| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Noah's ark revisited
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


Noah's ark revisited

 Post Reply Post Reply
Author
franciscosan View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 10127
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Noah's ark revisited
    Posted: 13 Jun 2019 at 12:41
Isn't the "Noah story" in Genesis, actually two stories with different details (opposing details) given?  So, I think the question of whether Noah's story happened as given, is an inappropriate question.  On the other hand, flood stories are found world wide, a flood story is just the ancient version of a disaster movie.  It is a message to 'get your act together _now_,' instead of waiting for later.  In the Judeo-Christian tradition, the wrath of God is involved, whether that is the case for other (polytheistic, or anima religions), I don't know.
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 10127
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 Jun 2019 at 03:28
Not as much inconsistency as I thought, just alternate statements about whether Noah brought two of each living thing or seven of the pure and two of the impure.  But, 8.2 "The fountains of the deep and the floodgates of the sky were stopped up, and the rain from the sky was held back;' I don't know how you take "floodgates of the sky" as factical.  Are there floodgates of the sky? btw, the translation I am using is the Tanakh Translation given in the Jewish Study Bible.  In other words, I doubt if you could get a more accurate ('Jewish') translation, after all it is their book.  
On the other hand, I think it is after the Baptism of Jesus, that it says, 'and the sky opened up,' how do you 'literally' (factically) mean that?

I use the term "factically" as something having the quality of being (presented as) a fact.  It may be a true fact or a false fact, but it is not a simile or a metaphor.  It is different from 'factual.'   'sky opened up' is a metaphor and therefore, a literary usage.  Things can be symbolic or figurative, and in that sense you take them "literally" as a literary convention, not _necessarily_ as factical.  For example, taking miracle stories as not factical is kind of to miss the point.  That does not mean that the story ever "factually" happened.  A miracle elicits wonder or awe, a fact can elicit wonder and awe (the Apollo launches), but more likely it will be about the dusty bunnies under the bed, or the weeds in the sidewalk cracks.
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Online
Points: 5255
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 Jun 2019 at 19:38
Ragnarock, the end of days (Norse).

"Sky opening up" is, in modern days, a term meaning heavy rain.

What it meant in the old days, I wouldn't have a clue.
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 10127
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Jun 2019 at 02:54
My apologies, again, I am just not remembering scripture accurately, but the point is still valid:

16 As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting on him. 17 And a voice from heaven said, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.”

The "heaven" not the sky, was opened and "like a dove" (but _not_ a dove), the Spirit of God descending and alighting on him [jesus].  

My point is that you take the passage factically (literally) and its does not clarify anything.


Edited by franciscosan - 16 Jun 2019 at 06:18
Back to Top
Vanuatu View Drop Down
Administrator
Administrator
Avatar

Joined: 24 Feb 2015
Location: New England
Status: Offline
Points: 1950
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Vanuatu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Jun 2019 at 01:41
Is it something only John the baptist saw? We don't read "they" saw. John is expected to have visions and an intimate relationship with the Father, So my expectation is for John's experience to be supra natural. John sees the Spirit descending also because of his connection to Jesus and recognition of Jesus' Spiritual identity (since the womb).
“The United Nations is the biggest joke of this century. If each one is trying to assert his own rights there, how can there be a United Nations?” UG Krishnamurti
Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 10127
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Jun 2019 at 05:38
I think that is a thoughtful answer to just the part I presented, but if you look at the entire story (Matthew 3), you'll see that it is told in third person narration.

The Preaching of John the Baptist

1  In those days John the Baptist came, preaching in the wilderness of Judea 2  and saying, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has come near." 3  This is he who was spoken of through the prophet Isaiah: "A voice of one calling in the wilderness, 'Prepare the way for the Lord, make straight paths for him.' "[1] 4  John's clothes were made of camel's hair, and he had a leather belt around his waist. His food was locusts and wild honey. 5  People went out to him from Jerusalem and all Judea and the whole region of the Jordan. 6  Confessing their sins, they were baptized by him in the Jordan River.

7  But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to where he was baptizing, he said to them: "You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath? 8 Produce fruit in keeping with repentance. 9  And do not think you can say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham as our father.' I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham. 10  The ax is already at the root of the trees, and every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire. 11  "I baptize you with[2] water for repentance. But after me comes one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with[2] the Holy Spirit and fire. 12  His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor, gathering his wheat into the barn and burning up the chaff with unquenchable fire."

