The Bible, Hell, and Other Topics of Casual Delight

[hardheadjarhead]

Wow, your funnier than I thought. I've read the entire old testament (as well as the new) many, many times and committed many books of the old testament to memory....oh wait, now you have backpeddled and defined "rape" as abduction.

Your bravado is embarrasing as well as your backpeddling.

Hey, I'm not at all embarrassed. Are you embarrassed? For quite awhile here I've thrown out little hints to let you try and find Biblical accounts that are dramatic and controversial. You claim to have read the Bible, yet can't easily reference the accounts.

As far as defining rape, I used a dictionary.


Regards,


Steve

 

[hardheadjarhead]

DRUMROLL PLEASE!!!!!

7star apparently didn't know where it was...so here we go!

Okay. Deuteronomy, chapter 20:

10 When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. 11 If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. 12 If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. 13 When the LORD your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. 14 As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the LORD your God gives you from your enemies. 15 This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby.

Later, in chapter 21, we find the disposition of the female captives:

10 When you go to war against your enemies and the LORD your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, 11 if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife. 12 Bring her into your home and have her shave her head, trim her nails 13 and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured. After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife. 14 If you are not pleased with her, let her go wherever she wishes. You must not sell her or treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her.

Numbers 31
Vengeance on the Midianites
1 The LORD said to Moses, 2 "Take vengeance on the Midianites for the Israelites. After that, you will be gathered to your people."
3 So Moses said to the people, "Arm some of your men to go to war against the Midianites and to carry out the LORD's vengeance on them. 4 Send into battle a thousand men from each of the tribes of Israel." 5 So twelve thousand men armed for battle, a thousand from each tribe, were supplied from the clans of Israel. 6 Moses sent them into battle, a thousand from each tribe, along with Phinehas son of Eleazar, the priest, who took with him articles from the sanctuary and the trumpets for signaling.
7 They fought against Midian, as the LORD commanded Moses, and killed every man. 8 Among their victims were Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur and Reba—the five kings of Midian. They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword. 9 The Israelites captured the Midianite women and children and took all the Midianite herds, flocks and goods as plunder. 10 They burned all the towns where the Midianites had settled, as well as all their camps. 11 They took all the plunder and spoils, including the people and animals, 12 and brought the captives, spoils and plunder to Moses and Eleazar the priest and the Israelite assembly at their camp on the plains of Moab, by the Jordan across from Jericho. [a]
13 Moses, Eleazar the priest and all the leaders of the community went to meet them outside the camp. 14 Moses was angry with the officers of the army—the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds—who returned from the battle.
15 "Have you allowed all the women to live?" he asked them. 16 "They were the ones who followed Balaam's advice and were the means of turning the Israelites away from the LORD in what happened at Peor, so that a plague struck the LORD's people. 17Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

Dividing the Spoils
25 The LORD said to Moses, 26 "You and Eleazar the priest and the family heads of the community are to count all the people and animals that were captured. 27 Divide the spoils between the soldiers who took part in the battle and the rest of the community. 28 From the soldiers who fought in the battle, set apart as tribute for the LORD one out of every five hundred, whether persons, cattle, donkeys, sheep or goats. 29 Take this tribute from their half share and give it to Eleazar the priest as the LORD's part. 30 From the Israelites' half, select one out of every fifty, whether persons, cattle, donkeys, sheep, goats or other animals. Give them to the Levites, who are responsible for the care of the LORD's tabernacle." 31 So Moses and Eleazar the priest did as the LORD commanded Moses.
32 The plunder remaining from the spoils that the soldiers took was 675,000 sheep, 33 72,000 cattle, 34 61,000 donkeys 35 and 32,000 women who had never slept with a man.
36 The half share of those who fought in the battle was:
337,500 sheep, 37 of which the tribute for the LORD was 675;
38 36,000 cattle, of which the tribute for the LORD was 72;
39 30,500 donkeys, of which the tribute for the LORD was 61;
40 16,000 people, of which the tribute for the LORD was 32.


I think I can anticipate your response to this one...this isn't rape, right? The forced slavery of a girl following the execution of her all the males and child bearing women of her family isn't-technically-rape...but perhaps you'll suggest that the Israelites were NICE guys who gave her a choice as to whether she'd have sex or not (women back then must have found their conquerors terribly sexy, particularly the ones that wiped out their families)...or perhaps you'll suggest she's taken only as a house servant, and her subsequent betrothel to her captor is consensual.

Which leads us to wonder why the non-virgin females and boys were slaughtered, when they'd be perfectly good house slaves.

On the other hand, some would suggest that rape or not, it isn't a crime if God orders it. That might be another way to dance around this rather sticky issue.


Heretic gets a gold star, by the way. 7Star gets a note home to his parents for failure to participate in class.



Regards,



Steve

 

[arnisador]

Let's not forget Psalm 137:
O daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed; happy shall he be, that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us.
Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.

