Search Members

[Casiphus]

I don't understand.

[Casiphus]

Hi Stu,

Quote

“ rocking horse people”, “newspaper taxis” and “marshmallow pies” were lyrical phrases written by John Lennon while high on LSD.   Revelation is much weirder even than this.

Revelations isn't science but literature.  You can't approach it in the way you'd approach a mathematical problem (for instance).  To say that, Revelation reads like the ravings of someone on hallucinogenic drugs, is to take a completely superficial view – it is to miss the point entirely!

To use your last example:

Quote

10:10 And I took the little book out of the angel's hand, and ate it up; and it was in my mouth sweet as honey: and as soon as I had eaten it, my belly was bitter.

To start with you have taken one part of a longer passage, abstracted it from its context, and therefore deprived it of meaning.  In its proper context it reads:
Then the voice which I heard from heaven, I heard again speaking with me, and saying, “Go, take the book which is open in the hand of the angel who stands on the sea and on the land.” So I went to the angel, telling him to give me the little book. And he said to me, “Take it and eat it; it will make your stomach bitter, but in your mouth it will be sweet as honey.” I took the little book out of the angel’s hand and ate it, and in my mouth it was sweet as honey; and when I had eaten it, my stomach was made bitter.  And they said to me, “You must prophesy again concerning many peoples and nations and tongues and kings.”
In this context then it begins to make more sense.  The book is a prophecy concerning many peoples, etc.  It is sweet to the mouth, in that it is a divine prophecy, but it is bitter to the stomach, because of the message that it contains.

In addition, this passage is a reference to Ezekiel Chapter 3: Then He said to me, “Son of man, eat what you find; eat this scroll, and go, speak to the house of Israel.” So I opened my mouth, and He fed me this scroll. He said to me, “Son of man, feed your stomach and fill your body with this scroll which I am giving you.” Then I ate it, and it was sweet as honey in my mouth.  Again, the scroll is a prophecy that the prophet is to deliver to the people (this time the people of Israel).  Once again it is sweet to the mouth, but the words of the prophecy are a warning – bitter by implication.

So you see that there is far more to this verse than just “wierd hallucinations”.  I really think that you need to give the so-called “sacred” literature as much of a chance as you would expect others to give scientific literature – in order to consider and enjoy every thing that life has to offer.

[Casiphus]

Quote

As you might be suggesting, the way the hunter-gatherer brain works makes it easy to end up putting the cart before the horse, constantly looking as we are for patterns, real or imagined, thinking there is a designer with a forward-looking purpose, or that evolution somhow has some kind of “goal”.  Looking backwards in time, we are the descendants of living things that were good at surviving and reproducing in their contemporary environments.  As those environments changed, the individuals best suited to survival and reproduction passed on their genes, including advantageous mutations, more often than the others.  It really is that simple, obvious and powerful as an explanation.

Yes, that I believe is the current scientific understanding.

[Casiphus]

Hi A4,

I'm in sympathy with your position, but I think you need to research your facts.

Quote

things only evolve if they have too you obviously do not understand, I'm sorry but you can not de-evolve… you just simply evolve to survive in your environment… thats it

This is classic Darwinism, but it certainly isn't what current evolutionary theory suggests – animals don't evolve in order to survive, they evolve (for want of a better term), and those changes that are secured through reproduction survive (and those that can't compete reproductively, tend to die out).

Quote

Premise 2: if anything at all exists it must have laws that govern it *as observed in this universe there is nothing that can do anything or that qualifies for everything* Premise 3: the moment anything existed, it becomes everything and  all the laws of the universe that exist along with the beginning of time Premise 4: the laws of physics do not and  cannot change. Premise 5: the first thing to exist must apply to all the laws of physics that ever has existed in this universe at once.

I don't wish to offend you, but this shows a complete lack of understanding of physics (and wider scientific disciplines).  The “Laws” of physics aren't like civil laws, that must be obeyed, but are rather observations.  To say that something must obey the laws of physics, is to suppose that these “laws” are inherent in the universe, but the physicist would be the first to tell you that these are just the best observations on hand.