The Baptism of Jesus

13  Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to be baptized by John. 14  But John tried to deter him, saying, "I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?" 15  Jesus replied, "Let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness." Then John consented. 16  As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting on him. 17  And a voice from heaven said, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased."

So in order to have it be from John the Baptist's eyes, it would have to transition from 3rd person narrative to 1st person narrative.  Visions from John the Baptist would account for the "heavens opened up, and the holy spirit descending onto Jesus' shoulder, but you would have to have a transition.  So, yes, it is an explanation, but it would have to do a kind of wonky moment which admittedly happens elsewhere in the Bible, like when either 2 of each, or 7 of the clean and 2 of the unclean are saved for the ark.

I don't doubt there were floods in the past, in fact flash floods, which happen in the desert might be a better image than a regular flood for the beginning of the (pictured) flood.  Flash floods happen in gullies and canyons, and are on top of you before you even know it.  Regular floods rise.  Then there are tsunamis (and megatsunami).

A man was at his house, and it started raining, the guy said, "a little rain hurt no one, God will provide."  It started raining harder, and the radio said that there would be flooding."  The guy said, "I am not worried, God will provide."  The water was rising and his neighbor came buy in a pick-up, saying, "hop on in, we're headed for higher ground."  The man said, "no, God will provide."  The water flooded up to his roof, and another man came by in a row boat and offered to rescue him.  The man said, "God will provide." The water was almost to the top of his roof, when a helicopter came by, again he said, "God will provide."  The man drowned.
He went up to heaven and saw God.  He told God he was disappointed in him because he had trusted in the Lord, and God did not provide.  Exasperated, God said, what do you mean, I didn't provide?  I gave a radio warning, your neighbor's came by, I sent a row boat and finally a helicopter! 



Edited by franciscosan - 16 Jun 2019 at 06:12
Back to Top
Vanuatu View Drop Down
Administrator
Administrator
Avatar

Joined: 24 Feb 2015
Location: New England
Status: Offline
Points: 1950
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Vanuatu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Jun 2019 at 04:43
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+3&version=OJB
16 And having received the tevilah in the Yarden’s mikveh mayim, Rebbe, Melech HaMoshiach immediately came up. And, hinei! The Shomayim were opened to him, and he saw the Ruach Hakodesh of Hashem descending like a yonah (dove) and coming upon him.


"So in order to have it be from John the Baptist's eyes, it would have to transition from 3rd person narrative to 1st person narrative.  Visions from John the Baptist would account for the "heavens opened up, and the holy spirit descending onto Jesus' shoulder, but you would have to have a transition."

Looking at the versions of the Bible- even the Orthodox Jewish Bible tells the story third person. The author wants to tell us that everyone saw? Everyone hears the bit at the end about how Jesus is favored by God? They may have been using potent ritual tonics such as those made from acacia tree,

Exodus 3:2 And the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush: and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed.

Acacia is a tree with bark that contains DMT and DMT derivatives. DMT is one of the strongest hallucinogens known to man. When combined with an MAOI chemical, DMT becomes highly orally active. Acacia is used widely in the bible as being part of the ark of the covenant as well as part of the tabernacle.

Syrian Rue is a bush that contains potent MAOI chemicals. It grows in the area the bible takes place.

“The United Nations is the biggest joke of this century. If each one is trying to assert his own rights there, how can there be a United Nations?” UG Krishnamurti
Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 10127
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Jun 2019 at 10:25
Matthew was written in Koine Greek, so I don't think that a Hebrew version/or a Hebrew/English version is any better (or perhaps worse) than the English translation.  I would suggest finding a Koine Greek interlinear English translation.  On second glance, it looks like it is saying Jesus saw, but of course, that could be the translation.  But, I don't think so.  I'll check when I can. 

I prefer the burning bush interpretation that explains the burning bush as a bush infested with a bright red mistletoe that is indigenous to the Middle East.  Mistletoe is a traditional symbol of mysticism.  However, the Pentateuch (first 5 books of the Hebrew Bible/OT) is quite un-mystic, and on that basis some people reject the mysticism.  I think there is a difference between the origin of the Pentateuch, and the nature of the Pentateuch.  But, if you want psychedelics, you can have psychedelics.  I can't say you are wrong.  On the other hand, we could both be right, for what it is worth.  I would say that the importance is the content, substance, of the teaching, not necessarily the origin.


