Author Topic: You're all barking up the wrong tree - possibly :-)  (Read 11064 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline monkeymind

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2592
  • Darwins +44/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I don't understand what I know about it!
    • How To Know If You Are A Real Christian
Re: You're all barking up the wrong tree - possibly :-)
« Reply #203 on: January 14, 2012, 04:45:49 AM »
I wouldn't like a label. I think it,s the isms that keep us barking up the wrong trees.

I thot as much. Jesus had a problem with answering that question too! :)
Quote
Plato's Cave is a good analogy of the ism impact and the anger it can generate (anti-peace effect)
I'm not really interested in being enlightened, so I'm probably just wasting your time.
Quote
I am an equal, in spiritual potential, to all before me and after me. This means, in my view, we are one in a spiritual context.
Aho! Mitakuye Oyasin!  We are all related. It's so cliche. I don't believe in spirit. So this is nonsensical to me.
Quote
I see this equality reflected in the "Jesus" sayings of the Gospel.
Why not A Course In Miracles? Pretty good stuff in there, I'm told. But I don't understand a thing it's saying, either.

Quote
Here's my conclusions and theories (thus far).

There is a human condition related to spirituality and wisdom that is difficult to find words to describe. Its a shared condition (at least in potential and responsibility). In life we eventually realize the value of compassion, authenticity, love etc.... Unlike material desires that are never completely satisfying  these things bring joy which is completely satisfying in the moment of that experience.
Except for the spirit part, I can see that.
Quote
Wisdom, is something that comes to us ( the am , burst of clarity, as an example). It,s recognizable to others as wisdom even though they weren't a party to the wisdom's so called birth.
I look at wisdom as understanding coming from experience along with the ability to reason and act in accordance with that understanding. IDK how that can be passed on. Don't care much for the philosophical definition.

Quote
Wisdom cannot be associated with things generally regarded as bad but it can be associated with goodness.
Too vague. Can't see the connection you are trying to make.  Example of something bad, please.

Quote
Eusibius is pro miracles (fake and overt) and a requirement to have a relation with the state for spiritual pursuits (fake but less overt perhaps).
Again, why not A Course In Miracles? Its Jesus channeled thru a psychologist and put in modern terminology.
Quote
Like any great mystery, you need to find motive. Constantine had both motive and opportunity. He (and his accomplices) also had the authority and the access to documentation. Forgery is an issue in the Historicity of Jesus. 
   
There is no mystery in Jesus. He was a bad carpenter, so he became a preacher.
Quote
My instinct (at this time) is that there was a Jesus . The key to this being true is in validating the wisdom in the words of the GOT(s) and them not having an earlier source and the date of the GOT and Gospel of Truth - still popularly ambiguous. In my opinion, the words, are best reflected in the Gospel of Thomas. They are merely advise for personal benefit and enlightenment to "the (one)big fish" in life. Not for congregation or state benefit.
To each his own.



 
« Last Edit: January 14, 2012, 04:48:28 AM by monkeymind »
Truthfinder:the birds adapt and change through million of years in order to survive ,is that science, then cats should evolve also wings to better catch the birds
Mailbag:On a side note, back in college before my conversion, I actually saw a demon sitting next to me in critical thinking class.

Offline monkeymind

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2592
  • Darwins +44/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I don't understand what I know about it!
    • How To Know If You Are A Real Christian
Re: You're all barking up the wrong tree - possibly :-)
« Reply #204 on: January 14, 2012, 04:46:42 AM »
dbl post
Truthfinder:the birds adapt and change through million of years in order to survive ,is that science, then cats should evolve also wings to better catch the birds
Mailbag:On a side note, back in college before my conversion, I actually saw a demon sitting next to me in critical thinking class.

Offline eartheconomyspirit

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 325
  • Darwins +2/-15
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: You're all barking up the wrong tree - possibly :-)
« Reply #205 on: January 14, 2012, 07:50:42 AM »
thanks for the challenge I,ve learned a lot.

Offline monkeymind

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2592
  • Darwins +44/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I don't understand what I know about it!
    • How To Know If You Are A Real Christian
Re: You're all barking up the wrong tree - possibly :-)
« Reply #206 on: January 14, 2012, 07:52:50 AM »
thanks for the challenge I,ve learned a lot.
That was unexpected. What did you learn?
Truthfinder:the birds adapt and change through million of years in order to survive ,is that science, then cats should evolve also wings to better catch the birds
Mailbag:On a side note, back in college before my conversion, I actually saw a demon sitting next to me in critical thinking class.

Offline Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2756
  • Darwins +222/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I can haz jeezusburger™
Re: You're all barking up the wrong tree - possibly :-)
« Reply #207 on: January 15, 2012, 12:28:41 AM »

Here's our champion again

Eusebius of Caesarea deals with him at some length,[9] and names the following works:

    The First Apology addressed to Antoninus Pius, his sons, and the Roman Senate;
    a Second Apology addressed to the Roman Senate;
    the Discourse to the Greeks, a discussion with Greek philosophers on the character of their gods;
    a Hortatory Address to the Greeks;
    a treatise On the Sovereignty of God, in which he makes use of pagan authorities as well as Christian;
    a work entitled The Psalmist;
    a treatise in scholastic form On the Soul; and
    the Dialogue with Trypho.

Eusebius implies that other works were in circulation; from St Irenaeus he knows of the apology "Against Marcion," and from Justin's "Apology"[10] of a "Refutation of all Heresies ".[11] Epiphanius[12] and St Jerome[13] mention Justin.


We have that those works, though:
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/index.html

Justin's Dialogue and Apology quote exclusively from a strange version of Matthew, whilst Tertullian quotes freely from all gospels and Acts and epistles.

Marcion's religion believed that Jesus was a divine entity and included the works of Paul in his canon. These are two wacky beliefs about Jesus that occurred very early. You have to show that Marcion's religion was really about a physical Jesus, and that Eusebius and Tertullian are lying about what he was really doing. Marcion's religion carried on for a few centuries after their attacks.

Anti-Marcionite writers

(1) St. Justin the Martyr (150) refers to the Marcionites in his first Apology; he also wrote a special treatise against them. This, however, mentioned by Irenæus as Syntagma pros Markiona, is lost. Irenaeus (Haer., IV, vi, 2) quotes short passages of Justin containing the sentence: "I would not have believed the Lord Himself if He had announced any other than the Creator"; also, V, 26, 2.

(2) Irenaeus (c. 176) intended to write a special work in refutation of Marcion, but never carried out his purpose (Haer., I, 27, 4; III, 12, 13); he refers to Marcion, however, again and again in his great work against Heresies especially III, 4, 2; III, 27, 2; IV, 38, 2 sq.; III, 11, 7, 25, 3.

(3) Rhodon (180-192) wrote a treatise against Marcion, dedicated to Callistion. It is no longer extant, but is referred to by Eusebius (Church History V.13) who gives some extracts.

(4) Tertullian, the main source of our information, wrote his "Adversus Marcionem" (five books) in 207, and makes reference to Marcion in several of his works: "De Praescriptione", "De Carne Christi", "De Resurrectione Carnis", and "De Anima". His work against Apelles is lost.

(5) Pseudo-Tertullian, (possibly Commodian. See H. Waitz, "Ps. Tert. Gedicht ad M.", Darmstadt, 1901) wrote a lengthy poem against Marcion in doggerel hexameters, which is now valuable. Pseudo-Tertullian's (possibly Victorinus of Pettau) short treatise against all heresies (c. A.D. 240) is also extant.

(6) Adamantius — whether this is a real personage or only a nom de plume is uncertain. His dialogue "De Recta in Deum Fide", has often been ascribed to Origen, but it is beyond doubt that he is not the author. The work was probably composed about A.D. 300. It was originally written in Greek and translated by Rufinus. It is a refutation of Marcionism and Valentinianism. The first half is directed against Marcionism, which is defended by Megethius (who maintains three principles) and Marcus (who defends two). (Berlin ed. of the Fathers by Sande Bakhuysen, Leipzig, 1901).

(7) St. Hippolytus of Rome (c. 220) speaks of Marcion in his "Refutation of All Heresies", book VII, ch. 17-26; and X, 15)

(8) St. Epiphanius wrote his work against heresies in 374, and is the second main source of information in his Ch. xlii-xliv). He is invaluable for the reconstruction of Marcion's Bible text, as he gives 78 and 40 passages from Marcion's New Testament where it differs from ours and adds a short refutation in each instance.

(9) St. Ephraem (373) maintains in many of his writings a polemic against Marcion, as in his "Commentary on the Diatesseron" (J.R. Harris, "Fragments of Com. on Diates.", London, 1895) and in his "Metrical Sermons" (Roman ed., Vol II, 437-560, and Overbeek's Ephraem etc., Opera Selecta).

