I am That I Am (wasPROVE THAT GOD DOES NOT EXIST !!!!)
Frank T. De Angelis
Rasmus Gjesdal wrote:
Now I am not sure who wrote what, but, re:
> Then let us first and foremost adequately define this light!!!>
> > > I prefer the Nag-Hammadi/Hermetic allegories.>
(1) The Nag Hammadi Library -- new *New Testament* (Gnostic) gospels
written in Coptic (and the Claremont Church of California, who amassed a
collection of experts to translate them into English - and granted me
permission to quote from them extensively in my book) -- is the perfect
link and conduit for the over-riding concept of Light, from the Persian
Zoroastrian to the Greek (Photos), culminating in the uniquely
non-synoptic gospel of John. Here, Jesus is the Logos
(Logic-discourse/Word) and Zwon/Zeus (Life/seed/sperm) and Photos
(Light). In a section of the Nag Hammadi Gnostic scriptures, the topic
is Zoroaster; in another, Plato. This is the one seminal work, I
believe, which demonstrates the fundamental principle of Divine Light.
Hermes, on the other hand, from the little I read in Hesoid and Plato
(the Timeaus and especially the Cratylus, a highly important work for
etymological reasons) is related, in the astraldeification scheme of
things, as a Mercury to the Sun (Helios), Moon (Selene), and (in the
Timeaus account) Lucifer/Eous-phoros. This, in my mind, carries little
significance compared to the Persian-Zoroastrian-Manichean-Gnostic-Greek
connection. Here, it has the same function, I believe, as the Egyptian
Sun-god (Aten) Ra, the Mesopotamian (Akkadian) Shamash, the Ugaritic
Shapash, and -- I think, believe it or not -- the biblical Hebrew
shamash (sun)!
(2) I am (being, existence), transl(liter)atable from the Hebrew for
(y)ah yah, is not as problematic as the WHO (asher - also Which, That,
and Who) since it takes on -- unfortunately -- several grammatical
functions, i.e., e.g., as a preposition, conjunction, etc. However, its
deeper meaning and origin, etymologically, I am convinced comes from the
Ugaritic and Assyrian variations of ash(burn)/asher/asherah/ish(er)ah/
assur(god of Assyria).
(3) Exactly where does the quote from Hermes (below) come from...since
it is the hallmark of Socrates and his entire moral philosophy. Only
Hesoid and Homer are the (MOST) original written sources for Greek
mythology.
>
> "The vice of a soul is ignorance; the virtue is knowledge." (From Hermes)>
Your Humble Servant,
F.T. (Spartacus) http://home.fda.net/~spartacus
Rasmus Gjesdal
Frank T. De Angelis <spar...@fda.net> skrev i artikkelen
<356183...@fda.net>...
> Rasmus Gjesdal wrote:
>
> Now I am not sure who wrote what, but, re:
>
> > Then let us first and foremost adequately define this light!!!>
>
> > > > I prefer the Nag-Hammadi/Hermetic allegories.>
>
>
> (1) The Nag Hammadi Library -- new *New Testament* (Gnostic) gospels
> written in Coptic (and the Claremont Church of California, who amassed a
> collection of experts to translate them into English - and granted me
> permission to quote from them extensively in my book) -- is the perfect
> link and conduit for the over-riding concept of Light, from the Persian
> Zoroastrian to the Greek (Photos), culminating in the uniquely
> non-synoptic gospel of John.
Are you here referring to "The Apochryphon of John"? A most distinguished
piece of literature.
Thank you again for knowledge.
The quote, comes from Hermetica Libellus X
The Poimandres [of Hermes Trismegistus]
Here is a fuller quote:
.
"And the vice of the soul is lack of knowledge. A soul that has gained no
knowledge of the things that are, and has not come to know their nature,
nor to know the Good, but is blind, such a soul is tossed about among the
passions which the body breeds; it carries the body as a burden, and is
ruled by it, instead of ruling it. That is the vice of the soul. On the
other hand, the virtue of the soul is knowledge. He who has got knowledge
is good and pious; he is already divine."
Hermes Trismegistus is appearantly not readily available and I am tempted
to put it all up among my pages on the net, there is much knowledge to my
mind.
Sincerely
--
Rasmus
To state that there are things man does not know, such as his mental
processes, and to research the subject is how man advances.
To state that since there are things man does not understand and therefore
a God must exist is how man regresses.
To state that since there are things man does not understand
the existance of the biblical God is prooven is relegating man to vegetable
mentality
Rasmus Gjesdal
Frank T. De Angelis <spar...@fda.net> skrev i artikkelen
<356304...@fda.net>...
> Rasmus Gjesdal wrote:
> >
> > Frank T. De Angelis <spar...@fda.net> skrev i artikkelen
> > <356183...@fda.net>...
> > > Rasmus Gjesdal wrote:
> > >
> > > Now I am not sure who wrote what, but, re:
> > >
> > > > Then let us first and foremost adequately define this light!!!>
> > >
> > > > > > I prefer the Nag-Hammadi/Hermetic allegories.>
> > >
> > >
> > > (1) The Nag Hammadi Library -- new *New Testament* (Gnostic) gospels
> > > written in Coptic (and the Claremont Church of California, who
amassed a collection of experts to translate them into English - and
granted me permission to quote from them extensively in my book) -- is the
perfect link and conduit for the over-riding concept of Light, from the
Persian Zoroastrian to the Greek (Photos), culminating in the uniquely
non-synoptic gospel of John.
> >
> > Are you here referring to "The Apochryphon of John"? A most
distinguished piece of literature.
>
>
> No, just the plain old Christian gospel of (St.) John; but it was the
> last, and if you especially read it in the original Greek, it is closer
> to the Persian-Zoroastrian-Manichean-Gnostic concepts. It is very
> mystical.
>
The Gnostics did claim that John was Gnostic and much of the material
reflects thoughts related to the Gnostics.
One day I will learn Greek and read some of the ancient documents in the
original language.
> > >Here, Jesus is the Logos (Logic-discourse/Word) and Zwon/Zeus
(Life/seed/sperm) and Photos (Light). In a section of the Nag Hammadi
Gnostic scriptures, the topic is Zoroaster; in another, Plato. This is the
one seminal work, I believe, which demonstrates the fundamental principle
of Divine Light.
> > >
> > > Hermes, on the other hand, from the little I read...
> (should be *what I recall, offhand*)
> ...in Hesoid and Plato (the Timeaus and especially the Cratylus, a
> highly important work for etymological reasons) is related, in the
> astraldeification scheme of things, as a Mercury to the Sun (Helios),
> Moon (Selene), and (in the Timeaus account) Lucifer/Eous-phoros. This,
> in my mind, carries little significance compared to the
> Persian-Zoroastrian-Manichean-Gnostic-Greek connection. Here, it has the
> same function, I believe, as the Egyptian Sun-god (Aten) Ra, the
> Mesopotamian (Akkadian) Shamash, the Ugaritic Shapash, and -- I think,
> believe it or not -- the biblical Hebrew shamash (sun)!
There is undoubtedly a Persian-Zoroastrian-Manichean-Gnostic-Greek
connection, I would like to know what the material behind it all was, did
these ancients see the physical shapes as representations of the spiritual
and if that was the case how far back does this attitude go?
It may also be interesting to know how far back simpletons who historized
allegory goes.
> > .
> > "And the vice of the soul is lack of knowledge. A soul that has gained
no
> > knowledge of the things that are, and has not come to know their
nature,
> > nor to know the Good, but is blind, such a soul is tossed about among
the
> > passions which the body breeds; it carries the body as a burden, and is
> > ruled by it, instead of ruling it. That is the vice of the soul. On the
> > other hand, the virtue of the soul is knowledge. He who has got
knowledge
> > is good and pious; he is already divine."
> >
> > Hermes Trismegistus is appearantly not readily available and I am
tempted
> > to put it all up among my pages on the net, there is much knowledge to
my
> > mind.
>
> Thank you for the knowledge. I don't ever recall coming across such a
> work. It seems as if it is in the Roman era. Do you know its real
> (substantiated origin) and an ideal (supposed) origin? I'll definitely
> have to look for it tomorrow at the university - before the library
> shuts down for the pre-summer session.
>
> Francus-Spartacus-Martyrus-Marxist-Aurelius
>
The material is from the Hermetic writings ascribed to Hermes Trismegistus
the Egyptian god of wisdom Thoth. The material I have was supposedly
written in the first century of our era. How far back it goes is difficult
to ascertain.
