Who is behind the plain Biblical deceptions?

Originally posted by spamandham

Originally posted by think2much
So I am rationalizing things by believing a God that could create a world and all thats in it couldn't orchastrate there to be a holy works that would come down through time revealing what was needed to be known and when so to speak....that seems quite literally possible to me and makes logical sense even...

You are taking bits and pieces others have given to you and synthesizing them into a consistent whole by bridging them with speculation. I'd certainly call that rationalization. Mysticism is the ultimate religious rationalization, whereby all paths that lead to religious experience become equal. If your going to rationalize, why not go all the way?

LOL you are killing me S&H-but not in a bad way.

It's just my problem with perception and semantics I guess.

...because where you say I am rationalizing by: frist, taking bits and pieces others have given to me.... I would say gathering facts and opinions...and yes, from many sources because if I had all the answers I wouldn't be searching!

Secondly, you say I'm synthesizing them into a consistant whole...where I would say putting them all together like evidence, to draw a logical conclusion...

... and where you say bridging them with speculation ...I'd say, coming to my own conclusion by the evidence-facts and opinions-gathered/presented/uncovered, etc.

Rationalizing isn't always a bad thing anyway, to have rationale-lol-but you seem to be thinking in my process of seeking I'm drawing conclusions out of the air and rationalizing they must be true because it fits what I need to believe to be true...and that simply isn't the case.

Originally posted by spamandham

Originally posted by think2much
as for mystcism-well which should I embrace...Christian mysticism or another...

If you embrace mysticism, you will discover it doesn't matter which type you embrace. Mysticism is about the religious experience itself, rather than philosophy or dogma.

Mysticism does seem to be about the experience, and about it making you one with God through a process of gaining knowledge, however I do not seek to be one with God, (could be a perceptual problem or semantics-maybe I do want/seek to be one with Him, but that seems odd to me) nor do I think the only way is through knowledge....so I don't see why me wanting to gain knoledge or understand where to base my faith, means I am on a trak to mysticism...and if I am , so be it I'll judge myself and the situation when I get there...

Personally, my spirituality is coauthored by faith AND knowledge and it's worked for me so far. I'm not spiritually lacking...just sometimes my faith or knowledge is lacking and then I am weakened spiritually accordingly

make sense?

[edit on 4-1-2006 by think2much]

Ghaele - Wow! Well done! I applaud your scholarship and thank you for clarifying at least one of the conspiracy theories for this thread.

I can't claim a level of scholarship that would allow me to either support or refute the information you have presented other than just to say that what you've written aligns with most every scholarly work that I have read regarding the histories and natural evolution/adaptation of the codification of religious beliefs throughout world history. Religion has always been a cultural phenomenon - the conquered and the conquerors have propagated, adopted, blended, imposed, etc. a set of religious beliefs based on the circumstances. So, it is really quite easy to understand the "big picture", here.

Remembering that the intermingling of politics/ruling class with religion is perhaps as old as the concept of religion, itself then, one can accept your conspiracy theory as presented as undeniably plausible. After all, it would be pretty hard to get people to rally around a set of religious beliefs that began with the words "we stole this idea from..."

Originally posted by OneGodJesus
Wrong. As I have stated earlier, if you look at the attacks made by a group of like minded anti-christians,

Merely because someone doesn't beleive in jesus and is curious about the evidence hardly means that they are anti-christian.

right way to find truth is considered evangelizing then I am guilty, but I could have sworn that thinkyguy was asking for input on what others thought about the Godhead and other interesting topics.

To which you end up responding:

One casts the seeds another waters God gives the abundance. I've cast the seeds and I am done. Time to move on to another area of life... the real world.

You're evangelizing, and making it pretty clear. If you are honestly here for a discussion, then great, but that above speaks against that.

Originally posted by think2much
... and where you say bridging them with speculation ...I'd say, coming to my own conclusion by the evidence-facts and opinions-gathered/presented/uncovered, etc.

Perhaps this is what you're doing, but I get the impression you have drawn your conclusion first and are looking for ways to support it, rather than letting the facts lead where they may. If that isn't what you're doing, my apologies.

think2much:

"This is a fine statement for those who do not understand what believers actually believe...which is that by the hand of God...putting it into the hearts and minds of the writer what to write for His purpose...indeed he being the author, not the mortal who wrote it, then indeed the earlier writings WERE written with future writings in mind...in God
s mind."

LCKob:

"putting it into the hearts and minds of the writer WHAT TO WRITE for His purpose ... indeed he being the author ..."

Okay, for the sake of clarity and confirmation ... it appears that you promote the stance that the collected works or "biblical volumes" are for all intents and purposes "authored by god" with the hand of man? Furthermore, that these
separate writings were all written as to be cohesive and consistant "with future writings in mind"?

So to recap and break it down further for ease of point analysis ...

1. The Bible is literal word of god as physically written by mortal man. (literal as referenced to "what to write" decriptor phrase)

2. The collected works of the bible are meant to be cohesive and consistent (as referenced to "with future writings in mind")?

Thus, the following compound question ...

Is the "bible" literal and are the volumes consistent and cohesive?

Note, that the way in which I put forth this clarification is an attempt to get a straitforward unambiguous answer and commitment to a view or statment ...