 

[hardheadjarhead]

Let's not forget Psalm 137:
O daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed; happy shall he be, that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us.
Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.

Yeah...and I always hated how they put that in a song that starts off so beautifully.

"By the rivers of Babylon we sat and wept
when we remembered Zion.

There on the poplars
we hung our harps..."


We haven't even mentioned Joshua. Here an entire family is put to death for the transgressions of the father:

7:19 And Joshua said unto Achan, My son, give, I pray thee, glory to the LORD God of Israel, and make confession unto him; and tell me now what thou hast done; hide it not from me.
7:20 And Achan answered Joshua, and said, Indeed I have sinned against the LORD God of Israel, and thus and thus have I done:
7:21 When I saw among the spoils a goodly Babylonish garment, and two hundred shekels of silver, and a wedge of gold of fifty shekels weight, then I coveted them, and took them; and, behold, they are hid in the earth in the midst of my tent, and the silver under it.
7:22 So Joshua sent messengers, and they ran unto the tent; and, behold, it was hid in his tent, and the silver under it.
7:23 And they took them out of the midst of the tent, and brought them unto Joshua, and unto all the children of Israel, and laid them out before the LORD.
7:24 And Joshua, and all Israel with him, took Achan the son of Zerah, and the silver, and the garment, and the wedge of gold, and his sons, and his daughters, and his oxen, and his asses, and his sheep, and his tent, and all that he had: and they brought them unto the valley of Achor.
7:25 And Joshua said, Why hast thou troubled us? the LORD shall trouble thee this day. And all Israel stoned him with stones, and burned them with fire, after they had stoned them with stones.


The sins of the father, and all that.


Heck of a thing...urge a man to confess for the Glory of God and then kill him, his entire family, and even his livestock.



Regards,


Steve

 

[arnisador]

Yeah...and I always hated how they put that in a song that starts off so beautifully.

"By the rivers of Babylon we sat and wept
when we remembered Zion.

There on the poplars
we hung our harps..."

Isn't this the one that Don McLean made into a song?

In a Clint Eastwood voice:

Heck of a thing...urge a man to confess for the Glory of God and then kill him, his entire family, and even his livestock.

Worse yet is what they did to the livestock first...**shudder**.

Yes, I think of these things when people condemn the Koran as violent ar at least as endorsing violence. I wonder, Have these people ever read the Bible?

Admittedly, things aren't as bleak in the New Testament.

 

[7starmantis]

It seems I have addressed Judas' death and the color of the robe sufficiently as these points have now been ignored and people have moved on to other "points".

I'm off to bed, I'll address the rest of this scripture tomorrow.....

The complete ignoring of my clearification of the greek used in 1 Cor 2, is not surprising btu disappointing. Since I did say I would finish the verses, I'll do that before moving on to the myriad of "new" points brought up (which are riddled with incorrect and misunderstood "points").

1 Cor. 2:14-15 (KJV)
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.

Now Heritic's version:

"The psychic does not receive the things of the Spirit of God; they are foolishness to him; he cannot recognize them, because they are pneumatically discerned, but the pneumatic discerns all things." (1 Corinthians 2:14-15)

Now, we can see which words he was isolating. I address his use of "psychic" which is the greek word psuchikos (psoo-khee-kos). This is basically the term for what we share with the animals, natural or sensual. Being driven or subject to appetite or passion. This word is used refering to the person who is governed and driven by their passions or natural desires.

The second word used was "pneumatically". The greek word used here is pneumatikos which is from the root word pneuma meaning the spirit, the power by which the human being thinks, and decides. The Soul. Interestingly this word is also used specifically forthe third person of the triune God, the Holy Spirit, coequal, coeternal with the Father and the Son. What he is saying here is that "these things" are discerned by the "holy spirit" or the soul. Here we can see that a person driven by their passion or natural drives does not seek out or understand the things of the spiritual "realm" or things of the soul.

Finally the third word we saw used was "pneumatic". I'm a bit confused by Heritic's use of this word here. These two usages and words are different. Here the greek word from the passage is basically pneumatikos again, but its a different form whic his actually pneumatikovß. This is litterally belonging to a spirit, or a being higher than man but inferior to God, or belonging to the Divine Spirit.

So we see the whole passage coorelating. We can see now that what I posted earlier still holds true of the whole passage...

Your defining it as a seperate "entity" if you will, from other "types" of man listed is simply not accurate. It is not refering to differing types of people but people of differing intent, or driven by something different. Take for example Kung Fu. My sidai (younger kung fu siblings) have a very different understanding of kung fu than I do as does my sifu from me. Is only one of us truley doing kung fu? No, we all are, just we understand at different levels. My sifu sees much more of the picture than I do. Same kind of thing here.

