The Astral Pulse

Does a female where a test-tube baby is implanted into his womb consider a virgin?

The idea to us today of the birth to a virgin is fantasic. But before and during the time of Jesus the Roman and Greek gods were getting their freak on all over the place with the human hotties. Thus virgin birth was not an uncommon idea and seemed to have "happened" often.

Do you think that this influenced the idea of Jesus being born to a virgin? If Jesus was truly born to a virgin, why would God conform to human ideas of the time? If Jesus was not born to a virgin would it matter to you at all?

I recently saw an experiment in which basic (oposite of acidic) ingredients in semen caused an egg to divide with no transfer of genetic information. Similar chemicals are naturally present in normal womens' bodies. Apparently, if the female has an extra Y chromosome, she may look normal and have a male offspring without intercourse.

I think Mary did a lot of gymnastics, so she used that to explain why a torn hymen didn't mean she had sex :)

Quote from: bomohwklDoes a female where a test-tube baby is implanted into his womb consider a virgin?

Allow me to reword your question so that it uses correct terminology, exclusive specification and gender: "Is an artificially inseminated mother considered a virgin if she has never had sex?"

The answer is yes. We define virginity by sexual intercourse, not conceiving, today. Otherwise you'd be a virgin if you always used condoms in your daily sandwiched orgies. While sexual conception has taken place, sexual intercourse (implying another person present and interacting sexually, which a doctor would NOT count as) has not.

Didn't Jesus have older brothers, go figure.

Hi,
Maybe Mary did what a million other girls have done in the history of humanity...  got pregnant, married quickly and pretended to be a virgin on the first night when the hubby would have been drunk on copious quantities of watered wine, and therefore easy to fool.  A few splashes of animal blood would make happy the crones who would have been present to insure she was a virgin when they had to check the bedding for blood stains ?

Or, maybe the angel who visited her was not really an angel, maybe it was her Lover or husband to be...  and as nature would have it she conceived during their pre-marital sex ?

Or, the angel was real and it impregnated her artificially to insure the coming of a specialized being ?

Or, the angel was an Alien who also did the same thing ?

Basically, it's over two thousand years ago, apart from christians trying to prove their religion is the One True religion..  why should it matter now ?

 :?

Potential,

QuoteDidn't Jesus have older brothers, go figure.  

Nope.

Dear runlola,

QuoteWhat's even more fantastic to my non-religious friend is the resurrection. She told me she could never accept Christianity because of the stories. People laugh at witches & other religious stories but for some reason they whole-heartedly believe the Christian stories. Why is that?

Very good comment/question.  My answer is--a very long time ago, some very powerful people demanded that people believe these stories to be real and all others to be false or merely fiction.  After generations of making good on the demands through censure, torture, hanging, burning, and various other techniques of submission, accepting these stories as being historical and the literal truth became the only way for people to survive.  In other words, it was just easier and safer to go with the flow. Why do people still believe all of this?  I guess the answer is individual and unique, but I also know that when given no other real options, staying with tradition seems to be easiest thing to do--and many people like for the answers to be provided for them rather than going to the trouble to seek the answers themselves.

Originally, however, Christianity was nothing like it would become in later centuries.  This is actually very sad...but true.  Knowledge of original Christianity has remained hidden for almost two thousand years.  It is, however, still alive and well in the world, it is just called by an entirely different name.

The truth is coming to the fore, just give it time.  

Peace,
Beth

p.s.  Just because these stories are not historically true, does not mean that they are not valuable.  The stories themselves do have a lot to offer us, but we must read them as the moral fables, allegories and parables that they are.

Beth,

QuoteMy answer is--a very long time ago, some very powerful people demanded that people believe these stories to be real and all others to be false or merely fiction. After generations of making good on the demands through censure, torture, hanging, burning, and various other techniques of submission, accepting these stories as being historical and the literal truth became the only way for people to survive.

This is an entirely fallacious argument. First, it ignores that the Apostles and other initial followers of Christ really believed that they say the resurrected Christ. Paul makes mention of hundreds of people who saw Him.

Second, you ignore the thousands of people who believed apart from any religious control, torture, etc. You fallaciously make it seem like the only reason people believed was because they were forced to. And certainly this happened, I am not denying that, but it goes way beyond that.

Third, you ignore the thousands who believed in the literal resurrection of Christ and believed in him as their Savior despite themselves being tortured and killed for doing so.

QuoteWhy do people still believe all of this? I guess the answer is individual and unique, but I also know that when given no other real options, staying with tradition seems to be easiest thing to do--and many people like for the answers to be provided for them rather than going to the trouble to seek the answers themselves.

Here, again, you employ the same fallacious reasoning, ignoring the fact that thousands believe these things because they have found them to be true.

QuoteKnowledge of original Christianity has remained hidden for almost two thousand years.

You don't really believe that stuff, do you Beth? Surely someone as educated as you knows better. You sound like you have bought into Dan Brown's work of fiction.

Quotep.s. Just because these stories are not historically true, does not mean that they are not valuable. The stories themselves do have a lot to offer us, but we must read them as the moral fables, allegories and parables that they are.

You have offered no reason to believe that these stories are not historically true and that we should consider them "moral fables."

If the stories of Christ, his virgin birth, incarnation, death and resurrection, and everything in between are merely "moral fables," then there is nothing moral about them. In fact, they would be completely immoral and no one should have anything to do with them. They would be nothing but a bunch of lies taught by a liar and written down by those He deceived.

Dear X,

Wow...I guess everybody wants a piece of me these days! It seems I am now 2 for 2 in tinkling people off!!! (Other Moderators:  can I use the word "tinkling???"--if not, feel free to edit!)

Ex, we have been down this road before.  If you do not want to know anything new...then just don't read my posts....you do know how to ignore posts...don't you?  

I was responding to a member who asked a legitimate question to which I gave a legitimate answer....an answer that I proudly and knowledgeably stand by...as a mature adult and a as scholar.  

Now, if you want to fight, perhaps you and Aunt Clair could go a round or two.  There should be plenty of things for the two of you to hash out...


Peace Ex,
Beth

Beth,

I am not looking for piece of anyone nor am I 'ticked' off.

QuoteEx, we have been down this road before. If you do not want to know anything new...then just don't read my posts

If we've been down this road before, then how can your posts have anything new...? Just curious. :D

Quoteyou do know how to ignore posts...don't you?

Of couse I do. But I cannot ignore posts that purposely portray Christianity as something it is not.

QuoteI was responding to a member who asked a legitimate question to which I gave a legitimate answer

But that is the whole point isn't it? You gave a very one-sided, fallacious answer.

Dear runlola,

You are very welcome! :wink:

Peace,
Beth

I'm just suspicious of why Exothen feels the need to come here at all.
This forum is for the Astral pulse.. ie for those interested and involved with astral experiences and techniques..

now the christianity forums were only created due to incidents with fundamentalists last year, and the idea was to try to limit the evangelists who kept coming here disrupting everything by giving them their own platform,.. but i dont entirly agree with this policy because now there is a forum catering for their needs... its only served to increase their numbers!

Exothen has absolutly no interest in astral projection, in fact when I asked him about it once, he didnt even know what it was.. so why is he here? answer: to evangelise.. thats it.. he believes he is doing gods work...
the input he puts into this forum therefore is not a positive one, as his aim is ultimatrly to convert all the 'heathens' of the forums.

Doug

I am here because there is so much error being passed as truth regarding Christianity it is astounding. I don't think I have ventured outside the Christian partition of these forums, it is you who comes in. If you don't like it, you don't have to come in.

Pardon?

It is you who have been allowed 'within', on a controlled basis I might add. This is not a christian web site as such, This christian 'sub-forum' is a platform, created for a specific purpose, which i alluded to above, as a measure to keep in check some of your more fanatical 'brethren'. i don't have to like it, but it's important to keep an eye on it nevertheless.

