MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Creation Myths, Ancient & Modern (Philosophy)
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Komorikid wrote:
You really need to get your facts right Ish. Tacitus was 14 year old in 70 AD and died at the age of 51 in 117 AD.
He WAS a later historian and he DID mention Christ.
You just contradicted your own argument
.

The case for the mythical Christ is not my argument because, as I said, others have made this case much better than could I. If you really think catching a non-expert in an error is a victory for your side, you are pathetically mistaken. I assure you that, should you continue to engage me on this matter, I will make many many more errors. It won't make your position any more sound.

Go find a discussion forum dedicated to the subject and engage the experts there if you really want quality answers to your challenges.

Nero falsely blamed the Christians for burning Rome in 67 AD.

So they say...

Paul had preached in all these places.

Paul never once uses the word "Christian."

Your great enlightenment of a Mythological Jesus is no Ishmaelian epiphany.

Kom. I've never claimed this theory as my own and I have less than zero interest in discussing it. As I have repeatedly stated. I have been pursuaded by the arguments of others that this position is correct. In fact, I am convinced that advocacy of an historical Jesus is irrational and violates every precept of the scientific method.

What empiphany there was for me was personal, in the sense that I had long puzzled over Paul's conversion -- for reasons I won't go into (as there seems no way to shoe-horn it into the context of an historical Jesus) -- and the metaphorical Christ thesis (which I had never been previously aware of) for the first time made sense of it all.

The gospels are compilations of various legends and esoteric concepts that were attributed to this mythical character Jesus.

It's more complicated than that. vis a vis. St. Paul. He wrote in the absence of any Gospels and could still speak of Jesus, confident that his audence understood the reference. The Gospels are therefore ancillary to the concept. To understand what Jesus represented, Revelations and the Letters of Paul are most essential.
Send private message
Komorikid


In: Gold Coast, Australia
View user's profile
Reply with quote

He wrote in the absence of any Gospels and could still speak of Jesus, confident that his audience understood the reference.

I agree totally with you on this point and provisionally on your whole concept of a Philosophical Christ. His audiences knew what he was talking about, but they also knew who he was talking about. There is one passage in Paul, which is about his revelation, that I just can't get past and I remain convinced it is the key.

Galatians 2:16 To reveal his Son in me, that I may preach among the heathen; immediately I conferred with no flesh and blood:
2:17 Neither went I up to Jerusalem, which were apostles before me. I went into Arabia and returned again unto Damascus.
2:18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter and abode with him for fifteen days
2:19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James
2:20 Now the things, which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not.


The core of his revelation and his theory was so important that he spoke to no one, not even the Jerusalem apostles. He went immediately to Arabia. Jerusalem or Alexandria I can understand, even Babylon but why Arabia. Arabia held the key to his estrangement with Peter and John. And after his return to Damascus it took three years before he was prepared to confront them in Jerusalem.

Paul found something in Arabia that Peter and John knew. Something that was pivotal to his idea of Jesus, something that the Jerusalem apostles had hidden from him about the nature of Jesus. Paul then spent three years in Damascus to formulate a response before confronting Peter.
Send private message
Wireloop


In: Detroit
View user's profile
Reply with quote

I do not want to debate this topic here for there is way too much groundwork to be laid before the things that I say will 'register' to even the most seasoned observer. Allow me, as moderator, to briefly comment on the passage that you cited.

Kid stated:
The core of his revelation and his theory was so important that he spoke to no one, not even the Jerusalem apostles. He went immediately to Arabia

As a note, you cited Galatians 2, but the reference is in Galatians 1.
You see, Paul is initially using metaphor here. Notice how he starts it:
But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb and called me through His grace
His comparison is between the 'two births', physical and spiritual.
1) Separating from the mother's womb = physical birth
2) Called by grace = spiritual birth.

to reveal His Son in me, that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately confer with flesh and blood
The word 'reveal' here is transliterated from the Greek word: apokalypsai. Apokalypsai literally means 'to uncover'. The whole phrase is: apokalypsai ton hyion autou en emoi. Literally translated as: Uncover the son of him in me.

This is the spiritual birth, the concept of which Paul started at the beginning of the chapter around verse 12.