I have contacted the person who sent it to me.
It has been argued that the material was the foundation of Egyptian wisdom
and the foundation of Greek wisdom, thousands of years old, but what the
truth is may forever have been buried in the ashes of Alexandria.
Best regards
Frank A.S.
Rasmus Gjesdal wrote in message <01bd842a$629ea960$LocalHost@default>...
>
>Here is a fuller quote:
>knowledge of the things that are, and has not come to know their nature,
>nor to know the Good, but is blind, such a soul is tossed about among the
>passions which the body breeds; it carries the body as a burden, and is
>ruled by it, instead of ruling it. That is the vice of the soul. On the
>other hand, the virtue of the soul is knowledge. He who has got knowledge
>is good and pious; he is already divine."
>
condemn a priori the majority of humanity which has not enough intelligence to
gain sufficient knowledge to offset them from those who have knowledge. Only
those born smart
could be saved.
Furthermore having knowledge is no guarantee of moral fiber, for knowledge
can be a tool of Satanic subversion.
Frank
A friend to Jesus, Buddha, LaoTse and all who love
Anyone who has begun to think
places some portion of the world in jeopardy.
- John Dewey (1859-1952)
Frank T. De Angelis
Rasmus Gjesdal wrote:
>
> Frank T. De Angelis <spar...@fda.net> skrev i artikkelen
> <356304...@fda.net>...
> > Rasmus Gjesdal wrote:
> > >
> > > Frank T. De Angelis <spar...@fda.net> skrev i artikkelen
> > > <356183...@fda.net>...
> > > > Rasmus Gjesdal wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Now I am not sure who wrote what, but, re:
> There is undoubtedly a Persian-Zoroastrian-Manichean-Gnostic-Greek
> connection, I would like to know what the material behind it all was, did
> these ancients see the physical shapes as representations of the spiritual
> and if that was the case how far back does this attitude go?
>
> It may also be interesting to know how far back simpletons who historized
> allegory goes.
I don't know. That is why I am very concerning about the trail of
sources. For example: what we know about the Egyptians and Phoenicians
from Herodotus and other third hand Greek sources; what we know about
the Egyptian pantheon from the Roman, e.g., Apulieus' Golden
Ass/Metamorphosis on Osiris and Isis; etc. That is why I was wondering
about your Hermes Trismegistus source (Roman-Latin ?).
per your---
> The material is from the Hermetic writings ascribed to Hermes Trismegistus the Egyptian god of wisdom Thoth. The material I have was supposedly written in the first century of our era. How far back it goes is difficult to ascertain.
> I have contacted the person who sent it to me.
> It has been argued that the material was the foundation of Egyptian wisdom and the foundation of Greek wisdom, thousands of years old, but what the truth is may forever have been buried in the ashes of Alexandria.
Yes, that's what I am/was afraid of, a second-third hand knowledge,
Greconized and then Romanized. Well, I still have to search at the
university, but it may be too late - for now.
=======================================================================
Say, if you are interested in my book, *THE POLYTHEISM OF THE BIBLE AND
THE MYSTERY OF LUCIFER,* let me know. You can get it much cheaper and
much, much faster than via the internet amazon.com and altbookstore if
you send to the publisher direct:
Spartacus-Tribune Publications
6006 Rancho Mission Road, Suite # 286
San Diego, Ca. 92108-2304
See http://home.fda.net/~spartacus
Be sure to add ATTN: FRANK/AUTO. if you would like it autographed by
me.
See you later. You sure got my philosophical-social scientific
investigative interest up with this Hermetic source. I just *fear* that
it will be somewhat of a letdown, converging and reflecting too many
Greco-Roman ideas, beliefs, and interpretations. The Hermetic passage I
asked you about really sounds Platonic...I wonder (if, in fact, it
is)????
Your Humble Servant,
Frank
Frank T. De Angelis
Frank Schierenberg wrote:
>
> >P.S. As critical as I am of most of what Paul said and did, I must
> >confess that the real meaning of his and Nietzsche's quote is food for
> >thought; it is difficult to choose, even if (though) you didn't mean for
> >it to be.
>
> I can't imagine what exactly you object about Paul's sayings. Sure, it was he who systematized
> and defined Christianity, but I always thought he did a great job of it. Christianity DID need
> structure, after all. What ARE your objections?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Don't get me started. Let me count the ways. (Go ahead and post this if
you like...and I'll give you a lengthy *Host* of passages from the
Bible, in English and the original Greek that will make any human's head
spin!).
My preamble/prefatory remarks: I think Paul was a sneaky little bastard
who hated women and, at times, everyone. He was extremely sexist (truly
deserving the philosophical community's scorn and criticism as an
anti-intellectual/philosophical sexist pig) and racist (an ethnicist) -
who admonished with the hateful vengeance of a twofaced, contradictive
scoundrel and the thief which he admitted being. He hated sex, women,
philosophy, and Corinthian peoples in general. He was a dictator who
violently cursed people. He preached submission to ruling tyrants,
associatung their power with (as coming from) God. He preached
abstinence, against sex, and placed women so low on the
Aristotelian-Thomist Catholic Medieval scale of *hierarchy of beings*
that I can't begin to tell you about. He preached for women to blindly
and universally obey their husbands, slaves their masters, and alll
people their political rulers. On a scale for humanity from 1 to 10 I
would rate paul 0 as a human being. (There are two or three passages I
like from him, however, including the famous discourse on universal love
- agape (usually mistranslated, esp. by the Catholic Church as
*charit*). In todays' vernacular, I believe he would be referred to as
a male chauvinist pig and a Nazi asshole.
A BRIEF AND INCOMPLETE SKETCHNOTE SYNOPSIS OF THE OBJECTIONABLE PAUL
(ST. ???):
A DEFENSE OF THE EXISTING TYRANICAL POLITICAL ORDER AND SLAVERY; THE
*DIVINE RIGHT OF KINGS* IDEOLOGY:
Rom. 1, 13:1-7: Paul gives us the very first Christian *DIVINE RIGHT OF
KINGS* ideology; he tells us to obey all political leaders because all
authority and power comes directly from God, and that the former is
appointed by God *to inflict God's punishment...*
Eph 1, 6: *SLAVES, OBEY YOUR HUMAN MASTERS*
Tit. 2:9: *Slaves should be told it is their duty to obey their masters
and to give them satisfactory service in every way. They are not to
answer back or to be light-fingered...*
Thes 2, 3: *IF A MAN SHALL NOT WORK HE SHALL NOT EAT* (Hardly humane
and Jesus-like).
A HATER OR SEX AND WOMEN IN GENERAL:
Cor 1, 6-7: Here Paul talks against men having sex or any physical
contact at all with women. Sex is considered so bad, that it should only
occur if temptation overcomes a male...then he should marry, for *it is
better to marry then burn in hell.*
Cor 1, 11: Here Paul clearly considers women to be inferior to man; she
ought to cover and bow her head in shame, to give homage to man, while
man gives homage to God,but he shouldn't cover his head because he
directly *represents the person and glory of God.* The female always
represents her debt to male authority.
(AGAIN) , *SLAVES, OBEY YOUR MASTERS; WIVES, OBEY YOUR HUSBANDS.*
Eph 5:22- *You wives must learn to adapt yourselves to your husbands, as
you submit...for the husband is the head of the wife in the same way
that Christ is the head of the Church. The willing subjection..be
reproduced in the subjection of wives to their husbands...*
Cor 1, 14:34: Along with the former rituals of female inferiority, Paul
adds here that WOMEN should not speak in church, and if they have any
questions they should wait until they get home and ask their husbands.
Tim 1, 2:8-3: He gets worse, and says that wpmen should be plain, quiet,
learn quietly and humbly, and that he personally doesn't allow them to
teach or hold any position of authority - and esp. over men. His claims
that his reason for it goes back to man being created first and that it
was *Eve and not Adam who was first deceived and fell into sin.* (What a
prick this guy is!)
Thes 1, 2:17-: I don't know if this should be in this or the next -- or
both -- section/s, but Paul gives some very bad advice, from both a
psychological and truthful position, by stating that absence makes the
heart grow fonder.