Now, looking at the greek used, I dont see what your point was (from your megapost). Your trying to make these different words create a distinction of people and saying that is what Paul was saying. Thats not true, furthermore, I dont see how any of this passage disproves the validity of the bible as a whole.

7sm

 

[hardheadjarhead]

It seems I have addressed Judas' death and the color of the robe sufficiently as these points have now been ignored and people have moved on to other "points".

Your comments were debunked, yes. Refuted, certainly. Logically dissected, without a doubt...but they just couldn't be ignored.




Regards,


Steve

 

[7starmantis]

Your comments were debunked, yes. Refuted, certainly. Logically dissected, without a doubt...but they just couldn't be ignored.

:bs:
Look man, you can attack me all you want, but your refusal to address my posts and ignore my points is obvious. You offered no debunking, refuting, or dissection of my points on either, but simply resorted to personal attacks and name calling. You twist around my posts and attack me with everyone of yours. I asked for a refrence to what you were refering and you didn't give one for several pages, finally offering that I didn't know what I was talking about because I asked for your refrence without giving you one to use.

Tell you what, skip those past few examples and debunk, refute, and dissect my current post of the 1 Cor 2:14-15 passage.

You shouldnt strike out so much against people who disagree with you, just because we disagree doesnt mean I hate you man.

7sm

 

[heretic888]

Ok, fellas. Let's all just simmer down for a minute.

7starmantis, I did not ignore your "clearification" of the Greek used in the aforementioned passages. I simply did not have enough time last night to respond in a satisfactory manner, so I decided to put if off until today.

Now, for the sake of argument, let us compare a few different translations of the same passages (1 Corinthians 2:14-15).

"The unbeliever does not receive the things of the Spirit of God; they are foolishness to him; he cannot recognize them, because they are spiritually discerned. But the believer discerns all things."
(your translation)

"But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man."
(The Holy Bible: Red Letter Edition, Authorized King James Version, World Bible Publishers)

"The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man's judgment."
(The Holy Bible: New International Version, Zondervan Publishing House)

"The Psychic does not receive the things of the spirit of God; they are foolishness to him; he cannot recognize them, because they are Pneumatically discerned, but the Pneumatic discerns all things."
(Timothy Freke & Peter Gandy, The Jesus Mysteries: Was the "Original Jesus" a Pagan God?, Three Rivers Press)

"Psychics don't grasp things which concern the consciousness of God. They seem like foolishness to them, because they are pneumatically discerned. Pneumatics, however, understand everything."
(Timothy Freke & Peter Gandy, Jesus and the Lost Goddess: The Secret Teachings of the Original Christians, Harmony Books)

Now, it seems to me that every one of these translations have subtle little differences that variegate the meaning of the text. Even Freke and Gandy's two translations vary somewhat from one another (although, admittedly, not as much as the other translations do).

Which, then, should we interpret psuchikos to mean? 'Unbeliever'? 'Natural man'? 'Man without the Spirit'? While similar in a vague sense, these three translations are hardly mutually inclusive of one another. Or, perhaps we should look to some other meaning not yet mentioned??

Of course, Freke and Gandy keep things simpler by giving us a direct English transliteration (our English psyche is derived from the Greek psuche), but this doesn't alleviate matters when a shared meaning or interpretation of the terminology is not understood. This, then, pertains to the relevance of just what psuche and psuchikos, as well as pneuma and pneumatikos, actually mean within a Hellenistic context.

Interestingly enough, psuche is usually translated as 'soul' or 'life' throughout the Bible. It is roughly equivalent to the Hebrew word nephesh. By contrast, pneuma is never translated as 'soul' (as 7starmantis intimated in a previous post), but instead translates to 'spirit', 'breath', or 'wind'. The Hebrew equivalent to this word is ru'ach.

Freke and Gandy (in Jesus and the Lost Goddess) felt it best to transliterate psuche into the English psyche (which is typically defined as 'mind' or 'self'), apparently seeing the two words as having an equivalent meaning within a Hellenistic context:

"[Psyche] is traditionally translated as 'soul', although, as the ancient word 'psyche' has come into common usage since the advent of psychology, it is probably less misleading to leave the term untranslated. In relationship to the outer body, we experience the psyche/soul as our 'inner self'. For the Gnostics, it is a deeper level of our identity than the body."

Ironically enough, the Hebrew and Aramaic terminology (nephesh and naphsha, respectively) also have a similar meaning as to what Freke and Gandy have described. Neil Douglas-Klotz (in The Hidden Gospel) writes:

"[...] I mentioned the Semitic notion of the subconscious self, called naphsha in Aramaic and nephesh in Hebrew. In fact, these terms point to a range of ideas and images having to do with difference faces of what we usually call the soul or the individual self."

Also:

"This subject has been made more confusing than necessary by the fact that the usual New Testament translations do not translate the word naphsha (or its Greek equivalent) consistently. In one case, we find it translated 'soul', in another 'self', and in still another 'life'. All told, naphsha is used more than two hundred times in the Gospels."