As you (or perhaps it was Stu) said, science is always trying to update and modify itself, test theories, and where necessary develop new ones.  To say that there is an “observable” law, to which everything in the universe must comply, is to defeat this assertion that science must continually test its theories.  It is no better than saying, God did it because the Bible tells me so!

A good example of science updating and modifying itself is touched upon inadvertantly by yourself:

Quote

Science isn't what just is visible… i mean i obviously believe in gravity and radio waves… but if its not detectable or predicted in anyway, and seems impossible after everything is considered, its not real!

Gravitation is a “law” of physics – it is the attractive influence that all objects exert on each other.  This is observable, though not therefore proven.  But gravity specifically refers to a force which all objects (with mass) exert on each other to cause gravitation.  Gravity is a Newtonian theory, but not an observable law – in fact, most modern physicists believe that gravitation is caused by factors other than gravity.

Like I said, I'm in sympathy with your position – but you would present a stronger case if you used current data, and didn't really so much on Propaganda.  The best evolutionary theorists are those who present what is observable, suggest possible implications, and don't try to assert “proofs” based on these observation (though I also understand that it is impossible to argue logically with, “The Bible says…”).

[Casiphus]

Hi A7,

Quote

Hi Kejonn, sure Jesus was not given to Molech, but the principle of human sacrifice is the same is it not. I dont care who the sacrifice goes to, you can't condemn something on the one hand then condone it on the other and still be considered fair and just.

I think that the difference between these two examples is that Christ allowed himself to be crucified, and that the hands that dealt his death did not do so in offering to a divine being.  It is not really a human sacrifice in the formal sense of the word, but a symbol of eternal sacrifice – a once for all time willing sacrifice.

The other difference is that Christ's sacrifice was an atonement sacrifice (a cleansing sacrifice), whereas a Molech sacrifice was a favour sacrifice (a kind of bribe for greater reward).  I think that as an extension of Hebrew theology, Christ's sacrifice could be seen to symbolise atonement, thanksgiving, conciliation, but not the procurement of favour.

[Casiphus]

Hi Nick,

Quote

Hi Casi, The bible is not a world of mystery. Are you not yet born from above?

I don't wish to offend you, but your statement shows that you haven't understood my post.

The Bible* may represent a deep and abiding truth, but in and of itself it can never be truth – it is just words.  As St Paul says, we see only in part, a mere shadow.  With words we can only convey in part, a mere shadow.  And what is seen and conveyed will be understood differently by each – I'm speaking here not about Truth, but about its presentation in the ambiguous world of sensory perception and intellectual cognition.

Truth – absolute truth – can't be understood through ambiguous media.  If you want the whole truth, you will need to converse with God in the spiritual realm.  Here on earth we don't deal in absolutes – and we don't understand absolutely.

So we should not be surprised if others adopt doctrines that are unfounded; and we should continually look to our own beliefs – no doubt we are as blind, and as much in error in some regard or another.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~
*This is without raising the topic of canonisation, rewording, reinterpretation, translation, and all the other arbitrary refinements that the Bible has been subjected to.

[Casiphus]

Hi Nick,

Quote

Hi Casiphus, Yes John did write that. Since then men have been claiming that their speculations form part of that unwritten truth. It does not wash.

Perhaps this is a fair comment, but when you choose to interprete a word or a passage in one way, as opposed to another, you are speculating – regardless of how educated a guess you make.  It is all speculation and conception – we read a passage about God, and we conceive from that passage an glimpse of God.  But our glimpse is purely speculation.  It is personal.  It differs from the glimpse another person gets.

By piling together all the glimpses throughout the Bible, we build up an image of God – but again, it is just a personalised image.  It is speculation.  We can't get away from this – it is the nature of abstract forms.