Douglas

Hi,
I see much of the same old arguments between christian-religionists and those who do not attach to that belief-system.

We can read about the historical nature of the times of Jesus, and even about the members of his family..including brothers..  yet, the religionists will overlook this or claim it is wrong, based solely on the now-questionable books of the bible.

Ultimately, there is no way to bridge the gap between the two groups..believers and non-believers.

For instance...
Yesterday I was asked to help a lady with mental aberrations..  she has a strong faith in her chosen religion..  so strongly is she Indoctrinated into the Belief-System of her religion, that there was no way to help her because she could not see nor comprehend beyond the Belief-systems indoctrinations !

I wasn't able to find a way for her to understand that I could help her to Clarity by introducing her to the Light...  which she could most probably easily experience but would have had to interpret the experience through the Belief-System of her religion...which makes the whole thing worthless and so we didn't even try it with her.

This is the same problem some of you posters here are experiencing... the inability to show Believers a more effective way to perceive what they have been Indoctrinated with.   And why is it so ?  Because the Believers absolutely refuse to open their own eyes and ears to hear and experience a deeper truth that is easily available to them.

Who is to say that God is not working through some of the "heathens" to help his believers to Clarity ?


:shock:

Greetings all,

One may accept the mass orthodox belief in the virgin birth(VB)...and/or have developed his own adherence to such for a variety of reasons...all of course augmenting Christs unique and special Sonship. We know some early christian sects did not necessarily believe Jesus was virgin-born...but this became the standard doctrine as orthodox teaching was being strived for thru creeds and dogmas...as the 'church' sought to lay out 'correct' doctrine. Many angles on the VB debate exist within orthodox and unorthodox christian schools.

So much of those who contend for the VB have theologically grounds as to the nature of Jesus as 'divine' or 'God'...and another view that Jesus had to be virgin-born to be our Savior, or else he would have the tainted blood of Adam passed down thru a human father. Only a pure human sacrifice without the taint of sin could be sacrificed for mankinds sins, etc.
There is much more involved, of course.

Does it matter? Well,......only to those who have an invested faith in the matter. In my own Christ-centered path.........I can behold the divinity in Jesus and acknowledge his divine Sonship without necessarily accepting the VB. Such does however naturally fit into the mythos and mystique associated with the drama of redemption - such story-telling and veneration has its place in the worship of the divine thru whatever forms/beliefs inspire faith in a higher power.

It can also illustrate that in order for us to have the Christ(anointing/light)  born anew in us....we must become pure and virginal in our souls...that we me become cradles of the divine. Like Mary....we can become blessed among humanity for nurturing the divine issue for the salvation of the world. This can be facilitated in us...as we become purveyors of light, manifestors of Love.

Remember when the Christ was born in the baby Jesus....the angels proclaimed that with his advent/birth.....there could be 'peace on earth and good will towards all men'. For the seed of God to bloom within the garden of the heart/soul......a pure, prepared, fertile field is most desirable to provide for the healthiest/most beautiful expression of divinity.


paul

Hello Gandalf/Doug!  

I hope you are doing well. It has been a while...

You wrote:

Quotenow the christianity forums were only created due to incidents with fundamentalists last year, and the idea was to try to limit the evangelists who kept coming here disrupting everything by giving them their own platform

While I realize that this was indeed the case, and that Robert and Adrian invited me in to moderate for this very reason, I think there was also the parallel intention to help reassure those astral travellers that are also believers, that this activity is not heretical and that there is room for both belief and experience--if they are willing to expand upon their beliefs to include their experience.  

Quotebut i dont entirly agree with this policy because now there is a forum catering for their needs... its only served to increase their numbers!

And this has been the unfortunate downside.  These people have come in, and thinking that these threads were made just for them, have indeed taken over to evangelise when most of us have made it perfectly clear that we already know what their position is and that it is other options that we seek.  

I am not going to revert to the circular arguments that we went through a year and a half ago.  It was very time consuming for me and quite frankly, I want to come to this forum and share what I know with those that want to know it, with the added intention of exploring a much higher purpose than mainstream Christianity.  If Ex, et al think they are going to bait me into argument again, they are mistaken.  I do not want to play...not here and not now.

Peace,
Beth

Quote from: BethOriginally, however, Christianity was nothing like it would become in later centuries. This is actually very sad...but true. Knowledge of original Christianity has remained hidden for almost two thousand years. It is, however, still alive and well in the world, it is just called by an entirely different name.

What name would that be?  I'm not trying to "get a piece of you," lol... 'tis just that the first two centuries of Christianity is one of my main focuses, mostly because I believe therein lies the key to what it was meant to be, and how far we've strayed since.  So I'd be very interested to see you elaborate on this further.

Quote from: exothenYou don't really believe that stuff, do you Beth? Surely someone as educated as you knows better. You sound like you have bought into Dan Brown's work of fiction.

I agree with what she said as well -- the traditional account of Christianity's origins is quite a different story compared to what we're finding out to be true in this very century.  For instance, according to popular conception, there was One True Faith™ handed straight from Jesus to the apostles, which then remained uncorrupted despite the repeated attempts to undermine it by heretics who apparently had nothing better to do than deliberately believe and teach things they knew to be false, just for the sake of being ornery.  

Of course, the picture being painted by more recent finds is a whole other story: that even from the beginning there was a vast diversity of belief and practice, Jesus meant many things to many people, and there were all sorts of groups vying for position as the legitimate heirs to the Christian message.  When that is understood, the fact that one of those sects happened to gain imperial favor and was then imposed on the whole empire at the expense of all others becomes inconsequential as far as spiritual truth and authority is concerned.

This may or may not be the sort of thing Beth has in mind, but I'm interested to find out.

Quote from: Gandalf
now the christianity forums were only created due to incidents with fundamentalists last year, and the idea was to try to limit the evangelists who kept coming here disrupting everything by giving them their own platform,.. but i dont entirly agree with this policy because now there is a forum catering for their needs... its only served to increase their numbers!

Well, I for one am very appreciative to have this forum here.  As a rather unorthodox Christian, it's really nice to have a place where I can propose and discuss some of my more "out there" theologizing that would otherwise be immediately dismissed and/or condemned by my more mainline, conservative brethren.

Hello:

This post is made with all due respects to Beth who has been assigned the rather difficult task of moderating this section of the forum. We are, of course, grateful for her dedication in that regard.

Gandalf makes a strong point, and he is correct in his observations as to why these particular forums were brought into being. These forums are not for people to engage in the recruitment of new believers to their cause. The Astral Pulse is an open forum that is presented in order that people of ALL faiths/believes, etc. can enter into respectful discussion and/or debate.

Continual posting with the sole intent of "converting" people to a particular "faith" or "cause" is not an action we allow.

Yours,
Frank

Dear Palehorse,

I wrote:

QuoteOriginally, however, Christianity was nothing like it would become in later centuries. This is actually very sad...but true. Knowledge of original Christianity has remained hidden for almost two thousand years. It is, however, still alive and well in the world, it is just called by an entirely different name.

To which you replied:

QuoteWhat name would that be?  I'm not trying to "get a piece of you," lol... 'tis just that the first two centuries of Christianity is one of my main focuses, mostly because I believe therein lies the key to what it was meant to be, and how far we've strayed since.  So I'd be very interested to see you elaborate on this further.

Well...I have to say we have strayed very far from the path.  Would you believe that the 'entirely different name' is education?  Rabbis and disciples were teachers and students--not ministers or preachers.  

Original Christianity was an advanced branch of the ancient Greek enclyclica, or in 21st century speak--educational curriculum--that was fundamental to ancient Judaism as well as the Greek mystery traditions.  This curriculum was all of the expected topics such as grammar, mathematics, astronomy, science, literature, music, art, and ethics.  Early Christianity was probably much like our American high school or university level education, where all of these general topics had already been studied and then through the literature of the Greek philosophers and an allegorical interpretation of biblical scripture, the higher 'mysteries' were then studied in depth.  