Back to Freke and Gandy's explanation:

"But when [the Gnostics] talk on a deeper level about how things are subjectively, the psyche or soul is conceived of as an ongoing event witnessed by Consciousness. It is the totality of our experience, which includes the experience of the body. This turns inside-out the notion that the psyche somehow inhabits the body. As Plotinus teaches, 'The psyche is not in the body, rather the body is in the psyche.'"

Douglas-Klotz is in agreement concerning the Semitic equivalents:

"In an ancient Semitic sense, one does not 'have' or 'possess' a soul: one is a soul. Further, [...] the soul has different aspects. [...], the soul-self is really a continuum that connects the 'heavenly' or vibrational aspect of being with the 'earthly' or particular aspect."

The ancient philosopher Plato (who had a substantial influence on the Pauline authors) is even more elaborate here:

"Whereas God made the psyche in origin and excellence prior to and older than the body, to be ruler and mistress, of whom the body was to be the subject." (Timaeus, 34b-c)

"[...] psyche is prior to body, body secondary and derivative, psyche governing in the real order of things and body being subject to governance." (Laws, 896c-e)

"Now when the Creator had framed the soul according to his will, he formed within her the corporeal universe, and brought the two together, and united them centre to centre. The soul, interfused everywhere from the centre to the cirumference of heaven, of which also she is the external development, herself turning in herself, began a divine beginning of never ceasing and rational life enduring throughout all time. The body of heaven is visible, but the soul is invisible, and partakes of reason and harmony, and being made by the best of intellectual and everlasting natures, is the best of things created." (Timaeus, 36e)

I think we've established a fairly pervasive string of ideas in the Hellenistic world concerning psuche, nephesh, naphsha, psyche, or 'soul'. Let's move on to pneuma. Freke and Gandy write:

"At the center is our essential identity, which the ancients called pneuma or nous. Pneuma is usually translated 'spirit', but today this word has become all but meaningless. Nous is traditionally translated 'intellect', but this is misleading as we now associate the word 'intellect' purely with rational thought, whereas nous is the witness of all experiences, whatever their quality. Plotinus describes nous as 'a knowing principle'. It is that in us which knows. It is the subject of every experience, which each one of us calls 'I'. It is the sense of being in every human being. It is who we are. A more appropriate modern translation for both pneuma and nous is 'Consciousness'."

They continue:

"There is nothing more obvious than the fact that we are conscious of experiences. Our essential identity is the experiencer, nous, spirit, Consciousness. The flow of experience which Consciousness witnesses is the psyche or soul. For the Gnostics, therefore, our fundamental condition could be described as Consciousness aware of experience, nous aware of psyche, spirit aware of soul."

Also:

"From the point of view of the centre, we are Consciousness experiencing psyche, which, at the circumference, includes the body in the form of sensations. The psyche-body is what we appear to be. Consciousness is what we are."

Plato speaks of this Consciousness himself:

"The region of which I speak is the abode of that reality with which true knowledge is concerned. A reality without colour or shape, but utterly real, apprehensible only by Consciousness, which is the pilot of the psyche." (Phaedrus, 247c-d)

The Jewish philosopher Philo Judaeus, who had a direct influence on many of the New Testamental authors, also speaks of this Consciousness in relation to why Adam assigned names to all of God's creatures but couldn't name himself:

"The mind (nous) which is in each of us is capable of apprehending other objects, but is incapable of knowing itself [...] It is likely then, that Adam, that is the Mind (nous), though he names and apprehends other things, gives no name to himself, since he is ignorant of himself and his own nature."

Now, to turn to the Semitic equivalents again, Douglas-Klotz writes:

"In both Hebrew and Aramaic, the same word -- ruha in Aramaic, ruach in Hebrew -- must stand for several English words: spirit, wind, air, and breath."

He continues:

"From the perspective of Sacred Unity, my breath is connected to the air we all breathe. It participates in the wind and in the atmosphere that surrounds the whole planet. This atmosphere then connects to the ineffable spirit-breath that pervades the seen and unseen worlds."

This ties directly with the conception of God described in John 4:24 (NIV): "God is spirit."

The following article at Wikipedia also summarizes the conception of logos, pneuma, and nous developed by Philo Judaeus.

In summation, psuche does not correspond exclusively with "natural or sensual" qualities (although it may include them), nor does pneuma correspond with the "soul" (at least not how most would recognize the term).

Laterz.

 

[hardheadjarhead]

:bs:
Look man, you can attack me all you want, but your refusal to address my posts and ignore my points is obvious.

7Star, you get what you give.

In dealing with me the tone of your posts have been snippy, sarcastic, and surly.

My first post in response to you in this thread was #32. I didn't write anything confrontational. You responded sarcastically and condescendingly in post #38. It was all downhill from there. I invite people to go back and look at those.