Words are abstract, in that there is no meaning inherent in a word.  The meaning is what we attach to that word – the word is only a representation.  Moreover, the written word, is just a representation of the spoken word.  So even by merely reading or listening, we speculate.

Hi T8,

Quote

Hi Casiphus. Assumed knowledge is one thing, a foundational doctrine that if rejected leads a man to Hell, and yet is not mentioned in either the Old or New Testaments is another. I find it difficult to accept that such a foundational doctrine isn't taught, written about, or referred to in scripture. Worse (or better) still, Jesus, Paul, and John taught things that completely contradict such a doctrine.

Agreed – though I would broaden the argument to include all foundational doctrines [sic], as I am of the opinion that who shall be saved, and who shall not, is not for us to judge.

I don't personally believe in the Trinity, but I don't think that it can be proved or disproved any more than God can be.  It is only by faith that anyone can believe in God – and the form of God even more so.

[Casiphus]

Hi Nick,

Quote

So you agree trinity is not taught by Jesus or the prophets or apostles?

Not explicitly.  But when we write for an audience (as the prophets and apostles did), there is always going to be some assumed knowledge.

The Hebrew writings are not entirely silent on themes such as the Son of God, and the Spirit of God.  But these are not explained in the text – there is an assumption that the audience understands these terms, and interpretes them as the author does.  The early Christian writings are replete with Father, Son, and Holy Spirit – but again, no explanation, so presumably the original audience understood (or was thought to have), and so no explanation was necessary – either that, or an understanding wasn't considered necessary.

Quote

So there was much more truth to be taught even about the nature of God Himself that Jesus did not even mention? That leap of faith is a little wide for most in view of 2 Jn.

In this passage, when St John refers to the teachings of Christ, what is he really saying?  St Paul teaches things that Jesus didn't teach.  As does St James, and the other early Christian writers.  Does this make them not of God, or shall we say that they had their teaching from Christ (but not teachings that found their way into the Gospels)?  After all it was St John himself that wrote:

Quote

Now there are also many other things that Jesus did. Were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.

And if this is so, could it not also follow that the Holy Spirit could lead us in the teachings of Christ – but teachings that didn't find their way into the Gospels or the early Christian writings?

[Casiphus]

Hi BP and Is,

If I can just butt in for a moment:

I've really enjoyed reading both your posts here, and I think that you both make excellent points.

But are not not being a bit too scientific?  Aren't the words just there to give a sense of the whole?

One can't hope to understand The Road Not Taken by merely focussing in on:

Quote

Two roads diverged in a wood, and I— I took the one less traveled by, And that has made all the difference.

It would be to miss the life of the text – its feel, its imagery – the indecision, the forward thinking, the implications.

When St Matthew has Jesus say:

Quote

O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing. Look, your house is left to you desolate. For I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, 'Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.'

Is he making a doctrinal point?

Is he prophesying?

Well, perhaps he's doing both, but first and foremost, he's conveying a sense of love and anguish.  The meaning of the individual words is secondary to the heart of the text.

So when we approach the introduction to the Gospel of St John, we shouldn't read:

Quote

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

But:

Quote

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it.

To divide this up and look at each word individually, and each clause, and each sentence, and finally to the paragraph, is to lose the beauty of the text, and all you have gained is some scientific perspective, which may or may not have been the author's intent.

To me, this paragraph is not about who God* is, and who the Word* is, but in how awesome and beautiful they are, how harmonious, and how essential to life and humanity.

Charles Darwin wrote:

Quote

I have tried lately to read Shakespeare, and found it so intolerably dull that it nauseated me. I have also almost lost my taste for picture or music… My mind seems to have become a kind of machine for grinding general laws out of large collections of facts, but why this should have caused the atrophy of that part of the brain alone, on which the higher tastes depend, I cannot conceive…

[Italics mine]

Which is to say, so scientific had his view of the world become, that he cold no longer experience the beauty of it.  The same I think is possible in our view of the scriptures.