Edited by franciscosan - 17 Jun 2019 at 10:27
Back to Top
Vanuatu View Drop Down
Administrator
Administrator
Avatar

Joined: 24 Feb 2015
Location: New England
Status: Offline
Points: 1950
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Vanuatu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 Jun 2019 at 11:15
Originally posted by franciscosan franciscosan wrote:

Matthew was written in Koine Greek, so I don't think that a Hebrew version/or a Hebrew/English version is any better (or perhaps worse) than the English translation.  I would suggest finding a Koine Greek interlinear English translation.  On second glance, it looks like it is saying Jesus saw, but of course, that could be the translation.  But, I don't think so.  I'll check when I can.
Matthew is written in Hebrew, original. Only Luke was sourced as an original gospel written in Koine. And the assumption is that Luke was a physician. Which is why he knew Greek. I am not aware of anything considered original source material for the gospels written in Koine, in addition to Luke.

Quote I prefer the burning bush interpretation that explains the burning bush as a bush infested with a bright red mistletoe that is indigenous to the Middle East.  Mistletoe is a traditional symbol of mysticism.  However, the Pentateuch (first 5 books of the Hebrew Bible/OT) is quite un-mystic, and on that basis some people reject the mysticism.  I think there is a difference between the origin of the Pentateuch, and the nature of the Pentateuch.  But, if you want psychedelics, you can have psychedelics.  I can't say you are wrong.  On the other hand, we could both be right, for what it is worth.  I would say that the importance is the content, substance, of the teaching, not necessarily the origin.
Mistletoe is a parasite found on the Acacia tree. Just FYI.


Edited by Vanuatu - 19 Jun 2019 at 11:17
“The United Nations is the biggest joke of this century. If each one is trying to assert his own rights there, how can there be a United Nations?” UG Krishnamurti
Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 10127
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 Jun 2019 at 15:18
There are some people who would like to explain away religion as a drug trip.  I think that 1) often they like drugs, 2) they may be skeptical about religious experience thinking that all religious experiences are (just) drug trips.  Now it is true that various religions do use drugs in one form or another (Christians=wine), Eleusinian Mysteries probably mushrooms or ergot?. Peyote in Southwestern Indian tribes.  so I don't think that one can say that drugs of some form are not involved in mystical experiences.  But, I do feel that some people can get "there" without intoxicants, or at least get somewhere similar.
Back to Top
Vanuatu View Drop Down
Administrator
Administrator
Avatar

Joined: 24 Feb 2015
Location: New England
Status: Offline
Points: 1950
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Vanuatu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Jun 2019 at 09:28
Originally posted by franciscosan franciscosan wrote:

I don't think that one can say that drugs of some form are not involved in mystical experiences.  But, I do feel that some people can get "there" without intoxicants, or at least get somewhere similar.
In the east diet and postures are strict, drugs of any kind are said to interfere with meditation also dangerous bc seizures can happen, even without drugs.

Yoga is hard work I don't know what could be achieved under the influence. You need large rolling Theta brain waves and intoxicants crush Theta waves. Drugs don't require attention, patience, grounding, study, practice or intention. So the vision on drugs, in our time our space, is not the same as ecstatic vision.

I don't say drug visions are irrelevant or not legitimate visions, as you say so many have used the plants for so long it is legitimate in the context of the geography.

If you let an American teenager go to Brazil to do Ayahuasca, well he very well might die there. 
Not pretty.

Ecstatic vision is not necessarily going to be pretty, you sit down and immediately 10,000 things come at you. Images, monsters, memories, fears, parents! lol. It won't always work or be spectacular, through devotion you are satisfied in practice, then occasionally great things are revealed. Could be a revelation about yourself and your behavior, massive unloading of crap that you carried around too long or actual ecstatic experience like Parmenides, All in the One.