I don't know what kind of a Christian you are, but as an Evangelical I think you'd fall short if this thread is any indication of the tone you'd take with potential converts. That "do unto others" line seems to have eluded you.


I delayed posting the OT references to give you a chance to show your familiarity with the Bible. I was clear in my intentions, gave you hints and resources. You were found wanting.

Now when confronted with the Numbers/Deuteronomy passage you're asking to skip that section--which you so ardently called for--and requested we move on to another part of the Bible entirely.


Once more into the breach, dear friends.



Regards,


Steve

 

[hardheadjarhead]

7Star, how does this read? Would you say its more, or less poetic than the KJV version?

You recognize the author, of course.



Regards,



Steve

 

[mj-hi-yah]

Moderator Note:


Please keep the discussion at a mature, respectful level. Please review our sniping policy. http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=314 Feel free to use the Ignore feature to ignore members whose posts you do not wish to read (it is at the bottom of each member's profile). Thank you.

-MJ :asian:
-MT Moderator-

 

[7starmantis]

7Star, you get what you give.

In dealing with me the tone of your posts have been snippy, sarcastic, and surly.

My first post in response to you in this thread was #32. I didn't write anything confrontational. You responded sarcastically and condescendingly in post #38. It was all downhill from there. I invite people to go back and look at those.

Thats the problem with debating via this medium. I in no way intended to be "snippy" or "surly". I said several times that I wasn't upset or holding you in any disregard.

I don't know what kind of a Christian you are, but as an Evangelical I think you'd fall short if this thread is any indication of the tone you'd take with potential converts. That "do unto others" line seems to have eluded you.

Actually you dont know if I am a Christian. Tone is a subjective term on an internet discussion board. However, lets lay off the attacks and just stick to topic, cool? I'm cool with you, I have no malice for you in any way, so lets just stick to discussion, yes?

I delayed posting the OT references to give you a chance to show your familiarity with the Bible. I was clear in my intentions, gave you hints and resources. You were found wanting.

Again, your opinions of me "wanting" are simply that, opinions. Your tone in this post would come across as pretty harsh, am I reading it wrong? You can't make such huge assumptions about someone because they dont "play along" with you.

Now when confronted with the Numbers/Deuteronomy passage you're asking to skip that section--which you so ardently called for--and requested we move on to another part of the Bible entirely.

Once again, lets actually read post and not just skim them. I didn't ask to skip anything. I didn't ask to move on either, I simply finished an answer I started from a post pages back. Re-read my friend.

7sm

 

[hardheadjarhead]

The Gospel of John, the miracle of changing water into wine...a fiction?

The author of John borrows imagery from Moses when the latter changes water into blood. John writes of the signs Jesus brought in John 20: 30-31. Exodus 4:8-9 writes of the water to blood conversion as the third sign. The same word is used in the Greek for "signs".

John als borrows from 1 Kings 17, using Jesus as an allegorical figure for Elijah (as he did for Moses). Elijah performs the miracle for providing food where there is none, and a line from Elijah is taken and interjected into John.

The woman in 1 Kings 17 says to Elijah, "What have I to do with thee, Oh man of God?" At Cana, Jesus-the man of God-says to his mother, "What have I to do with thee, woman?" Jesus's remark to his mother isn't a historical report so much as it is an anti-type of Elijah.

In both stories the prophets direct that empty barrels/jars have the needed provision taken from them.

Why did John use wine instead of Elijah's use of flour?

In the Greek cult of Dionysus there was a tradition that on the eve of the festival three empty pitchers would be put into the temple at Elis...they would be found the next day full of wine. The waters at the temple springs at Andros and Teos would also turn to wine the day of the festival.

The miracle at Cana had some historical precedent, it seems. By the time the Gospel of John was written in the late 1st/early 2nd century Christianity had become fully Hellenized. Greek traditions and myth had worked their way deeply into the faith.




Regards,

Steve

 

[Ray]

...in the late 1st/early 2nd century Christianity had become fully Hellenized. Greek traditions and myth had worked their way deeply into the faith.

I too believe that certainly by 300 AD Christianity had become fully Hellenized; not for the reasons you describe though.

 

[heretic888]

You're close, guys, but not quite there.

Christianity has, from its apparent inception, been a thorougly Hellenized religious movement. The most basic theological formula in the Pauline epistles, the earliest Christian writings we know of, is that of a mystical communion with the god-man through participation in his suffering, death, and resurrection. This essentially is just a Jewish version of the Hellenistic mystery cults devoted to the pantheus ('all-god') of Osiris-Dionysus that were ubiquitious throughout the Mediterranean. Its certainly not a historical novelty, nor does it fall back on what most would consider traditional Judaism.

