, then you are following the letter of the law.
The spirit of the law, on the other hand, is within us all, and available to us all, in whatever form it takes.
The Christian Church was actually founded by the very political machine, i.e., the Roman Empire, that the NT is warning everyone against. The "seven heads of the first beast" in the prophecy was most probably representative of "Rome" for it was also known at that time as "the seven hills." The following passage tells us about the second beast:
Rev:13:14 "Because of the signs he was given power to do on behalf of the first beast, he deceived the inhabitants of the earth. He ordered them to set up an image in honor of the beast who was wounded by the sword and yet lived."
What "image" was set up in honor of one who was stabbed in the side by the sword, and yet still lived, if not a literal interpretation of Jesus' crucifixion? Remember, Jesus did not die of the sword wound in his side, for he is claimed to have overcome his own death.
In verse 15 we read: "He was given power to give breath to the image of the first beast, so that it could speak and cause all who refused to worship the image to be killed."
The power to "breathe life into the first beast" could very well have been the 4th century version of the Christian religion "breathing life" back into the rapidly dying Roman Empire. And, I might add, it worked. And further, as I already said above, untold millions have been brutally murdered through the centuries for not following one or both of these powerhouses.
In verse 18 we also read:
"This calls for wisdom. If anyone has insight, let him calculate the number of the beast, for it is a man's number. His number is 666."
In Hebrew, every letter has numerical value, and when added together, they form arithmetical numbers that were used for encoding secrecy such as this. Scholars have long speculated that the Roman Emperor Nero was this 666 anti-christ, and one form of his name does add up to this, but as another scholar has also pointed out, the letters of the word "Jesus" (yeshua) are: Y 10+ H 5+ SH 300+ U 6+ H 5=326 and add to that the Hebrew word for "name" (shem) SH 300+ M 40=340 and the final rendering for the phrase "Jesus' Name" is also 666. In what do Christians pray? In Jesus' Name. I know this sounds outrageous, but it is the case nonetheless.
Finally, doesn't this prophecy also state that most everyone will follow the beast, and that only the "select few" will be reunited with Christ in the end? Look around you, Christians number in the millions Mustardseed, and have for centuries, so even if the prophecies have not actually happened yet, the Christian religion is not "the few" of anything.
Who knows exactly what all the heavy symbolism means in The Revelation? No one for sure Mustardseed, but great have been the numbers of speculations and great are the possibilities. The one that I have spoken of here, that the Christian Religion could very well be the anti-christ is certainly one of them.
As to "What God Wants"? Personally, I have no idea what "God" wants, or if "God" is capable of "wanting" anything at all. Perhaps "God is Light" or some form of "energy" that we have yet to ascertain. I truly think it is beyond our comprehension. That does not, in any way, remove us from personal responsibility, or the presence of right and wrong, but it does give the Holy Spirit (which I feel I know at least a little bit about) the power to aid us in deciding these things for ourselves, and not an ancient text that was written for a totally "other" reason. There is certainly to be found, some very good moral guidelines in the Bible, but they are also found in virtually every moral philosophy around the world. Do not lie. Do not steal. Do not kill. These are laws of common sense, not just laws of an inerrant Bible.
And why do you think that people will have to create yet another religion to decide these things for them? Why is religion necessary at all? Give the power over to the real holders of power, whether it be called God, The Holy Spirit or any number of other epithets. You and I both know that it is here/there, somewhere, that it is much more powerful than we are, and far wiser, so why don't we just stand still and let it work through us? Why do we have to have a group consensus on this at all? If your answer is to avoid chaos, well you said it yourself, we do not have to look very far to see chaos within our midst, and our world is largely dominated by religion of some sort or other.
The "real peace" that you speak of Mustardseed, and this part is my opinion, will only be found when we allow for what we call the Holy Spirit, and the Spirit of Jesus and/or other Masters, to work within us and through us, not as literal humans, but as the representatives of the Divine Realm that they are. A Divine Realm that we have only begun to understand, because free-thinking allows it to become available to us, and until we really explore it we will never know.
"Real peace" will not be found until we start living our lives as the divine spiritual beings that we really are.
Beth
Excellent post Beth!