(10) Eznik, an Armenian Archpriest, or possibly Bishop of Bagrawand (478) wrote a "Refutation of the Sects", of which Book IV is a refutation of Marcion. Translated into German, J.M. Schmid, Vienna, 1900.



Since there were so many attacks on Marcion from so many different writers, you can only conclude that he was a very early and persistent threat to Catholicism. It would be irrational to conclude that Eusebius actually created the heretical sect, by defining what it was, and then people read Tertullian, and decided to be part of the heretical sect, just because Tertullian denounced it. Orthodox Christians would not want to give credibility to Marcion, by historicizing his sect at too early a date. Some authors have wondered if his sect started earlier than admitted by the Church, because it doesn't make sense that it suddenly occurred at 144AD (or that he was a bishop in the orthodox church).

Your argument is essentially that there was a commonsense belief of Jesus, that people and Jews followed up until around 350AD, and then people went nutty and started believing he was a God, because Constantine said so.

« Last Edit: January 15, 2012, 12:46:50 AM by Add Homonym »
Humans, in general, don't waste any opportunity to be unfathomably stupid - Dr Cynical.

Offline eartheconomyspirit

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 325
  • Darwins +2/-15
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: You're all barking up the wrong tree - possibly :-)
« Reply #208 on: January 15, 2012, 06:34:23 AM »

Here's our champion again

Eusebius of Caesarea deals with him at some length,[9] and names the following works:

    The First Apology addressed to Antoninus Pius, his sons, and the Roman Senate;
    a Second Apology addressed to the Roman Senate;
    the Discourse to the Greeks, a discussion with Greek philosophers on the character of their gods;
    a Hortatory Address to the Greeks;
    a treatise On the Sovereignty of God, in which he makes use of pagan authorities as well as Christian;
    a work entitled The Psalmist;
    a treatise in scholastic form On the Soul; and
    the Dialogue with Trypho.

Eusebius implies that other works were in circulation; from St Irenaeus he knows of the apology "Against Marcion," and from Justin's "Apology"[10] of a "Refutation of all Heresies ".[11] Epiphanius[12] and St Jerome[13] mention Justin.


We have that those works, though:
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/index.html

Justin's Dialogue and Apology quote exclusively from a strange version of Matthew, whilst Tertullian quotes freely from all gospels and Acts and epistles.

Marcion's religion believed that Jesus was a divine entity and included the works of Paul in his canon. These are two wacky beliefs about Jesus that occurred very early. You have to show that Marcion's religion was really about a physical Jesus, and that Eusebius and Tertullian are lying about what he was really doing. Marcion's religion carried on for a few centuries after their attacks.

Anti-Marcionite writers

(1) St. Justin the Martyr (150) refers to the Marcionites in his first Apology; he also wrote a special treatise against them. This, however, mentioned by Irenæus as Syntagma pros Markiona, is lost. Irenaeus (Haer., IV, vi, 2) quotes short passages of Justin containing the sentence: "I would not have believed the Lord Himself if He had announced any other than the Creator"; also, V, 26, 2.

(2) Irenaeus (c. 176) intended to write a special work in refutation of Marcion, but never carried out his purpose (Haer., I, 27, 4; III, 12, 13); he refers to Marcion, however, again and again in his great work against Heresies especially III, 4, 2; III, 27, 2; IV, 38, 2 sq.; III, 11, 7, 25, 3.

(3) Rhodon (180-192) wrote a treatise against Marcion, dedicated to Callistion. It is no longer extant, but is referred to by Eusebius (Church History V.13) who gives some extracts.

(4) Tertullian, the main source of our information, wrote his "Adversus Marcionem" (five books) in 207, and makes reference to Marcion in several of his works: "De Praescriptione", "De Carne Christi", "De Resurrectione Carnis", and "De Anima". His work against Apelles is lost.

(5) Pseudo-Tertullian, (possibly Commodian. See H. Waitz, "Ps. Tert. Gedicht ad M.", Darmstadt, 1901) wrote a lengthy poem against Marcion in doggerel hexameters, which is now valuable. Pseudo-Tertullian's (possibly Victorinus of Pettau) short treatise against all heresies (c. A.D. 240) is also extant.

(6) Adamantius — whether this is a real personage or only a nom de plume is uncertain. His dialogue "De Recta in Deum Fide", has often been ascribed to Origen, but it is beyond doubt that he is not the author. The work was probably composed about A.D. 300. It was originally written in Greek and translated by Rufinus. It is a refutation of Marcionism and Valentinianism. The first half is directed against Marcionism, which is defended by Megethius (who maintains three principles) and Marcus (who defends two). (Berlin ed. of the Fathers by Sande Bakhuysen, Leipzig, 1901).

(7) St. Hippolytus of Rome (c. 220) speaks of Marcion in his "Refutation of All Heresies", book VII, ch. 17-26; and X, 15)

(8) St. Epiphanius wrote his work against heresies in 374, and is the second main source of information in his Ch. xlii-xliv). He is invaluable for the reconstruction of Marcion's Bible text, as he gives 78 and 40 passages from Marcion's New Testament where it differs from ours and adds a short refutation in each instance.

(9) St. Ephraem (373) maintains in many of his writings a polemic against Marcion, as in his "Commentary on the Diatesseron" (J.R. Harris, "Fragments of Com. on Diates.", London, 1895) and in his "Metrical Sermons" (Roman ed., Vol II, 437-560, and Overbeek's Ephraem etc., Opera Selecta).

(10) Eznik, an Armenian Archpriest, or possibly Bishop of Bagrawand (478) wrote a "Refutation of the Sects", of which Book IV is a refutation of Marcion. Translated into German, J.M. Schmid, Vienna, 1900.



Since there were so many attacks on Marcion from so many different writers, you can only conclude that he was a very early and persistent threat to Catholicism. It would be irrational to conclude that Eusebius actually created the heretical sect, by defining what it was, and then people read Tertullian, and decided to be part of the heretical sect, just because Tertullian denounced it. Orthodox Christians would not want to give credibility to Marcion, by historicizing his sect at too early a date. Some authors have wondered if his sect started earlier than admitted by the Church, because it doesn't make sense that it suddenly occurred at 144AD (or that he was a bishop in the orthodox church).

Your argument is essentially that there was a commonsense belief of Jesus, that people and Jews followed up until around 350AD, and then people went nutty and started believing he was a God, because Constantine said so.



I have been dong quite a bit of reading trying to see wether my theory about Eusebius and Constantine stacks up. And I must say at this juncture I wasn't,t right. However, I do think Constantine was an instrumental force in the brand of Christianity we see today. I also believe that Eusebius made some adjustments to add to the flavour and keep in favor with Constantine,s vision.

I was looking for a motive for varying from a common sense knowable spirituality found in GOT to the version in the Synoptics (requiring fake events such as miracles.). Both can't be true.  indeed Paul was also a spanner in my theory that I wasn't resolving. I,d originally thought Paul may have been the culprit, but that didn't sit with what seemed a more likely motive with Constantine.

However, I have found some interesting things in the research.

Here,s my updated scenario. Still a Work in Progress.

I got the following from Nag Hammadi...Needs more research.

I think Jesus may have existed. He may have had a group of Apostles. If so he was particularly close to Thomas and Mary Magdelene.

James  the just, Thomas and Mary had a reasonable grasp of the  intended knowing (not Gnostic) Message.  Jesus was crucified before he had time to get through to some of the others. Evidence for this exists in the Nag Hammadi documents.

http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/nhlalpha.html   


John in Particular, and this I think is where the woo came from, may have relied on zoroastrian doctrine to make sense of Jesus meaning.  In the Apocryphon of John. We see that John is challenged by a Pharisee named interestingly Arimanius. Arimanius is a name of an obscure deity that refers to the Persian Evil (weird choice) spirit Ahriman in the Context of Zoroastrianism (look out we have another ism).

After the challenge , which is post the passing of Jesus, John heads to the desert where he has a "vision" from the  savior. he also uses the word Christ. If you head over to http://zoroastrian.angelfire.com you see that this person has an interesting tale to tell about the relationship of Zoroastrian religion and the abraham traditions. Plenty of grist for the woo motive.

John refers to the book of Zoroaster in the Apocryphon about half way down so he at least was aware of that tradition.
http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/apocjn.html

In summary I think Jesus gets killed before he can enlighten all of the team. Peter is a light weight (jesus acknowledges his weakness), John takes the mystical route and Paul the evangelist joins the party (dubious motives perhaps). Orthodox Christianity gets its early starting point.