LCKob

Ghaele's post is well written with lots of sources. It is just the gnostic format. The format of wise men. Sophists. I know this but need to think about the format in which I am going to post. Will post a reply to this when I get back later today. By then I should have my thoughts together.

Thanks,
Orangetom

Originally posted by OneGodJesus
The claims of the Bible has remained persistant to be the written Word of God. It is inseparable from God himself, as you look at John 1:1 you see that "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God".

And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. - John 1:14

Can the Bible incarnate?

Has the Bible ever been made flesh and dwelt among us?

Quite obviously the Word does not refer to the canonized bible, but to the Living Logos, the Verb that took flesh in Jesus Christ.

[edit on 4/1/2006 by AkashicWanderer]

I have tried to read and follow the posts in this thread, and have found them a bit 'lengthy', to the point that I forget the initial premise by the time I get to the end of the post! HOWEVER, I agree with a lot of the initial post on this subject.
We have all been taught by the 'church system' to accept all the dogmas and doctrines we are taught without questioning where they came from.
I am a 40+ year Christian, and in the last 5 years I have delved deeply into the Bible and the origins of the doctrines I was taught. As the result, I have discovered that many of them are THEORY, TRADITION, and the TEACHINGS OF MEN.
This is what Christ came against when he was railing on the Pharisees a lot of the time!

Now I think is the time the prophet was referring to in the scripture below.
The forefathers did not set out to deceive us on purpose (for the most part, but there are exceptions), they just passed on what was taught to them.
Let's face it, most church members sit on the pew and study no farther than the doors of the churchhouse, expecting the speaker to spoon feed them what they learn.
Banjo


Jer 16:19 O LORD, my strength, and my fortress, and my refuge in the day of affliction, the Gentiles shall come unto thee from the ends of the earth, and shall say, Surely our fathers have inherited lies, vanity, and things wherein there is no profit.

Originally posted by Ghaele

Origen, another early champion of the church, says, "What man of good sense can ever persuade himself that there were a first, a second, and a third day, and that each of these days had a night when there were yet neither sun, moon, nor stars? What man can be stupid enough to believe that God, acting the part of a gardener, had planted a garden in the east, that the tree of life was a real tree, and that its fruit had the virtue of making those who eat of it live forever?"

First, let me take pause to THANK YOU for a well written and informative post Ghaele. It is very educating and very appreciated!

Now, while I wont personally call anyone stupid (openly

) for what they believe through faith, I just find my personal faith has lead me to see there is more to understand...always more...if we keep seeking and are non complacent with our knowledge or our faith, but always actively reaching out for more...so as not to continue to strengthen merely what we already have to exercise, but to gain more to exercise.

Then we grow as does our faith, beyond basic understanding...however there seems to be more difficulty in understanding the higher things...not in comprehending them, but uncovering them so to speak.

I say more difficulty because of the accused heresy of seeking such by other believers, or speaking openly and pondering the things not taught but possible and plausable.

.. and because there is much "hidden" it seems, when we seek hard enough...so the harder we seek, the more we see hidden...or I do...

An because of both of those things, the people acussing heresy, and the fact much is hidden, then people come to 2 conclusions: Either that to seek for more knowledge is wrong and ungodly and sacreligious.

Or by others to doubt their own faith, or for those that never believed-to view people of the Jewish or Judeo-Christian faith as ignorant believers of a fairy tale who are are stupid for their uneducatied, illogical, ignorantly based faith.


This leaves me in not very good company usually!

Seeing as I do believe in God, the God of Abraham, and in His son Jesus Christ and in the Bible as a holy book inspired by God for His purposes and the benefit of mankind...HOWEVER, I do believe as much as I have faith in those facts, my spirituality is based on both fact and faith...so as I continue to nurturne both areas..exercising my faith in both what is known and faith that there is more to know...and seeking the more...and finding in fact, there is more...

Originally posted by Ghaele
Maimonides, one of the most learned and celebrated of the Jewish Rabbins, who lived in the eleventh century, is very explicit in his book entitled 'Moreh Nebuchim,' upon the non-reality of the things stated in the account of the Creation in the book of Genesis.

"We ought not (says he) to understand, nor take according to the letter, that which is written in the book of the creation, nor to have the same ideas of it which common men have; otherwise our ancient sages would not have recommended with so much care to conceal the sense of it, and not to raise the allegorical veil which envelopes the truths it contains. (snip)

'
...ah...the 'allegorical veil' aaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhh

...that to me is beautiful find. To not just believe we are not to take it literally, or that it is merely meant to be allegorical.....instead of it being allegorical for a purpose of hidding hidden truth (which such a truth as you might perceive it as, is debatable to me)

..but still that reference to confirm how what I seek is hidden and by whom is a beautiful find to me as much as I find that term in itself beautiful for all it represents...

Genesis-not just a fairy tale, nor merely allegorical so as to not to be taken literally, but to give a premise of creation etc... but it is allegorical for a purpose of hiding other truths...this is what catches my attention ....

'not to raise the allegorical veil which envelopes the truth it contains'

...ahhhh....I love that... now to go back to what Maimonides was saying...