Yes, I will read page 6 of this thread containing that info when I get a moment, which is difficult... I really want to read that bible passage that Mustardseed recomended to me as well... time!!!
Anyway, I agree with what you're saying. I agree that the most logical conclusion to be drawn from 'Revelations' is that it was refering to Rome. At that time Rome WAS the world, filling pretty much the same position that the USA does in today's world. However, it is pretty clear that the early christians believed that the end of the (Roman) world would occur in their own lifetime. I always find that modern Christians attempts to apply them to present times is like fitting a square peg in a round hole, but if you hit it hard enough it will fit!
BTW this is nothing new, the 'end of the world' has been claimed continuously throughout history, and if you read your history, holy wars, famine and war are not really any more common place than in the past; the weapons are more powerful, but the intent is the same as it always has been; It is just that people have very short memories; people wax on about the world we live in today with terrorism etc... er, has everyone forgotten about WW2 with an estimated death toll of 65 million world-wide from 1939 to 1945? thats much more of an 'end time scenario' IMO, and only 50 years ago!!!!
I also agree that christianity was never meant to be the 'world religion' that Constantine turned it into. In the earlier days it was a mystery religion, where entry was through initiation, it was not meant for the masses.
As for Nero being the 'anti-christ'. This has long been seen as daft by scholars, as it is now clear that most of the stories about Nero are WAY over the top. A lot of the blame is due to Roman historians like Suetonius who was basically the british tabloid press writer of his day. In fact Nero did not 'fiddle while watching Rome burn'.
For one, the fiddle didnt exist, and even if it was a lyre, well, he was not even IN Rome when the fire occured.
Secondly, the local christian community were just useful scapegoats at the time, it was nothing personal; also the numbers arrested were actually very small, but the whole thing was blown out of proportion by later christian writers; and nowhere like what we can call a 'persecution'.
The same can be said of all the Roman emperors; whatever you have heard, most of them were actually very capable rulers and even the dodgy ones like Nero, Domitian and Gaius (Galigula) have been exagerated by later christian writers who sought to discredit the earlier 'heathen emperors'. cf smug christian authors like Eusibios and Lacantius who pour scorn on the earlier emperors.
IMO Holywood, at its christian moralising worst, buring the 50's and 60's, has had the worst influence in this regard, they swallowed whole the sensationalist tales of Suetonius and later writers without stopping to think what these writers agenda might have been!
Cf narration of Sparticus at begining: 'this cruel, wicked empire which would soon fall to to its own corruption'.... er.. the Sparticus revolt was in 73BC, I dont think they've got anything to worry about there........
And don't get me started on 'The Robe' with Richard Burton!
Anyway, I'm way off topic, but certainly from what I've read, the gnostics are not highly regarded by the academic mainstream; Actually I dont think its anything to do with christian scholars as such; rather, its all scholars: peer pressure tends to ensure that any real focus on spiritual beliefs are excluded from academic debate, not just christian views but ANY spiritual views.
So, for example, the causes of the rise of christianity has to argued in socio-political terms; if you just stand up and say, 'God made it happen' you will crash and burn!
I feel that the current historical mainstream refuses to examine these esoteric groups because of a kneejerk reaction against spiritualism in any form, in which case someone needs to focus attention back onto these groups once again as they have been sadly neglected; Your work may kickstart such a trend change... Role on!
Douglas
Hi Beth
I actually heard this interpretation a long time ago. I think it was associated with some gnostic movement and I presume that we have always had the gnostic thoughts with us. It sounds very plausible and eloquent and I certainly see how people could emotionally feel that this have to be true. However I think it is flawed, for several reasons.
If the ones who wrote the Bible, knew the future so to speak, they must have been either good guessers or inspired by something spiritual.
If they wrote the bible and guessed only it seems illogical to me that they would have done so knowing what antrocities the book would cause. That is not logic. If they did they must hav e meen motivated by a very sinister reasoning.
If they were inspired by God, He/she/it would be writing a book with rules of love and kindness, knowing that they would be misused to cause suffering. In that case God is a monster.
If it was written with the aid of a neg entity. It would not have been able to be used for any good at all. It is my understanding that negs are just that negs and cannot create, and certainly have no love. Many good things has come as a result of Christianity as well. Right?