Meanwhile Mary, James the Just (maybe) and (Doubting)Thomas certainly follow the true message of knowing , picked up and tweaked by the Gnostics. Zoroastrianism is in the mix possibly.

Constantine is against the Gnostic version because it doesn't require a middle man between God. So that's why he supports getting ready of the evidence and backing the ortrhodox crowd perhaps.  Christianity gets it's significant kickstart.

An as you point out the works of the orthodox fathers with a measure of redaction can stay in place. Thanks  for your effort Add Homonym.

Quote
Your argument is essentially that there was a commonsense belief of Jesus, that people and Jews followed up until around 350AD, and then people went nutty and started believing he was a God, because Constantine said so.

My argument  was that Jesus in the GOT has a good grasp on Spirituality and Wisdom and their workings. Still is my view but I have some issues with certain Nag Hammadi texts to work through, such a resurrections where I didn't expect them. Could be visions or fiction for story telling perhaps.

I believed that Eusebius was dodgy (still do) and that Constantine had opportunity and motive to use Christianity for power (Still do).

I did believe that C & E where the sole instigators (I don't believe that any more). I think they were just opportunists.

I am now interested to know more about Zoroastrianisn , something I'd not heard of before.

We could still be barking up the wrong tree :-) 
« Last Edit: January 15, 2012, 07:07:35 AM by eartheconomyspirit »

Offline Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2756
  • Darwins +222/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I can haz jeezusburger™
Re: You're all barking up the wrong tree - possibly :-)
« Reply #209 on: January 16, 2012, 03:03:27 AM »

I believed that Eusebius was dodgy (still do) and that Constantine had opportunity and motive to use Christianity for power (Still do).

I did believe that C & E where the sole instigators (I don't believe that any more). I think they were just opportunists.

I am now interested to know more about Zoroastrianisn , something I'd not heard of before.

We could still be barking up the wrong tree :-)

I don't think it's any secret, amongst me, anyway, that Zoroastrianism influenced Judaism away from a sheol that was a dead-zone, slowly made them consider that sheol had a heaven and hell in it, or a resurrection, and that Satan was more powerful. Read 1 Enoch, and try to figure all that out. The copies we have today are vaguely correct, but not exact.

Eusebius faked Testimonium Flavianum. That was his best effort, I think.

I'm currently interested in this book, which argues that Luke was derived from Marcion's Gospel. I don't know if it's correct, but it looks to be good reading material.
http://books.google.com.au/books?id=MU2U08v6aq0C&pg=PA24&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=4#v=onepage&q&f=false
Marcion and Luke-Acts: a defining struggle
 By Joseph B. Tyson

Humans, in general, don't waste any opportunity to be unfathomably stupid - Dr Cynical.

Offline eartheconomyspirit

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 325
  • Darwins +2/-15
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: You're all barking up the wrong tree - possibly :-)
« Reply #210 on: January 16, 2012, 07:07:26 AM »

I believed that Eusebius was dodgy (still do) and that Constantine had opportunity and motive to use Christianity for power (Still do).

I did believe that C & E where the sole instigators (I don't believe that any more). I think they were just opportunists.

I am now interested to know more about Zoroastrianisn , something I'd not heard of before.

We could still be barking up the wrong tree :-)

I don't think it's any secret, amongst me, anyway, that Zoroastrianism influenced Judaism away from a sheol that was a dead-zone, slowly made them consider that sheol had a heaven and hell in it, or a resurrection, and that Satan was more powerful. Read 1 Enoch, and try to figure all that out. The copies we have today are vaguely correct, but not exact.

Eusebius faked Testimonium Flavianum. That was his best effort, I think.

I'm currently interested in this book, which argues that Luke was derived from Marcion's Gospel. I don't know if it's correct, but it looks to be good reading material.
http://books.google.com.au/books?id=MU2U08v6aq0C&pg=PA24&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=4#v=onepage&q&f=false
Marcion and Luke-Acts: a defining struggle
 By Joseph B. Tyson

Thanks, I'll include those two in my research. The question I'm trying to address is the material Knowable or Believable. I favour Knowable (and basically without the woo).

And on the topic of woo, this is an interesting connection. (Almost a throw away but none the less interesting)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_%28paranormal%29

Etymology (of MAGIc)

"Through late 14th century Old French magique, the word "magic" derives via Latin magicus from the Greek adjective magikos (???????) used in reference to the "magical" arts of the Magicians (Greek: magoi, singular mágos, ?????); the Zoroastrian astrologer priests. Greek mágos is first attested in Heraclitus (6th century BC, apud. Clement Protrepticus 12) who curses the Magians and others for their "impious rites".

Likewise, sorcery was taken in ca. 1300 from Old French sorcerie, which is from Vulgar Latin *sortiarius, from sors "fate", apparently meaning "one who influences fate"."

« Last Edit: January 16, 2012, 07:09:08 AM by eartheconomyspirit »

Offline eartheconomyspirit

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 325
  • Darwins +2/-15
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: You're all barking up the wrong tree - possibly :-)
« Reply #211 on: January 16, 2012, 08:26:16 AM »

Read 1 Enoch, and try to figure all that out.

Enoch Section 1 - Done.

Two things of interest.

1. " ...and all things are naked and open in Thy sight, and Thou seest all 6 things, and nothing can hide itself from Thee"

compare to GOT
5 Jesus said, "Know what is in front of your face, and what is hidden from you will be disclosed to you.
For there is nothing hidden that will not be revealed. [And there is nothing buried that will not be raised."]

Suggesting jesus in the GOT may have had a source of inspiration. the question how much and what other sources...

"And I, Enoch, alone saw the vision, the ends of all things: and no man shall see as I have seen."

... The birth of the woo and believers ...

We really should abandon visionaries in favor of trying to show the connection to wisdom and spirituality of fables:-)

For example, the aborigines from the continent now known as australia (:-)) have been using parables for much longer than Enoch's generation. It was a way of passing knowledge not so easily translated and committing it to memory so that time and lifes experience could reveal the intended truths.

There is a problem with this approach, though. Because they cannot be witnessed and are ambiguous to the immature they provide an opportunity for manipulation and abuse (think Suicide Bomber).

Any way, the fundamental message is valid from a spiritual perspective. What, I understand the vision represents is be good and you will have peace, be bad, lustful and follow your desires and you'll regret it.

With all the water, fire, salvation end of days references  i'd suggest " the vision" was inspired by the Zorostrian theology. Which may well further support the relationship between Zoroaster  and  judaism and the old testament.

More later , when time permits...

« Last Edit: January 16, 2012, 08:28:00 AM by eartheconomyspirit »

Offline Brakeman

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1243
  • Darwins +47/-3
  • Gender: Male
Re: You're all barking up the wrong tree - possibly :-)
« Reply #212 on: January 16, 2012, 05:54:21 PM »

Enoch Section 1 - Done.

Two things of interest.

1. " ...and all things are naked and open in Thy sight, and Thou seest all 6 things, and nothing can hide itself from Thee"

compare to GOT
5 Jesus said, "Know what is in front of your face, and what is hidden from you will be disclosed to you.
For there is nothing hidden that will not be revealed. [And there is nothing buried that will not be raised."]

So we can assume that Adam knew this right? I mean he saw god every day, so unless you're going to propose that Adam was a complete imbecile, then he knew god could see everywhere.

So just how stupid is Adam's idea to try to hide from god?   And why did god have to pretend to have to look for him?
Help find the cure for FUNDAMENTIA !

Offline eartheconomyspirit

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 325
  • Darwins +2/-15
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: You're all barking up the wrong tree - possibly :-)
« Reply #213 on: January 17, 2012, 04:08:06 AM »

Enoch Section 1 - Done.

Two things of interest.

1. " ...and all things are naked and open in Thy sight, and Thou seest all 6 things, and nothing can hide itself from Thee"

compare to GOT
5 Jesus said, "Know what is in front of your face, and what is hidden from you will be disclosed to you.
For there is nothing hidden that will not be revealed. [And there is nothing buried that will not be raised."]

So we can assume that Adam knew this right? I mean he saw god every day, so unless you're going to propose that Adam was a complete imbecile, then he knew god could see everywhere.

So just how stupid is Adam's idea to try to hide from god?   And why did god have to pretend to have to look for him?

two things. Adams fictional. what,s adam got to do with Enoch 1 Section 1?

Offline Brakeman

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1243
  • Darwins +47/-3
  • Gender: Male
Re: You're all barking up the wrong tree - possibly :-)
« Reply #214 on: January 17, 2012, 06:45:33 AM »
two things. Adams fictional. what,s adam got to do with Enoch 1 Section 1?