The Dali Llama walks into a pizza place says "Make me one with everything." Wink
“The United Nations is the biggest joke of this century. If each one is trying to assert his own rights there, how can there be a United Nations?” UG Krishnamurti
Back to Top
Basileos View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 16 Feb 2006
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 2
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Basileos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Jun 2019 at 14:54
Originally posted by Vanuatu Vanuatu wrote:

Originally posted by franciscosan franciscosan wrote:

Matthew was written in Koine Greek, so I don't think that a Hebrew version/or a Hebrew/English version is any better (or perhaps worse) than the English translation.  I would suggest finding a Koine Greek interlinear English translation.  On second glance, it looks like it is saying Jesus saw, but of course, that could be the translation.  But, I don't think so.  I'll check when I can.
Matthew is written in Hebrew, original. Only Luke was sourced as an original gospel written in Koine. And the assumption is that Luke was a physician. Which is why he knew Greek. I am not aware of anything considered original source material for the gospels written in Koine, in addition to Luke.

Quote I prefer the burning bush interpretation that explains the burning bush as a bush infested with a bright red mistletoe that is indigenous to the Middle East.  Mistletoe is a traditional symbol of mysticism.  However, the Pentateuch (first 5 books of the Hebrew Bible/OT) is quite un-mystic, and on that basis some people reject the mysticism.  I think there is a difference between the origin of the Pentateuch, and the nature of the Pentateuch.  But, if you want psychedelics, you can have psychedelics.  I can't say you are wrong.  On the other hand, we could both be right, for what it is worth.  I would say that the importance is the content, substance, of the teaching, not necessarily the origin.
Mistletoe is a parasite found on the Acacia tree. Just FYI.


So, just a note: Older scholarship generally posits that Matthew was originally composed in Hebrew or Aramaic, but most scholars nowadays discount the theory. It derives from an ancient commentary, in which Hebrew and Aramaic might be conflated, if my memory serves me, but I don't have the energy to research it now.

I don't subscribe to the Q hypothesis, and I think Mark, combined with likely oral tradition, provides a valid alternative. Mark was written in Koine originally, and so was Luke. John definitely was. So of the four canonical Gospels, three of them were certainly composed in Greek, and one of them likely was. That said, the Old Testament I use is Greek as well, because I believe those 70 or 72 scholars were inspired in their own translation to provide the version that would best serve the Gospel. Tongue

-Akolouthos... I think, at least.
Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 10127
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Jun 2019 at 11:34
Maybe the Hebrew or Aramaic theory was behind the passage Vanuatu gave, and such an experiment may reveal interesting things, but it was Hebrew terms in Roman alphabet connected together with English grammar.  Such an experiment could reveal Hebrew terminology behind the Greek (if is there, but also maybe if it is not:P ).  But, that is why I said that English translation is "better" than this Hebrew/English.  The mixture is interesting, but as far as looking at the whole passage, is kind of sitting on the fence.  I am not saying it is wrong or immoral to do so, on the other hand is should be used in caution, because it can confuse.

I also don't think an older scholarship is 'wrong' in "attributing" the original of Matthew as being in Hebrew or Aramaic.  Incorrect, not factually reflecting the ancient setting, but not "wrong."  People are foolish enough that they can take the wrong way to the right answer, or the right way to the wrong answer.  "Wrong" has a moral implication, which has inappropriate implications in matters of fact.  We like to think that the meaning of such a claim is obvious, but investigating what the people mean by the claim and what it means to them, we often discover that what is there, is not clear (to us), but paradoxically is clear to them.  What I mean by that is not that we are superior, are right, and they're wrong.  What I mean is that it is not clear to us, and yet "by its fruits we shall know them.'

I don't believe that the Septuagint was made by 72 scholars, but on the other hand I don't disbelieve it either.  It is not my place to say.  It is a myth and that does not mean a fiction or a falsehood.  For what it does mean, I would refer to Hesiod and what mythos meant before logos became a servant of a mundane rationality and logic.  _Works and Days_, near the beginning, I don't quite remember but it is there.

By the way, as I am sure you know, Akolouthos, truth in Greek is aletheia, the privative of lethe or forgetfulness.  That means if you forget that is the equivalent of lying.  Pindar shows that in Olympian Ode 10 (or 11?).  On the other hand, a misunderstanding is still an understanding(!?) [and by "you" I mean me.]