CHARACTER FLAWS: the unethical and immoral
Cor. 2, 11:8: Paul admits to lying, cheating, and stealing... all in the
name of *the end justifies the means.* he says he literally stole
(wages) from other churches (I robbed *esulesa*)
Cor. 1 5-6: Here we have Paul preaching against even *associating* with
anyone he considered to be immoral - and to not eat with them, and
admonishing them to not go to law in pagan courts. Hmm. Jesus welcomed
-- and ate with -- prostitutes, let them bath him in perfume and he
washed their feet, etc.
Tit 1, 10:1-2: Paul agrees that *Men of Crete are always liars, evil and
beastly, lazy and greedy.*
*NOTHING GOOD CAN (has) EVER COME OUT OF CORINTH*
At the conlcusion of Cor 1, Paul uses a rare and somewhat hitherto
unfamiliar Greek (Greconized Aramaic ?) term, ANATHEMA. It is an awful
and hateful CURSE, whose etymological meaning includes
anesthetize-vaporize, hang, crucify, etc. [Cf. the Langenscheidt
Classical (Biblical) Greek-English Dictionary.]
...and all this from a reformed tax collector.
AGAINST REASON, PHILOSOPHICAL ARGUMENTS, CRITICAL THINKING, FREEDOM OF
SPEECH AND THOUGHT, ETC.
COLO 2:4-11: Paul warns of intellectuals, emphasizing faith vs.
arguments, limits freedom of expression, adding that *God gives a full
and complete expression of himself.*
Tim 1, 6: talks against the *jumble of disputation and argument...*
Tit, 3:1-11: admonishing to *steer clear of stupid arguments...
controversies...quarrels... a man with argumention...
Although I am a philosopher who always insists upon the context of the
particular situation, I must say that the churches and their apologists
always brainwash their flock of following sheep into believing that,
because some of these letters were directed at Corinth, a very
promiscuous society - and towards other Christians, members of this
particular church, it makes it okay. Let me tell you, there is
absolutely nothing but justificatory and apologetic *damage control,*
here.
I'm sorry, but only ignorant, stubborn, and/or evil people could
possibly agree with and follow such a poor excuse for a human being.
Prof./Author F.T. De Angelis SPARTACUS http://home.fda.net/~spartacus
Rasmus Gjesdal
Frank T. De Angelis <spar...@fda.net> skrev i artikkelen
<356418...@fda.net>...
> Rasmus Gjesdal wrote:
> >
> > Frank T. De Angelis <spar...@fda.net> skrev i artikkelen
> > <356304...@fda.net>...
> > > Rasmus Gjesdal wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Frank T. De Angelis <spar...@fda.net> skrev i artikkelen
> > > > <356183...@fda.net>...
> > > > > Rasmus Gjesdal wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Now I am not sure who wrote what, but, re:
>
> > There is undoubtedly a Persian-Zoroastrian-Manichean-Gnostic-Greek
> > connection, I would like to know what the material behind it all was,
did
> > these ancients see the physical shapes as representations of the
spiritual
> > and if that was the case how far back does this attitude go?
> >
> > It may also be interesting to know how far back simpletons who
historized
> > allegory goes.
>
>
> I don't know. That is why I am very concerning about the trail of
> sources. For example: what we know about the Egyptians and Phoenicians
> from Herodotus and other third hand Greek sources; what we know about
> the Egyptian pantheon from the Roman, e.g., Apulieus' Golden
> Ass/Metamorphosis on Osiris and Isis; etc. That is why I was wondering
> about your Hermes Trismegistus source (Roman-Latin ?).
>
The Hermes Trismegistus copy which I have varies from the material
supposedly by
Hermes which I have found on the net.
It seems to have less Roman and more Greek overtones so I would venture to
guess it
predates the Roman influence somewhat.
By the way, have you read the material on Trismegistus found at
Nag-Hammadi?
( http://home.sol.no/~noetic/nagham/asclep.html) has a part of the
discourse between
Asclepius and Hermes the material is called Asclepius 21-29.
> per your---
> > The material is from the Hermetic writings ascribed to Hermes
Trismegistus the Egyptian god of wisdom Thoth. The material I have was
supposedly written in the first century of our era. How far back it goes is
difficult to ascertain.
>
> > I have contacted the person who sent it to me.
> > It has been argued that the material was the foundation of Egyptian
wisdom and the foundation of Greek wisdom, thousands of years old, but what
the truth is may forever have been buried in the ashes of Alexandria.
>
> Yes, that's what I am/was afraid of, a second-third hand knowledge,
> Greconized and then Romanized. Well, I still have to search at the
> university, but it may be too late - for now.
I will remake my home pages and when I do I will upload the material I have
on Hermes Trismegistus.
>
> See you later. You sure got my philosophical-social scientific
> investigative interest up with this Hermetic source. I just *fear* that
> it will be somewhat of a letdown, converging and reflecting too many
> Greco-Roman ideas, beliefs, and interpretations. The Hermetic passage I
> asked you about really sounds Platonic...I wonder (if, in fact, it
> is)????
>
> Your Humble Servant,
>
> Frank
>
Platonic?? Well, here is something from "The Republic:
"Then, I said, we must put a question to Homer; not about medicine,or any
of the arts to which his poems only incidentally refer: we are not going to
ask him, or any other poet, whether he has cured patients like Asclepius,"
Does that mean Plato received inspiration from the same material?
I dont know, but it seems the fires to control evil were the pyres of evil.
Going through some of the Platonic literature I again reallize I need to
know the language.
Can someone tell me the meaning of the name "Asclepius"?
Until next time
Frank T. De Angelis
Rasmus:
The Correspondence which follows is from your last post.
As I look at the Gnostic Gospels in the Nag Hammadi Library, I find more
and more tidbits which lead me to believe -- granted, prematurely and
unprofessionally -- that the Hermes doctrines you refer to, as ancient
and as Egyptian as they are claimed to be, are really from the
Socratic-Platonic ages of Greece.
Briefly, (1) the well known moral philosophy of Socrates is that which
claims that moral failure is attributed to ignorance, not to a flaw in
character. So, bad actions are not caused by evil intentions, but by a
lack of knowledge. (2) If the actual Hermetic writings do not predate
the Socratic age of the 5th c. BCE, then, chances are, they are really
influenced by Socrates -- judging from the same moral ideology expressed
in the original quote I read from the earlier post way back -- and not
the ancients (e.g., the Egyptians). (3) Look at page 318 of the third
ed. of the Nag Hammadi Library, where the Coptic redacter and Plato,
neo-Platonists, and Manichaean influences are propossed within the
context of the *gnostic setting.*
See what I mean; what I am getting at? The supposed *words of Hermes*
(esp. re: this Socratic moral element to the Hermetic quote referred to)
may really be a Socratic-Platonic influence in the supposed wording of
Hermes, the Greek messenger astraldeity.
Ah! Aha! I now see the Hermetic tracts in the Nag Hammadi Library
(beginning on p. 330 of the third ed.), revealing the Coptic rendering
of originally Greco-Roman material, e.g., labelled THE PERFECT TEACHING.
I am pretty sure I was correct in my initial beliefs here. Anyway,
Asclepius is a character with Hermes in the dialogues, and is a Latin
name. I believe that this Hermes is a composite of Egyptian, Greek
(Socratic-Platonic, esp. re: morality and knowledge/ignorance, extending
to all of the Gnostic gospels, too), Persian Zoroastrian-Manichaean, and
possibly other influences converging here, in the Coptic Nag Hammadi
Library. I am almost certain of it.
The interesting way in which I worked Hermes into my book (*...and The
Mystery of Lucifer*) came from the concepts and images of the goat,
god's messenger, ram, etc. of Hermes in building up a Greco-Roman
Christian composite for Jerome's *invention* and fallacious insertion of
*Lucifer* into the O.T. Bible, which was never in the original Hebrew
nor the Greek Septuagint.
Have a nice weekend!
Frank http://home.fda.net/~spartacus
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Rasmus Gjesdal wrote:
>
> Frank T. De Angelis <spar...@fda.net> skrev i artikkelen
> <356418...@fda.net>...
> > Rasmus Gjesdal wrote:
> > >
> > > Frank T. De Angelis <spar...@fda.net> skrev i artikkelen
> > > <356304...@fda.net>...
> > > > Rasmus Gjesdal wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Frank T. De Angelis <spar...@fda.net> skrev i artikkelen
> > > > > <356183...@fda.net>...
> > > > > > Rasmus Gjesdal wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > There is undoubtedly a Persian-Zoroastrian-Manichean-Gnostic-Greek
connection, I would like to know what the material behind it all was,
did these ancients see the physical shapes as representations of the
spiritual and if that was the case how far back does this attitude go?