I know Adam is  fictional, I'm atheist, but if the scripture you quote makes other scriptures nonsense [or more nonsensical] then they do not sustain their premise of being the trustworthy word of god. Obviously all the old scripture is written by ancient goat herders that other men interpret like gullible astrology fortune readers.
Help find the cure for FUNDAMENTIA !

Offline eartheconomyspirit

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 325
  • Darwins +2/-15
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: You're all barking up the wrong tree - possibly :-)
« Reply #215 on: January 18, 2012, 04:01:21 AM »
two things. Adams fictional. what,s adam got to do with Enoch 1 Section 1?

I know Adam is  fictional, I'm atheist, but if the scripture you quote makes other scriptures nonsense [or more nonsensical] then they do not sustain their premise of being the trustworthy word of god. Obviously all the old scripture is written by ancient goat herders that other men interpret like gullible astrology fortune readers.

Not quite that straight forward:-)

Offline BustaBrown54

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 22
  • Darwins +1/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: You're all barking up the wrong tree - possibly :-)
« Reply #216 on: January 18, 2012, 09:31:35 AM »
Jesus' words were full of shit considering that it was his peeps quoted him. If Jesus was infact real why didnt he write a book on his own? Would of been better to hear from the supposed "son of god" than from his little henchmen? But of course he didnt so yea...there u go!

BTW its good to finally join the community of sanity! :) living in Texas makes me feel like a fish out of water so its good to see im not the only one out there that knows truth.
"Sweat saves blood, blood save lives, Brains save both."---Desert Fox

Offline Graybeard

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6778
  • Darwins +546/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: You're all barking up the wrong tree - possibly :-)
« Reply #217 on: January 18, 2012, 10:42:58 AM »
Two things of interest.

1. " ...and all things are naked and open in Thy sight, and Thou seest all 6 things, and nothing can hide itself from Thee"

compare to GOT
5 Jesus said, "Know what is in front of your face, and what is hidden from you will be disclosed to you.
For there is nothing hidden that will not be revealed. [And there is nothing buried that will not be raised."]

Suggesting jesus in the GOT may have had a source of inspiration. the question how much and what other sources...
This assumption (or even suggestion) is completely without foundation, and you know it.

What about the possibility that someone had simply invented a character called Jesus and put old stories into his mouth?

Quote
We really should abandon visionaries in favor of trying to show the connection to wisdom and spirituality of fables:-)
I don’t think that I am alone here in not knowing what “spirituality” means. Could you explain?

And why should we bother digging up these ancient stories? Have we not had brilliant philosophers in our own age? Why don’t we worship them as gods?

Quote
For example, the aborigines from the continent now known as australia (:-)) have been using parables for much longer than Enoch's generation. It was a way of passing knowledge not so easily translated and committing it to memory so that time and life’s experience could reveal the intended truths.
First of all, what is an “intended truth?”

Next, I have not the faintest idea how you know this as you yourself say that there is no written record. However, Aboriginals were amongst the peoples have been using what we English speakers call “examples” (parable has such a preachy implication, don’t you think?) since the time that mankind found speech. I fail to see how you can distinguish between those who were plausible frauds, and someone with real insight, or, where it is obvious, claim that the mere age of some saying validates it.

Quote
There is a problem with this approach, though. Because they cannot be witnessed and are ambiguous to the immature
Immature? Oh! I see, if you see them as ambiguous you are in some way less mature than, for example, you. Have I got that right?
Quote
they provide an opportunity for manipulation and abuse (think Suicide Bomber).
Yes, Christianity and Islam and all the other relgions have been based upon manipulation and abuse since they were first invented. So why do people think it is a good idea to follow them?

So who is the final arbiter on what these collections of inaccurate and trite sayings mean?  Am I right in thinking it is you? And if so, why do so many educated people seem to have different opinions… are they all immature?

Quote
Any way, the fundamental message is valid from a spiritual perspective.
Can you define some of those terms you throw about? What is a “spiritual perspective”?

I think it was Wittgenstein who said that religion is written in a private language where some words have no particular meaning.

Quote
What I understand the vision represents is be good and you will have peace, be bad, lustful and follow your desires and you'll regret it.
Well, that is what you understand. Why are you telling us this as if you might be correct? And can you think of examples where this “be good and you will have peace, be bad, lustful and follow your desires and you'll regret it.” is not true? Why do bad things happen to good people and good things to bad people. Your explanation is superstitious garbage.

Ees,
The time has come to tell you that such snippets of homespun philosophy are found in all cultures and times. There is little or nothing to set the various gods apart, so the Jesus myth is simply a “me too” religion.

I take it that you are aware that despite being allegedly “The Son of God” (and thus an instant celebrity) there is not the slightest evidence to show he actually existed and even the Bible is filled with factual errors. Perhaps those aboriginals fell into the trap of Chinese  whispering and the story became confused?
Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Offline eartheconomyspirit

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 325
  • Darwins +2/-15
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: You're all barking up the wrong tree - possibly :-)
« Reply #218 on: January 19, 2012, 04:03:57 AM »
Jesus' words were full of shit considering that it was his peeps quoted him. If Jesus was infact real why didnt he write a book on his own? Would of been better to hear from the supposed "son of god" than from his little henchmen? But of course he didnt so yea...there u go!

BTW its good to finally join the community of sanity! :) living in Texas makes me feel like a fish out of water so its good to see im not the only one out there that knows truth.

Constantine and Eusebius may have had something to do with the lack of evidence.

Offline eartheconomyspirit

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 325
  • Darwins +2/-15
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: You're all barking up the wrong tree - possibly :-)
« Reply #219 on: January 19, 2012, 04:06:36 AM »
Definition

Traditionally, many religions have regarded spirituality as an integral aspect of religious experience. Among other factors, declining membership of organized religions and the growth of secularism in the western world have given rise to a broader view of spirituality.[5] The term "spiritual" is now frequently used in contexts in which the term "religious" was formally employed; compare James' 1902 lectures on the "Varieties of Religious Experience".[6][7]
Secular spirituality emphasizes humanistic qualities such as love, compassion, patience, tolerance, forgiveness, contentment, responsibility, harmony, and a concern for others[8]:22, aspects of life and human experience which go beyond a purely materialist view of the world, without necessarily accepting belief in a supernatural reality or divine being. Spiritual practices such as mindfulness and meditation can be experienced as beneficial or even necessary for human fulfillment without any supernatural interpretation or explanation. Spirituality in this context may be a matter of nurturing thoughts, emotions, words and actions that are in harmony with a belief that everything in the universe is mutually dependent; this stance has much in common with some versions of Buddhist spirituality. A modern definition is as follows:
"Spirituality exists wherever we struggle with the issues of how our lives fit into the greater scheme of things. This is true when our questions never give way to specific answers or give rise to specific practices such as prayer or meditation. we encounter spiritual issues every time we wonder where the universe comes from, why we are here, or what happens when we die. We also become spiritual when we become moved by values such as beauty, love, or creativity that seem to reveal a meaning or power beyond our visible world. An idea or practice is "spiritual" when it reveals our personal desire to establish a felt-relationship with the deepest meanings or powers governing life."[9]
The psychology of religion uses a variety of metrics to measure spirituality.[10]

Offline eartheconomyspirit

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 325
  • Darwins +2/-15
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: You're all barking up the wrong tree - possibly :-)
« Reply #220 on: January 19, 2012, 05:19:30 AM »
Two things of interest.

1. " ...and all things are naked and open in Thy sight, and Thou seest all 6 things, and nothing can hide itself from Thee"

compare to GOT
5 Jesus said, "Know what is in front of your face, and what is hidden from you will be disclosed to you.
For there is nothing hidden that will not be revealed. [And there is nothing buried that will not be raised."]

Suggesting jesus in the GOT may have had a source of inspiration. the question how much and what other sources...
This assumption (or even suggestion) is completely without foundation, and you know it.

What about the possibility that someone had simply invented a character called Jesus and put old stories into his mouth?
No  I Don't.

You have at least two sects - Gnostics  between 70 BCE - 140 BCE and orthodoxy that both refer to the same person. But it's not necessarily the individual we should contemplate its the subject matter

Quote
Quote
We really should abandon visionaries in favor of trying to show the connection to wisdom and spirituality of fables:-)
I don’t think that I am alone here in not knowing what “spirituality” means. Could you explain?
I agree with the Wikipedia definition. See previous post.

Quote
And why should we bother digging up these ancient stories? Have we not had brilliant philosophers in our own age? Why don’t we worship them as gods?

To seek the truth.

Quote
Quote
For example, the aborigines from the continent now known as australia (:-)) have been using parables for much longer than Enoch's generation. It was a way of passing knowledge not so easily translated and committing it to memory so that time and life’s experience could reveal the intended truths.
First of all, what is an “intended truth?”