Originally posted by Ghaele
(snip)The book of Genesis, taken according to the letter, gives the most absurd and the most extravagant ideas of the divinity. Whoever shall find out the sense of it, ought to restrain himself from divulging it. It is a maxim which all our sages repeat, and above all with respect to the work of six days. It may happen that some one, with the aid he may borrow from others, may hit upon the meaning of it. In that case he ought to impose silence upon himself; or if he speak of it, he ought to speak obscurely, and in an enigmatical manner, as I do myself, leaving the rest to be found out by those who can understand me."

OUTSTANDING!!!

Originally posted by Ghaele
This is, certainly, a very extraordinary declaration of Maimonides taking all the parts of it. First, be declares, that the account of the Creation in the book of Genesis is not a fact, and that to believe it to be a fact gives the most absurd and the most extravagant ideas of the divinity. Secondly, that it is an allegory. Thirdly, that the allegory has a concealed secret. Fourthly, that whoever can find the secret ought not to tell it.

And I am a heretic for seeking these things?

PUH-LEESE! Though I am going to interpret different than non-believers because of my understanding, and my faith, it is still an OUTSTANDING find for me and I am quite appreciative of it!

Originally posted by Ghaele
It is this last part that is the most extraordinary. Why all this care of the Jewish Rabbins, to prevent what they call the concealed meaning, or the secret, from being known, and if known to prevent any of their people from telling it? It certainly must be something which the Jewish nation are afraid or ashamed the world should know. It must be something personal to them as a people, and not a secret of a divine nature, which the more it is known the more it increases the glory of the creator, and the gratitude and bappiness of man. It is not God's secret but their own they are keeping. I go to unveil the secret.

See, this is where I begin to disagree- of course.

I think it can be both, personal to them as a people and of a divine nature....or perhaps a little of both, the 'secret' not be just one particular truth.

Originally posted by Ghaele
The case is, the Jews have stolen their cosmogony, that is, their account of the creation, from the cosmogony of the Persians, contained in the books of Zoroaster, the Persian lawgiver, and brought it with them when they returned from captivity by the benevolence of Cyrus, king of Persia.

Why can't it be a valid shared truth that comes into a belief by many?

Why can't the truth be manifested in more than one ways to more than one person or 'peoples' as far as races etc? You know? Why must God reveal all the same things all the same ways to all the people of the world to think that would be the only way to agree upon the truth?

Or why when two or more religions believe similar things, it is because they are accused of believing, or being based upon, the same ancient fairy tales or folk lore... instead of thinking it could be they both-or all- are basing it on one truth or some truths?

Maybe here, if it is the case they-the Jews- had these same views as the Persians or indeed if they originally adopted them from the Persians because they rang true and were confirmed true to their souls by the spirit of God when presented to them....so maybe it was one secret that they either didn't want it known they had a similar account of creation as the Persians, or had come to believe in Creation through them...but I wouldn't say that is the entire secret of Genesis, or that it negates the validity of of Creation either.

But this is wonderful food for thought so I have savored your post and continue...

Originally posted by Ghaele
For it is evident, from the silence of all the books of the bible upon the subject of the creation, that the Jews had no cosmogony before that time. If they had a cosmogony from the time of Moses, some of their judges who governed during more than four hundred years, or of their kings, the Davids and Solomons of their day, who governed nearly five hundred years, or of their prophets and psalmists, who lived in the mean time, would have mentioned it. It would, either as fact or fable, have been the grandest of all subjects for a psalm. It would have suited to a tittle the ranting poetical genius of Isaiah, or served as a cordial to the gloomy Jeremiah. But not one word, not even a whisper, does any of the bible authors give upon the subject.

Hmmmm....well for many reasons I'd have to disagree...I mean, to take in stride that Creation was the accepted wouldn't lead them to have to speak of it incessantly.

Or, from another view...even the biggest proponents of discrediting the Bible will tell me over and over how the Bible was compiled SELECTIVELY by the Jews and then the RC Church for Christianity, and done so for various purposes and many writings were submitted, but only what they needed for their agenda (be it a good or evil one) were chosen to be included as Holy Script

...and also that it was edited as needed...Jews and Christians, (like most religions) practiced ruling the people through Gods word and kept record only what was needed for such a specific purpose and if it was being added as holy script it could be edited to meet the need...

So while these facts are viable, this doesn't discredit it as Holy Script to me or challenge it's validity or it's purpose to be Gods word to me, but it does make me question the imperfections of the pople involved. Free will afterall...God isn't going to allow anything contrary to truth be in the Bible, however he wasn't going to orchastrate through imperfect men, a perfect book. So yes, many things may've be left out...even other writings that would validate Creation, or even writings of Isaiah and Jeremiah that did.

the Old testiment not even being a book or made into a common record for all people or something for some long time I'm told, and the new testiment selective and done so by Christian church and for use within the church

so knowing how imperfectly it was compiled, I'd say maybe there was much written and referenced but who is to say what was recorded or edited or not-or suppose what must have been spoken of incessantly to in order for the whole to be true.

Originally posted by Ghaele
To conceal the theft, the Rabbins of the second temple have published Genesis as a book of Moses, and have enjoined secresy to all their people, who by travelling or otherwise might happen to discover from whence the cosmogony was borrowed, not to tell it. The evidence of circumstances is often unanswerable, and there is no other than this which I have given that goes to the whole of the case, and this does.

Um, OK. I'm not sure I believe it, but I do think it's entirely plausable-and indeed possible!