What has totally fallen through the cracks of time is that original Christianity was not even a religion per se, it was about the acquisition of knowledge--of expanding and using the rational mind to learn as much as one had the capacity to learn.  

The people that lived near and/or could afford to study in the public institutions (gymnasia) studied there, and the earliest Christians would also teach in private homes in order to make education available to whoever wanted and had the aptitude to do so.  

A few important points here: 1) the ancient synagogues were, according to Philo of Alexandria, their educational institutions, 2) not everyone could become a Christian--it required a great deal of study and dedication as well as the ability to stay the course. 3) It also required the dedication to learn of and live a virtuous life--this was actually very important, 3) At some point--if one was found worthy--he/she was invited to become a member in the highest mysteries, or what Origen of Alexandria referred to as true Christianity.  These higher mysteries concentrated on the more metaphysical aspects of knowledge as well as those of personal experience.  

In comparing this ancient education with 21st century education, this does not mean that you must attend a public or even private university, even though the early church acted as such, the point of the acquistition of knowledge is to never cease seeking to learn new things and to understand things that you did not know or understand yesterday.  

Knowledge, for the ancients, was Power.  Today, we seriously take for granted our educational opportunities, oftentimes not even applying ourselves to the public education that comes at no cost to the student.  This is a pity because high tuition costs need not apply. There are plenty of ways to educate yourself--books can be studied in the comfort of your own home or through libraries and now we the internet.  While the earliest Christians stressed the importance of studying a variety of cultures and disiciplines, the use of discernment was heavily stressed.  In other words, just because it is written in a book or posted on a website does not make it true.  In fact, each person should do their own homework, check all available sources, and after appropriate study and contemplation of the subject, decide for themselves what it is true and what is not.  

But--technically speaking, one is probably more of a Christian today--by ancient standards--if they have acquired an education of some sort, strive to live a life a virtue and through this some would probably qualify for the higher mysteries if they really apply themselves.

There is certainly a lot more to be said about all of this, but this is my pithy answer to your question.  

You wrote:

QuoteOf course, the picture being painted by more recent finds is a whole other story: that even from the beginning there was a vast diversity of belief and practice, Jesus meant many things to many people, and there were all sorts of groups vying for position as the legitimate heirs to the Christian message.  When that is understood, the fact that one of those sects happened to gain imperial favor and was then imposed on the whole empire at the expense of all others becomes inconsequential as far as spiritual truth and authority is concerned.

But the spritual truths have survived in spite of one sect becoming the Roman Catholic Church and hopefully all these spiritual truths will eventually be revealed!  It is actually a wonderful time (and not a decade too soon!) for a new fresh look at this ancient tradition to come into our consciouness.  

Peace,
Beth  :D

Ex,

You wrote:

QuoteYou don't really believe that stuff, do you Beth? Surely someone as educated as you knows better. You sound like you have bought into Dan Brown's work of fiction.

tee-hee....that's funny....

I am a religion scholar Ex and I happen to also love and appreciate fiction....The Da Vinci Code is one type of fiction (and it was entertaining enough for a two-day turn around) but the fiction that I love the most, that I have devoted many years to, and will continue to devote the majority of my time to, are books titled: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers....Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts...Revelation, etc.  

IMO these are The Greatest Stories Ever Told.

Peace,
Beth

QuoteOriginal Christianity was an advanced branch of the ancient Greek enclyclica, or in 21st century speak--educational curriculum--that was fundamental to ancient Judaism as well as the Greek mystery traditions. This curriculum was all of the expected topics such as grammar, mathematics, astronomy, science, literature, music, art, and ethics. Early Christianity was probably much like our American high school or university level education, where all of these general topics had already been studied and then through the literature of the Greek philosophers and an allegorical interpretation of biblical scripture, the higher 'mysteries' were then studied in depth.

As per my current understanding, wouldn't this be a more apt description of, for instance, 2nd century Alexandrian Christianity though, rather than Christianity as a whole?  In the 1st century, the focus was primarily on survival and the expected eschaton, which I believe was fulfilled by the war from 63-70.  As such, Christians didn't really have the luxury of developing well established schools and receiving education, and the allegorical interpretation of scripture wasn't really introduced until it found its fullest expression in the works of Origen decades later.  These folks were much more preoccupied with their belief that the world as they knew it would end in their lifetime.  And I suppose, in a sense, it did.

Additionally, I'm under the impression that we can't really make generalizations about what "early Christianity was..." since as I was saying before, there was so much diversity represented under that umbrella.  Sure, there were the intellectuals... but there were also the charismatic groups, the "Judaizers," the mystery cults, the folk religion aspect... and so on.  Plus, there was a reason Celsus criticized Christianity for being "a religion of women, children and slaves," i.e. the lower class: on the whole it was radically egalitarian for the time, even if it did have its "spiritual elite."  

QuoteWhat has totally fallen through the cracks of time is that original Christianity was not even a religion per se, it was about the acquisition of knowledge--of expanding and using the rational mind to learn as much as one had the capacity to learn.

I agree that the rational mind was important, but it wasn't the be-all end-all.  Equally or perhaps more important was gnosis, the mystical experiential knowing that only comes via revelation, and cannot be approached by reason alone.  The distinction between Christianity and capital-G-Gnosticism of course came later, but I would argue that gnosis was still an integral concept from the beginning. (I realize you addressed gnosis later in your post... but here you make it sound like rationalism was the main ideology of early Christianity, which I have to disagree with, assuming I haven't misunderstood.)

QuoteA few important points here: 1) the ancient synagogues were, according to Philo of Alexandria, their educational institutions,

But Philo of Alexandria was a Jew.  This may have been true prior to 70 AD when the majority of Christians were still Jews, and Christianity was still a messianic sect within Judaism.  However, the relationship between Christian Jews and Rabbinic Jews was uncomfortable at best and violent at worst (Saul of Tarsus anyone?) until after the war, when that relationship was finally severed for good.

Quote2) not everyone could become a Christian--it required a great deal of study and dedication as well as the ability to stay the course.

Again, I would say that not everyone could become this kind of Christian... but there were still factions within Christianity that welcomed everyone.  In the canonical NT for instance, we see entire families and large crowds being baptized en masse.  See also: the aforementioned criticism from Celsus.

Quote3) It also required the dedication to learn of and live a virtuous life--this was actually very important,

Agreed.

Quote3) At some point--if one was found worthy--he/she was invited to become a member in the highest mysteries, or what Origen of Alexandria referred to as true Christianity. These higher mysteries concentrated on the more metaphysical aspects of knowledge as well as those of personal experience.

I agree with this assessment, though I would place the distinction between esoteric and exoteric Christianity, rather than between Christian and not Christian.  It's all a matter of how far into the rabbit hole one cared to venture, I suppose.

QuoteWhile the earliest Christians stressed the importance of studying a variety of cultures and disiciplines, the use of discernment was heavily stressed.

Very heavily stressed, heh.  What lead you to that conclusion?  From what I've seen, namely the seemingly endless stream of dialogues, refutation, slander, condemnation and so forth that came from all three sides (Christian/Jewish/Pagan) during those first few centuries, it seems the relationship between many (most?) Christians and their contemporaries wasn't nearly as friendly as you seem to indicate.  For that matter, we see the same from Christians of competing factions amongst each other, and occasionally amongst themselves (1 John 2).

QuoteBut the spritual truths have survivedin spite of one sect becoming the Roman Catholic Church and hopefullyall these spiritual truths will eventually be revealed! It is actuallya wonderful time (and not a decade too soon!) for a new fresh look at this ancient tradition to come into our consciouness.