The children won't grasp the subtleties of the seasons or how to read the signs for water so the dreaming stories are designed to convey important lessons from generation to generation. I read a book written by aboriginal elders and spirituality was also highly valued.

Quote
Next, I have not the faintest idea how you know this as you yourself say that there is no written record. However, Aboriginals were amongst the peoples have been using what we English speakers call “examples” (parable has such a preachy implication, don’t you think?) since the time that mankind found speech. I fail to see how you can distinguish between those who were plausible frauds, and someone with real insight, or, where it is obvious, claim that the mere age of some saying validates it.


Jesus Got had a saying... Know what is in front of your face. What,s in front of our faces is each others  emotions, tears, joy, egos etc... A puzzle just waiting to be solved. Parables, Socrates method and the aboriginal dreaming are all ways of engaging an individual in the learning process. So parables is relevant


Quote

Quote
There is a problem with this approach, though. Because they cannot be witnessed and are ambiguous to the immature
Immature? Oh! I see, if you see them as ambiguous you are in some way less mature than, for example, you. Have I got that right?

Think Jones town. Jim and Tammy Baker.

Quote
Quote
they provide an opportunity for manipulation and abuse (think Suicide Bomber).
Yes, Christianity and Islam and all the other relgions have been based upon manipulation and abuse since they were first invented. So why do people think it is a good idea to follow them?

So who is the final arbiter on what these collections of inaccurate and trite sayings mean?  Am I right in thinking it is you? And if so, why do so many educated people seem to have different opinions… are they all immature?

Just expressing my view. It's you that frames your questions.


Quote
Quote
Any way, the fundamental message is valid from a spiritual perspective.
Can you define some of those terms you throw about? What is a “spiritual perspective”?

I think it was Wittgenstein who said that religion is written in a private language where some words have no particular meaning.

Correct for religion. Don't confuse spirituality with religion. Spirituality is not about words.

Quote
Quote
What I understand the vision represents is be good and you will have peace, be bad, lustful and follow your desires and you'll regret it.
Well, that is what you understand. Why are you telling us this as if you might be correct? And can you think of examples where this “be good and you will have peace, be bad, lustful and follow your desires and you'll regret it.” is not true? Why do bad things happen to good people and good things to bad people. Your explanation is superstitious garbage.

Read for yourself and determine what the intent is. I ignored the superstitious garbage from Enoch 1

Ees,
The time has come to tell you that such snippets of homespun philosophy are found in all cultures and times. There is little or nothing to set the various gods apart, so the Jesus myth is simply a “me too” religion.

I take it that you are aware that despite being allegedly “The Son of God” (and thus an instant celebrity) there is not the slightest evidence to show he actually existed and even the Bible is filled with factual errors. Perhaps those aboriginals fell into the trap of Chinese  whispering and the story became confused?

My point exactly. It,s all about the same timeless material - spirituality and shared wisdom. Yet we rather bark up trees after things that never existed and take a polarized position while Rome burns.

I also agree that the Bible is full or errors and offered a possible prime suspect in previous posts.

Some Anoriginals were attracted to the christian story. With a culture over 50000 years old you think they would have had all the answers.  the connection the human condition/spirituality perhaps.

Offline Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2756
  • Darwins +222/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I can haz jeezusburger™
Re: You're all barking up the wrong tree - possibly :-)
« Reply #221 on: January 19, 2012, 08:15:53 PM »
I have an explanation for when the GoT was written. It occurred to me in the "christians haven't read their bible thread."

In it, I carelessly mixed up the concepts of the Kingdom and the parable of Lazarus in Luke 16; largely because I was being lazy. But it turns out that this is a common academic connection. Last night, I picked up The Evolution of God, by Robert Wright. I started reading at a random early part of it, and he was talking about Yahweh, so I got bored and opening it up at a later random page, 351, where he was talking about exactly this issue.

He explains that Luke changed the understanding that 'The Kingdom' was going to come "soon"(Matt 3:2), or "with power"(Matt 24:30), from the clouds, etc, and he transformed it to "The Kingdom is within you"(17:21). After Christians got tired of waiting for the kingdom to come, and wondered how they would be rewarded in the mean time, Luke invented an instant afterlife scenario (involving hades) in the parable of Lazarus. He ripped this off from an Osiris story of afterlife, and mashed it up from bits of the Gideon story in Judges.

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=1rm2LDFQscUC&pg=PA477&lpg=PA477&dq=egyptian+story+of+rich+man+poor+man+purple&source=bl&ots=jFFQcYpkoy&sig=38U0zwE0B61H6dIO62MajL3Wvyo&hl=en&sa=X&ei=W7MYT_DqAeWjiAfEzIncCw&sqi=2&ved=0CCAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=egyptian%20story%20of%20rich%20man%20poor%20man%20purple&f=false

So, which Kingdom came first?

The apparent dating of the synoptic gospels tends to date Luke last. This suggests that the Kingdom was revamped in Luke's era, as Christians searched for ways to explain why the Kingdom had not come, and to make the gospel appeal to members of the popular Osiris cult.

I think also, it would be strange to call it "the Kingdom", if it started the way Luke and GoT have presented it.

The GoT presents the Kingdom in quote 3, which is its first bit of wisdom.

3)   Jesus said, "If those who lead you say, 'See, the Kingdom is
in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they
say to you, 'It is in the sea,' then the fish will precede you.
Rather, the Kingdom is inside of you, and it is outside of you.
When you come to know yourselves, then you will become known, and
you will realize that it is you who are the sons of the living
Father. But if you will not know yourselves, you dwell in poverty
and it is you who are that poverty."


It's consistent with Luke, and the revision of The Kingdom.

A lot of people have speculated on the order of quotes in Thomas, as to whether it indicates that Matthew was derived from Thomas, or vice versa. But the most obvious quote is 3, which sets out the agenda of Thomas: to assert the redefinition of the Kingdom, as a first priority.

In both cases, Luke and Thomas, the wisdom even intrinsically admits the common misconception that the Kingdom is somewhere, or going to come. So, it's stated in terms of the old belief. (Which means that the old belief came first)

And, I think I said before, that the lack of details about Jesus in Thomas tend to assume that the reader already knows all about him from orthodox legend.



Humans, in general, don't waste any opportunity to be unfathomably stupid - Dr Cynical.

Offline eartheconomyspirit

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 325
  • Darwins +2/-15
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: You're all barking up the wrong tree - possibly :-)
« Reply #222 on: January 20, 2012, 04:39:19 AM »
good find.

But some things don,t quite make sense. I'll try and elaborate after a bit of reading.
« Last Edit: January 20, 2012, 04:45:08 AM by eartheconomyspirit »

Offline eartheconomyspirit

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 325
  • Darwins +2/-15
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: You're all barking up the wrong tree - possibly :-)
« Reply #223 on: January 20, 2012, 04:51:37 PM »
Here's something I found to support the Constantine impact on Historicity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arius#The_First_Council_of_Nicaea

"In addition, if any writing composed by Arius should be found, it should be handed over to the flames, so that not only will the wickedness of his teaching be obliterated, but nothing will be left even to remind anyone of him. And I hereby make a public order, that if someone should be discovered to have hidden a writing composed by Arius, and not to have immediately brought it forward and destroyed it by fire, his penalty shall be death. As soon as he is discovered in this offence, he shall be submitted for capital punishment....."

— Edict by Emperor Constantine against the Arians
« Last Edit: January 20, 2012, 05:48:46 PM by eartheconomyspirit »

Offline eartheconomyspirit

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 325
  • Darwins +2/-15
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: You're all barking up the wrong tree - possibly :-)
« Reply #224 on: January 20, 2012, 08:14:21 PM »
I have an explanation for when the GoT was written. It occurred to me in the "christians haven't read their bible thread."

In it, I carelessly mixed up the concepts of the Kingdom and the parable of Lazarus in Luke 16; largely because I was being lazy. But it turns out that this is a common academic connection. Last night, I picked up The Evolution of God, by Robert Wright. I started reading at a random early part of it, and he was talking about Yahweh, so I got bored and opening it up at a later random page, 351, where he was talking about exactly this issue.

He explains that Luke changed the understanding that 'The Kingdom' was going to come "soon"(Matt 3:2), or "with power"(Matt 24:30), from the clouds, etc, and he transformed it to "The Kingdom is within you"(17:21). After Christians got tired of waiting for the kingdom to come, and wondered how they would be rewarded in the mean time, Luke invented an instant afterlife scenario (involving hades) in the parable of Lazarus. He ripped this off from an Osiris story of afterlife, and mashed it up from bits of the Gideon story in Judges.