> > >
<snip me>... why I am very concerned about the trail of sources. For
example: what we know about the Egyptians and Phoenicians from Herodotus
and other third hand Greek sources; what we know about the Egyptian
pantheon from the Roman, e.g., Apulieus' Golden Ass/Metamorphosis on
Osiris and Isis; etc. That is why I was wondering about your Hermes
Trismegistus source (Roman-Latin ?).
> >
> The Hermes Trismegistus copy which I have varies from the material
> supposedly by Hermes which I have found on the net.
> It seems to have less Roman and more Greek overtones so I would venture to guess it predates the Roman influence somewhat.
>
> By the way, have you read the material on Trismegistus found at
> Nag-Hammadi?
<snip>
> on Hermes Trismegistus.
> >
> > See you later. You sure got my philosophical-social scientific
> > investigative interest up with this Hermetic source. I just *fear* that it will be somewhat of a letdown, converging and reflecting too many Greco-Roman ideas, beliefs, and interpretations. The Hermetic passage I asked you about really sounds Platonic...I wonder (if, in fact, it is)????
> >
Frank T. De Angelis
Frank A.S.:
The Frank Apology:
I am sorry if I was so critical, emotional, and seemingly Ruth-less
towards Paul. I never mentioned that many -- if not most -- philosophers
have treated Paul with the same criticism, satire, and
sarcasm...revealing the scoundrel that he was (and still is, from the
history of his wretched influence - on Tertullian, Origen, Benedict,
Jerome, and all of the other sexist patriarchs of yesterday and today),
such as Bertrand Russell, John Stuart Mill, Friedrich Nietzsche, etc.
.. but I could have. I didn't, not because it alone would have been
nothing more than a fallacy of appealing to authority and tradition, but
because it revealed a loathsome character.
I further apologize, in the true Socratic tradition, that I zeroed in on
some peripheral and truly minor points; okay. I further apologize that I
left that safe and prophalactically clean and fastidiously fresh
environment of professionalism to engage in an emotive and vicious
attack in the same way that any *ordinary person on the street* would,
tearing my identity away from the Sartrian categories of bad faith, such
as...*a professor,* *an author,* *a distinguished man of letters,* etc.
(just like that pathetic waiter in Sartre's restaurant, being cute and
professional -- with that quick gait and manner of doing things that
will guarantee and justify his rather large tip -- in compensation for
losing his-self in choosing to become that frozen and stiff Being, The
Waiter in a fine continental cafe.)
As an Hegelian dialectical thinker, however, I must tell the truth (not
a truth or truths), but the whole truth. Even though I see Paul in a
similar yet worse way as Plato was to Socrates, he had some obvious
points of merit. His real foundation of unconditioned love was extended
from and in the true spirit of Jesus. He did help go beyond the
limitations of a religion for a *Chosen People,* even though - in
reality, that category was just widened, albeit generously, for a great
number of peoples. His emphasis of no need for circumcission was,
according to my dear friend, associate, and research assistant - re: my
book, *Mr. Bill* [the emminent theortical and (former) nuclear physicist
and mathematician - now *in hiding -in Thailand,* Dr. William
Strickfaden, who is referred to 8 times in my book], one of the greatest
assets to Christianity, signaling and symbolizing a truly new and open
religion and god for all (although I still disagree with him, for the
most part).
What I learned most, however, from the Marxian twist (or *turning on his
feet*) to/of Hegel, is this: UNDERSTANDING HISTORY DOES NOT JUSTIFY IT.
Although an understanding of the historical conditions is a
philosophical prerequisite for a dialectical thinker, it is not the same
as condoning it or patronizing it and the churches or their believers in
an apologetic and justificatory manner. Paul was very clear as to
hisun-Jesus-like behavior and proclamations. He was a sexist, he did
hate women, he was the first major apologist for the Christian *Divine
Right of Kings* ideology, and his position, directly (stated) and
indirectly reflect-s/ed the position of *the end justifies the means.*
The bottom line is, we (ought to) judge people by their deeds, not words
(the real statement of Machiavelli, usually mistranslated in and by the
most bourgeois reigimes). Actions, not words are what Paul's greatest
achievements may have been, tipping the scales towards him. So, in the
final analysis, an assessment of Paul would be -- at best -- a mixed bag
of goodies (definitely oldies, but not necessarily goodies). I will not
condemn him for what the early Church should righfully by condemned
for...as Socrates was condemned for what his students did in overturning
the little of the democratic state that Athens had, in favor of an
aristocracy (or oligarchy).
I am truly sorry, for both my indiscretions (and secretions) and those
of the people I have justly assesssed and accused. I apologize.
Frank T. De Angelis (alias, Spartacus)
Adjunct Professor/ Author of Philosophy, Religion, and Humanities
http://home.fda.net/~spartacus
Joe Jefferson
Frank T. De Angelis wrote:
>
> Frank Schierenberg wrote:
> >
> > >P.S. As critical as I am of most of what Paul said and did, I must
> > >confess that the real meaning of his and Nietzsche's quote is food for
> > >thought; it is difficult to choose, even if (though) you didn't mean for
> > >it to be.
> >
> > I can't imagine what exactly you object about Paul's sayings. Sure, it was he who systematized
> > and defined Christianity, but I always thought he did a great job of it. Christianity DID need
> > structure, after all. What ARE your objections?
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Don't get me started. Let me count the ways. (Go ahead and post this if
> you like...and I'll give you a lengthy *Host* of passages from the
> Bible, in English and the original Greek that will make any human's head
> spin!).
>
> My preamble/prefatory remarks: I think Paul was a sneaky little bastard
> who hated women and, at times, everyone. He was extremely sexist (truly
> deserving the philosophical community's scorn and criticism as an
> anti-intellectual/philosophical sexist pig) and racist (an ethnicist) -
> who admonished with the hateful vengeance of a twofaced, contradictive
> scoundrel and the thief which he admitted being. He hated sex, women,
> philosophy, and Corinthian peoples in general. He was a dictator who
> violently cursed people.
I disagree. He was none of those things.
> He preached submission to ruling tyrants,
> associatung their power with (as coming from) God. He preached
> abstinence, against sex, and placed women so low on the
> Aristotelian-Thomist Catholic Medieval scale of *hierarchy of beings*
> that I can't begin to tell you about. He preached for women to blindly
> and universally obey their husbands, slaves their masters, and alll
> people their political rulers.
And your reason for thinking he was wrong is?
> On a scale for humanity from 1 to 10 I
> would rate paul 0 as a human being. (There are two or three passages I
> like from him, however, including the famous discourse on universal love
> - agape (usually mistranslated, esp. by the Catholic Church as
> *charit*). In todays' vernacular, I believe he would be referred to as
> a male chauvinist pig and a Nazi asshole.
>
> A BRIEF AND INCOMPLETE SKETCHNOTE SYNOPSIS OF THE OBJECTIONABLE PAUL
> (ST. ???):
>
> A DEFENSE OF THE EXISTING TYRANICAL POLITICAL ORDER AND SLAVERY; THE
> *DIVINE RIGHT OF KINGS* IDEOLOGY:
>
> Rom. 1, 13:1-7: Paul gives us the very first Christian *DIVINE RIGHT OF
> KINGS* ideology; he tells us to obey all political leaders because all
> authority and power comes directly from God, and that the former is
> appointed by God *to inflict God's punishment...*
IOW, the command to obey follows logically from the statement that the
rulers were appointed by God. Seems pretty reasonable to me. Unless of
course you have had a different revelation? Are you saying that they
*weren't* appointed by God? How do you know?
> Eph 1, 6: *SLAVES, OBEY YOUR HUMAN MASTERS*
>
> Tit. 2:9: *Slaves should be told it is their duty to obey their masters
> and to give them satisfactory service in every way. They are not to
> answer back or to be light-fingered...*
Seems like pretty good advice to give a slave. Much better than: "Rise
up in rebellion against your master and be executed."
> Thes 2, 3: *IF A MAN SHALL NOT WORK HE SHALL NOT EAT* (Hardly humane
> and Jesus-like).
Look at it in context. This is a command to church members not to be
lazy and expect other Christians to support them. Note also that it says
*shall* not work, not *can* not work.