Definitely agree with this.  I believe the politico-religious institution of temple-centered Judaism was done away with after having fulfilled its purpose, so that the new outpouring of a more life-affirming, personal, individualized truth could survive and flourish.  Unfortunately certain lessons were not learned, and still more monolithic institutions were promptly erected in Jesus' name shortly after his lifetime.  Claiming to operate in the best interest of the faithful, it inserted itself into the void left by the Jewish temple, and proceeded to monopolize "orthodoxy" and choke out living spirituality in much the same way.  I see a similar day of reckoning on the horizon for institutional Christianity (or Churchianity, as I'm fond of calling it), perhaps even sooner than we think... and I know I'm not the only one feeling these birth pangs.  Such transitions often prove to be rather messy and painful for the material-minded folks still hanging on for dear life, but ultimately, we all only stand to benefit in the long run.  Incidentally, the hope for such an unveiling is the reason behind the quote in my sig.

Anyway, I appreciate your reply.  Though we seem to disagree on a few things, I respect the amount of study you've put into all this, and I really appreciate the opportunity to engage with someone who's been at this for a while longer than I have.

Maranatha,
--PH

hmm well i am no expert on early christianity unlike some here, but I am aware of my own ancient history professors who are quite clear that early christinity was without doubt a mystery cult, small numbers who would know personal salvation and revelation through being members.. it was never the idea to evangelise to everyone so that all could be part of it, as this ruined the effect of it being a mystery religion. As someone said 'if everyone wanted to be a christian at that time, the christians wouldnt want them'.
But of course, cults and religions evolve over time, just like everything else.

Doug

Dear Palehorse,

You wrote:

QuoteAs per my current understanding, wouldn't this be a more apt description of, for instance, 2nd century Alexandrian Christianity though, rather than Christianity as a whole? In the 1st century, the focus was primarily on survival and the expected eschaton, which I believe was fulfilled by the war from 63-70.  As such, Christians didn't really have the luxury of developing well established schools and receiving education, and the allegorical interpretation of scripture wasn't really introduced until it found its fullest expression in the works of Origen decades later.  These folks were much more preoccupied with their belief that the world as they knew it would end in their lifetime.  And I suppose, in a sense, it did.

First of all, you are comparing what I have suggested to the standard understanding of the events of the first-third centuries.  I think too much has been taken literally in this regard.  Because of the fact that New Testament scripture is all the actual history we have to rely upon (except Josephus) there is a constant tension between biblical history and what real history quite possibly was.  Was there really a belief in an eschaton, or is that the impression we are left with from scripture?  As to Origen being the primary church father to teach allegorically, you are mistaken there.  Allegorical interpretions were banned when Origen's teachings were banned, but as early as the writer of the Pauline epistles and the book of Galatians "Sarah and Hagar" were being taught allegorically as "the heavenly journey to Jerusalem" and "the earthly journey to Jerusalem."  Then about a century or so later, Clement also used allegorical interpretation before Origen.   May I suggest a different approach?  Instead of relying upon scripture to inform you of what happened (in case that is all spiritual fiction) read up on Philo of Alexandria who died around 50-60 of the current era and would have been a contemporary of the earliest Christians.  

QuoteAdditionally, I'm under the impression that we can't really make generalizations about what "early Christianity was..." since as I was saying before, there was so much diversity represented under that umbrella.  Sure, there were the intellectuals... but there were also the charismatic groups, the "Judaizers," the mystery cults, the folk religion aspect... and so on.  Plus, there was a reason Celsus criticized Christianity for being "a religion of women, children and slaves," i.e. the lower class: on the whole it was radically egalitarian for the time, even if it did have its "spiritual elite."

It will not be easy to unravel the earliest Christianity to discover what it was really all about, but it can be done to a great extent.  You should also know that I am basing my opinion of this on my own research which I am in the process of getting published.  In it you will be able to see a very different original Christianity, but until then, like I said above, look to other first century sources outside of the New Testament and see if you can find corroborating evidence for your own conclusions.  That is what I have had to do!

QuoteWhat has totally fallen through the cracks of time is that original Christianity was not even a religion per se, it was about the acquisition of knowledge--of expanding and using the rational mind to learn as much as one had the capacity to learn.

QuoteEqually or perhaps more important was gnosis, the mystical experiential knowing that only comes via revelation, and cannot be approached by reason alone.  

What if "revelatory gnosis" is actually the experience of pure reason and the knowledge received from such an experience?

QuoteBut Philo of Alexandria was a Jew.

As were all first and second century Christians.

QuoteThis may have been true prior to 70 AD when the majority of Christians were still Jews, and Christianity was still a messianic sect within Judaism.  However, the relationship between Christian Jews and Rabbinic Jews was uncomfortable at best and violent at worst (Saul of Tarsus anyone?) until after the war, when that relationship was finally severed for good.

Once again, approach this from a different angle and see what you find.

I wrote:

Quote2) not everyone could become a Christian--it required a great deal of study and dedication as well as the ability to stay the course.

To which you responded:

QuoteAgain, I would say that not everyone could become this kind of Christian... but there were still factions within Christianity that welcomed everyone.  In the canonical NT for instance, we see entire families and large crowds being baptized en masse.  See also: the aforementioned criticism from Celsus.

Sure, whole families were baptised and made Christian families--but not as we think of that today.  These families were still of certain economic means; it would not be until much later that the general populas was brought into the fold, so to speak, and by then the original mysteries were either lost--or safely guarded within the elite Church hierarchy.  

Take Origen's family for instance.  We know that his father recognized Origen's high intellect at an early age and had him educated appropriately--in the Greek tradition.  We also know that the members of this family were also early Christians--and while not a wealthly family, there was a financial benefactor involved in Origen's education.  Origen's father actually died a martyr--leaving the young Origen in charge of the struggling family.  Origen did not go out and preach the Christian message--he completed his education and became head of the school that Clement had once headed up, which actually taught that Christ was The Educator of the Rational Mind and the Virtuous Soul.  Clement and Origen were teachers--not preachers.  You have to dig to find this information Palehorse, because it has not been advertised for obvious reasons, but the information is out there that shines a very different light on the earliest decades of Christianity.  

You wrote:

QuoteI agree with this assessment, though I would place the distinction between esoteric and exoteric Christianity, rather than between Christian and not Christian.  It's all a matter of how far into the rabbit hole one cared to venture, I suppose.

"True Christianity" versus "non-Christianity" is a distinction that Origen made not me.  Now, what I think he was getting at, was that the majority of people exposed to the offerings of the early Church could only go so far--partaking of only the milk (instead of the meat--metaphorically speaking)--and this would be the exoteric or outer teachings--the literal interpretation or general interpretation of scripture.  It was not until one moved past the general/literal and into the allegorical that one could see/experience the truth of what scripture was trying to communicate.  In order to do this, you had to have studied all the languages involved (Semitic, Greek and probably also some Latin at that point,) as well as the courses of study that the topics would cover, such as grammar, literature, the sciences, astronomy and metaphysics.  All in all, it took a high level of education to understand scripture from an esoteric perspective.  This was, according to Origen, the True Christian Message.

I wrote:

QuoteWhile the earliest Christians stressed the importance of studying a variety of cultures and disiciplines, the use of discernment was heavily stressed.

To which you responded:

QuoteChristians and their contemporaries wasn't nearly as friendly as you seem to indicate. For that matter, we see the same from Christians of competing factions amongst each other, and occasionally amongst themselves (1 John 2).

I am not sure where using discernment in learning of other cultures would lead you to think I was implying that everyone was "friendly"?????  

QuoteBut the spritual truths have survived in spite of one sect becoming the Roman Catholic Church and hopefullyall these spiritual truths will eventually be revealed! It is actuallya wonderful time (and not a decade too soon!) for a new fresh look at this ancient tradition to come into our consciouness.

QuoteI see a similar day of reckoning on the horizon for institutional Christianity (or Churchianity, as I'm fond of calling it), perhaps even sooner than we think... and I know I'm not the only one feeling these birth pangs.  Such transitions often prove to be rather messy and painful for the material-minded folks still hanging on for dear life, but ultimately, we all only stand to benefit in the long run.  Incidentally, the hope for such an unveiling is the reason behind the quote in my sig.