The word 'Apokalypsai' almost invariably means the 'lifting of the veil that covers the mind's eye'. This unveiling is quite similar to the universal experience known as 'enlightenment' as witnessed in the writings of Plato and Philo of Alexandria. The enlightenment experience is an inward renewal of the mind, experienced as 'the Way of Temperance' or, in Christian terms, the crucifixion of the flesh. The flesh is the appetitive part of the tripartite soul ca. 50AD.

Now, where is the son revealed? Like in many of Paul's treatises, the son is revealed IN Paul. Not TO Paul, but IN Paul.

What does Paul do? Paul DOES NOT confer with Flesh (appetite) or go into Jerusalem. Jerusalem, as seen in Galatians 4 and throughout Paul's writings, is another metaphor for 'the flesh', the carnal mind which is glued to the observance of the Law.

You see, the concept of crucifying the flesh and the Way of Temperance was typified by a 1st century Platonic Jew as the Old Testament 'wilderness journey'. Allegorically, Jesus was led into the wilderness after his baptism for 40 days just like the Israelites who fled Egypt (figurative of the flesh) were led into the desert for 40 years.

So, where did Paul go after the Son was revealed in him? Like all of 'God's chosen' he went off into the wilderness, aka Arabia.
Again, he did not initially 'confer' with the flesh, aka Jerusalem, but went metaphorically into the desert to learn 'temperance'.

In short, Paul is at least partially, using metaphoric hyperbole which his readers (ca 50AD) would understand.
Send private message
Komorikid


In: Gold Coast, Australia
View user's profile
Reply with quote

The word 'reveal' here is transliterated from the greek word: apokalypsai. Apokalypsai literally means 'to uncover'.

So there was a cover-up that had to be uncovered by Paul

The word 'Apokalypsai' almost invariably means the 'lifting of the veil that covers the mind's eye'.

almost invariably means Another one of those 'orthodox phrases' of obfuscation

So, where did Paul go after the Son was revealed in him? Like all of 'God's chosen' he went off into the wilderness, aka Arabia.

There is only one problem with this interpretation and it has to do with Paul himself. Paul was a Benjamite literally of the Benyamani tribe. In Hebrew Ben Yamani or Yamani Folk, were one of the southern tribes of Israelites. The Yamani tribe inhabited and still inhabit an area around the Najran Valley in North Yemen. The Country of Yemen is named after this local tribe that has inhabited the area for over 3000 years. The Yemeni are the historical descendents of Paul's tribe. Yemeni is the exact Arabic literal translation of the Hebrew Yamani.

Paul's 'home' was Arabia and in the 1st century AD and indeed from the 9th century BC until the Great Marib Dam was destroyed in the 7th century AD the entire swathe of Western Arabia was the most fertile area in the Middle East outside the Nile Delta. The area stretching along the Red Sea coast and incorporating the coastal plains and eastern slopes of the Sarat escarpment (some 800 km long and 200 km wide) was the richest and most productive area in the entire Middle East. Its diversity of produce and mineral wealth surpassed that of Egypt. In fact most of Egypt's wealth CAME FROM West Arabia. It provided the primary wealth for Solomon's Kingdom and was a principal source of produce, spices, metal, clothing and especially wheat before, during and after Paul's lifetime.

It was definitely NOT A WILDERNESS either physically or metaphorically in the time of Paul, something he and his audience most certainly knew.

What does Paul do? Paul DOES NOT confer with Flesh (appetite) or go into Jerusalem. Jerusalem, as seen in Galatians 4 and throughout Paul's writings, is another metaphor for 'the flesh', the carnal mind which is glued to the observance of the Law.

Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me.
We are not talking about Galatians 4 we are talking about Galatians 1&2 and the CONTEXT therein, which is about the conflict between Paul and Peter. Jerusalem is the home of his rivals and those who Paul has stated were at odds with his version of Christianity. A conflict that lasted 17 years before the two sides were partially reconciled -- Peter to convert Jews and Paul to convert the non-Jews (Gentiles).
Send private message
Hatty
Site Admin

In: Berkshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Kmorikid wrote:
Paul's 'home' was Arabia and in the 1st century AD and indeed from the 9th century BC until the Great Marib Dam was destroyed in the 7th century AD the entire swathe of Western Arabia was the most fertile area in the Middle East outside the Nile Delta.