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=1rm2LDFQscUC&pg=PA477&lpg=PA477&dq=egyptian+story+of+rich+man+poor+man+purple&source=bl&ots=jFFQcYpkoy&sig=38U0zwE0B61H6dIO62MajL3Wvyo&hl=en&sa=X&ei=W7MYT_DqAeWjiAfEzIncCw&sqi=2&ved=0CCAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=egyptian%20story%20of%20rich%20man%20poor%20man%20purple&f=false

So, which Kingdom came first?

The apparent dating of the synoptic gospels tends to date Luke last. This suggests that the Kingdom was revamped in Luke's era, as Christians searched for ways to explain why the Kingdom had not come, and to make the gospel appeal to members of the popular Osiris cult.

I think also, it would be strange to call it "the Kingdom", if it started the way Luke and GoT have presented it.

The GoT presents the Kingdom in quote 3, which is its first bit of wisdom.

3)   Jesus said, "If those who lead you say, 'See, the Kingdom is
in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they
say to you, 'It is in the sea,' then the fish will precede you.
Rather, the Kingdom is inside of you, and it is outside of you.
When you come to know yourselves, then you will become known, and
you will realize that it is you who are the sons of the living
Father. But if you will not know yourselves, you dwell in poverty
and it is you who are that poverty."


It's consistent with Luke, and the revision of The Kingdom.

A lot of people have speculated on the order of quotes in Thomas, as to whether it indicates that Matthew was derived from Thomas, or vice versa. But the most obvious quote is 3, which sets out the agenda of Thomas: to assert the redefinition of the Kingdom, as a first priority.

In both cases, Luke and Thomas, the wisdom even intrinsically admits the common misconception that the Kingdom is somewhere, or going to come. So, it's stated in terms of the old belief. (Which means that the old belief came first)

And, I think I said before, that the lack of details about Jesus in Thomas tend to assume that the reader already knows all about him from orthodox legend.


http://www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/Religions/iranian/Zarathushtrian/zoroastrianism_influence.htm

Ok here's what I think happened. The concept of hades is right out of the Zoroastrian literature. I think that via interaction around 600 BCE with Persians, Judaism may have take a turn and embraced the afterlife scenarios.  Apparently this is the position of the Pharisees. They picked up other things including the day of reckoning.

So philosophically its Orthodox Christians (Except Luke 17:21) and the Pharisees that run with the Ideas of heaven and hell and a judgement day. They and the Zoroastrians also put the kingdom in the clouds, in my opinion. Not to mention the fire relationship with hell (ambiguous) . 

Jesus, in the GOT has two sayings that are critical of the Pharisees.

39 Jesus said, "The Pharisees and the scholars have taken the keys of knowledge and have hidden them. They have not entered nor have they allowed those who want to enter to do so."


102 Jesus said, "Damn the Pharisees! They are like a dog sleeping in the cattle manger: the dog neither eats nor [lets] the cattle eat."

The religious leaders and scholars in Jesus time have been corrupted by prestige and/or power . Jesus calls them out, saying that they are failing their own community and the spiritual quest of their followers. Jesus advises the listener to be careful in these matters. If we look to history, it is littered with examples of how those besotted with power and privilege treat anyone who challenges them. Jesus and his death are evidence of this issue of self interest.   (Assuming jesus is real  ;))

In Luke 16:16"The Law and the Prophets were until John. Since that time the Kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it.

Suggests to me that Luke refers to John the Apostle (not Jesus) as his source for the Kingdom. From there its on with the Heaven and Hell Scenario immediately following death for the rich guy and Lazarus.

The john we meet in the Nag Hammadi texts (and this is after Jesus has passed away) takes his guidance on spiritual matters from a "vision" in the desert after a run in with the "pharisees". Not from Jesus.  He's gone.

http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/apocjn.html

This version of how things work looks more Zoroastrian (Woo full) than GOT.

Now to GOT 3 and Luke 17:21 both of which place the kingdom within.

I agree with the connection. These both refer to a inner kingdom that has a living context.

3 Jesus said, "If your leaders say to you, 'Look, the (Father's) kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, 'It is in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the kingdom is within you and it is outside you.
When you know yourselves, then you will be known, and you will understand that you are children of the living Father. But if you do not know yourselves, then you live in poverty, and you are the poverty."

In this saying Jesus talks about an inner and outer condition. A part of us, not apart from (in the sky or sea) us. He asks us to take on the personal responsibility and quest to come to know our authentic selves. Jesus is not offering instruction to a specific individual (leaders must have followers).
If we cannot know ourselves we will be the poorer. If this related to maturity it could be said that it makes sense.
Outer could refer to a spirituality that exists environmentally or simply to the spirituality on display from our fellow humanity or the conflict between our inner thoughts and outer behaviors. Your guess would be as good as mine.

Children of a living father that’s both inside and outside us. The God concept is not apart from us rather a part of us.
For this to be knowable there would have to be a majority of mature individuals that recognize something special both within and outside themselves
Ever had that special feeling of meaning when you’re in a pristine outdoor settings. May have something to do with it and it is in my circumstance knowable. Maturity is a common life experience.

Luke17:20 And when the Pharisees had demanded of Him when the Kingdom of God should come, He answered them and said, "The Kingdom of God cometh not with outward show.  21Neither shall they say, `Lo, it is here!' or `Lo, it is there!' For behold, the Kingdom of God is within you."

It's either a matter of who came first, as you point out, or they referenced the same source. Either way both the Bible and Thomas are aligned just like 66 of the other 114 sayings in Thomas (somewhat).

Anything that talks about angels, hell , afterlife is in my view inaccurate. So, at this stage, I support Thomas as primary and can only suggest that Luke accurately quotes the Thomas source but in most other aspects he has adopted John's and the orthodox position. I still hold the Eusebius has a shaky hand in the written word. Perhaps in selecting the Jesus sayings to include in his biblical redaction this is one he didn't see the  inconsistency.







« Last Edit: January 20, 2012, 08:40:37 PM by eartheconomyspirit »

Offline eartheconomyspirit

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 325
  • Darwins +2/-15
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated

Offline Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2756
  • Darwins +222/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I can haz jeezusburger™
Re: You're all barking up the wrong tree - possibly :-)
« Reply #226 on: January 21, 2012, 12:32:59 AM »
Luke copied that verse from Matthew, but dropped an important word, then translators inserted a new word. That's why there is a contradiction straight after it.

Matthew 11
[11] Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.
[12] And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force.
[13] For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John.
[14] And if ye will receive it, this is Elias, which was for to come.

No bible translates it correctly, because they have a vested interest in hiding it.
http://bible.cc/luke/16-16.htm
http://www.logosapostolic.org/bible_study/RP208-4LawJohnBaptist.htm


Quote
Either way both the Bible and Thomas are aligned just like 66 of the other 114 sayings in Thomas (somewhat).

I make it about 47 quotes.

Quote
It's either a matter of who came first, as you point out, or they referenced the same source.

So, why did Luke, the later revisionist, Paulinist only seem to know that the Kingdom wasn't going to come, and then seemed to spot Thomas 3, which Matthew missed? Hard to miss, isn't it?



Humans, in general, don't waste any opportunity to be unfathomably stupid - Dr Cynical.

Offline eartheconomyspirit

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 325
  • Darwins +2/-15
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: You're all barking up the wrong tree - possibly :-)
« Reply #227 on: January 21, 2012, 08:04:24 PM »
I'll post the ones i've found at the references, tonight if I get time.

Offline Graybeard

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6778
  • Darwins +546/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: You're all barking up the wrong tree - possibly :-)
« Reply #228 on: January 23, 2012, 04:17:36 PM »
I don’t think that I am alone here in not knowing what “spirituality” means. Could you explain?
I agree with the Wikipedia definition. See previous post.
There seems to be no difference between “emotion” and “spirituality”, does there?  Is emotion the answer to progress? We all have some, why do we want more, or a different type. This type of emotion has got us to the point at which we are the most successful creature ever known.

Quote
Quote
And why should we bother digging up these ancient stories? Have we not had brilliant philosophers in our own age? Why don’t we worship them as gods?
To seek the truth.
Can you answer why it is that you dismiss the philosophers of our own age so readily in favour of stone age peasants?

Quote
The children [of Aborigines] won't grasp the subtleties of the seasons or how to read the signs for water so the dreaming stories are designed to convey important lessons from generation to generation. I read a book written by aboriginal elders and spirituality was also highly valued.
1.   By whom was it valued?
2.   As I understand it, the Aborigines were mired in the Stone Age prior to the arrival of the European. They had no machines, no real medicine, no vehicles, no science, were infested with the parasites of superstition and subsisted at the lowest level of any human  on the planet.  And yet you think this is success?