Yes, there are certainly a lot of scholars involved here, and much of what I have found in my own research will no doubt contribute that this. Once again, it is Reason that is chomping at the bit of irrational faith-based beliefs.

QuoteAnyway, I appreciate your reply.  Though we seem to disagree on a few things, I respect the amount of study you've put into all this, and I really appreciate the opportunity to engage with someone who's been at this for a while longer than I have.

And I appreciate yours as well!  We need, however, to remember that to seek and to find we must look everywhere for our answers...but most especially outside of the box.  That "box" being, the church's official position as well as many standard academic teachings.

Peace,
Beth

Gandalf:

You wrote:

Quoteearly christinity was without doubt a mystery cult, small numbers who would know personal salvation and revelation through being members.. it was never the idea to evangelise to everyone so that all could be part of it, as this ruined the effect of it being a mystery religion. As someone said 'if everyone wanted to be a christian at that time, the christians wouldnt want them'.

That is probably very true and one of the things that most people cannot quite wrap their heads around--that is, that even if there was total agreement between all the early Christian accounts that we have or know about, we are still only hearing from the educated elite which was a relatively small number of people when compared to the population as a whole.  The mystery religions were "secret"--that being the key operative word--and from the early Christian writings that we do have, we cannot be sure which writers were actually legitimate members of the mysteries and who were not.  Moreover, even if they claimed to be initiates of the Mysteries--that would not necessarily mean that they actually were.  :wink:

QuoteFirst of all, you are comparing what I have suggested to the standard understanding of the events of the first-third centuries. I think too much has been taken literally in this regard.

Would I be correct to assume you believe the biblical manuscripts we have were "doctored" after the fact to conform with the beliefs of the proto-orthodox?

While I believe this is quite possible/probable, especially because as far as I know, the oldest manuscripts we have are from around the time of Constantine, I'm skeptical about the extent to which they could have gotten away with it.  I mean, if there's a tradition thats been handed down for 2-3 centuries that says history went a certain way, and suddenly said tradition is completely revised according to the interests of the powers that be, aren't people going to notice?

QuoteBecause of the fact that New Testament scripture is all the actual history we have to rely upon (except Josephus) there is a constant tension between biblical history and what real history quite possibly was.

While it's not uncommon to see various agendas at work in scripture, I tend to view them as generally reliable.  For one, they have enough agreement between them about the gist of what happened, even if they don't always get their details straight.  To me, their differences seem about right for what was four different strains of oral tradition for the first few decades, and then got written down in different communities.  And, their similarities lead me to believe they all point back to the same series of events.  What's more, if it was the imperial scribes who later falsified or dramatically revised these documents, then I'd think they would agree a lot more than they do in order to maintain consistency a high standard of consistency that Constantine was looking for in order to unify his empire.

QuoteWas there really a belief in an eschaton, or is that the impression we are left with from scripture?

Well, if there wasn't, then most of what we think we know about Jesus and Paul is wrong.  I believe there was, for a lot of different reasons... but then, I'm a partial preterist, so I s'pose that makes sense, eh?  :P

As such, I lean toward a date for Revelation that's much earlier than the traditionally assumed 90+... and I find it very interesting how much agreement there is between Josephus and Revelation, especially concerning certain supernatural and/or celestial events that were recorded by Josephus and Tacitus.

I also take into account Eusebius' statement about Christians escaping Jerusalem and scampering off into the mountains just before the siege.  I realize Eusebius is often considered unreliable due to his blatant biases and revisionism, but in this case I think he's telling the truth for two reasons.  One, this part doesn't come off like he has anything to prove -- it's just an aside, stated in a very matter of fact way.  Secondly, he certainly didn't have a vested interest in reporting this if it didn't actually happen... since it supports an interpretation of Revelation and Jesus' words that paint the Romans in a rather negative light.  

Anyway, my reason for bringing that up is that I believe there was a good reason the Christians got out just in time while so many other people perished.  This was because they were heeding the numerous warnings from Jesus about the fall of the temple and Jerusalem, as recorded in the gospels.

QuoteAs to Origen being the primary church father to teach allegorically, you are mistaken there. Allegorical interpretions were banned when Origen's teachings were banned,but as early as the writer of the Pauline epistles and the book of Galatians "Sarah and Hagar" were being taught allegorically as "the heavenly journey to Jerusalem" and "the earthly journey to Jerusalem."Then about a century or so later, Clement also used allegorical interpretation before Origen.

Curious -- was allegorical interpretation officially banned, or just generally frowned upon by the Catholic hierarchy?  

Anyway, thanks for the correction.  I also have a hard time keeping straight who said what when, as my brain doesn't like to work in such a linear way, lol... but you're right, Clement came first.  I didn't realize allegory was introduced into Christian exegesis so early though either; interesting stuff, that.

QuoteMay I suggest a different approach?

Looks like you already did.  :P  But yes, always.

QuoteInstead of relying upon scripture to inform you of what happened (incase that is all spiritual fiction) read up on Philo of Alexandria who died around 50-60 of the current era and would have been a contemporaryof the earliest Christians.

Philo's name seems to be coming up a whole lot in my various academic exploits lately, so I might have to do just that.  The only thing I'm skeptical about is that the relationship between the Christians and the rest of their Jewish brethren during his lifetime was not on the most amicable terms, so I'm not sure how much influence he could've had on the earliest church.  But I also wouldn't be surprised to learn that Christian teachers who came shortly after later picked up his work and went "Oooo."

QuoteIt will not be easy to unravel the earliest Christianity to discoverwhat it was really all about, but it can be done to a great extent. You should also know that I am basing my opinion of this on my own research which I am in the process of getting published. In it you will be able to see a very different original Christianity, but until then, like I said above, look to other first century sources outside of the New Testament and see if you can find corroborating evidence for your own conclusions. That is what I have had to do!

I definitely look forward to getting my hands on a copy of your book; sounds like it'll be right in my area of focus and interest.  I'm always up for something different, no matter how far outside the realm of accepted dogma (which academic types often seem to have every bit as much as religious folks, it seems) it might be.

QuoteWhat if "revelatory gnosis" is actually the experience of pure reason and the knowledge received from such an experience?

Eh, I tend to consider gnosis as another category entirely, as I don't really see any parallels between it, and "normal" inductive or deductive human reason.  This sort of knowledge can't be approached by logic, because its insights often seem counterintuitive when compared to the sum of normative human experience.

Quote

QuoteBut Philo of Alexandria was a Jew.

As were all first and second century Christians.

Granted, but my point was that Philo was talking about normative Jewish practice... and Christians weren't normative Jews.  I'm not sure if Christianity had even taken hold in Alexandria prior to Philo's death, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't long after the life of Christ till Christians weren't welcome in the synagogues any longer.  Thus began the era of the house-church.

Quote

QuoteThis may have been true prior to 70 AD when the majority of Christians were still Jews, and Christianity was still a messianic sect within Judaism.However, the relationship between Christian Jews and Rabbinic Jews wasuncomfortable at best and violent at worst (Saul of Tarsus anyone?)until after the war, when that relationship was finally severed for good.

Once again, approach this from a different angle and see what you find.

I'm more than willing to, but currently I see no good reason to believe the above summary is fatally flawed and therefore in need of correction.

QuoteTake Origen's family for instance. We know that his father recognized Origen's high intellect at an early age and had him educated appropriately--in the Greek tradition. We also know that the members ofthis family were also early Christians--and while not a wealthly family, there was a financial benefactor involved in Origen'seducation. Origen's father actually died a martyr--leaving the young Origen in charge of the struggling family. Origen did not go out and preach the Christian message--he completed his education and became head of the school that Clement had once headed up, which actually taught that Christ was The Educator of the Rational Mind and the Virtuous Soul.  Clement and Origen were teachers--not preachers.You have to dig to find this information Palehorse, because it has notbeen advertised for obvious reasons, but the information is out therethat shines a very different light on the earliest decades ofChristianity.