On top of this theological formula, the Pauline epistles use language and terminology that demonstrate an indebtedness to Platonism, Orphism, the Mysteries, and Hellenized Jewish communities like the Essenes and Therapeutae. This tradition continues on into the canonical Gospels themselves, which invoke a number of metaphysical motifs taken from Hellenistic philosophers (such as Heraclitus' logos), a moral philosophy dependent on Cynicism and Stoicism (such as abandoning one's family and possessions to take up the Way or prizing a celibate lifestyle), and even mythos from various Pagan myths (such as the wine-to-water legends that Steve cited in his last post).

Of course, its not really fair to blame all this Hellenization on the Christians. The Hellenization is actually pre-Christian. The 4th century Church historian Eusebius mistakenly believed Philo's Therapeutae (circa 15 CE), centered near Alexandria, were the world's "first Christians". They were a Jewish Pythagorean community of celibate monastics that were described by Philo as being like "initiates of Dionysus", indicating the preliminary existence of a sort of proto-Christianity (i.e., an early attempt to create a Jewish Mystery school).

There are allusions to Egypt as the birthplace of Christianity in the canonical Gospels (i.e., "he came up out of Egypt"). Egypt was the first nation to develop the ubquitious Mystery formula of Death and Resurrection (i.e., Osiris). Egypt was the home of a number of notable early Christians, as well as many early Christian writings (both canonical and heretical). The library of Alexandria would have contained all the information the authors would need to develop the Jesus Christ myth in full (including mythos from a number of disparate cultures --- Greece, Egypt, India, Rome, and so on). Alexandria was the home of the Therapeutae, whose similarities to later Christianity are so profound that Church historians had them confused.

More than one scholar has concluded Alexandria to be the actual birthplace of Christianity, and for good reason. The religion was, from its very beginnings, a form of Jewish Hellenism.

Laterz.

 

[hardheadjarhead]

More than one scholar has concluded Alexandria to be the actual birthplace of Christianity, and for good reason. The religion was, from its very beginnings, a form of Jewish Hellenism.

A strong argument. The key here is "Jewish Hellenism."

We see the Jews as being Hellenized following the conquests of Alexander. Greek culture inexorably seeped into Jewish life, in spite of reactionary responses noted by Josephus and the authors of Maccabees.

That said, the Jewish influence on Christianity must be noted. If there was a drawing of the faith from Egyptian roots, as you've suggested, there was ready support for the Egyptian connection in the Pentateuch and writings of the prophets. Drawing from such sources made perfect sense, of course, as it had great appeal for its Jewish audience...Paul included.

Jeus's healing miracle (the second "sign") in John 4: 46 parallels that of a well known Rabbinic healing miracle that was well known in John's time. Both stories involve healing from a distance. Both use fever as the illness, and both use similar terminology when the miracle-worker exhorts supplicants to go check on the ill person. The Johannine, rabbinical and synoptic miracles all connect closely to the stories about Elijah.

It should be noted that such miracle stories were pretty common in the first century, and could be attributed to a number of rabbis, not just Jesus. I'm sure, Heretic, you could point out pagan miracle workers of that era, such as Apollonius of Tyana.

The evolution of this religion shows a great deal of cross-pollination. It draws from a variety of sources, both Jewish and pagan.


Regards,


Steve

 

[7starmantis]

Now, for the sake of argument, let us compare a few different translations of the same passages (1 Corinthians 2:14-15).

"The unbeliever does not receive the things of the Spirit of God; they are foolishness to him; he cannot recognize them, because they are spiritually discerned. But the believer discerns all things."
(your translation)

"But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man."
(The Holy Bible: Red Letter Edition, Authorized King James Version, World Bible Publishers)

"The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man's judgment."
(The Holy Bible: New International Version, Zondervan Publishing House)

"The Psychic does not receive the things of the spirit of God; they are foolishness to him; he cannot recognize them, because they are Pneumatically discerned, but the Pneumatic discerns all things."
(Timothy Freke & Peter Gandy, The Jesus Mysteries: Was the "Original Jesus" a Pagan God?, Three Rivers Press)

"Psychics don't grasp things which concern the consciousness of God. They seem like foolishness to them, because they are pneumatically discerned. Pneumatics, however, understand everything."
(Timothy Freke & Peter Gandy, Jesus and the Lost Goddess: The Secret Teachings of the Original Christians, Harmony Books)

Now, it seems to me that every one of these translations have subtle little differences that variegate the meaning of the text. Even Freke and Gandy's two translations vary somewhat from one another (although, admittedly, not as much as the other translations do).

OK, first lets define the word "translation". A translation of the bible comes straight from the greek (or hebrew) text (completely), not from another translation. What you listed as "my translation" is not a translation at all, but more of a paraphrase as are the last few you mentioned as well. Paraphrases can get you in trouble because they show personal bias all too well. Thats why in honest research we must stick with either "original" texts or actual translations, although many translation prove heavily biased as well.