Well, I hadn't meant to diverge so far from the topic, but hopefully this will add a different perspective to your discussion.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
*These terms theos and logos are invariably used together in Greek thought – logos often being described as the order of the cosmos, or the wisdom of God.  I recommend reading Plato's Cratylus, to get an idea of how these ideas co-mingle in Greek thought, also the writings of Philo of Alexandria, for an idea of the logos in Jewish thought around the time of Jesus.

[Casiphus]

Hi Nick,

Quote

Indeed the trinity doctrine, which never appeared in any of the sacred writings, has continued to evolve ever since it appeared 200 years or so after Christ. Both facts argue against it having any origin in God at all.

I think it is a bold assertion to say that this doctrine never appeared in any of the sacred writings.  It doesn't seem to be there explicitly, but I think there is certainly room within the text for interpretation.

Leo Tolstoy, who spent much of the later part of his life researching the scriptures, challenging (with quite forceful arguments) post-Constantine translations and alterations, and a whole body of Church tradition, never to my knowledge questioned the doctrine of the trinity.  This of course does not prove anything, except that for Tolstoy the trinity must have been implicit enough in the text to escape close scrutiny.

Even by asserting that the trinity doctrine is an adaptation of pre-Christian triune beliefs, this does not negate the possibility that it is implicit in the scriptural texts, because there is much in the writings of St John and St Paul especially, that is explicitly derived from Greek thought (significantly Plato); and St Jude and to a lesser extent St Peter both seem to be influenced by apocryphal Hebrew writings (or Hebrew mysticism).

One could just as easily say that these pre-Christian ideas were a shadow of the truth.

[Casiphus]

I don't think that the fact the a doctrine changes and evolves should necessarily nullify it.  God may be perfect, but we are not, and neither are our understandings.

King David was purported to have many wives and concubines, whereas St Paul supported having just one spouse (if any).

St Paul lived in a world where there were slaves, and never explicitly spoke against slavery, yet in our age we condemn it utterly.

I think it is inevitable that doctrines are going to evolve, just as I think it inevitable that we interprete the Judeo-Christian writings differently to how our predecessors interpreted them.

That said, I do think that there is something to be said for challenging the basis of a belief (any belief), rather than just letting it evolve to suit a changing culture.

[Casiphus]

Hi IM,

Quote

Were did you get your information, if I may ask?

My undergraduate degree was in ancient history, so I was mostly drawing from memory – especially as the Ninus and Semiramis legend had fascinated me at the time.  This is a Greek legend, but (as with many Greek legends) it draws on bits and pieces of Assyrian and Babylonian myth.

I have read Hislop's argument, and it is appalling scholarship to say the least.  Hislop (and the author of the article that Nick posted) displays an ignorance of linguistics, using phonetics – particularly similar sounding words – to propose associations (such as the ones I mentioned, and the IHS Egyptian Trinity claim), not understanding that one must trace the root of a word to it's meaning in the tradional language, rather than (as Hislop does) linking similar sounding words across vastly different languages.  It reminds me of a first year student who thought that the Egyptian god, Aman (later Amun-re), could have been the origin of the Hebrew phrase Amen.  It is almost childish in it's ignorance.

Quote

On the cover of The Two Babylons it says Proved to be “The Worship of Nimrod and His Wife”

I don't want you to take this the wrong way, but writing proved on the cover of a book doesn't actually mean that the claim is true.  The Da Vinci Code makes the claim that, All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate, yet again, anyone with a modicum of understanding of linguistics; Church History; Greek, Roman, or Eastern myth and culture, would be able to point out numerous fundamental errors in the claims made by this book – though it was a page-turner!