I have never read specifically about the Q Hypothesis, but from conversation I think what is meant is a little vague.  I think if you vague things up enough, you can say "truthful" statements, like the Earth is like a big ball.  Yes, and no (no and yes), but one can wonder if I have really said anything about the Earth.  On the other hand, once upon a time, the fact that Earth was round was a "revelation," revealed by the fact of the shadow of Earth on an eclipsed moon.  So I guess, such a vagueness in the Q Hypothesis is useful, but not as a destination, but as a stepping stone or maybe even a dead-end which must be exhausted before continuing on a better path.  I am talking only about mundane reason here, revelation is something different.


Edited by franciscosan - 30 Jun 2019 at 12:40
Back to Top
Vanuatu View Drop Down
Administrator
Administrator
Avatar

Joined: 24 Feb 2015
Location: New England
Status: Offline
Points: 1950
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Vanuatu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Jun 2019 at 13:58
This is being presented as news but the idea of a source from which all the Gospels draw on is a 
logical assumption and it was backed by just a few fragments of archaeological evidence dating 
from 1945 and the discovery of the Gospel of Thomas and other books at Nag Hammadi. 
It's a theory yes, that suggests a different relationship between Jesus and the people who knew him. 
It's debatable in my view, not claiming any particular insight I see what I read, seems logical. 

It's a bit much cut paste here but lately the links have become inactive the day after posting. Not sure why that is happening.

http://https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/story/qthomas.html

Q is the designation for a gospel that no longer exists, but many think must have existed at one time. 

In fact, even though no copy of this gospel has survived independently, some nineteenth-century scholars 

found fragments of such an early Christian composition embeded in the gospels of Matthew and Luke.

By putting these two gospels beside that of Mark, scholars realized that when Matthew and Luke are telling the story 

about Jesus, for the most part they both follow the order and often even the wording of Mark. 

But, into this common narrative outline, Matthew and Luke each insert extra sayings and teachings of Jesus. 

And although Matthew and Luke do not put these sayings in the same order, nevertheless they each repeat 

many of the same sayings, sometimes word for word.

Since for other reasons it seems unlikely that either Matthew or Luke could have copied from the other, 

how can this sort of agreement be explained?

The answer appears to be that Matthew and Luke each had two sources in common: 

the Gospel of Mark and another gospel, now lost, a collection of sayings known only as Q.

In 1989, a team of researchers led by James M. Robinson of the Institute for Antiquity and Christianity in Claremont, CA,

began a most unlikely task: the "reconstruction" of the Gospel of Q. Robinson and his team are accomplishing this 

by a highly detailed literary analysis of Matthew, Luke, and Thomas. Their painstaking work goes "verse by verse,

word by word, case ending by case ending." After nearly ten years of work, the results of their efforts are soon to be 

published as the Critical Edition of Q.

The "recovery" of the Q gospel has stimulated a debate about the nature early Christian communities, and by extension, 

the origins of Christianity itself. One scholar, Burton Mack, has advanced a radical thesis: that at least some Christian 

communities did not see Jesus as a Messiah; they saw him as a teacher of wisdom, a man who tried to teach others 

how to live. For them, Jesus was not divine, but fully human. These first followers of Jesus differed from other Christians

whose ritual and practice was centered on the death and the resurrection of Jesus. Their did not emerge as the

"winners" of history; perhaps because the maintaining the faith required the existence of a story that included not 

only the life of Jesus but also his Passion.



Edited by Vanuatu - 27 Jun 2019 at 14:10
“The United Nations is the biggest joke of this century. If each one is trying to assert his own rights there, how can there be a United Nations?” UG Krishnamurti
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Online
Points: 5255
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Jun 2019 at 14:08
Quote lately the links have become inactive the day after posting. Not sure why that is happening.