Nah, I know enough about Origen to believe you... he's one of my favorite Christian figures, and probably the most underrated in history.  But I'm not entirely convinced his case was a typical or fair representation -- I'm sure it helped that he happened to live in the biggest center of learning in the empire.  Also, just because certain individuals were teachers, writers and scholars, doesn't necessarily mean there weren't also others who exercised gifts in other areas, such as prophecy, evangelism, humanitarian work, and so on.

Quote"True Christianity" versus "non-Christianity" is a distinction that Origen made not me.

Hm... I have a "thematic anthology" of his writings I haven't gotten around to delving into in any great deal; I wonder if he talks about this in there.  I'd be interested in reading his take on all this in full.

I agree with the bit about meat and milk, progressively deeper layers of teaching, etc.  Though maybe it's my Protestant upbringing showing, but I'm rather averse to the idea of an extensive education being necessary in order to be able to connect with God via the Christian tradition.  Of course it helps, but I also think there's something to be said for "let the children come to me and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of Heaven belongs to such as these."  This ties into my beliefs on the major error of the first Gnostics vs. that of the proto-orthodox though.  The former tended toward elitism; the latter started admitting anyone without reserve, and both became equally unbalanced as a result.  Thus the former became inaccessible, completely alienated the exoteric church and was almost annihilated completely by the 4th century; whereas the latter threw out gnosis, embraced materiality and careened straight into the Dark Ages.

Quote

QuoteChristiansand their contemporaries wasn't nearly as friendly as you seem toindicate. For that matter, we see the same from Christians of competingfactions amongst each other, and occasionally amongst themselves (1John 2).

I am not sure where using discernment in learning of other cultures would lead you to think I was implying that everyone was "friendly"?????  

I meant that I haven't seen any evidence of early Christians placing value upon the study of other cultures, and if anything, the relationship between Christianity and other cultures and religions (which, in ancient times, were basically interchangeable) was antagonistic if anything.

QuoteYes, there are certainly a lot of scholars involved here, and much of what I have found in my own research will no doubt contribute that this. Once again, it is Reason that is chomping at the bit of irrational faith-based beliefs.

I tend to lean more toward a synthesis between the two, as part of the same theme as what I said about the schism between the esoteric and exoteric Church above.  Faith without logic and scholarship has no substance upon which to stand -- it's the stuff fundamentalism of all varieties is made of.  On the other hand, with reason and scholarship alone it's far too easy to devolve into elitism, miss the forest for the trees, and at best is basically useless to the average man.  How many Deists do you run into nowadays?  ;)

QuoteWe need, however, to remember that to seek and to find we must look everywhere for our answers...but most especially outside of the box.  That "box" being, the church's official position as well as many standard academic teachings.

Absolutely; that's why I really appreciate what people like you are doing.  This reminds me a lot of a Historical Jesus class I took last year taught by Robert Eisenman if you've heard of him.  He's criticized quite a bit for having theories that are speculative at best and just too far out there at worst... but damned if his unique approach didn't cause me to think about things in ways I never would have otherwise, and sent my own study off in several new directions.  Therein was the value of that class, above and beyond anything the crazy old guy actually said, heh.  Methinks we need more people like that in scholarship though... it keeps things fresh and interesting, and occasionally turns up something startling.  Not to say your own claims are speculative, as I haven't actually seen your research yet... but you've already said they're pretty far outside the box, and IMO that's a very important and necessary yet often underrated role.  So, well done there.  :)

Dear Palehorse,

I wrote:

QuoteWas there really a belief in an eschaton, or is that the impression we are left with from scripture?

To which you responded:

QuoteWell, if there wasn't, then most of what we think we know about Jesus and Paul is wrong.

I think that will prove to most definately be the case.

You wrote:

QuoteThe only thing I'm skeptical about is that the relationship between the Christians and the rest of their Jewish brethren during his lifetime was not on the most amicable terms, so I'm not sure how much influence he could've had on the earliest church.

Your understanding is based upon a literal interpretation of scripture as well as the writers that left us information based upon the same.  While there may certainly have been differences of opinion between sects, I am not convinced that we can learn all of the details of those differences or even get a true picture just from the information provided by the NT narratives.

You wrote:

QuoteI'm always up for something different, no matter how far outside the realm of accepted dogma (which academic types often seem to have every bit as much as religious folks, it seems) it might be.

Sad but true... :?    

You wrote:

QuoteGranted, but my point was that Philo was talking about normative Jewish practice...

No, that is a mistaken assumption. He did speak of the normative Judaism of his day, but continually discussed it in terms of mystical Judaism.  E.R. Goodenough discusses this at length in By Light, Light.   Some scholars think Goodenough was all wet, but all the more reason in my opinion to study his works in depth.  Since you also wrote:

QuotePhilo's name seems to be coming up a whole lot in my various academic exploits lately, so I might have to do just that.

That would be a very good idea, for it was not until I did just that I began to get a very different picture of the first century world -- which in turn opened the door in my search for a more realistic picture of original Christianity.  Who knows...Philo may have actually been a first generation Christian without being referred to as such.  This can be supported by the fact that his extensive writings were actually preserved by the Christians in the centuries following his death—not by the Jewish scholars.

You wrote:

QuoteThough maybe it's my Protestant upbringing showing, but I'm rather averse to the idea of an extensive education being necessary in order to be able to connect with God via the Christian tradition.

Connecting with God in this way will come as a surprise to a great many people...but the key operative phrase here is your own "via Christian tradition."  What if Christian tradition has had it wrong all these centuries?  You seem to suspect that this is the case...and if so, then approaching God may require something entirely different than the Christianity we have come to know...

You wrote:

QuoteThis ties into my beliefs on the major error of the first Gnostics vs. that of the proto-orthodox though. The former tended toward elitism; the latter started admitting anyone without reserve, and both became equally unbalanced as a result. Thus the former became inaccessible, completely alienated the exoteric church and was almost annihilated completely by the 4th century; whereas the latter threw out gnosis, embraced materiality and careened straight into the Dark Ages.

Great pithy summary!!  Think about which of these came first and would therefore more accurately represent original Christianity...

You wrote:

QuoteI meant that I haven't seen any evidence of early Christians placing value upon the study of other cultures

Check out http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0604.htm where St. Gregory Thaumaturgus wrote of his experience being a student of Origen. Here is a, not so brief, excerpt worthy of including in this thread:

QuoteAnd he educated us to prudence none the less,--teaching to be at home with ourselves, and to desire and endeavour to know ourselves, which indeed is the most excellent achievement of philosophy, the thing that is ascribed also to the most prophetic of spirits as the highest argument of wisdom[/color]--the precept, Know thyself...

...For he deemed it right for us to study philosophy in such wise, that we should read with utmost diligence all that has been written, both by the philosophers and by the poets of old, rejecting nothing, and repudiating nothing (for, indeed, we did not yet possess the power of critical discernment), except only the productions of the atheists, who, in their conceits, lapse from the general intelligence of man, and deny that there is either a God or a providence...

...He thought, however, that we should obtain and make ourselves familiar with all other writings, neither preferring nor repudiating any one kind, whether it be philosophical discourse or not, whether Greek or foreign, but hearing what all of them have to convey. And it was with great wisdom and sagacity that he acted on this principle, test any single saying given by the one class or the other should be heard and valued above others as alone true, even though it might not be true, and test it for it might thus enter our mind and deceive us, and, in being lodged there by itself alone, might make us its own, so that we should no more have the power to withdraw from it...

...For a mighty thing and an energetic one is the discourse of man, and subtle with its sophisms, and quick to find its way into the ears, and mould the mind, and impress us with what it conveys; and when once it has taken possession of us, it can win us over to love it as truth; and it holds its place within us [/b]even though it be false and deceitful, overmastering us like some enchanter, and retaining as its champion the very man it has deluded...