I'm not saying that Hislop's basic claim – that many of the Catholic Church's traditions pre-date the Christian era – is inaccurate, but rather that his scholarship is shoddy, bigotted to the point of racism, and in many cases entirely fabricated.  An interesting read in this regard is The Babylon Connection by Ralph Woodrow.  Woodrow's first book, Babylon Mystery Religion, was based almost entirely on Hislop's book, Woodrow just expanded the themes.  Woodrow was challenged to test the claims Hislop made, and surprisingly accepted this challenge.  He was finally forced to own:

Quote

As I did this, it became clear-Hislop's “history” was often only mythology… an arbitrary piecing together of ancient myths can not provide a sound basis for history. Take enough tribes, enough tales, enough time, jump from one time to another, from one country to another, pick and choose similarities-why anything could be “proved”!

The Babylon Connection is not without it's faults – Woodrow concludes that accusations of paganism [sic]* in Church tradition are unfounded, which is not true, however it does research Hislop's claims thoroughly.

I hope you won't take offense at my comments.  It is understandable that when we read a scholarly book, we should be able to trust that it's claims are well founded – especially one such as Hislop, where there are references to other ancient sources.  There is enough evidence to argue conclusively against the Christian origins of the trinity doctrine, Mary worship, praying to saints, Lent, Christ-mass, and so on, without recourse to deception.

————————
* It is ananchronistic to speak of pre-Christian traditions as pagan – this term comes from the Latin paganus, meaning an old country dweller, or rustic, and came to be used by townsfolk (who were at least nominally Roman Catholic) to refer to rustic country-folk that didn't adopt the civilised culture of Christianity.

Interestingly, this same kind of attitude seems to have predominated ancient Hebrew culture, though in reverse – where the civilised city-dwelling polytheists scorned the antiquated pastoral monotheism of the nazirites and prophets, such as Elijah and Elisha.

[Casiphus]

Hi All,

I just wanted to get back to the original article that Nick posted.

I know it was posted to generate discussion, but I haven't really seen any serious discussion yet.  I wonder that no-one has pulled this article to pieces, because it is so amazingly full of errors and misunderstandings I find myself divided between frustration and outright laughter!

Let me start with a couple of quick errors:

The author states that, The fable of Astarte tells us, 'that the egg was floating on the water'. And Astarte was born from this egg. This 'egg' however is a Chaldean translation of the Hebrew word 'Arc' and is all about the Arc of Noah.  In actual fact Tevah is the Hebrew word, which is translated Ark or Arc, from the Latin Arca.  Both Tevah and Arca mean box or chest.

Again, Easter (from Astarte!). As well as the date, 'the eggs' or 'oranges' or 'pine-apples' have nothing to do with the Hebrew 'Pascha' or 'Passover'. Easter comes from the name of Astarte; The Goddess and wife of Baal.  Easter actually comes from the Germanic goddess Eostre, as the venerable Bede says, in whose honour feasts were celebrated in that month, and this is root also for East.

The author is correct in saying that Sunday is named in honour of the sun, but fails to mention that Monday is in honour of the moon, Tuesday for Tyr (Mars), Wednesday for Woden, and so on – so that even if Christians were to worship on Saturday, they would actually be honouring Saturn (according to the author's logic).

But to the real point:

It is only in Greek myth and later that Semiramis is the wife of Ninus (who is often associated with Nimrod, but who the author of the article asserts is another name for Tammuz).  Semiramis is a Greek translation of Shammuramat (Sammur-amat), who was the wife of Shamshi-Adad V of Babylon (800BC).  After the death of her husband Shammuramat became regent for her son.  There are several similarities between herself and the mythical Semiramis, including an inscription at Calah (note this city is also know as Nimrud) dated during her regency, and both being credited with the Babylonian building works, including the famous hanging gardens.

Tammuz is the Hebrew name which derives from the Babylonian vegetation god Damuzi, who was the consort of Inanna (Isthar).  There is no Triune god in the ancient myths associated with Damuzi and Inanna – although he was life-death-rebirth god, which could (if one chose) be linked to the death and resurrection of Christ.  Tammuz is mentioned by the prophet Ezekiel, then he brought me to the door of the gate of the Lord's house which was toward the north; and, behold, there sat women weeping for Tammuz.