I will agree it is reasonable to suppose it could have been a book inserted and given credit of Moses so as to give creditability as Holy Script and to hide the fact it was a "stolen" idea or entire story...but whether this is definitively true or not I just don't know...

Hmmm....I ponder my beliefs for a moment...but I realize just because of how it (Genesis) MAY HAVE came to be in the book of holy writings used by God for the benefit of man....I am not persuded to believe it denies the truth of it or would be contray to the truth...actually, to know the Persians already had a belief in creation makes it seem that much more a viable belief. I don't think God spoke only to the Jews.

... so I do not think it would persude me to believe the story of Creation-even an allegorical one- to be false, because of that even if it were proven to be indisputably true!

(Thats the faith part...my faith isn't in men, or their perfection-I know men are imperfect...and even liars and murderers theives!...my faith is in God and what He can do ...even through imperfect men! )

But it is all very interesting and educating!

Originally posted by Ghaele
Disgenes Laertius, an ancient and respectable author, has a passage that corresponds with the solution here given. In speaking of the religion of the Persians as promulgated by their priests or magi, he says the Jewish Rabbins were the successors of their doctrine.


Aben-Ezra, a celebrated Jewish author has made a great many observations, too numerous to be repeated bere, to show that Moses was not, and could not be, the author of the book of Genesis, nor of any of the five books that bear his name.

Moses was probably illerate. Didn't God have to write the 10 commandments down for him?

No, in all seriousness now, so, if Moses didn't write the the first 5 books...OK...but does that mean he is fictional too, or just that those books were not works of his authority, but attributed to him, because he was not fictional and a man of a perceived authority?

Did he deliver the 10 commandments to the people, part the Red Sea, trapse around in the desert for 40 years etc, and all the other neat things he did, or is that considered fabrication too in this belief?

Originally posted by Ghaele
Spinoza, another learned Jew, recites in his treatise on the ceremonies of the Jews, ancient and modern, the observations of Aben-Ezra, to which he adds many others, to shew that Moses is not the author of those books. He also says, and shews his reasons for saying it, that the bible did not exist as a book till the time of the Maccabees, which was more than a hundred years after the return of the Jews from the Babylonian captivity.

Did not exist as a book until the maccabees...the Old testiment you are saying...Ok, that seems like a possibility. Admittedly zI don;t know the history of when the old testiment was compiled into a "book" as we have the BIble now and know how and when it was comissioned to be compiled and writings gathered etc.

Again though, it doesn't dispute the validity of the Bible for me, or discount creation, or the book of Genesis.

It does however speak to a hidden truth in Genesis, of Genesis, and a conspiracy to keep possibly the origination of Genesis a secret-so THANK YOU for a wonderful and educating post!

As I am reading Genesis right now and pondering it as a whole-and truths I see in it....things I can't seem to speak of or about...

and many of them I can't speak of without inciting people on all sides of me, to where I am left to ponder alone almost...though I am thinking some of the truths are to be pondered...alone...and silently...

I think it wasn't ENTIRELY just the conspiracy of stealing the story/concept of creation or Genesis entirely from the Persians-if that truly be the case- that Maimonides says:

"that whoever can find the secret ought not to tell it"

I think he speaks to more...

Maybe some things aren't to be known to all men...or all pearls throw to all men because they'd be devoured by the swine in men...maybe some truths can't be told...they must be individually discovered...and once they are...not divulged...maybe only those that get to where they are able to discover same truth, and be accountable not to divulge it. are then the only ones ready to recive it.

(Not saying I'm one...yet

...but working on it...finding some truths...)

Originally posted by Ghaele

To summarize;
First, that certain parts of the book cannot possibly have been written by Moses, and that the other parts carry no evidence of having been written by him. ...(HUGE SNIP-)...From all which it appears that the book of Genesis, instead of being the oldest book in the world, has been the last written book of the bible, and that the cosmogony it contains has been manufactured.

Again, I really can not thank you enough for your post. It is outstanding really. It is well written (though I'd like to have more actual references of where I could read Maimonides and the others you quoted) and entirely educational and entertaining!...well you know what I mean. It grabbed my attention and caused me to muse-this I always find my perferable way to be entertained (as oppsed to being amused or finding this amusing-it was definately full of thought )

Gosh I'm in a good mood now...this rarely happens when speaking on religious topics for me in mixed company

Originally posted by Al Davison
After all, it would be pretty hard to get people to rally around a set of religious beliefs that began with the words "we stole this idea from..."

ROFLMBO! THat was funny!

Seriously though, I don't think if creation is a fact , (just pretend for a minute, ok?) it is necessarily a "stolen" idea because it is shared, or adopted...

but yeah, that was still pretty funny.

I just have to echo you in applauding that post though, as in case I didn't say it in my reply to it-or clearly enough anyway- it knocked my socks off!!

(Um...iff it wasn't made up ...have to be skeptic of second-hand information don't we? Or we all might find the Bible to be true too)

Originally posted by spamandham

Originally posted by think2much
... and where you say bridging them with speculation ...I'd say, coming to my own conclusion by the evidence-facts and opinions-gathered/presented/uncovered, etc.