I dont however see your "subtle differences that variegate the meaning of the text". The only way to find differences is to take each word literally and out of context with the rest of the passage. Lets take your quoted KJV & NIV versions for example.

But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God:

The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God

OK, there is no variation of meaning here. Your taking the different usage of words and interjecting a differing meaning. Lets review my post about the greek words used:

I address his use of "psychic" which is the greek word psuchikos (psoo-khee-kos). This is basically the term for what we share with the animals, natural or sensual. Being driven or subject to appetite or passion. This word is used refering to the person who is governed and driven by their passions or natural desires.

OK, so why would we get two different words ("natural", "without the spirit") from this one greek word? The answer is simple, they are congruent. psuchikos means literally driven by appetite or desires which would be a person without "god" or the "spirit". You allready quoted the scriptures talking about being "crucified with christ". The idea here is that you let your "old self" or "natural will" be "buried with christ" or you let it die. Then you accept "god" or the "spirit" and allow him to govern your life, thus making you no longer driven by natural desires, but spiritual desires. So you can see how easily we could define psuchikos as "natural man" or "man without the spirit". According to the bible, without god you are unable to understand the things of god...makes sense to me. But having accepted god you now have the "holy spirit" with its discernment and are able to understand spiritual things. I dont see why this is hard to understand, or why you keep interjecting different meanings to these words. I think the different translations are what is throwing people off, but the greek text remains the same, it is static in its message which is now plainly seen.

Which, then, should we interpret psuchikos to mean? 'Unbeliever'? 'Natural man'? 'Man without the Spirit'? While similar in a vague sense, these three translations are hardly mutually inclusive of one another. Or, perhaps we should look to some other meaning not yet mentioned??

You dont interpret from a translation backwards, you take the original greek and move towards an english translation. There is no vagueness in the similarity here, you must look at the greek text. The english words are a bit tricky, but if you understand the greek passage its very straightforward. These "translations" are in fact mutually exclusive if you allow the context to be considered. If not, sure they appear to be quite different, but studying other usage of this word in the bible and other passages about this, we can see that the "different" english translations simply explain the same idea with different english words....the meaning does not change.

Of course, Freke and Gandy keep things simpler by giving us a direct English transliteration (our English psyche is derived from the Greek psuche), but this doesn't alleviate matters when a shared meaning or interpretation of the terminology is not understood. This, then, pertains to the relevance of just what psuche and psuchikos, as well as pneuma and pneumatikos, actually mean within a Hellenistic context.

No, actually you applying your idea of a hellenistic context to this passage. Dont apply a context of anything except whats given in the passage itself. First, the word yuchv (Psuche) is actually not used in this scripture. Not at all. So we see a problem here, no? You are using a word not even contained in this scripture to apply meaning to this scripture. How can you use words in "your translation" that aren't even contained within the text of this passage? That is the interjection I'm refering to.

Interestingly enough, psuche is usually translated as 'soul' or 'life' throughout the Bible. It is roughly equivalent to the Hebrew word nephesh. By contrast, pneuma is never translated as 'soul' (as 7starmantis intimated in a previous post), but instead translates to 'spirit', 'breath', or 'wind'. The Hebrew equivalent to this word is ru'ach.

The word pneu'ma is translated as "spirit", "breath" and "wind" but in context of humanity it is translated as "the human soul". Its the first one you listed, "spirit", its also translates to "soul". However, becaus ethere is another word that translates to "soul" doesn't mean you can just plug it in to this scripture to make a specific meaning. That is still reverse translation.

Freke and Gandy (in Jesus and the Lost Goddess) felt it best to transliterate psuche into the English psyche (which is typically defined as 'mind' or 'self'), apparently seeing the two words as having an equivalent meaning within a Hellenistic context:

Again, this word is not used in this passage. They can translate it into whatever they want, but they can't interject the word into a passage that doesn't contain it. Thats changing the text to suit your needs and is not honest in any way.

"This subject has been made more confusing than necessary by the fact that the usual New Testament translations do not translate the word naphsha (or its Greek equivalent) consistently. In one case, we find it translated 'soul', in another 'self', and in still another 'life'. All told, naphsha is used more than two hundred times in the Gospels."

OK, assuming from your post that your speaking of the greek word psuche, it is not contained in this scripture, therefore its discussion is quite irrelevant to this topic. In the greek language usage plays a large part, thats probably the reason for their misunderstanding the translations as being inconsistent. However, once again we see this is irrelevant because the word is not present in this scripture.

I think we've established a fairly pervasive string of ideas in the Hellenistic world concerning psuche, nephesh, naphsha, psyche, or 'soul'. Let's move on to pneuma. Freke and Gandy write:

We have most deffinitely established that the word doesn't belong in this discussion as it is simply not present in the passage. Yes, lets move on to pneuma.