> A HATER OR SEX AND WOMEN IN GENERAL:
>
> Cor 1, 6-7: Here Paul talks against men having sex or any physical
> contact at all with women. Sex is considered so bad, that it should only
> occur if temptation overcomes a male...then he should marry, for *it is
> better to marry then burn in hell.*
You'd better go back and read that passage again. It doesn't say what
you think it says.
> Cor 1, 11: Here Paul clearly considers women to be inferior to man; she
> ought to cover and bow her head in shame, to give homage to man, while
> man gives homage to God,but he shouldn't cover his head because he
> directly *represents the person and glory of God.* The female always
> represents her debt to male authority.
Nothing at all about bowing her head, or that covering her head is out
of shame. If you're going to object to a passage, object to what it
says, not what it doesn't say.
> (AGAIN) , *SLAVES, OBEY YOUR MASTERS; WIVES, OBEY YOUR HUSBANDS.*
> Eph 5:22- *You wives must learn to adapt yourselves to your husbands, as
> you submit...for the husband is the head of the wife in the same way
> that Christ is the head of the Church. The willing subjection..be
> reproduced in the subjection of wives to their husbands...*
>
> Cor 1, 14:34: Along with the former rituals of female inferiority, Paul
> adds here that WOMEN should not speak in church, and if they have any
> questions they should wait until they get home and ask their husbands.
>
> Tim 1, 2:8-3: He gets worse, and says that wpmen should be plain, quiet,
> learn quietly and humbly, and that he personally doesn't allow them to
> teach or hold any position of authority - and esp. over men. His claims
> that his reason for it goes back to man being created first and that it
> was *Eve and not Adam who was first deceived and fell into sin.* (What a
> prick this guy is!)
You obviously have very strong feelings about this subject. Why do you
think that is? Were you the victim of some sort of abuse? You do
understand, I hope, that your feelings don't make Paul wrong.
> Thes 1, 2:17-: I don't know if this should be in this or the next -- or
> both -- section/s, but Paul gives some very bad advice, from both a
> psychological and truthful position, by stating that absence makes the
> heart grow fonder.
Your statement here is simply incorrect. Paul gives no advice whatsoever
in this verse. It reads: "But, brothers, when we were torn away from you
for a short time (in person, not in thought), out of our intense longing
we made every effort to see you." (NIV) Were you perhaps thinking of
some other verse?
> CHARACTER FLAWS: the unethical and immoral
>
> Cor. 2, 11:8: Paul admits to lying, cheating, and stealing... all in the
> name of *the end justifies the means.* he says he literally stole
> (wages) from other churches (I robbed *esulesa*)
This is so blatant a distortion of what the passage is saying as to
appear to be deliberate deception.
> Cor. 1 5-6: Here we have Paul preaching against even *associating* with
> anyone he considered to be immoral - and to not eat with them, and
> admonishing them to not go to law in pagan courts. Hmm. Jesus welcomed
> -- and ate with -- prostitutes, let them bath him in perfume and he
> washed their feet, etc.
Same comment as above.
> Tit 1, 10:1-2: Paul agrees that *Men of Crete are always liars, evil and
> beastly, lazy and greedy.*
The correct reference is Tit. 1:10. Yes, Paul said this. Where is your
evidence that his statement wasn't correct?
> *NOTHING GOOD CAN (has) EVER COME OUT OF CORINTH*
I can't find this statement anywhere. What is the reference?
> At the conlcusion of Cor 1, Paul uses a rare and somewhat hitherto
> unfamiliar Greek (Greconized Aramaic ?) term, ANATHEMA. It is an awful
> and hateful CURSE, whose etymological meaning includes
> anesthetize-vaporize, hang, crucify, etc. [Cf. the Langenscheidt
> Classical (Biblical) Greek-English Dictionary.]
The verse is 1 Cor. 16:22. It reads, "If anyone does not love the Lord -
a curse be on him. Come, O Lord!" (NIV) which seems to imply that the
curse comes from God, not Paul.
> ...and all this from a reformed tax collector.
Nope. Paul was never a tax collector.
> AGAINST REASON, PHILOSOPHICAL ARGUMENTS, CRITICAL THINKING, FREEDOM OF
> SPEECH AND THOUGHT, ETC.
>
> COLO 2:4-11: Paul warns of intellectuals, emphasizing faith vs.
> arguments, limits freedom of expression, adding that *God gives a full
> and complete expression of himself.*
As above, this is so blatant a distortion of what the passage is really
saying as to make it appear you are deliberately trying to be deceptive.
> Tim 1, 6: talks against the *jumble of disputation and argument...*
Well, in 1 Tim 6:4-5 he does warn against people with an "...unhealthy
interest in controversies and arguments that result in envy, quarreling,
malicious talk, evil suspicions and constant friction..." (NIV) IOW,
people who just want to argue. I recommend staying away from them too.
> Tit, 3:1-11: admonishing to *steer clear of stupid arguments...
> controversies...quarrels... a man with argumention...
Sounds like pretty good advice to me.
> Although I am a philosopher who always insists upon the context of the
> particular situation, I must say that the churches and their apologists
> always brainwash their flock of following sheep into believing that,
> because some of these letters were directed at Corinth, a very
> promiscuous society - and towards other Christians, members of this
> particular church, it makes it okay. Let me tell you, there is
> absolutely nothing but justificatory and apologetic *damage control,*
> here.
>
> I'm sorry, but only ignorant, stubborn, and/or evil people could
> possibly agree with and follow such a poor excuse for a human being.
>
> Prof./Author F.T. De Angelis SPARTACUS http://home.fda.net/~spartacus
Looking through your post I can find nothing but prejudice, cultural
imperialism, and several instances of what appears to be either
dishonesty or a complete inability to understand what the text says. You
have managed to demonstrate that Paul's values were different from those
of America and Western Europe in the 20th century. This is hardly
surprising. But different does not mean wrong: it just means different.
Paul's values came, he believed, from God. If that belief was correct
then your objections are meaningless: He was right and you are wrong. If
that belief was not correct then everything Paul wrote can be dismissed
out of hand as the ravings of a lunatic. It is not a question of
morality, but a question of fact. Did he or did he not speak for God?
This question, however, you did not even attempt to address.
--
Joe of Castle Jefferson
http://www.primenet.com/~jjstrshp/
Site updated May 8th, 1998.
"Defend the cause of the weak and fatherless; maintain the rights of the
poor and oppressed. Rescue the weak and needy; deliver them from the
hand of the wicked." - Psalm 82:3-4.
Gwen Saylor
Frank, Joe, and All --
>Joe Jefferson <jjst...@primenet.com> wrote:
>Paul's values came, he believed, from God. If that belief was correct
>then your objections are meaningless: He was right and you are wrong. If
>that belief was not correct then everything Paul wrote can be dismissed
>out of hand as the ravings of a lunatic. It is not a question of
>morality, but a question of fact. Did he or did he not speak for God?
>This question, however, you did not even attempt to address.
Oh, Frank, what bog of mud and nails have you stepped into now? <g>
First, let -me- apologize for not having posted quicker! I intended
to re-establish a comradic rapport with you by thoroughly agreeing
with and applauding your fine diatribe of Paul the Pretender. Now I
find that you've written as magnificent and sarcastic an apology as
ever was (ala Dennis Miller - sounds just like him <g> - a compliment,
since to me he's utmost - and not to putdown Plato certainly). And so
one would think no more could be said about Paul after such truthful
scribblings have been writ... and then come the detractors, the
denigrators, those who do not follow Jesus but who do, indeed, gallop
after Paul, a man who never knew Jesus, a man who throughout the
millenia has misled millions. And that brings me to the only key
portion of evidence against Paul that you did not broach. Paul was a
pretend apostle, a wannabe. There is no doubt in my mind that he
suffered from hallucinations *and* delusions of grandeur. He needed
one of those T-shirts they sell these days that says, "I do whatever
the voices tell me to do." In case anyone else isn't quite following,
let me elucidate:
The NT term, the word "apostle" (Grk. "apostolos," messenger,
someone sent), is taken from what the Jewish rabbis called "shaliach"
(plural "sheluchin"), meaning "a representative with the full powers
of the one who delegated him. By ancient Semitic fundamental law, it
was a rule that a man's 'shaliach' was as the man himself" (_The
Encyclopedia of the Bible, originally edited by P.A. Marijnen) That's
why the twelve apostles of Jesus had the power to "bind and loose"
(Matt. 18:18) what would thereby be bound and loosed by "God."