Perhaps this is what you're doing, but I get the impression you have drawn your conclusion first and are looking for ways to support it, rather than letting the facts lead where they may. If that isn't what you're doing, my apologies.

No, don't appologize at all, I was taking no offense really! I was just wrestling with your intentions and tone. Perhaps you truly were mocking me, in such case, appology accepted

Your impression is partially correct. I have dran my conclusion-I am a Christian. I believe in God and Abraham. My mind is made up about that right now, but I don't seek anything to rationalize it or support that belief in any way shape or form actually. I don't mind it being questioned and thinking about other possibilites though...however for me at this time...and hopefull forever as I hope I'm right- It is a done deal or I'd be a pretty damn weak Christian in my book.

However I also believe very different from my own father- Christian. A protestant minister at one time. We believe very differently by his perceptions of what I believe, and by what I actually do.

and I am conitinuing to seek...not to dispute what I believe, nor to validate it...

what I seek is to understand more than I do...what I find in that search is- many obstacles. Can you understand that?

Obstacles in the form of people who believe otherwise as I do (as in mainstream Christians) or by those who do not (various athhiests, agnostics, or etc) and I am blasted for some of the things I think of, believe, or seek...and in it, especially within Christianity itself-as when seeking things you go to authorites on the subject, right?

...or perceived ones...or the closest you can get to that in your life...

...and when there seems to be a pat answer that equals "don't worry about it" or that some things are on an almost "need to know" basis and I don't have the spiritual clearance or something! !! then it feels quite conspiratorial!

But no...I am not rationalizing...just seeking...

I have made my mind up indeed...but not about all things...and few traditional arguements- for or against my beliefs- get me very far in questioning my beliefs or progressing in my persuit of more understanding... so I take it in stride when both come up, but I'm not rationalizing when I answer those concerns or issues when proposed, just answering and trying to go on...

make sense?

Ghaele makes a very well written post on page 3 of this thread. When I read it it is very impressive by the sources it quotes. The problem I have with it is that it is very Gnostic in its origins. By Gnostic I mean the wise men traditions going back to ancient civilizations

In the statement of Ghaele that "It can be accounted for only by the imposition of priestcraft..I am in agreement.

The problem I have with the rest of the post is that there are two priestcrafts at work here....with different forms and different dogmas.

Concerning Allegory. I know of only one usage of the word allegory in the Bible. It is in Galatians chapter 4 and begins around verse 21 where the explanation for the two brothers Ishmael and Issac are spoken of here as an allegory for the two covenants. What is intresting here is the allegory is explained by the Apostle Paul. There is no mystery here. It is made clear.

What is not known by many ..even and especially Christians.. is that in Gnostic allegorys the meaning is often hidden or concealed in favor of those exclusively in the priesthood or as the Gnostics themselves write...."It is to be in the hands of the priesthood alone."This is not the Christian method. This is also not explained by Ghaele and others.
The ancient method of the Gnostic priesthood...learned by the Hebrews in captivity in Babylon and before was to keep secrets..to keep hidden much of what they were doing as priests.
This was not part of the instruction to Moses and the Levitical priesthood as given on Mt Siani. This is important to understand as in Christianity the allegory is made clear..it is not hidden. In the religious belief system the Hebrews learned in the Babylonian Captivity it is kept secret from many not initiated into its secrets. The example of the woman caught in adultery in the New Testament clearly demonstrates the type of secret they were carrying on in the name of the Law of Moses..when it was in fact no such thing.

This is the difference in the two priestcrafts and how they are practiced. This is the difference continuing unto today.

Long lists of rational arguments are given complete with sources to cover up this fact of the two priesthoods and how they work. They look very good on paper..and many even sound good until you learn the difference and function of them. One is to make clear the other is to cause confusion and hide its origins. One is to operate and function by Faith ..the other by reason and logic of men..Gnosticism.
I have seen this over and over in variations of Gnostic religions. "I shall Hail ..I shall conceal and never reveal. Not my mark, step , sign, or inscription." This is not Christianity
One thing is known about most Christians. They will talk your ear off. They will tell you anything you want to know. Sometimes its difficult to get them to shut up. In Galations Chapter 4 there is no concealed secret in it. It is explained. Clear. No where are you admonished not to tell it. I find such a assertion astonishing if it ever comes from a Christian about Biblical verses. I tell them quickly that this is not Christian.

In this view I am in agreement with Ghaele..the rabbi's are keeping a secret they do not want the world to know...this secret is that they have substituted the Word of God ..with the secret traditions they learned from the coming out of Egypt..but got involved in heavily in the captivity in Babylon where this variation of the dominant religion of the world was continued. This is clear in the rest of the Olde Testament where prophets are sent ,over and over, to the Children of Israel to warn them about these practices of the priesthood and the prophets are continually killed for their warnings.

Ghaele quotes a person named Disgenes Laertius as stating that the Jewish RAbbins were the successors of the Persians. I am in agreement with this. There is one qualification to be made here. The Persian doctrine is not the doctrine given to the Hebrews. The Persian doctrine is a complete change but made on the surface to look as if it was the Hebrew doctrine given to Moses on Mt Saini.
This is the secret most Gnostics dont want you to know. Including the Rabbis.
What is so astonishing to me is that so many Christian Believers dont know this either. The amount of ignorance among my Christian Bretheren is sometimes astonishing to me. They too are following exactly the disobedient pattern of which the Hebrews of olde were following.
It is also of intrest and note to me that many of the non believers here in these posts are more knowlegable in the history of this world and its peoples than are the believers. This is not a good thing that Christians should be ignorant. Yet astonishingly enough many are.