...the mind of man is withal a thing easily deceived by speech, and very facile in yielding its assent; and, indeed, before it discriminates and inquires into matters in any proper way, it is easily won over, either through its own obtuseness and imbecility, or through the subtlety of the discourse, to give itself up, at random often, all weary of accurate examination, to crafty reasonings and judgments, which are erroneous themselves, and which lead into error those who receive them. And not only so; but if another mode of discourse aims at correcting it, it will neither give it admittance, nor stiffer itself to be altered in opinion, because it is held fast by any notion which has previously got possession of it, as though some inexorable tyrant were lording over it.  

...Wherefore, to secure us against falling into the unhappy experience of most, he did not introduce us to any one exclusive school of philosophy; nor did he judge it proper for us to go away with any single class of philosophical opinions, but he introduced us to all, and determined that we should be ignorant of no kind of Grecian doctrine.

I suggest you read the whole of that work, as well as more of Origen's less known works, and moreover, to approach Philo as a precursor to both.  I was totally amazed at what I found when I did so...

Peace,
Beth

Dear Palehorse,

QuoteWould I be correct to assume you believe the biblical manuscripts we have were "doctored" after the fact to conform with the beliefs of the proto-orthodox?

It is certain that redactions took place, and that meaning was lost through translation, but I think it is more to the tune of misinterpreted and taken literally without substantiating evidence which totally neglected all other possible puposes of the scriptures.

I wrote:

QuoteWas there really a belief in an eschaton, or is that the impression we are left with from scripture?

To which you responded:

QuoteWell, if there wasn't, then most of what we think we know about Jesus and Paul is wrong.

I think that will prove to most definately be the case.

You wrote:

QuoteThe only thing I'm skeptical about is that the relationship between the Christians and the rest of their Jewish brethren during his lifetime was not on the most amicable terms, so I'm not sure how much influence he could've had on the earliest church.

Your understanding is based upon a literal interpretation of scripture as well as the writers that left us information based upon the same.  While there may certainly have been differences of opinion between sects, I am convinced that we cannot learn all of the details of those differences or even get a true picture just from the information provided by a literal interpretation of the NT narratives.

You wrote:

QuoteI'm always up for something different, no matter how far outside the realm of accepted dogma (which academic types often seem to have every bit as much as religious folks, it seems) it might be.

Sad but true... :?    

You wrote:

QuoteGranted, but my point was that Philo was talking about normative Jewish practice...

No, that is a mistaken assumption. He did speak of the normative Judaism of his day, but continually discussed it in terms of mystical Judaism.  E.R. Goodenough discusses this at length in By Light, Light.   Some scholars think Goodenough was all wet, but all the more reason in my opinion to study his works in depth.  Since you also wrote:

QuotePhilo's name seems to be coming up a whole lot in my various academic exploits lately, so I might have to do just that.

That would be a very good idea, for it was not until I did just that I began to get a very different picture of the first century world -- which in turn opened the door in my search for a more realistic picture of original Christianity.  Who knows...Philo may have actually been a first generation Christian without being referred to as such.  This can be supported by the fact that his extensive writings were actually preserved by the Christians in the centuries following his death—not by the Jewish scholars.

You wrote:

QuoteThough maybe it's my Protestant upbringing showing, but I'm rather averse to the idea of an extensive education being necessary in order to be able to connect with God via the Christian tradition.

Connecting with God in this way will come as a surprise to a great many people...but the key operative phrase here is your own "via Christian tradition."  What if Christian tradition has had it wrong all these centuries?  You seem to suspect that this is the case...and if so, then approaching God may require something entirely different than the Christianity we have come to know...

You wrote:

QuoteThis ties into my beliefs on the major error of the first Gnostics vs. that of the proto-orthodox though. The former tended toward elitism; the latter started admitting anyone without reserve, and both became equally unbalanced as a result. Thus the former became inaccessible, completely alienated the exoteric church and was almost annihilated completely by the 4th century; whereas the latter threw out gnosis, embraced materiality and careened straight into the Dark Ages.

Great pithy summary!!  Think about which of these came first and would therefore more accurately represent original Christianity...

You wrote:

QuoteI meant that I haven't seen any evidence of early Christians placing value upon the study of other cultures

Check out http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0604.htm where St. Gregory Thaumaturgus wrote of his experience being a student of Origen.

May I suggest you read the whole of that work, as well as more of Origen's less known works, and moreover, to approach Philo as a precursor to both.  I was totally amazed at what I found when I did so...

Peace,
Beth :D

Upon doing some geneological work in my family, I came to a simpler answer. Jesus was said to be of the line of David. This was symbolic due to the fact that David was a king of Israel, giving Jesus the rite of inheritance.

But Hebrew lineages are patrilineal. He could only inherit the right to be called "Son of David" through Joseph.

The interpretation in which the Greek word for "virgin" simply applies to the youth of the woman would have to be true.

Thats what i dont get about the whole 'working class kid made good' stuff that often gets banded around about jesus, like he was just the poor carpenter's apprentice etc...

Except he was of the line of David and therefore of royal blood.. so he couldnt have been that poor! Ok maybe he was of the old 'aristocracy fallen on hard times' kind of bloke.. you get some of them today... but he still sounds fairly well to do.

Doug

Probably more likely his father's  carpentry business was a massive industry and Jesus' family were rolling in it.. 5 million sesterses a year (imperial currency) or what ever the local judaic currency was... ok only joking, but you never know.

Ha! Gandalf, I was just having a conversation with my sister about Jesus being rich. It was last Friday at our parish fish fry.

There was this big map on the wall of the Holy Land and the path that Jesus took, along with all the cities and towns he visited. My father had been talking about the theory that Jesus had travelled to India and studied Buddhism. "There's no way he could've walked to India from Bethlehem, considering how poor he was," I said. "It's somewhat remarkable that he even walked as far as he did around Israel."

Then my sister added, "well he was a carpenter, so maybe he saved up his money?"

"Oh yeah, he could've been a really rich carpenter for a while, and then took a Buddhist vow of poverty," I said.

So we concluded, or least I concluded, that if Jesus ever made it to India, he would've had to have had some dough, and travelled with the merchants. Then, when he found Buddhism, he gave up all his belongings (after paying for a trip back to Galilee). And you think he would've mentioned to someone that he travelled to India.

Telos:

Yeah that is possible! lol

During the empire, there were some good travel opportunities for traders/merchants or if you joined the army (in fact many merchants followed the army) but outside of that most people stayed within their own province, or indeed their own neigbourhoods, so unless you were one of the above or unless you were well off anyway,  then you are unlikely to travel widely.

For this reason, I'm guessing the diciples were not short of a bob or two.

Doug

PS One of my favourite examples of the travel opportunites available during the empire is a tombstone found which records a Roman officer buried up here at Hadrian's Wall on the border of what is modern day England.. he was a Syrian, from the other side of the empire!.... actually, I feel sorry for him being posted up here.. don't think he would have liked the weather lol, although what i did like was that the tombstone records that he married a local celtic lass from near the Wall, which is nice!

Quotewell he was a carpenter, so maybe he saved up his money?

As for the poverty of Jesus, it is said that (at the crucifixion) Roman soldiers cast lots for His clothes due to their material value. Their presense should bring something more to mind, that Israel was occupied by Rome at the time.

Geneaology had always been important, in order to prevent the scattering of the Israelites. The lineage of Levites and of royalty was maintained, but  rather than monarchs, they were called Exilarchs throughout the diaspora(s). It is my understanding that, though Israelites paid their taxes to the official powers-that-be, they unnoficially recognized the authority of the Exilarchs.

I have not verified it, but it has also long been claimed that Joseph (husband of Mary) had many silver mines in the area of England, where he apparently faced no language barrier.