"At the center is our essential identity, which the ancients called pneuma or nous. Pneuma is usually translated 'spirit', but today this word has become all but meaningless. Nous is traditionally translated 'intellect', but this is misleading as we now associate the word 'intellect' purely with rational thought, whereas nous is the witness of all experiences, whatever their quality. Plotinus describes nous as 'a knowing principle'. It is that in us which knows. It is the subject of every experience, which each one of us calls 'I'. It is the sense of being in every human being. It is who we are. A more appropriate modern translation for both pneuma and nous is 'Consciousness'."

I feel like I'm debating with a book! :ultracool
OK, lets address this. First, the words pneu'ma and nou'ß have nothing to do with one another. They quote it saying "pneuma or nous" but that is an incorect premise. These two words are different. In fact, you can see this as nou'ß is used in the next verse (1 Cor 2:16)

For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? but we have the mind of Christ.

The word "mind" in this passage is the word nou'ß or nous. We see a distinct difference and seperation from one word to the next. This is the type of incorrect inclusive transliterating that causes people without a knowledge of greek or the bible to fall prey to misinformation. Freke and Gandy's last quoted passage deals only with nous which we now see has nothing to do with the scripture at hand.

So, we can see that this misinterpretation, intential or not, is completely false and thus the point of heritic's "translation" (which we now see is Freke and Gandy's:

"The Psychic does not receive the things of the spirit of God; they are foolishness to him; he cannot recognize them, because they are Pneumatically discerned, but the Pneumatic discerns all things."
(Timothy Freke & Peter Gandy, The Jesus Mysteries: Was the "Original Jesus" a Pagan God?, Three Rivers Press)

Is simply incorrect usage of isolated greek words that have nothing to do with the scripture at hand, but have been inserted with such bravado that the unsuspecting, or unknowledgeable do not question it. If you take the actual text, we see their point fall to pieces.

7sm

 

[hardheadjarhead]

Another link with John and Elijah is the meeting with the Samaritan woman a the well, found in John 4. Contrast this with Elijah's interaction with the widow of Sarepta.

Both stories have the protagonists (Elijah and Jesus) leaving their homes for a foreign land; Both heroes are thirsty and ask a woman for a drink; both lack a drinking utensil and ask to use her vessel to drink from; both women are unmarried.

In both narratives however; it is the woman who needs something from the hero. In the account with Elijah, the woman receives abundant bread, in the account with Jesus the woman receives abundant life. Both women certify the heroes as prophets.

While there isn't any indication that John had Greek sources for the story of Elijah, he seems to have been familiar with the oral traditions surrounding his Jewish predecessor. The parallels are striking, and we can see strong evidence that he borrowed from the account in 1 Kings in drafting this, and other stories.


Regards,


Steve

 

[7starmantis]

The author of John borrows imagery from Moses when the latter changes water into blood. John writes of the signs Jesus brought in John 20: 30-31. Exodus 4:8-9 writes of the water to blood conversion as the third sign. The same word is used in the Greek for "signs".

Its really nothing more than opinion whether John borrowed imagry from Moses. See, in the story your refering to about Moses, it does not say Moses turned the water into blood, it says God did. Moses was simply the reluctant messenger.
As far as the word "signs", we are talking about hebrew and greek here, not both greek. The greek word used in John is shmei'on while the hebrew word used in Exodus is twa. While these both can be translated to the word "signs" they are a bit different in meaning. However, what would be the relevance of the same word being used?

John als borrows from 1 Kings 17, using Jesus as an allegorical figure for Elijah (as he did for Moses). Elijah performs the miracle for providing food where there is none, and a line from Elijah is taken and interjected into John.

The woman in 1 Kings 17 says to Elijah, "What have I to do with thee, Oh man of God?" At Cana, Jesus-the man of God-says to his mother, "What have I to do with thee, woman?" Jesus's remark to his mother isn't a historical report so much as it is an anti-type of Elijah.

Again, its speculative at best to say he borowed these lines, but even so, what does that prove exactly? Jesus is not used as an allegorical figure at all, this is seen from the precise words used in the greek when talking about him. They are heavily non-allegorical. Also, you said "jesus - the man of god". Jesus is considered to be god, not the man of god. Jesus as a human was considered to be god's son and as inhuman as god himself. No where in the bible does it refer to jesus as a or the man of god.
Its really stretching to use these two lines as quoting one another. First, you would have to prove John's familiartity with the womans exact words. Next you would have to prove coorelation more than speculative points, that these two stories are related (which is obviously not so with studying the text). Then having proved both of those, what would you have proved? That the story has Jesus using the same words as a women did to Elijah? Thats allready understood and believed by most "christians" or biblical scholars. I dont understand the point unless we apply incorrect context to it and say that proves some type of inacuracy of the later writing, which it truly does not.

Similarities between stories without verifiable proof show nothing more than speculations. Speculations show nothing more than personal biases, and personal biases do not promote discussion.

Hope I haven't offended you Steve, we just disagree thats all, we can still have good discussion.