Hmmmmmmmmm, another little bug. I'll see if I can fix it, otherwise, contact Bruce at WebWiz.
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
Vanuatu View Drop Down
Administrator
Administrator
Avatar

Joined: 24 Feb 2015
Location: New England
Status: Offline
Points: 1950
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Vanuatu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Jun 2019 at 14:12
toyomotor, I think this is directly related to google withdrawing access to information. It's happening with political links for sure, if the PBS link is still here tomorrow then it's probably related to Google becoming fascists. 
“The United Nations is the biggest joke of this century. If each one is trying to assert his own rights there, how can there be a United Nations?” UG Krishnamurti
Back to Top
truthsetsfree View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian


Joined: 30 May 2014
Location: hell
Status: Offline
Points: 160
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote truthsetsfree Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 Jul 2019 at 17:22
Re the flood gates of heaven: look up these:

cloudburst
great deep & waters above vs waters below Genesis 1.
canopy theory.
Ether?
exploded (watery) planet theory of Van Flanderen & of Alford
exploded planet Tiamat theory of Sitchin.
past water in Mars/Moon?
Shamayim "heavens" contains mayim/mem "water" in it.
Nun in Egyptian is celestial waters? (Nut sky goddess?)

Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 10127
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Jul 2019 at 14:44
In the Early Earth, there was a time when the rain lasted for 100,000s if not millions of years.  It is in a Smithsonian DVD on the ages of Earth.  I am not even sure there was life at this time.  There also was a freeze over, that got broken up by volcanism.

Back to Top
caldrail View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Rushey Platt
Status: Offline
Points: 1177
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote caldrail Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Jul 2019 at 21:40
I was interested by the biblical quote from Matthew, which seems to imply a Romanesque adoptive approach to Jesus' place as the 'Son of God'. No surprise there of course since the gospels weren't written until decades after Jesus had gone, but then, that gospel is only one of four judged suitable by later Roman authorities. As many as fifty different gospels may have existed before the majority were rejected in the fourth century.
http://www.unrv.com/forum/blog/31-caldrails-blog/
Back to Top
Vanuatu View Drop Down
Administrator
Administrator
Avatar

Joined: 24 Feb 2015
Location: New England
Status: Offline
Points: 1950
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Vanuatu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Yesterday at 02:39
Originally posted by caldrail caldrail wrote:

I was interested by the biblical quote from Matthew, which seems to imply a Romanesque adoptive approach to Jesus' place as the 'Son of God'. No surprise there of course since the gospels weren't written until decades after Jesus had gone, but then, that gospel is only one of four judged suitable by later Roman authorities. As many as fifty different gospels may have existed before the majority were rejected in the fourth century.

 IMO
Since Son of God or Son of Man was used to describe Dionysus and others, I'd venture that the method for writing about Dionysus and Jesus is like the technical process for writing modern prose. The choice of words Son of Man/God endows the highest esteem possible to the protagonist. 
The events of birth and death that are similar employ the symbolism of the ancient world. Those symbols make the story concrete and verified by the very presence of these conditions to readers of that time. The article below is useful for a quick reference to these symbolic placements in the lives of people exalted by the writers. For the record, I do NOT think Jesus was "confused" with Dionysus.

Dionysus was born of a virgin on the 25th of December, and as a holy child he was placed in a manger, a traveling teacher who performed miracles, riding a donkey in a triumphal procession. he was killed and eaten during a Eucharistic ritual to bring fruitfulness and purification.He resuscitated the dead on March 25. God of wine, Dionysus changed the water into wine.He was called the King of Kings and God of the Gods He was regarded as the son of God, the savior, the bearer of sin, the anointed, the alpha and the omega.It was identified with a sheep and a lamb, and his sacrificial title of “Dendrites” or ” young man from the tree “indicates that he was hanged on a tree or crucified  (source).”

Thus summed up, the life of Dionysus is confused with that of Jesus. As a new god, Jesus had to gather all the previous gods and summarize all the beliefs. Jesus took upon himself all the sins of the world, we are not surprised that he also takes upon himself all the exploits of his models. In Jesus could be found MithrasOsirisConstantineHenoch, Dionysos and many others …

“The United Nations is the biggest joke of this century. If each one is trying to assert his own rights there, how can there be a United Nations?” UG Krishnamurti
Back to Top
caldrail View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Rushey Platt
Status: Offline
Points: 1177
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote caldrail Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 hours 50 minutes ago at 21:15
Claims of descent from gods did happen in the ancient world - Julius Caesar claimed he was descended from Venus. On a more contemporary note, Augustus claimed he was descended from a God - his post-assassination deified adoptive father, Julius Caesar, and the title divi filius was a mark of status perhaps the Senate hadn't figured on :D
 
Strictly speaking Jesus did not take on board the sins of the world. This was something invented afterward to enable a more sanctified end rather than a simple criminal execution.