There have been constant attempts made to do what I call hijacking the Bible to bring it into the realm of the secret..the concealed ..and therefore under Gnostic reasoning. The reasoning of men..logic. This is a fingerprint ..a telltale sign of what is behind it.
The Bible is a work of Faith from begining to end.. It is not concealed.

I will close by this addition. I know of no preface in the bible. They are straight books from begining to end. The idea of a preface is a assumption made by men in thier logic.
I also do not know of any bible instruction that their is a cronological order to the books. Either as to when they were written or the order to which they appear. As I recall the book of Job is stuck in there somewhere but is obviously telling of a time much older that the nation of Israel itself. Unless you are versed in the history and times you will miss this concept. If this was important we would have been told this....by Faith.

And the last thing concerning this allegory made by the Apostle Paul in Galatians Chapter 4.
Verse 29 declares

"but then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now."

This is very significant and telling as this is still going on now..as evidenced by many of the posts here and other places. Even in the chat rooms I sometimes frequent.

This is no secret.

Thank you Gentlemen,
Orangetom











From all which it appears that the book of Genesis, instead of being the oldest book in the world, has been the last written book of the bible, and that the cosmogony it contains has been manufactured.











ATS Thread Tag System: BETA v0.8
Members can add a custom descriptive tag to any thread on ATS. Thread Tags will help categorize our site content, help to cross-reference similar threads, and improve the searchability of all ATS threads. This thread is currently defined by these tags:

bible, deceptions, bible interpretations, speaking in tongues, bible lies, bible truth,

Originally posted by LCKob
think2much:

"This is a fine statement for those who do not understand what believers actually believe...which is that by the hand of God...putting it into the hearts and minds of the writer what to write for His purpose...indeed he being the author, not the mortal who wrote it, then indeed the earlier writings WERE written with future writings in mind...in God
s mind."

LCKob:

"putting it into the hearts and minds of the writer WHAT TO WRITE for His purpose ... indeed he being the author ..."

Okay, for the sake of clarity and confirmation ... it appears that you promote the stance that the collected works or "biblical volumes" are for all intents and purposes "authored by god" with the hand of man? Furthermore, that these
separate writings were all written as to be cohesive and consistant "with future writings in mind"?

So to recap and break it down further for ease of point analysis ...

1. The Bible is literal word of god as physically written by mortal man. (literal as referenced to "what to write" decriptor phrase)

2. The collected works of the bible are meant to be cohesive and consistent (as referenced to "with future writings in mind")?

Thus, the following compound question ...

Is the "bible" literal and are the volumes consistent and cohesive?

Note, that the way in which I put forth this clarification is an attempt to get a straitforward unambiguous answer and commitment to a view or statment ...

LCKob

Your clarification?

LCKob

onegodjesus, if you'd kindly respond to my post that is on page 3 when you get back to posting here, it would be kind. i'm posting this here due to the numerous posts that came after mine.

Originally posted by think2much
what I seek is to understand more than I do...what I find in that search is- many obstacles. Can you understand that?

As a former Christian myself, I understand perfectly what you're talking about. If you continue to search, there may well come a time when you realize you no longer believe. The legions of ex-christians are filled with former ministers and theologians, so don't make the mistake of thinking it can't happen to you.

If you value faith, stop asking questions. However, if you value truth, proceed. If you continue down the path you are on, you may discover that the obstacles become more and more impassible until you suddenly realize you are on a different path.

Originally posted by think2much
and I am blasted for some of the things I think of, believe, or seek...and in it, especially within Christianity itself-as when seeking things you go to authorites on the subject, right?

Asking questions is only allowed if you accept the pre-canned apologetic answers. You are expected to accept those answers without further question. To then question the answers is taken as a direct assault on the faith of whoever gave it to you. Expect a hostile response when you question someone's faith.

Originally posted by think2much
But no...I am not rationalizing...just seeking...

You admit that you formed your conclusion first and that it is not subject to change (so you think), and you are looking for answers that do not disrupt the fundamental conclusion. That's pretty much the definition of the word "rationalize".

Faith and rationalization go hand in hand for those who do not really have faith. Your desire to rationalize demonstrates that deep down you know faith is not a valid means of obtaining knowledge.

Originally posted by spamandham

Originally posted by think2much
what I seek is to understand more than I do...what I find in that search is- many obstacles. Can you understand that?

As a former Christian myself, I understand perfectly what you're talking about. If you continue to search, there may well come a time when you realize you no longer believe. The legions of ex-christians are filled with former ministers and theologians, so don't make the mistake of thinking it can't happen to you.

It is of course the case that some people find it too onerous to continue to think for themselves, to plough an independent course and succumb to the temptations and pressure to conform of our society. But rationally assessing what they convert to is never a part of that process. As a rule these people are merely those who grew up in one environment, and conformed to that; and then moved into a different environment and conformed to that.

It is my ambition one day to find such a person who can give a rational account of why he lives by the period values of our society. But I do not hold my breath.

If you value faith, stop asking questions.