If it was spoken by Jesus, He would have to have been real, which you say he wasn't.
All in all confusing. I find it more along the lines of wishful thinking. Like packing my boat for a trip and saying here is the stuf we wanna take.....lets fit it in as opposed to here is the space we have how much can we fit in.
Personally I totally believe that the Churches are going to be a part of the AC rule. They along with the catolic are all part of the Beast, commercialism politics and ecologic movements etc. Most of them have no deeper understanding of the things of the Spirit. I think that many of the the fundementalists will also find them selves at home there. Fighting physically. Just see the American zealots running around blowing up abortion clinics.
The real Christians will be very few and far scattered. United only by the Spirit of God, they will know and they will be united.
When I first became a Christian in the 70s we had no computers andf the thoughts of a world govt. was premature, but it was in the Bible so I put it aside in a little box and "believed" we had no computers to facilitate a cashless society either. I am from Europe and over there Beth they are on the fast track to this very thing. The world is moving so fast toward this next step and I believe that the AC is alive and kicking somewhere. Maybe I will see it come to pass maybe not. I see the signs everywhere.
I know it is sort of quaint to turn things around like that, and it does have that certain ......"wow effect". But that is just the presentation , if you examine this theory closer and extend it, then all you end up with , imo is ....confusion.
A final thought is that it seems evident that the Devil (according to Christianity) is trying to be God . He was thrown out of the heavenlies (upper astral levels) and confined to earth maybe the (RTZ). Anyway he wants to be worshipped as God. His problem is he is not creative he can only copy. He is thought to be copying Jesus by making his "son" the AC fulfill many of the exact same signs that Jesus fulfilled. It seems that when he does arrive at the scene whole populations will herald him as Jesus returned, that seems to be all part of the plan. Even the "mark of the beast" is a copy, as God also marks his people in their forehead.(Rev) All he has power over is the physical and He will try to erect The Kingdom of "God" on earth, ......physically.
It is for sure an interesting time we live in. I enjoy the ride and have no problem with waiting to see. So I suggest we do that.
Regards Mustardseed
PS The peaceful thing was not about you Beth. That was the AC. I do believe that his Gospel will be a conglommeration of different writings and doctrines all of them heralding a New Age of enlightenment for Man. He will sit in the Temple of God saying he is God.
Greetings everyone,
Thank you very much indeed Beth for yet another excellent contribution. With regards to your closing observation:
quote:
Originally posted by Beth
The "real peace" that you speak of Mustardseed, and this part is my opinion, will only be found when we allow for what we call the Holy Spirit, and the Spirit of Jesus and/or other Masters, to work within us and through us, not as literal humans, but as the representatives of the Divine Realm that they are. A Divine Realm that we have only begun to understand, because free-thinking allows it to become available to us, and until we really explore it we will never know.
"Real peace" will not be found until we start living our lives as the divine spiritual beings that we really are.
Beth
I believe this to be a profound truth!
And orthodox religion can be considered to be the root cause as to why this has failed to happen (yet), and a major reason why mankind and the planet is in the state it is in today; for many of the reasons Beth so excellently shared with us in this and other topics.
If the mission of the "anti-christ" is to cause the downfall of humanity, the moral decay of society, and concealment from mankind of the truth and true destiny, then it could be said, with more than some justification, that the church itself is the anti-christ who's number is 666; as well as Aleister Crowley that is [:)] This might seem like a strong statement, but the fact is nevertheless, orthodox religions are directly responsible for causing people to believe that providing they believe in and worship their God (be it the christian or islamic versions etc.), and read the bible, then they need do no more and be automatically "saved", and earn the ticket to "heaven". People have therefore, as a direct result, due to the convenience and visibility of the church, failed to seek and comprehend their true Spiritual reality and destiny, and failed to live their lives as Divine Spiritual, immortal beings of the Universe. Where people have sought to seek and follow the truth, the christian religion has historically treated such Souls horribly, often by means of torture and death. Those who where, often wrongly, accused of witchcraft were burned at the stake; is not trial by fire a mark of "satan".