Edited by caldrail - 22 hours 48 minutes ago at 21:17
http://www.unrv.com/forum/blog/31-caldrails-blog/
Back to Top
Vanuatu View Drop Down
Administrator
Administrator
Avatar

Joined: 24 Feb 2015
Location: New England
Status: Offline
Points: 1950
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Vanuatu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 hours 45 minutes ago at 03:20
Originally posted by caldrail caldrail wrote:

Claims of descent from gods did happen in the ancient world - Julius Caesar claimed he was descended from Venus. On a more contemporary note, Augustus claimed he was descended from a God - his post-assassination deified adoptive father, Julius Caesar, and the title divi filius was a mark of status perhaps the Senate hadn't figured on :D
 
Strictly speaking Jesus did not take on board the sins of the world. This was something invented afterward to enable a more sanctified end rather than a simple criminal execution.
True enough and for all intents and purposes Julius Caesar and Augustus were the gods of their world, and then came the dying part.Thumbs Down 
Gods killed each other in the histories of Rome and Greece, so did Brutus think he was killing his creator or the political equivalent in human form?

Theorizing here, the redemption of mankind by the selfless act of an innocent man is the message, this immortalizes the story (or insert your own reasoning-here). Assuming that Jesus was all that we read about in the Bible, then who among his followers would let him be crucified?

That church in old Glastonbury has always been associated with Joseph of Arimathea. The Egyptian archaeological finds in Ireland and England, especially the boats, prove that some people made that journey.  

Could the man crucified as "Jesus of Nazareth" have been someone else entirely, a fall guy?  
The threat of crucifixion could have been added as a dramatic devise to show how averse the society was to compassion, for the readers of the time.  

And did those feet in ancient time
Walk upon England’s mountains green:
And was the holy Lamb of God,
On England’s pleasant pastures seen!
William Blake
“The United Nations is the biggest joke of this century. If each one is trying to assert his own rights there, how can there be a United Nations?” UG Krishnamurti
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Online
Points: 5255
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 7 hours 17 minutes ago at 12:48
Originally posted by Vanuatu Vanuatu wrote:


Could the man crucified as "Jesus of Nazareth" have been someone else entirely, a fall guy?  
The threat of crucifixion could have been added as a dramatic devise to show how averse the society was to compassion, for the readers of the time.  

Bearing in mind that the Bible wasn't compiled until some 300 years after the death of Jesus, or should I say the alleged death, there is plenty of scope for error and exaggeration.

Modern science has taught us that the so-called miracles could not possibly have happened, virgin birth is statistically impossible and so on, so there's every possibility, IMHO that it wasn't the Nazarene at all. 
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
Vanuatu View Drop Down
Administrator
Administrator
Avatar

Joined: 24 Feb 2015
Location: New England
Status: Offline
Points: 1950
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Vanuatu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 3 hours 57 minutes ago at 16:08
Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

Originally posted by Vanuatu Vanuatu wrote:


Could the man crucified as "Jesus of Nazareth" have been someone else entirely, a fall guy?  
The threat of crucifixion could have been added as a dramatic devise to show how averse the society was to compassion, for the readers of the time.  

Bearing in mind that the Bible wasn't compiled until some 300 years after the death of Jesus, or should I say the alleged death, there is plenty of scope for error and exaggeration.

Modern science has taught us that the so-called miracles could not possibly have happened, virgin birth is statistically impossible and so on, so there's every possibility, IMHO that it wasn't the Nazarene at all. 
The Old Testament was written a couple thousand years before Jesus and the New Testament. Even after being scattered by war and Diaspora you can cross reference OT & NT and the connections are meaningful and consistent in the high percentage range- phenomenal for the time span referenced.

Yes Jesus could be an archetypal fiction but all archetypes represent actual humans who did exist (as far as we can conceive of existence in material reality) and some were highly emulated. That is a very compelling dimension to Jesus.
Was Achilles a fiction? The City of Troy was considered fantasy until it was unearthed, so who can say?
“The United Nations is the biggest joke of this century. If each one is trying to assert his own rights there, how can there be a United Nations?” UG Krishnamurti
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.01
Copyright ©2001-2018 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.145 seconds.