This is indeed the creed of those who conform to the world. That's why they can't even articulate their creed.

I have snipped the remaining repetitions of stale 19th century invective, none of it explaining just what it is that we are supposed to do instead. It is curious how those who talk about 'freethinking', 'faith and reason', can never explain their faith and never use reason. Repetition of elderly slogans of this kind sort of refutes itself.

It is easy to talk about reason. It is apparently impossible for non-Christians to do it.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Originally posted by orangetom1999
Ghaele quotes a person named Disgenes Laertius as stating that the Jewish Rabbins were the successors of the Persians.

Is this perhaps Diogenes Laertius? He wrote a book on the lives of the philosophers. An online version does seem to exist classicpersuasion.org....

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Originally posted by roger_pearse

It is easy to talk about reason. It is apparently impossible for non-Christians to do it.

Roger Pearse

Could you clarify this point? ... are you referring to a segment of that "stale 19th century invective"?


LCKob

[edit on 5-1-2006 by LCKob]

Originally posted by think2much
Your impression is partially correct. I have dran my conclusion-I am a Christian. I believe in God and Abraham. My mind is made up about that right now, but I don't seek anything

But no...I am not rationalizing...just seeking...

I have made my mind up indeed...but not about all things...and few traditional arguements- for or against my beliefs- get me very far in questioning my beliefs or progressing in my persuit of more understanding... so I take it in stride when both come up, but I'm not rationalizing when I answer those concerns or issues when proposed, just answering and trying to go on...

make sense?

Totally! It's kind of like hanging securely from a seeming thread while the rest changes and swirls around you--but that thread is the strongest one there is...
Just a fundamental trust (that can't be compromised) that God is
and is Alive.

The rest is details, but fun exploration, all the same.

Is that kinda what you mean?


[edit on 1/5/2006 by queenannie38]

Originally posted by LCKob
Okay, for the sake of clarity and confirmation ... it appears that you promote the stance that the collected works or "biblical volumes" are for all intents and purposes "authored by god" with the hand of man? Furthermore, that these
separate writings were all written as to be cohesive and consistant "with future writings in mind"?

So to recap and break it down further for ease of point analysis ...

1. The Bible is literal word of god as physically written by mortal man. (literal as referenced to "what to write" decriptor phrase)

2. The collected works of the bible are meant to be cohesive and consistent (as referenced to "with future writings in mind")?

Thus, the following compound question ...

Is the "bible" literal and are the volumes consistent and cohesive?

Note, that the way in which I put forth this clarification is an attempt to get a straitforward unambiguous answer and commitment to a view or statment ...

LCKob

Noted LCKob.

Please note...this is probably going to be a long answer, but is so being, it should be unambiguous to your satisfaction-I hope. But I'm not sure to what end you ask...as I don't find myself to not be forthright, have you so found me to thus be?

So OK, you want a statement, of a commitment to a view...of the how I view the Bible? Well, though I find when someone is taking every word and disecting it as I see you so rigidly are, and asking me for a commmmitment I do question their intentions as they seem to be questioning mine, or even more so...my integrity or my professed beliefs...or playing a game of wits and I'm not interested in that. I'll save you time if thats what you want to do, and validate your intelect as superior and your belief more logical than mine. Admittedly, faith is illogical.

Not that clarifying it more than I thought I have (my beliefs) has anything to do with the subject at hand above the surface, but since you ask, I will answer and perhaps somehow down the line it will help in discussing all related things so....

"on my own here we go..." (Brain Stew)

#1 Yes, I do believe the Bible is the word of God...now I will not say this is what all believers believe, but for some, and certainly I can speak for myself, this is what I believe:

I do think God is the author and that He inspired the various works/writings for His purpose...and though I believe He put it in to the hearts of men, inspired them what to write and inspired them to go and write it...it's NOT like I think He "wrote" it as in a ghost writer and it was dictated ver batim or something.

For example of my faith and feeling on the subject, I will go as far as saying if the first 5 books were not written by Moses, or say the first Chapter Genesis was actually stolen from the Persians...that if it is a true -even an albeit allegorical-story of creation for the benefit of mankind, then even this act could be used for good, and could have been inspired by God, or used from then on , as inspired by Him.

For example, taking this new (to me) idea that Genbesis was stolen from the Persians...who is to say that nullifies the story of creation-allegorical or not-as inspired or that it didn't benefit the Jews to come to this knowledge somehow...or it wasn't God's plan even...to use it on their own.?

Or maybe no, God didn't mean for them to "steal it" secretively, or deceitfully accredit it to Moses, but as long as it was benefiting the people and doing no harm...or even doing good...serving a higher purpose...then perhaps it was allowed by God, and written in a way inspired of Him and thus inteneded by God...even the jews be brought into capitivity to hear the inspiring allegorical tale of creation which He had already inspired the Persians with. Who knows?

This is just an example of the way I believe God can work-I just refuse to be closed minded about the possibilites, by limitations of believers or non-believers in their understanding, faith, or imagination! Whether He has or not done such-I believe He certainly can do anything, use anything etc for His purposes...even change things to serve His purpose...as in even to the contrary above, if He didn't mean for the Jews to steal the story and they actually did, and He had other ways He was going to work through them, or reveal that same premise...that because of free will he lets them do these things, but then because of His will, he uses it in a way that will benefit Him in His plan anyway.