'scuse me for butting in but surely the whole concept of 'home' and family ties is part and parcel of the rejection of flesh/appetite (cf. the injunction to Abraham to go into 'exile') and the pursual of the contemplative life free from bodily and family restraints.

As for 'wilderness', this must be taken as a spiritual rather than physical wilderness surely?
Send private message
Wireloop


In: Detroit
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Kid stated:
Another one of those 'orthodox phrases' of obfuscation

Obfuscation my arse. It's not as cut and dry as you would want us to believe, Kid. You know, or should know, as well as anybody that a word (in this case Apokalypsai) can be translated in multiple ways depending upon the context. Mudslinging, and appealing to people's greatest ortho fears, will do you no good.

Apokalypsai 'almost invaribly', or 99% of the time if you prefer, means the 'mind's eye of understanding'....revelation. Paul never saw Jesus or an apparition of him with corporeal eyes, not even in his wildest dreams....literally. He 'understood' Jesus through the apokalypsai of scripture.You must keep in mind that a Revelation OF Jesus Christ, does not necessarily mean a Revelation ABOUT Jesus Christ, it could just as easily mean a Revelation FROM Jesus Christ. Which makes perfect sense if 'Jesus' is the Logos of God. Greek is funny that way, of which I should not have to remind you.

We are not talking about Galatians 4 we are talking about Galatians 1&2 and the CONTEXT therein.....It (Arabia) was definitely NOT A WILDERNESS either physically or metaphorically in the time of Paul, something he and his audience most certainly knew

Bologna, you are not looking at it in COMPLETE context. The whole book of Galatians, and indeed all of Paul's letters, and the writings of his contemporaries must be used as a contextual resource. However I understand the bird's tendency to pick and choose things indiscriminately when building her nest. Let's keep it to a minimum.

You can pick your friends, you can pick your nose, but you can't pick your friend's nose.

Where was Mt. Sinai according to the scriptures that Paul read? In the wilderness/desert of course.

Exodus: In the third month after the Israelites left Egypt--on the very day--they came to the Desert of Sinai. After they set out from Rephidim, they entered the Desert of Sinai, and Israel camped there in the desert in front of the mountain...then..The Lord descended to the top of Mount Sinai and called Moses to the top of the mountain.
Now, where does Paul place Mt Sinai according to Galatians?In Arabia.

Galatians 4: These things may be taken figuratively, for the women represent two covenants. One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children who are to be slaves: This is Hagar. Now Hagar stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present city of Jerusalem, because she is in slavery with her children. But the Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother.
It is obvious that Paul is equating Arabia to the wilderness/desert, and yet you say

Arabia was definitely NOT A WILDERNESS either physically or metaphorically in the time of Paul, something he and his audience most certainly knew

Surely you are not saying that Paul was ignorant of the Exodus story are you? Komorokid, you shouldn't make statements like that without first thoroughly investigating Paul and his audience.

To be frank, Kid, the conversation is stimulating, but I need to step back and act a little more like a moderator. After all this area is supposed to be reserved for philosophy...whatever that is ; )

Hatty stated:
As for 'wilderness', this must be taken as a spiritual rather than physical wilderness surely?

Almost invariably...lol
Send private message
Jaimi



View user's profile
Reply with quote

Here's a comparison of Christian myth and Egyptian myth by Gerald Massey. Massey was a major source for Tom Harpur in 'The Pagan Christ'

www.theosophical.ca/AncientEgyptAppendix.htm

It's all myth, here is a quote from Symbols of Transformation by Carl Jung written in 1920 where he discusses the only two historical Jesus figures he could find that the myth might have been based on. Take it away Carl....

Clear traces of the original identity of hero and snake is to be found in the myth of Cecrops. Cecrops was half snake, half man. In primitive times he was probably the snake of the Athenian citadel itself. As a buried god he was, like Erechthei a chthonic snake-deity. Above his subterranean dwelling rose the Parthenon, the temple of the virgin goddess. The flaying of the god, which we have already touched on in connection with the flaying-ceremonies of the Aztecs, is intimately bound up with the snake-like nature of the hero.