These comments do not apply to Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, Confucionism, Kabbalah, Hermetics and many other truly Spiritual traditions, all of which know and follow the true path.
There are many sources of the common prophesy of a "mass extinction" within the human race, analogous to the great flood, but in this case it is prophesied the cause will be a dimensional shift, causing an etherealisation of the physical world, such that only those who's "vibrations" match the increased vibrations of the physical world will survive. The fact is Mustardseed, it will
not be the adherents to creed, dogma, orthodoxy and materialism who will "be saved", it will rather be those who have sincerely sought and found the true path, the true destiny of all humanity, the true meaning of life, and who lived their lives accordingly. It should be pointed out, if the prophesy should come to pass, those humans who failed to survive in the physical world will not be destroyed; everyone is an immortal Spiritual being. They will rather transition to the Astral worlds which will become their new home. The problem is however, the reason people incarnate into the trials and tribulations of the physical world time and again is to progress, such progression is much more difficult in the Astral worlds alone, although of course the opportnities so exist, if recognised and accepted, as it is the true destiny of every single person to ultimately achieve the potential of reuniting with God as a perfected aspect of Him/Herself.
With best regards,
Adrian.
If the ones who wrote the Bible, knew the future so to speak, they must have been either good guessers or inspired by something spiritual.
Mustardseed
__________________
But how can we say that those who wrote the bible 'knew the future'?
Just beacause people have come along later and interpreted events to fit in with what the bible says, does not prove that the bible writers 'know the future'.
In actual fact, the revelations chapters are written in such a vague way that anyone can interprete them to fit any time-frame. This does not prove its validity. In fact this suggests the opposite.
Anyone can issue vague predictions which the reader will interprete in accordance with their own circumstances and say 'ah this is reffering to such and such'.
Look at any good horoscope writer or even other great prophets like Nostradamus.
Furthermore, as Beth has pointed out, anything you quote to me in order to prove that the revelations refer to our own time, I can use to prove with equal validity that it refers to the 5th century AD, or the 1st Century, or the 16th, or the 20th, or 31st.
The revelations chapter is just a fairly generic apocalyptic prophesy, but perhaps as Beth points out, there may be a more illuminating subtext behind the vague literal form.
Douglas
Gandalf
I was referring to Beths interpretation and that the AC would be those who fray in Jesus name. The atrocities that you all speak so much about are continued to modern day, right?
On another note talking about interpretation of the things in the Bible. It is common to see that there are 3 or more layers. This very point is actually the best argument FOR her theory. So dont knock it. Most bible scholars count the imidiate fulfillment, the intermediate fullfilment and the final fulfillment.
Take the Israelites. They were named the children of God, or gods people, though they were not even Jews yet(imidiate). Then from Jacobs ladder till the birth and death of jesus they were the Jews (intermediate) and from the sacrefice of Jesus till now those who recieve Him are His Children (final) . This is only qouting generally accepted methods. I personally do not know if there are further layers. If there are we will find out.
This also is the same with the Anticrist. Paul said "for even now there are many anticrists" It seems that Satan was the first, maybe Cesar the second and The AC (future) final. Bible prophecy is very mysterious and nothing is straight forward. I am a bit in a hurry so I wont go over this again. Hope it makes sense.
Regards Mustardseed
Regards Mustardseed
Mustardseed,
You wrote:
quote:
On another note talking about interpretation of the things in the Bible. It is common to see that there are 3 or more layers. This very point is actually the best argument FOR her theory. So dont knock it. Most bible scholars count the imidiate fulfillment, the intermediate fullfilment and the final fulfillment.
Take the Israelites. They were named the children of God, or gods people, though they were not even Jews yet(imidiate). Then from Jacobs ladder till the birth and death of jesus they were the Jews (intermediate) and from the sacrefice of Jesus till now those who recieve Him are His Children (final) . This is only qouting generally accepted methods. I personally do not know if there are further layers.
One of my earliest posts explained about the 3, sometimes 4 different layers of scripture. These are different layers of interpretive meaning
found within the surface layer of the whole epic story.
What you are talking about though, are not "layers of scripture" but rather, 3 different divisions of "generations of people" in a
straight timeline. You, along with these other Christian scholars that you speak of, are once again thinking of this in terms of real-life people
in succession through hundreds of years. That Christians are the "real chosen" people of God is very much a part of Christian dogma, so of course they would make this claim.