I could continue pointing out the discrepancies, but it would require doing a bit of research, and I don't feel that it is worth my while.  The above really should speak for itself.

Be that as it may, I'm in full agreement with the pre-christian origins of a Triune god – I just don't think bad scholarship should be used to prove a good point.

[Casiphus]

Hi Is,

I'm not sure I understand the difficulty.

If I have a son, it is only natural that my son would be human, because I am human.  If God has a Son, what else could he be but divine, because God is divine?

But just as an only son becomes an inheritor of his father's possessions in many cultures here on Earth, wouldn't it stand to reason that God's only Son be inheritor of all God's creation, rather than an intrinsic but distinct part of the Godhead?

[Casiphus]

Quote

Compare Jer 31:33  But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD(JEHOVAH) I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. Jer 31:34  And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD (JEHOVAH): for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD (JEHOVAH): for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more. With Heb 10:15  Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before, Heb 10:16  This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them; Heb 10:17  And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more. Conclusion.      The Holy Ghost = Jehovah

Hi CB,

While that is one way of interpreting the texts, another is that the writer of Hebrews was using a figure of speech here, rather than actually making a doctrinal statement – where the Holy Ghost in this passage is not the “I” in the prophecy, but rather the one who quickened Jeremiah, or the Psalmist, etc., to prophecy.

Regardless of who the author of a text was – whether the Spirit of God or the traditionally attributed author – the meaning itself should not change.  Jeremiah was not the “I”, regardless of being the author, so a simple substitution of the Holy Ghost as author should not change the reading of the text.

I think also, the above literary style being rather antiquated, the text can seem misleading.  In modern English literary style we might write it something like:

The Holy Spirit also testifies to us about this. First he says: “This is the covenant I will make with them after that time, says the Lord. I will put my laws in their hearts, and I will write them on their minds.” Then he adds: “Their sins and lawless acts I will remember no more.“

Which is to say that the Narrator (the Holy Spirit in this case) is distinct from the Subject, the “I” (the Lord in this case).

[Casiphus]

Of course, you could also phrase it: because the verse doesn't mention rape and murder, does not mean it doesn't apply to those situations.

In my experience if something truly applies to one area, it applies to many. Here is another example [italics mine]:

Quote

Jesus answered: “Watch out that no one deceives you. For many will come in my name, claiming, 'I am the Christ,' and will deceive many. You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come. Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be famines and earthquakes in various places. All these are the beginning of birth pains. “Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of me. At that time many will turn away from the faith and will betray and hate each other, and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people. Because of the increase of wickedness, the love of most will grow cold, but he who stands firm to the end will be saved. And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.

Why not fight against this persecution, or at least defend ourselves? Surely it would be the just thing to do? Or does fighting in the name of God, actually produce negative affects?

[Casiphus]

Hi Soxan,

My last comment was relating to this question:

Quote

The question then would be; which Jesus? The Jesus of scripture or the Jesus of your own personel mind set, who ever you want Him to be?

I don't see that the Jesus of the Bible, and the Jesus of a person's minset are mutually exclusive. Take the Trinity debate for instance. All those that believe in the Trinity, believe that the scripture justifies their belief, as do all that don't believe in the Trinity.

I'm not trying to be contrary, Soxan, so perhaps you can treat me with the same respect that I treat you?

[Casiphus]

Do they have to be mutually exclusive?

[Casiphus]

Hi Nick,

Quote

So you relate to scripture in the same way as to pagan myths and legends? Do they all have equal validity to you then? If not what distinguishes the bible teachings and what use are they to you now or in the future?

You have completely misunderstood what I wrote. My references weren't about the validity of Near East myths, but the conceptual differences between the ancient and modern worlds, and the effect these have on language.

Please read again what I wrote.

Hi Soxan,

Quote

No! If not scripture, then what do you base your salvation on?

Can you think of a scripture that says we have salvation through anything but Jesus?

[Casiphus]

Yep.

[Author]

Posts