Jesus had that ability, you see, so his apostles did likewise. Thus,
in the usage of that time period whence lived Jesus and then also
Paul, an "apostle" was *not* ---of "God"-- but was, rather, --of a
man--. It was characteristic of the twelve (and others considered
apostles) that they knew Jesus during his lifetime on Earth. It is
prerequisite that any apostle of Jesus: 1) has seen "the risen Lord,"
and 2) has received his mission directly from Jesus.
The question, therefore, is *not* whether Paul's "values" (a misnomer
IMO) came from "God" or whether he spoke for "God." In order for
Paul to speak *for* "God" and actually be listened to in that time
period, he had to be an apostle of Jesus. The problem was that Paul
hadn't known Jesus personally; he never met the man. Not only that,
Paul wasn't around when Jesus died; he didn't see the risen Jesus
during the several sightings following Jesus' death. And Paul never
spoke face to face with Jesus; he never knew him, and wasn't around
when he died. Thus the question is: By what authority did Paul call
himself an "apostle?" Paul neatly handled this dilemna by either
faking a vision or having a hallucination (Acts 22), wherein the risen
Jesus supposedly appeared to him while he was traveling near
Damascus (many *years* after the fact of Jesus' death), and gave him
a mission.
In the present time there are many, many people languishing in mental
hospitals for no more cause than that they believe they have seen
Jesus and that he has given them a mission. Paul was at least as nuts
as they are. It doesn't matter whether Paul believed his "values"
came from "God," or whether he felt he spoke for "God." In a
discussion where evidence is important to the dialogue faith holds no
importance. Paul was a raving lunatic with an agenda; his was an
obsession with a cause we non-Xtians see as a disease that has
overstayed its welcome. This man never knew Jesus and yet he took
it upon himself to speak for him; he even had the gall to call himself
an apostle, one who carried the power of Jesus, the power of "God."
He was a charlatan, a liar, a madman of the sort who knows he is a
madman, obsessed beyond compare, fanatic. If Paul had actually
been an apostle of Jesus, he never could have been taken prisoner
-let alone put to death (as is claimed by some scholars)- without his
own permission and allowance of those events. Paul obviously did not
have the power of Jesus, because he was no apostle of Jesus. The
religion its followers call "Christianity" is based on the insane
ravings of this wicked fiend, this Paul the Pretender.
Stey-yu.
Hen to Pan,
Gwen
--------------------------------------------------------------
And when one hears the cry of his heart and the call of his
spirit, we say that such a one is possessed of a madness,
and we cleanse ourselves of him.
Kahlil Gibran, _A Tear and a Smile_
--------------------------------------------------------------
Al Klein
On 24 May 1998 05:43:01 -0700, Joe Jefferson <jjst...@primenet.com>
wrote:
>Frank T. De Angelis wrote:
>> He preached submission to ruling tyrants,
>> associatung their power with (as coming from) God. He preached
>> abstinence, against sex, and placed women so low on the
>> Aristotelian-Thomist Catholic Medieval scale of *hierarchy of beings*
>> that I can't begin to tell you about. He preached for women to blindly
>> and universally obey their husbands, slaves their masters, and alll
>> people their political rulers.
>And your reason for thinking he was wrong is?
1) Slavery is wrong.
2) Slavery is wrong.
3) Tyranny is wrong.
>> Rom. 1, 13:1-7: Paul gives us the very first Christian *DIVINE RIGHT OF
>> KINGS* ideology; he tells us to obey all political leaders because all
>> authority and power comes directly from God, and that the former is
>> appointed by God *to inflict God's punishment...*
>IOW, the command to obey follows logically from the statement that the
>rulers were appointed by God. Seems pretty reasonable to me.
It seems reasonable to you to knuckle under to a tyrant?
>> Eph 1, 6: *SLAVES, OBEY YOUR HUMAN MASTERS*
>> Tit. 2:9: *Slaves should be told it is their duty to obey their masters
>> and to give them satisfactory service in every way. They are not to
>> answer back or to be light-fingered...*
>Seems like pretty good advice to give a slave. Much better than: "Rise
>up in rebellion against your master and be executed."
How about "Masters, free your slaves"? Oh, you never thought of that.
>> Thes 2, 3: *IF A MAN SHALL NOT WORK HE SHALL NOT EAT* (Hardly humane
>> and Jesus-like).
>Look at it in context. This is a command to church members not to be
>lazy and expect other Christians to support them. Note also that it says
>*shall* not work, not *can* not work.
That's exactly what Marx said. So Paul was a communist.
>> (AGAIN) , *SLAVES, OBEY YOUR MASTERS; WIVES, OBEY YOUR HUSBANDS.*
>You obviously have very strong feelings about this subject. Why do you
>think that is? Were you the victim of some sort of abuse? You do
>understand, I hope, that your feelings don't make Paul wrong.
Paul's words make Paul a misogynist.
>> Tit 1, 10:1-2: Paul agrees that *Men of Crete are always liars, evil and
>> beastly, lazy and greedy.*
>The correct reference is Tit. 1:10. Yes, Paul said this. Where is your
>evidence that his statement wasn't correct?
Equate this with Jesus' message of love. Correct or not, it was
unChristian.
>Looking through your post I can find nothing but prejudice, cultural
>imperialism, and several instances of what appears to be either
>dishonesty or a complete inability to understand what the text says. You
>have managed to demonstrate that Paul's values were different from those
>of America and Western Europe in the 20th century. This is hardly
>surprising. But different does not mean wrong: it just means different.
Then you approve of slavery? Or is it your god who approves of it?
Or did he change his mind?
--
Al - aklein at villagenet dot com
RaElHypnos
> Furthermore having knowledge is no guarantee of moral fiber, for
>knowledge
>can be a tool of Satanic subversion.
Superstitious Stupid Shit.
Surely knowledge can be misused, but brutal, animal violence and other forms of
simplistic evil are it's roots, not the flaw is not in knowledge itself.
Wisdom can only be built off a foundation of knowledge. There is certainly
such a think as empty knowledge, but a love of knowledge leads inexorably to
Wisdom, just as surely as repeated gambling eventually always pays off on the
side of the House.
Satan was the resister of Man, not of God, in the bible ... an angel with a
proper place and in good standing in heaven ... Satan as a god of evil evolved
out of Zoroastrian syncretism. I cannot respect a so-called Christian who
knows so little of the spirits of his/her own religious pantheon. Re-read Job.
Begone!
Joe Jefferson
> >> He preached submission to ruling tyrants,
> >> associatung their power with (as coming from) God. He preached
> >> abstinence, against sex, and placed women so low on the
> >> Aristotelian-Thomist Catholic Medieval scale of *hierarchy of beings*
> >> that I can't begin to tell you about. He preached for women to blindly
> >> and universally obey their husbands, slaves their masters, and alll
> >> people their political rulers.
>
> >And your reason for thinking he was wrong is?
>
How do you know? By what authority do you set moral guidelines for
others?
> 2) Slavery is wrong.
How do you know? By what authority do you set moral guidelines for
others?
> 3) Tyranny is wrong.
No one said it isn't. But I still want to know by what authority you set
moral guidelines for others.
> >> Rom. 1, 13:1-7: Paul gives us the very first Christian *DIVINE RIGHT OF
> >> KINGS* ideology; he tells us to obey all political leaders because all
> >> authority and power comes directly from God, and that the former is
> >> appointed by God *to inflict God's punishment...*
>
> >IOW, the command to obey follows logically from the statement that the
> >rulers were appointed by God. Seems pretty reasonable to me.
>
> It seems reasonable to you to knuckle under to a tyrant?
It seems reasonable to me that if a king was established by God the
people should obey that king.
> >> Eph 1, 6: *SLAVES, OBEY YOUR HUMAN MASTERS*
>
> >> Tit. 2:9: *Slaves should be told it is their duty to obey their masters
> >> and to give them satisfactory service in every way. They are not to
> >> answer back or to be light-fingered...*
>
> >Seems like pretty good advice to give a slave. Much better than: "Rise
> >up in rebellion against your master and be executed."
>
> How about "Masters, free your slaves"? Oh, you never thought of that.
No intelligent person would think of that WHEN ADDRESSING THE SLAVES. It
would be pointless.
> >> Thes 2, 3: *IF A MAN SHALL NOT WORK HE SHALL NOT EAT* (Hardly humane
> >> and Jesus-like).