Using the method that I have been presenting here, I will offer a very likely explanation of this same line of thinking only not drawing the same conclusion at all. I will do so by putting in quotation marks the "proper name" and its "meaning" as I give you the explanation. This is how is was done by those ancient writers that I have mentioned in these threads.
According to what I have come to understand, "Abraham" represents the "seer of gnosis/knowledge" that "is brought out from Ur"--or "brought out from the light."
"Moses" continued to "draw forth" this knowledge into the world, to aid other "Hebrews" that had "passed over from the other side." This was not an easy task even for those who should understand, for the pleasures of this physical world are very tempting and one can easily get overwhelmed and lose sight of what their true natures really are.
It took "Joshua" or "salvation" to actually "deliver" the Israelites into the promised land--into understanding the truth of their spiritual nature.
When "Jacob" came along, he also attempted "to supplant" the erroneous ways of people, but it was not until he himself had evolved far enough to have been renamed "Israel"--or "one who could see God"--that he could be really make any impact.
After this, the languge began to change a bit, and the Isralites or "those people who could see God" were ruled by King "David," or by "being a Beloved" of God. This is where the establishment of the Israelites as the "chosen people of God" became known as the "Beloved Bride" and God became the "Beloved Bridegroom." King "Solomon" or "peacefulness" is the recognition of being a Beloved of God, the Song of Songs tells us this spiritual story.
Previous to the first century, people had already taken these
stories as
literal fact and the writers of the first century were attempting to unravel and explain the error of this kind of thinking, by creating new stories that told of the same things. Thus they used the same name for the primary characher that was used in the earlier story, Joshua, (in English read as "Jesus") to try once again to offer "salvation" and "deliver them from error." As we read throughout the NT, the words "Beloved" and "Bride/Bridegroom" are also used in the same way as before. Many of the metaphors were used through using the same names as found in the Hebrew Bible (OT) they were just reworked into a "new epic story."
For example, Baptism in the NT could, on one level, be seen as a symbol of "stirring the waters within" of those who had the potential to see the truth, and on another level baptism could represent "being immersed into the water of scripture." The whole Torah was considered as "water" for the thirsty--or also known as the "Water of Life" or "Living Waters." In the earlier story where Moses parted the "waters" or the "Sea of Reeds" he did not do anything supernatural, he "opened up the written Torah" and taught people the secrets held within its "stories."
The NT was the same literary tradition Mustardseed, as that used in the Old. It was just updated with a newer surrounding circumstance that people could better relate to. That is why some of the NT stories can be supported such as the Greek and the Romans, but is also why none of the actual NT characters can be accounted for. They were fictional characters with names that carried very important meanings to the spiritual welfare of all people. All the same metaphors and experiences are included in this updated message, and so to finally get around to answering your "immediate, intermediate and final fullfilment" point, this is most likely something that actually happens "within" an individual person. It is most likely a person's individual "spiritual advancement" and this could have happened to anyone at any time, and did happen to people throughout the centuries regardless of what "generation" they belonged to. The opportunity to advance spiritually, comes "like a thief in the night" so we should all be ready at all times, making sure that we have been living right, and in accordance with our true spiritual natures.
As to the anti-christ, yes Paul said that there were many anti-christs, and these anti-christs are all of the physical pleasures and circumstances that cloud people's minds, and prohibit them from understanding their true natures. Remember as I have posted before, "Satan" only means "adversary" and this can be manifested as any of a number of "adversarial" things. In my previous post about the Christian Church possibly being the anti-christ? Because of the way it was established, and the way in which it operates, the Christian Church could easily be seen as "adversarial" to people coming to know and accept their true natures as the spiritual beings that we all are. But people don't need a "church" or "organization" at all--all we need is to heed the "voice of the Holy Spirit."
It is my highest hope Mustardseed, that once all of this is properly explained--this time
without creating a NEW story to be misunderstood--that people from all walks of life will make themselves available to the Spirit of the Divine and that we will all come to know ourselves as a Beloved People of God.
I hope this all makes sense.