Hi pod_

Interesting but as far as i know the whole 'joseph in england connection' has no evidence to support it, being a product (and wishful thinking) of english romantics! The poem 'jeruselum' of course is all about this myth but it is clear that it is the usual attempt to give the country some mythic connection to something presumed great, just like Aeneas, founding Rome, or i might add, Moses founding the 'promised land'.. England wanted some link so they came up with this, which was a popular folk tale at the time..

Scotland is just as bad, there is a legend of an encient egyptian princess 'Scotia' getting her ship blown off course and being blown half way across the world to land in what is now scotland, where she founded a kingdom.. named after her.. 'scotland'.

hmmm yea right! I so believe that one!  :wink:

At least the joseph story is more believable, in that a jewish merchant like jesus' dad could find his way to Britain, except Britain didnt formally become part of the Roman empire until 43ad, so i dont see how he would be there before that, and he certainly wouldnt 'own mines' there before 43... sounds suspect... its just possible but there is absolutly no evidence, so its more likely to be a fine yarn more than anything.

Doug

Gandalf, that's awesome about that guy from Syria! Hadrian's Wall has so many neat old things around it. What's the percentage of it that has been excavated? One or two percent?

Have you heard of that one archaeologist who's collecting boots and shoes from the dig sites? lol, I think he said he has at least a thousand pairs.

QuoteInteresting but as far as i know the whole 'joseph in england connection' has no evidence to support it, being a product (and wishful thinking) of english romantics! The poem 'jeruselum' of course is all about this myth but it is clear that it is the usual attempt to give the country some mythic connection to something presumed great, just like Aeneas, founding Rome, or i might add, Moses founding the 'promised land'.. England wanted some link so they came up with this, which was a popular folk tale at the time..

Be that as it may, an unbiased look through a concordance should make it reasonably clear which modern peoples descended from Shem, Ham, and Japheth.

I believe Anglo-Israelists in some respects and Merovingians in no respect.  Anglo-Israelism (also called British Israelism) has indeed been well evidensed in more recent times, but Merovingians use sketchy ties to historical records to prove their worthiness against the Jews. Being of the line of Jews which descended from David myself (http://charlap.org/about_charlap.php - not MY site) and a Christian by faith, I will not go too far toward the defense of those anti-Semites, one of which being likely to claim descendence from the royalty of Israel, sit in in the Holy of Holies, and claim that he is God.

It is for this reason that I wish to consider the sanctity of Jesus as having come from the Holy Spirit which dwelt in him, rather than by a chromosome.

Remember, it is written that one of the line of David will take the throne at the beginning of the Millennial Reign.  Rather than the Protestant belief that Jesus will come down and rule at the end of the Tribulation, this can also be construed by Merovingians to play into a 1000 year reich.

There are going to be alot of "Jesuses" with Jesus-like stroies floating around in the next few years as was predicted to happen shortly before the End. Let them be tested by their spiritual fruits rather than by their genealogy.

Pod_3:

hmm ok.. i'm not really into your religious preocupations, for my part, I was just pointing out the origins of a particular story/myth that did the rounds in England for a while. But good luck with whatever it is you are into!

Telos:

Yes the Syrian officer thing is great.. i have heard about the shoes, but one of my favourite excavations, which is still ongoing is that of the 'vindolanda tablets'.. These were postcards/letters found in a rubbish tip that served the fort of vindolanda and all date (around 300 of them) to around 100CE or so.

Gems include one card written by one of the Roman officer's wives to a friend in a neighbouring fort, inviting her friends over for her birthday party the following week.

Another is an order from one centurian to another down in London stating that 'my soldiers have no beer... please order some to be sent!'... the Roman army wouldnt work without it lol. Celtic beer by the way.. the soldiers took a liking to it.

Another talks about a local native celtic guy who has taken advantage of the potential market offered by the army, to supply the grain supply for the whole region.. he has the grain market sown up.. He didnt take long to take advantage of the new system, even adopting a Romanised name... He was making big bucks too, with one of his contracts being worth more than a soldiers annual salary!

Check it out on the web, just google 'vindolanda tablets'. its really interesting, entertaining and in some ways kind of comforting to read that in many ways, people havent changed.. people have always been and still are.. er, people!

Doug

Thanks again, Doug! Yeah, I heard about some of those letters from Simon Schama's "History of Britain."

It was almost a couple years ago when I downloaded that entire series. I kept asking my friends if they wanted to watch it. "The plantagenet parts are pretty boring," I said, "but otherwise it's pretty good!" They just laughed. :/ lol

You guys really have that science/history television format down pat... with the narrator walking in and around real life environments, or at the very least good recreations of enviornments. James Burke was king. The best we have is Bill Nye, although he's nothing sneeze at either. ;)

Yeah i have seen Simon Schama... isnt he a professor at New York Metropolitan university? I heard he is or was.


For me the tv history king is Michael Wood.. he is the best because he has that crucial enthusiam and can tell a great story with his history.

He done great shows on the first city in the world (The Sumerian city of Iruk). He also done great programs on Troy, and also Alexander the Great, which I totally recommend, he makes you feel as if you are right there with Alexander and his posse!


I love the folk tales he tells, for example one which is STILL repeated by Greek fishermen today in the Aegean:

There is a legend that when out on the Aegean sea, sometime you may be approached by a mermaid (a sea nymph to the Greeks), another of Alexander's conquests. She is distraught and asks you:
'Where is Great Alexander?'

In order to appease her (and stop her sinking the boat) you must answer:
'Great Alexander still lives, and Rules!'.

Doug

I have simply said that Christ was holy as a result of His Spirit, not by His flesh.

Quotei'm not really into your religious preocupations, for my part, I was just pointing out the origins of a particular story/myth that did the rounds in England for a while. But good luck with whatever it is you are into!

Well, I'm not preoccupied with anything not Biblically proveable. Hopefully, you realize my awareness of the fact that history was always written by the victors, and from the onset of that history, royals have always sought to justify their nobility by claiming their descendence from gods.

QuoteNow, if you believe the Bible:
Matthew 24:4-5 "And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you. For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many."

I recognize a theory that the major false Christ we Christians are expecting will be a royal who will claim descendancy from God. A present religious movement toward the ecumenical combination of world religions would qualify him to a universal audience, but of course, world domination isn't very nice.

Therefore, rather than paying attention to the issues of human descendancy which will be played against you, I have warned to look for the fruits of the Spirit in the coming messianic dictator in order to disprove his worthiness.

QuoteGalatians 5:22-23 - kjv - "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, meekness, temperance: against such there is no law."

When a person who will be called god will walk upon the earth, will he have these?

I ask because, speaking of the heritage of Jesus of Nazareth, the royal family of Britain and some of Europe claim to be able to prove their descent from Christ. Given that Christ's descendancy from David makes him a king of Israel, there is an interesting possibility for one wishing to claim Messiaship to a world religion.

Another guy will be claiming to be Christ, and I don't want you asking the same thing.

Pod_3_

But it IS the case is it not that the biblical jesus WAS of the line of David and therefore of Jewish royal blood, whatever we may say about stories of 'simple carpenters'? So the biblical jesus was not just 'mr joe public' like he is portrayed by many people today, esp by many in the US who like to equate him with the 'working class kid made good' image.

Please note: Im not saying that by having 'royal blood' this means anything per say, Im just talking from a purely social perpsective.. he couldnt just have been on 'an ordinary family' they sound more like an aristocratic family, perhaps fallen on hard times, maybe not. But the population must have been aware of their lineage, and i'm sceptical that they were 'poor'.

QuoteBut it IS the case is it not that the biblical jesus WAS of the line of David and therefore of Jewish royal blood, whatever we may say about stories of 'simple carpenters'?

I am agreeing with you fully on this point. IMO, it is likely that the only reason he was a carpenter is because the Jewish royal family was displaced from the throne by a foreign occupation. However, he was not poor. If Jesus was rich, to call him a carpenter may be similiar to comparing Donald Trump to a brasero laboring on the jobsite.  Though in different senses, both are builders.