>
> >Look at it in context. This is a command to church members not to be
> >lazy and expect other Christians to support them. Note also that it says
> >*shall* not work, not *can* not work.
>
> That's exactly what Marx said. So Paul was a communist.
No, Marx was borrowing from Christianity.
> >> (AGAIN) , *SLAVES, OBEY YOUR MASTERS; WIVES, OBEY YOUR HUSBANDS.*
>
> >You obviously have very strong feelings about this subject. Why do you
> >think that is? Were you the victim of some sort of abuse? You do
> >understand, I hope, that your feelings don't make Paul wrong.
>
> Paul's words make Paul a misogynist.
No they don't.
> >> Tit 1, 10:1-2: Paul agrees that *Men of Crete are always liars, evil and
> >> beastly, lazy and greedy.*
>
> >The correct reference is Tit. 1:10. Yes, Paul said this. Where is your
> >evidence that his statement wasn't correct?
>
> Equate this with Jesus' message of love. Correct or not, it was
> unChristian.
Truth is truth. Jesus never equated love with covering up the truth. He
himself called the people around him "A wicked and adulterous
generation." (Matt. 12:39 - NIV)
> >Looking through your post I can find nothing but prejudice, cultural
> >imperialism, and several instances of what appears to be either
> >dishonesty or a complete inability to understand what the text says. You
> >have managed to demonstrate that Paul's values were different from those
> >of America and Western Europe in the 20th century. This is hardly
> >surprising. But different does not mean wrong: it just means different.
>
> Then you approve of slavery? Or is it your god who approves of it?
> Or did he change his mind?
> --
> Al - aklein at villagenet dot com
What I do or do not approve of isn't relevant. I would remind you also
that it is quite possible for someone to disapprove of slavery but not
believe it is the right time or place to try and abolish it. It is even
possible that Paul felt that way. And I ask again since you seem to be
making 20th century western morals the standard for all humanity: what
is your authority to say what is or isn't right for others? Are you the
one who gets to decide? Or are you perhaps claiming to have had a
revelation from someone greater than yourself? I'm not saying that
slavery isn't wrong. I'm simply asking *how* you came to the conclusion
that it is.
Lloyd Zusman
Joe Jefferson <jjst...@primenet.com> writes:
> Al Klein wrote:
> >
> > On 24 May 1998 05:43:01 -0700, Joe Jefferson <jjst...@primenet.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >Frank T. De Angelis wrote:
> > >> He preached submission to ruling tyrants,
> > >> associatung their power with (as coming from) God. He preached
> > >> abstinence, against sex, and placed women so low on the
> > >> Aristotelian-Thomist Catholic Medieval scale of *hierarchy of beings*
> > >> that I can't begin to tell you about. He preached for women to blindly
> > >> and universally obey their husbands, slaves their masters, and alll
> > >> people their political rulers.
> >
> > >And your reason for thinking he was wrong is?
> >
> > 1) Slavery is wrong.
>
> How do you know? By what authority do you set moral guidelines for
> others?
I presume that you look to the Bible as the ultimate authority for
setting moral guidelines. If so, where in the Bible does it say that
human slavery is wrong? If there is nothing in the Bible that
condemns human slavery, and if there are words in the Bible which
support this institution, then do you therefore believe that human
slavery is right?
If not, on what authority do *you* condemn human slavery?
> [ ... ]
>
> > >> Eph 1, 6: *SLAVES, OBEY YOUR HUMAN MASTERS*
> >
> > >> Tit. 2:9: *Slaves should be told it is their duty to obey their masters
> > >> and to give them satisfactory service in every way. They are not to
> > >> answer back or to be light-fingered...*
> >
> > >Seems like pretty good advice to give a slave. Much better than: "Rise
> > >up in rebellion against your master and be executed."
> >
> > How about "Masters, free your slaves"? Oh, you never thought of that.
>
> No intelligent person would think of that WHEN ADDRESSING THE SLAVES. It
> would be pointless.
Of course, an intelligent believer in God who is addressing slaves
could easily say something like this: "God wants all people to live in
joy and freedom. God is your only master ... no human can claim that
authority. Therefore, walk away from those sinful people who
arrogantly presume to be masters, and come into God's house. Throw
off your chains. We of Christ will support you, even to our own
deaths, against these sinful, arrogant, false 'masters'. Come with
us. You are all free."
Paul did not say anything like this, but rather, he said things to his
followers like, "Exhort servants to be obedient unto their own
masters, and to please them well in all things; not answering again;"
(Titus 2:9, as mentioned above).
Clearly, Paul is taking a stand in favor of the Roman status quo
concerning human slavery.
> > >> Thes 2, 3: *IF A MAN SHALL NOT WORK HE SHALL NOT EAT* (Hardly humane
> > >> and Jesus-like).
> >
> > >Look at it in context. This is a command to church members not to be
> > >lazy and expect other Christians to support them. Note also that it says
> > >*shall* not work, not *can* not work.
> >
> > That's exactly what Marx said. So Paul was a communist.
>
> No, Marx was borrowing from Christianity.
So, is Marxism, which is often criticized as being an "atheist"
doctrine, actually based on sound, Christian principles?
> [ ... ]
> >
> > >Looking through your post I can find nothing but prejudice, cultural
> > >imperialism, and several instances of what appears to be either
> > >dishonesty or a complete inability to understand what the text says. You
> > >have managed to demonstrate that Paul's values were different from those
> > >of America and Western Europe in the 20th century. This is hardly
> > >surprising. But different does not mean wrong: it just means different.
> >
> > Then you approve of slavery? Or is it your god who approves of it?
> > Or did he change his mind?
> > --
> > Al - aklein at villagenet dot com
>
> What I do or do not approve of isn't relevant. I would remind you also
> that it is quite possible for someone to disapprove of slavery but not
> believe it is the right time or place to try and abolish it. It is even
> possible that Paul felt that way. And I ask again since you seem to be
> making 20th century western morals the standard for all humanity: what
> is your authority to say what is or isn't right for others?
So, are you saying that we should apply the concept of cultural
relativism to what is said in the Bible? ... that Paul's words about
slavery to Romans some 1950-or-so years ago should not be taken as
absolute truth in modern culture?
If so, then what about Paul's words about fornication and sexual
immorality? Shouldn't we then look at these words in a cultural
context, as well? Perhaps first-century Rome was not the right time
or place to condone certain sexual practices, but now in 20th century
western culture, the rules are different and these activities between
consenting adults are blessed sacraments.
My point is this: either what's written in the Bible is absolute truth
that is immutable over time and cultures, or it isn't. If it's
immutable, then it's clear that human slavery was condoned in the past
and hence is still condoned today. If it's not immutable, then we are
free re-interpret the Bible in light of today's values.
Which is it?
> [ ... ] Are you the
> one who gets to decide? Or are you perhaps claiming to have had a
> revelation from someone greater than yourself? I'm not saying that
> slavery isn't wrong. I'm simply asking *how* you came to the conclusion
> that it is.
--
Lloyd Zusman
l...@asfast.com
Asethotep
>How do you know? By what authority do you set moral guidelines for<BR>
>others?<BR>
<BR>
Since men wrote the bible, it's obvious that humans have it within their own
power the decide what is right and wrong.<BR>
<BR>
>It seems reasonable to me that if a king was established by God the<BR>
>people should obey that king.<BR>
><BR>
If any man or woman today plopped a crown a on his/her head and claimed to be
king/queen by divine right, he/she would be locked away not bowed to.<BR>
<BR>
>No intelligent person would think of that WHEN ADDRESSING THE SLAVES. It<BR>
>would be pointless.<BR>
><BR>
Why not? It would rally the slaves' favor if they believed that they had
"Jesus" on their side.<BR>
<BR>
>> Paul's words make Paul a misogynist.<BR>
><BR>
>No they don't.<BR>
><BR>
What planet are you on?? Any book that tells women that they are to bow to men
is misogynist. Do you have the audacity to say that it is by divine right that
women have been placed as second class citizens for the last 2000 years?<BR>
<BR>
Asethotep
http://members.aol.com/asethotep/index.html
"I who am the Mother of the universe, the Mistress of all the elements, the
first offspring of time, the highest of the deities, the Queen of the dead,
foremost of heavenly beings, the single form that fuses all the gods and
goddesses..." -Isis Herself
Asethotep
>My point is this: either what's written in the Bible is absolute truth<BR>
>that is immutable over time and cultures, or it isn't. If it's<BR>
>immutable, then it's clear that human slavery was condoned in the past<BR>
>and hence is still condoned today. If it's not immutable, then we are<BR>
>free re-interpret the Bible in light of today's values.<BR>
><BR>
>Which is it?<BR>
>My point is this: either what's written in the Bible is absolute truth<BR>
>that is immutable over time and cultures, or it isn't. If it's<BR>
>immutable, then it's clear that human slavery was condoned in the past<BR>
>and hence is still condoned today. If it's not immutable, then we are<BR>
>free re-interpret the Bible in light of today's values.<BR>
><BR>
>Which is it?<BR>
<BR>
I say ditch the whole thing!!!