Beth
I think I understant your theory in very rough form. What I was referring to Beth was the promises of blessings as well as curses to the individual person or group of people, imidiate intermediate and final. Same with the prophesy about the end time. Imidiate was the destruction of Jerusalem intermediate maybe the various persecusions of Christians under the antichrists, such as Hitler and Stalin. Hitler did not only kill jews!. and the Final, the great tribulation thought to occour at the rise of his world kingdom.
You see the point I am trying to make is that the Bible has been very right about several historical facts . Things prophesied by Daniel fx about the future wars kingdoms etc seem to have come true to an amazing extend and I acknowledge it to be the truth, as I see it, come true.
Fulfilled prophesy is you see another point that I find inconsistant with your way of interpreting. It seems that the different books were written at different times, am I right about that?. If they were then they would have had to have some way of communicating what to write in the future right otherwise the prophesies , if we consider them fake, would be hard to "fulfill" . Someone would have had to write the book in segments almost to make it all fit.
If you wish I can write down an actual example ?
Regards Mustardseed
Mustardseed,
I am not saying that The Book of Revelation is not a real prophecy. I am saying that it is written in very heavy symbolic terms, and that to take it literally is to totally misunderstand it.
The Book of Revelation was written almost 2,000 years ago and ends with "I am coming soon!"
"Soon" came and went a long time ago--unless you allow for it to be something other than what the church claims it to be.
The Christian expectation is that Jesus is going to descend upon a cloud, with angels and trumpets and the "end of this world." It is now 2,000 years later and the events, taken in a literal/physical sense have yet to happen. This is not going to happen Mustardseed. This planet will continue to turn and change, just like it has for the past 2,000 years, until either our sun burns out, a major meteor crashes into us--or we destroy it by fighting amongst ourselves.
The "Soon" that I proposed above, however, makes The Book of Revelation a "spiritual prophecy" not a "physical prophecy."
"Like a thief in the night" the "end of the world as we know it" can occur at anytime, and already has occured many times over, for when each one of us finally recognizes our true spiritual nature, our view of reality is forever changed--our "old world has passed away" and a "new world has come into existence."
When the Church closed the canon of the Bible, it closed the doors on all other prophecies. Therefore, Christianity is still thriving on an ancient prophecy and there is no room for "Jesus to come again" because the expectation is "physical" and not "spiritual." People are not expecting that!
The Church has had 1,700 years in charge of the spiritual welfare of humanity, and it has not been very effective. Their numbers have certainly grown leaps and bounds, but the quality of our world is declining at a frightening rate of speed. Our world needs help Mustardseed, but until the Church "moves out of the way" and "the spirit is allowed to move in" we will continue in the same manner as we always have--that is bickering amongst ourselves over "who is right and who is wrong."
And the real travesty in all this, is that many people are so tired of this centuries old disagreement, that they are giving up on all things "spiritual" and closing their minds to everything outside of this physical world. They go shopping or watch TV instead of thinking about it.
Our world is in a mess. It is past time for a change. In my opinion, we must "open our minds and our hearts" to the "current voice of the spirit" --perhaps the same voice that was speaking in the ancient prophecies--and let the spirit speak to us in terms of today--instead of listening to the age-old Church's voice that can only keep repeating itself with its "old message." I truly think that the prophecy of The Book of Revelation HAS been fulfilled. It is, on the other hand, the Church's promises that have NOT.
Beth
Greetings,
We suspect that the bible is largely constituted from a collection of works, probably originating as stories and fables etc., i.e. hearsay, and which was eventually gathered together and compiled in Greek as the original bible, and which was subsequently translated, re-translated, interpreted and re-interpeted, largely to meet the controlling aspirations of churches and governments.
The question though is this: is there any written evidence whatsoever relating to the bible, and in particular John? I asl because is said that the Essenes has their own copy of John's Gospel, and then of course there is the Nag Hammadi library etc..
The biggest question is; how did the original bible come to be composed in Greek, and what was the basis for those works? Many people seem to overlook the fact that Greece is a good distance from the so called "holy lands" where everything was supposed to have taken place; what is now Israel to Greece must be several hundred miles across the Mediterranean.
With best regards,
Adrian.