It is reported of Mani, the founder of Manichaeism, that he was killed, flayed, stuffed, and hung up.175 The hanging up of the god has an unmistakable symbolic value, since suspension is the symbol of unfulfilled longing or tense expectation ("suspense"). Christ, Odin, Attis, and others all hung upon trees. Jesus ben Pandira suffered such a death on the eve of the feast of the Passover, in the reign of Alexander Jannaeus (106-79 B.C.)- This Jesus is supposed to have been the founder of the Essene sect,176 which had certain links with the Christianity that came afterwards.

The Jesus ben Stada who was identified with the earlier Jesus but was later supposed to have lived in the second century a.d., was also hanged. Both were first stoned, a punishment which was, so to speak, a bloodless hanging.


Jung's Reference: John Mackinnon Robertson, Christianity and Mythology 1900, Christ and Krishna 1889
Send private message
Wireloop


In: Detroit
View user's profile
Reply with quote

The word allegory is from Greek and is literally rendered as: other-speech.

Obviously this means a 'wordless' mode of communication that is intrisically known and self evident to both parties. In other words, a symbol.In many ways this is similar to the concept of prayer, eh?

You see, to me the words on the page are each their own master, a symbol of itself. Each word conveys its own particular 'feeling' and is seldom subject to reason. So to keep from writing or speaking rubbish, we must use words in a way that is 'pleasing' to the universal ear. Words that keep the attention of the Soul. Each word evokes a feeling, each sentence a thought, each paragraph an idea, etc. An effective author and speaker will arrange the words in such a way that evokes internal participation from the reader, much like how music makes the foot tap. The best songwriters and orators are the most popular, and if literature is like song and speech, then the authors of Homer, the Pentateuch, the Prophets, the Gospels were very much like Lennon-McCartney and Churchill.
Those old, old stories that still remain after 1000s of years must have struck the Archetype's nerve hard from the get go.

The hand is quicker than the eye, so is the invisible strike of allegory. It is quick and powerful. it is after all, 'another speech'.

You know, I need to look at Cecrops again. The last time I heard his name is when I read the tale of him to my daughter. I bet you she would know more of him than me...lol...It seems that he was related with wisdom, speech and marriage....must investigate the obvious fertility undertones.
Send private message
Jaimi



View user's profile
Reply with quote

Interesting as always WL. The Massey list is really impressive, isn't it?

There is a further comment by Jung on the serpent as a regenerative symbol as it was able to shed its skin or 'renew itself'.

I'd like to get a lengthy post together here about Jung's examination of cult of Mythras and its influence on Christianity. There are some really interesting insights there - one which I will try to go into is the Raven which symbolized a degree of initiation. It starts to sound all too much like our lodge-dwelling friends.

The Raven came a tap-tap-tapping like an initiate at a lodge door :-)
Send private message
Wireloop


In: Detroit
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Take it away.

http://www.applied-epistemology.com/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=34
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

You might be an Applied Epistemologist if...

Paul Graham in 'What You Can't Say' wrote:
Nerds are always getting in trouble. They say improper things for the same reason they dress unfashionably and have good ideas: convention has less hold over them.

It seems to be a constant throughout history: In every period, people believed things that were just ridiculous, and believed them so strongly that you would have gotten in terrible trouble for saying otherwise.

Is our time any different? To anyone who has read any amount of history, the answer is almost certainly no. It would be a remarkable coincidence if ours were the first era to get everything just right.

...

Let's start with a test: Do you have any opinions that you would be reluctant to express in front of a group of your peers?

If the answer is no, you might want to stop and think about that. If everything you believe is something you're supposed to believe, could that possibly be a coincidence? Odds are it isn't. Odds are you just think whatever you're told.

-- What You Can't Say
Send private message
Grant



View user's profile
Reply with quote

What a wonderful quote by Paul Graham (never heard of him but he seems to be a computer programmer?)

Unfortunately virtually everything I truly believe I can't say out loud. I used to think this showed how clever I am, but I fear it's pathological.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Grant wrote:
Unfortunately virtually everything I truly believe I can't say out loud.

Welcome aboard!
Send private message
Chad


In: Ramsbottom
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Ishmael...do you truly expect us to believe that you would be reluctant to voice your opinions simply because they do not conform to those of your peer group?
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Chad wrote:
Ishmael...do you truly expect us to believe that you would be reluctant to voice your opinions simply because they do not conform to those of your peer group?

...I literally laughed out loud.

Very, very funny Chad. Very quick.
Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

Jump to:  
Page 4 of 5

MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group