Quote
Jesus Got had a saying... Know what is in front of your face.
I have a saying – try and keep up with civilisation, human knowledge and science. I leave such trite sayings as you quote to fairy-tales for 8 year olds.
Quote
So parables is relevant
You are simply wrong. All you are talking about is the gibberings of the uneducated; simple stereotypical sayings, common to people who stopped thinking.

Quote
Quote
Immature? Oh! I see, if you see them as ambiguous you are in some way less mature than, for example, you. Have I got that right?

Think Jones town. Jim and Tammy Baker.
Think all the people who are here. Think people who see through the folktales and 5000 year-old imperfect arguments and correctly dismiss them

Quote
Correct for religion. Don't confuse spirituality with religion. Spirituality is not about words.
You seem to have quoted a lot of words in the cut and paste you did. Can you tell me the difference between spirituality and the real and meaningful word, “emotion.”?

Quote
What I understand the vision represents is be good and you will have peace, be bad, lustful and follow your desires and you'll regret it… Read for yourself and determine what the intent is. I ignored the superstitious garbage from Enoch 1
But human experience does not bear this out, can you explain that?

Quote
My point exactly. It’s all about the same timeless material - spirituality and shared wisdom.
There you go again with “spirituality". I’m convinced you mean “emotion” but want to put some “woo” into your words because they explain the bits where your philosophy breaks down into little pieces.

Quote
Some Aboriginals were attracted to the christian story. With a culture over 50000 years old you think they would have had all the answers.  the connection the human condition/spirituality perhaps.
I can tell you that no serious person on earth would go to an Aboriginal for medical or dental treatment. I can tell you that no Aboriginal has ever won a Nobel Prize. I will tell you that their contribution to global civilisation has been nil (if you discount the discovery that the Witchity Grub is edible and the invention of the boomerang)

They were a set of warring savage tribes, mired in superstition, devoid of any real science or knowledge; they lacked higher educational institutions, they had no knowledge of metals, agriculture or maths. They lived as nomads and hunter-gatherers, without permanent settlements, something that Europe has left behind thousands of years before. Their rambling, delusional stories were the nearest they came to “deep thought.”

And you think that this is the answer to mankind’s woes, when the Aboriginals themselves went about killing each other.

Do you think it is time to stop pointlessly clinging to that idea?

Let’s look at the Australian Aborigine Creation Myth
Quote
There was a time when everything was still. All the spirits of the earth were asleep - or almost all. The great Father of All Spirits was the only one awake. Gently he awoke the Sun Mother. As she opened her eyes a warm ray of light spread out towards the sleeping earth. The Father of All Spirits said to the Sun Mother,
"Mother, I have work for you. Go down to the Earth and awake the sleeping spirits. Give them forms."
The Sun Mother glided down to Earth, which was bare at the time and began to walk in all directions and everywhere she walked plants grew. After returning to the field where she had begun her work the Mother rested, well pleased with herself. The Father of All Spirits came and saw her work, but instructed her to go into the caves and wake the spirits.
This time she ventured into the dark caves on the mountainsides. The bright light that radiated from her awoke the spirits and after she left insects of all kinds flew out of the caves. The Sun Mother sat down and watched the glorious sight of her insects mingling with her flowers. However once again the Father urged her on.
The Mother ventured into a very deep cave, spreading her light around her. Her heat melted the ice and the rivers and streams of the world were created. Then she created fish and small snakes, lizards and frogs. Next she awoke the spirits of the birds and animals and they burst into the sunshine in a glorious array of colors. Seeing this the Father of All Spirits was pleased with the Sun Mother's work.
She called all her creatures to her and instructed them to enjoy the wealth of the earth and to live peacefully with one another. Then she rose into the sky and became the sun.
Simply bollocks, isn’t it.

Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Offline eartheconomyspirit

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 325
  • Darwins +2/-15
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: You're all barking up the wrong tree - possibly :-)
« Reply #229 on: January 25, 2012, 06:53:56 AM »
I don’t think that I am alone here in not knowing what “spirituality” means. Could you explain?
I agree with the Wikipedia definition. See previous post.
There seems to be no difference between “emotion” and “spirituality”, does there?  Is emotion the answer to progress? We all have some, why do we want more, or a different type. This type of emotion has got us to the point at which we are the most successful creature ever known.
You jest surely. Through civilization and ingenuity passionate for convenience and fired with self interest, we've managed to overpopulate and ravage the health of our environment. We've killed and warred and we are the most successful creatures ever known. And you'd probably say I am that one with rose tinted glasses. :-)   
Quote
Quote
Quote
And why should we bother digging up these ancient stories? Have we not had brilliant philosophers in our own age? Why don’t we worship them as gods?
To seek the truth.
Can you answer why it is that you dismiss the philosophers of our own age so readily in favour of stone age peasants?

Because they all talk about the same thing, it matters not who choose to listen to just which ones have a better grip on the topic. For mine Jesus (of the GOT) has one of the best a simplest explanations.

Quote
The children [of Aborigines] won't grasp the subtleties of the seasons or how to read the signs for water so the dreaming stories are designed to convey important lessons from generation to generation. I read a book written by aboriginal elders and spirituality was also highly valued.
1.   By whom was it valued?  -  The elders
2.   As I understand it, the Aborigines were mired in the Stone Age prior to the arrival of the European. They had no machines, no real medicine, no vehicles, no science, were infested with the parasites of superstition and subsisted at the lowest level of any human  on the planet.  And yet you think this is success? - Depends on what you value in life -- refer back to the OP and the big fish

Quote
Jesus Got had a saying... Know what is in front of your face.
I have a saying – try and keep up with civilisation, human knowledge and science. I leave such trite sayings as you quote to fairy-tales for 8 year olds.

Disagree (Agains what's important)

Quote
So parables is relevant
You are simply wrong. All you are talking about is the gibberings of the uneducated; simple stereotypical sayings, common to people who stopped thinking.

No your simply wrong. And the style of your responses gives you away.

Quote
Quote
Immature? Oh! I see, if you see them as ambiguous you are in some way less mature than, for example, you. Have I got that right?

Think Jones town. Jim and Tammy Baker.
Think all the people who are here. Think people who see through the folktales and 5000 year-old imperfect arguments and correctly dismiss them

Better don't think, then :-)

Quote
Correct for religion. Don't confuse spirituality with religion. Spirituality is not about words.
You seem to have quoted a lot of words in the cut and paste you did. Can you tell me the difference between spirituality and the real and meaningful word, “emotion.”?

Authentic Spirituality (or what every you want to call it)  is where you'll find emotions such a joy and sorrow. You'll find a wisdom that people will recognize etc.. Emotions will be the signature to your understanding and maturity. For example the emotions of anger and jealousy will show spiritual immaturity. Authentic joy and sorrow will occur for the selfless only.

Quote
What I understand the vision represents is be good and you will have peace, be bad, lustful and follow your desires and you'll regret it… Read for yourself and determine what the intent is. I ignored the superstitious garbage from Enoch 1
But human experience does not bear this out, can you explain that?

You refer to good people receiving harm and pain. What I mean is that people who are genuine and live up to a common sense of good enjoy a clear conscience and are at peace with themselves. Of course they that does immunize them from those that embrace self interest. If one follows self desire you'll generally find that there needs are never satisfied and it fuels conflict and competition. Stress and jealousy etc have their day.

Quote
My point exactly. It’s all about the same timeless material - spirituality and shared wisdom.
There you go again with “spirituality". I’m convinced you mean “emotion” but want to put some “woo” into your words because they explain the bits where your philosophy breaks down into little pieces.

I mean spirituality. No woo. Call it the voice of humanity, the source of compassion, love,  volunteering etc...

Quote
Some Aboriginals were attracted to the christian story. With a culture over 50000 years old you think they would have had all the answers.  the connection the human condition/spirituality perhaps.
I can tell you that no serious person on earth would go to an Aboriginal for medical or dental treatment. I can tell you that no Aboriginal has ever won a Nobel Prize. I will tell you that their contribution to global civilisation has been nil (if you discount the discovery that the Witchity Grub is edible and the invention of the boomerang)

They were a set of warring savage tribes, mired in superstition, devoid of any real science or knowledge; they lacked higher educational institutions, they had no knowledge of metals, agriculture or maths. They lived as nomads and hunter-gatherers, without permanent settlements, something that Europe has left behind thousands of years before. Their rambling, delusional stories were the nearest they came to “deep thought.”

And you think that this is the answer to mankind’s woes, when the Aboriginals themselves went about killing each other.

Do you think it is time to stop pointlessly clinging to that idea?