Maybe the Jews originally coming back from Persia were going to start a new contrary religion based on this and he said...Whoa...I don't think so, we'll use this in MY plan...and helped them incorporate it...see whatever was for the goodness of mankind, and served/serves His purpose as our God I believe he inspired/ allowed in the Bible...maybe they only stole the concept of creation and he inspired the book of Genesis specifically to give the most correct- for His purpose- story of creation.

All in all, it is a book written by men, but actually inspired by God in word and/or deed and for His purpose and the benefit of mankind.

Yes, long answer but I am hoping to be complete and by no way ambiguous about what I believe, think, etc. It is faith based and I realize non-believer believe faith is in vain, but it seems to me that is just because non-beleivers limit what God can do... or how... or what they think He would..or should.... or why... etc... this applies to the cohesive part as well. (For that matter, they are often in good company as even believers do the same in limiting Him by their preconceived notions!)

Part 2 of your question, right? Coheseiveness

I do believe He could have had future events he knew were going to happen in mind, when he had things prophesied of, or written of etc...Do I think He orcahstrated the Bible writings like that for that purpose, I don't know...I wont say He did-I find it unlikely actually.

I think in some cases perhaps things were written with future events in mind..., but it could be more that He orchestrated how the Bible would be assmebled eventually, more than how each book was written to make it a "cohesive" work.

Whether it was certain things he wanted written and when, or how later he had them put in order when they compiled the Bible...either way I think it's His work, played out through men. His inspired words written by men, and mans' words that he can now use as His Word to speak to mankind.

But personally I don't think the "coheseive" part is as literal as you are taking it ...I mean cohesive as in purpose, cohesive meaning tight, and unified in purpose etc,. not so much as in some type of chronlogical structure front to back-make sense? If not, we can discuss further. (I don't really like to even read it front to back, but it is a good way to read it entirely and keep track without having some study guide or something)

For example...he could also have later writings be mindful of what had been written as much as vice versa...just like time is one eternal round to Him, so are/may be His purposes.

Have you ever written anything? I have a screenwriting program that allows me to write all sorts of scenes and then if I like...move them around...for the most cohesive flow...so I think we don't know the mind of God or what He does, or how or why, but I'd say anything is possible and in that sense, yes I think it's a tight work of purpose-a cohesive one.

Also, intersting side note...I am the author of my writings, right? But I guarantee you when most inspired, my characters are alive and well and their dialogue I seem to witness, sometimes too quickly for me to even "write" it...but once I do, then I can look at it and decide what needs to be said or how or when or edited, and just like scenes, it can all be moved around ...hmmm...maybe you need to be in my head to really understand that as an example

Now, before you any split hairs, let me presume you might, and just follow up to also say does that mean it should be taken literally as the "word" of God then if each word isn't ver batim from God, but merely inspired etc...

...and I will answer that I'll leave that up to the individual as really I don't think it can be dictated by anyone what is to be taken literally or not, what story is allegorical or not or if each word was not dictated ver batim then how can we take each word ver batim literally.

these "arguments" get to be more about linguistics, semantics, and trying to "catch one up" intellectually, or prove them foolish spiritually, and I just think thats a waste of life in general, not to mention time, so since we are speaking of a literary work I'll be careful in my use of literally when literarily speaking.

Personally, to take a stand on the subject for you though, I do not take each word or story literally-all the time-but yes, I do think the Bible is ACTUALLY literally the word of God...meaning I believe He can speak to me-or anyone with faith- literally through any of those words, make sense?


But see, to me the greatest mystery of the Bible is in how it can be used individually in faith, which is simply something that can not be explained or exhibited to a skeptic, be they a Christian one or an Athiest one...but the Bible is living word to me.

In that I find that the meanings can be personal even...did God write those passages with me in mind? Certainly not, however He is able to make them apply to me at times when I need them, and/or need something specific answered. (God can be very unambiguous too)..and it's quite uncanny at times!

I can know that the author of that particular book was not speaking to me in that chapter of course, nor was I on God's mind when He inspired a particular verse to be written...but I can take it literally ver batim as an answer to something I was seeking through faith when it is quite obvious to me it is what I was seeking (especially difficult when it is contray to what I wanted the answer to be :lol

...and this to me is not the mystery of the Bible but a miracle of it.

It's alive in the right hands...unfortauntaly many believers do not even realize this or have the faith to unlock this miracle or recognize the potential-the wealth of potential in the Bible.

Hope that clarifies things. I wont say I'm never ambiguous, but I certainly don't try to over-talk my beliefs and thus come accross as preaching, or prostelytizing or converting etc, so I may seem ambiguous until questioned, but as you see I have no probelm clarifying things and I will discuss anything and all my beliefs openly and invite you to correspond about anything.

...but please (everyone) don't nit-pic me for the sake of...nit picking me and forgive me if I misinterpret your tone, LCKob or intention through your structuring of your question...I just weary, as I have stated, of being attacked or nit-picked for naught, when I am only seeking knowledge or opinions or truths or mysteries etc.

I am never myself out to disprove another's belief...though I'm not saying I am above nit-picking when seeking understanding though-so I do offer you that benefit of the doubt as well if you are trying to just understand me better.