Let’s look at the Australian Aborigine Creation Myth
Quote
There was a time when everything was still. All the spirits of the earth were asleep - or almost all. The great Father of All Spirits was the only one awake. Gently he awoke the Sun Mother. As she opened her eyes a warm ray of light spread out towards the sleeping earth. The Father of All Spirits said to the Sun Mother,
"Mother, I have work for you. Go down to the Earth and awake the sleeping spirits. Give them forms."
The Sun Mother glided down to Earth, which was bare at the time and began to walk in all directions and everywhere she walked plants grew. After returning to the field where she had begun her work the Mother rested, well pleased with herself. The Father of All Spirits came and saw her work, but instructed her to go into the caves and wake the spirits.
This time she ventured into the dark caves on the mountainsides. The bright light that radiated from her awoke the spirits and after she left insects of all kinds flew out of the caves. The Sun Mother sat down and watched the glorious sight of her insects mingling with her flowers. However once again the Father urged her on.
The Mother ventured into a very deep cave, spreading her light around her. Her heat melted the ice and the rivers and streams of the world were created. Then she created fish and small snakes, lizards and frogs. Next she awoke the spirits of the birds and animals and they burst into the sunshine in a glorious array of colors. Seeing this the Father of All Spirits was pleased with the Sun Mother's work.
She called all her creatures to her and instructed them to enjoy the wealth of the earth and to live peacefully with one another. Then she rose into the sky and became the sun.
Simply bollocks, isn’t it.
[/quote]

Perhaps not. Consider it as a metaphor or parable if you like :-) The stillness is meditation the best way to know the great father (human condition /spirituality). When the mind is still, it's the best way to experience reality. (What ever that may be). From here their reverently story introduces the Sun in order of importance the source of all light.  They then relate how the sun is the life giver. How all creatures and their lives are related to this one energy source.

what a wonderful thing this natural world and we are. In their times this energy sustained their life and the story recommends trust that your have a wealth (in their time ) of resources. trust in this and live peacefully.

Now is that a worthy principle or not. Now Consider our current group of successful creatures. What's our story :-) 

They lived in harmony with their environment for 50,000 years. their land was everything. They shed tears, the knew laughter and they loved.

Let's know compare what's been achieved in the last 2000 years and dare to consider the direction we're all headed in. 

Offline eartheconomyspirit

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 325
  • Darwins +2/-15
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: You're all barking up the wrong tree - possibly :-)
« Reply #230 on: January 25, 2012, 07:38:22 AM »
Luke copied that verse from Matthew, but dropped an important word, then translators inserted a new word. That's why there is a contradiction straight after it.

Matthew 11
[11] Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.
[12] And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force.
[13] For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John.
[14] And if ye will receive it, this is Elias, which was for to come.

No bible translates it correctly, because they have a vested interest in hiding it.
http://bible.cc/luke/16-16.htm
http://www.logosapostolic.org/bible_study/RP208-4LawJohnBaptist.htm


Quote
Either way both the Bible and Thomas are aligned just like 66 of the other 114 sayings in Thomas (somewhat).

I make it about 47 quotes.

I haven't had time to review it all yet, apologies.  Here's an online  with 64. I have begun a cross check and I've found 17 more in my list not included in this work. The first I checked was in my view a definite miss by this author. So at least 65 on his reckoning.  I'll eventually complete my review and have my count.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/thomas.htm
...
I have grouped the sayings in the Gospel of Thomas into 5
categories. Sayings that are variants of or close parallels to
canonical passages (22 of these), sayings that appear more
remotely parallel or similar in some way (28), sayings which
contain parts parallel to several unconnected passages (13),
sayings parallel to non-canonical traditions of Jesus (only 1 of
these), and those with no apparent parallels (50!!).
     Due to space limitations, I have decided only to cite
passages, and you can go through and compare them using any
Bible. I haven't attempted to make any comparisons to the
various Apocryphal or other Christian and Gnostic texts.
 
A: Variants/Close Parallels
---------------------------
9: Mt13:3-8, Mk4:3-8, Lk8:5-8
10: Lk12:49
16: Mt10:34-36, Lk12:51-53
20: Mt13:31-32, Mk4:30-32, Lk13:18-19
26: Mt7:3-5, Lk6:41-42
34: Mt15:14, Lk6:39
35: Mt12:29, Mk3:27, Lk11:21-22
41: Mt25:29, Lk19:26
45: Mt7:16-20, Lk6:43-46
46: Mt11:11, Lk7:28
54: Mt5:3, Lk6:20
64: Mt22:3-9, Lk14:16-24
65: Mt21:33-39, Mk12:1-8, Lk20:9-15
66: Mt21:42, Mk12:10, Lk20:17; Psalm118:22
73: Mt9:37-38, Lk10:2
86: Mt8:20, Lk9:58
89: Lk11:39-40
93: Mt7:6
94: Mt7:7-8, Lk11:9-10
100: Mk12:13-17, Lk20:22-25
103: Mt24:43, Lk12:39
107: Mt18:12-13, Lk15:3-7
 
B: Remote Parallels
-------------------
1: Jn8:51
3: Lk17:21
5: Mt10:26, Lk10:2
8: Mt13:47-48
17: 1Cor2:9; Isiah64:4
30: Mt18:20
31: Mk6:4, Lk4:23-24, Jn4:44
32: Mt5:14
36: Mt6:25, Lk12:22
40: Mt15:13
44: Mt12:32, Mk3:28-29, Lk12:10
48: Mt18:19, Mk11:23-24
57: Mt13:24-30
58: Mt11:28
59: Jn7:34, Jn13:33
63: Lk12:16-21
68: Mt5:11, Lk6:22
71: Mk14:58
72: Lk12:13-15
75: Mt22:14
78: Mt11:7-9, Lk7:24-26
90: Mt11:28-30
95: Lk6:34-35, Lk14:12-14
96: Mt13:33, Lk13:20-21
99: Mt12:46-50, Mk3:31-35
101: Mt10:37, Lk14:26
109: Mt13:44
113: Lk17:20-21
 
C: Multiple Parallels
---------------------
14a: no parallels
14b: Lk10:8-9
14c: Mt15:11, Mk7:15
21a: no parallels
21b: Mt24:43, Lk12:39
21c: Mk4:26-29
22a: Mt18:3, Lk18:17
22b: Mt5:29-30, Mk9:43-48
24a: Jn13:36
24b: Mt6:22-23, Lk11:34-36
33a: Mt10:27
33b: Mt5:15, Mk4:21, Lk8:16, Lk11:33
39a: Lk11:52
39b: Mt10:16
43a: Jn8:25
43b: Mt7:16-20, Lk6:43-46(?)
55a: Lk14:26
55b: Mt10:37
62a: Mt13:11, Mk4:11, Lk8:10
62b: Mt6:3
69a: Mt5:8 (cf. Thomas saying 68)
69b: Mt5:6, Lk6:21
76a: Mt13:45-46
76b: Mt6:20, Lk12:33
79a: Lk11:27-28
79b: Lk23:29
91a: Jn9:36
91b: Lk12:54-56
 
D: Non-Canonical Parallels
--------------------------
42: Some stands of Islamic tradition attribute this saying to
Jesus.
 
E: No Parallels
---------------
     All the following sayings have no parallels in the Bible or
other non-Gnostic traditions:
              2       23       51       77       98
              4       25       52       80       102
              6       27       53       81       104
              7       28       56       82       105
              11      29       60       84       106
              12      37       61       85       108
              13      38       67       87       110
              15      47       70       88       111
              18      49       73       92       112
              19      50       74       97       114

Quote
It's either a matter of who came first, as you point out, or they referenced the same source.

So, why did Luke, the later revisionist, Paulinist only seem to know that the Kingdom wasn't going to come, and then seemed to spot Thomas 3, which Matthew missed? Hard to miss, isn't it?

The answer lies with the 50 the bible left out and "the story" they tell. I'm also working on that one :-)

Offline monkeymind

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2592
  • Darwins +44/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I don't understand what I know about it!
    • How To Know If You Are A Real Christian
Re: You're all barking up the wrong tree - possibly :-)
« Reply #231 on: January 25, 2012, 08:23:02 AM »
Nah, screw the goat herder days. Personally, I'd like to go back to caveman days.

Instead of Eharmony, and Christian Mingle, BOP!... a club on the head!
Instead widescreen TV, cave paintings.
Instead of a MickyDees BigMac, a brontosaurus burger....
Instead of hospitals, bait for T-rex.

Yeah....those were the days!


EDIT:typos and spacing
« Last Edit: January 25, 2012, 09:20:38 AM by monkeymind »
Truthfinder:the birds adapt and change through million of years in order to survive ,is that science, then cats should evolve also wings to better catch the birds
Mailbag:On a side note, back in college before my conversion, I actually saw a demon sitting next to me in critical thinking class.