Rasmus Gjesdal
Hi Frank, Pardon the late reply, I have been working on comparing some
ancient texts. I need some more material on Zoroastrianism to go with what
I am looking at.
(Sent you snail mail regarding your book.)
Frank T. De Angelis <spar...@fda.net> skrev i artikkelen
<35657E...@fda.net>...
> Rasmus:
>
> The Correspondence which follows is from your last post.
>
> As I look at the Gnostic Gospels in the Nag Hammadi Library, I find more
> and more tidbits which lead me to believe -- granted, prematurely and
> unprofessionally -- that the Hermes doctrines you refer to, as ancient
> and as Egyptian as they are claimed to be, are really from the
> Socratic-Platonic ages of Greece.
>
There is some doubt, I am trying to understand what the generally accepted
theories were back about the time of Socrates/Plato and after.
Undoubtedly did the Platonic influence alter ancient history but I am not
sure how much it was altered.
There seems to be some evidence for earlyer similar philosophies.
I am not sure yet but the material by Plato may have been based on ancient
thought and his contribution may have been a better formulation of earlyer
concepts and not an entirely new way of looking at life.
> Briefly, (1) the well known moral philosophy of Socrates is that which
> claims that moral failure is attributed to ignorance, not to a flaw in
> character. So, bad actions are not caused by evil intentions, but by a
> lack of knowledge. (2) If the actual Hermetic writings do not predate
> the Socratic age of the 5th c. BCE, then, chances are, they are really
> influenced by Socrates -- judging from the same moral ideology expressed
> in the original quote I read from the earlier post way back -- and not
> the ancients (e.g., the Egyptians). (3) Look at page 318 of the third
> ed. of the Nag Hammadi Library, where the Coptic redacter and Plato,
> neo-Platonists, and Manichaean influences are propossed within the
> context of the *gnostic setting.*
>
I have two entirely different translations of Hermetic literature. The one
set appears
to be influenced by Roman/Greek thought. The other seems to be
Greek/Egyptian.
The Roman /Greek seems to lean more toward superstition and be a corruption
of earlyer writings. It would also seem that the Gnostic material suffered
the same fate, where christianity is a corruption of ancient Gnostic
material after it was
Romanized.
Bear with me, there is an avalanche in the offing!
I believe we ought to look for more ancient libraries and really study what
these people said, it is a crime to look at the ancient literature as if it
is in any way inferior to material such as what the christians present us
with.
Heathens may in reality be those who have falsified material and there is
no doubt in
my mind who they are.
> See what I mean; what I am getting at? The supposed *words of Hermes*
> (esp. re: this Socratic moral element to the Hermetic quote referred to)
> may really be a Socratic-Platonic influence in the supposed wording of
> Hermes, the Greek messenger astraldeity.
>
> Ah! Aha! I now see the Hermetic tracts in the Nag Hammadi Library
> (beginning on p. 330 of the third ed.), revealing the Coptic rendering
> of originally Greco-Roman material, e.g., labelled THE PERFECT TEACHING.
> I am pretty sure I was correct in my initial beliefs here. Anyway,
> Asclepius is a character with Hermes in the dialogues, and is a Latin
> name. I believe that this Hermes is a composite of Egyptian, Greek
> (Socratic-Platonic, esp. re: morality and knowledge/ignorance, extending
> to all of the Gnostic gospels, too),
Yes I think it is a collection of much ancient wisdom literature and it may
in fact be a product of Alexandria. Asclepius was the son of Apollo
according to Greek legend
called son also by Hermes Trismegistus. Asclepius was the God of Medicine
but it seems that in the Hermetic literature Hermes speaks to all who
understands as "son".
>Persian Zoroastrian-Manichaean, and
> possibly other influences converging here, in the Coptic Nag Hammadi
> Library. I am almost certain of it.
>
Yes, but more.
> The interesting way in which I worked Hermes into my book (*...and The
> Mystery of Lucifer*) came from the concepts and images of the goat,
> god's messenger, ram, etc. of Hermes in building up a Greco-Roman
> Christian composite for Jerome's *invention* and fallacious insertion of
> *Lucifer* into the O.T. Bible, which was never in the original Hebrew
> nor the Greek Septuagint.
>
No the Lucifer is a borrowing as are the angels which were nothing but
falling stars.
The ancient material has a lot of chaff mixed with pure pearls, the task is
one of
seperation!!
> Have a nice weekend!
> Frank
Thank you, I had a busy one.
Humbly
Al Klein
On 25 May 1998 00:16:00 -0700, Joe Jefferson <jjst...@primenet.com>
wrote:
>Al Klein wrote:
>>
>> On 24 May 1998 05:43:01 -0700, Joe Jefferson <jjst...@primenet.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Frank T. De Angelis wrote:
>> >> He preached submission to ruling tyrants,
>> >> associatung their power with (as coming from) God. He preached
>> >> abstinence, against sex, and placed women so low on the
>> >> Aristotelian-Thomist Catholic Medieval scale of *hierarchy of beings*
>> >> that I can't begin to tell you about. He preached for women to blindly
>> >> and universally obey their husbands, slaves their masters, and alll
>> >> people their political rulers.
>>
>> >And your reason for thinking he was wrong is?
>>
>> 1) Slavery is wrong.
>
>How do you know? By what authority do you set moral guidelines for
>others?
The rule of the Wiccan.
>
>> 2) Slavery is wrong.
>
>How do you know? By what authority do you set moral guidelines for
>others?
>
>> 3) Tyranny is wrong.
>
>No one said it isn't. But I still want to know by what authority you set
>moral guidelines for others.
See above.
>
>It seems reasonable to me that if a king was established by God the
>people should obey that king.
And if there is no god, and kings are just the toughest guy around?
>
>> How about "Masters, free your slaves"? Oh, you never thought of that.
>
>No intelligent person would think of that WHEN ADDRESSING THE SLAVES. It
>would be pointless.
God can address whomever he wants. Why is there no admonition to
slave OWNERS in the bible? Because the entire bible is aimed at
slaves?
>
>> >> Thes 2, 3: *IF A MAN SHALL NOT WORK HE SHALL NOT EAT* (Hardly humane
>> >> and Jesus-like).
>>
>> >Look at it in context. This is a command to church members not to be
>> >lazy and expect other Christians to support them. Note also that it says
>> >*shall* not work, not *can* not work.
>>
>> That's exactly what Marx said. So Paul was a communist.
>
>No, Marx was borrowing from Christianity.
Marx said so?
>
>> >> (AGAIN) , *SLAVES, OBEY YOUR MASTERS; WIVES, OBEY YOUR HUSBANDS.*
>>
>> >You obviously have very strong feelings about this subject. Why do you
>> >think that is? Were you the victim of some sort of abuse? You do
>> >understand, I hope, that your feelings don't make Paul wrong.
>>
>> Paul's words make Paul a misogynist.
>
>No they don't.
For a wife to be a slave to her husband is misogynistic.
>
>> >> Tit 1, 10:1-2: Paul agrees that *Men of Crete are always liars, evil and
>> >> beastly, lazy and greedy.*
>>
>> >The correct reference is Tit. 1:10. Yes, Paul said this. Where is your
>> >evidence that his statement wasn't correct?
>>
>> Equate this with Jesus' message of love. Correct or not, it was
>> unChristian.
>
>Truth is truth. Jesus never equated love with covering up the truth. He
>himself called the people around him "A wicked and adulterous
>generation." (Matt. 12:39 - NIV)
Around him. He knew them. (Assuming that anything in the NT is
really the words of someone who really existed.) He knew all the
Cretians too? How?
>
>> >Looking through your post I can find nothing but prejudice, cultural
>> >imperialism, and several instances of what appears to be either
>> >dishonesty or a complete inability to understand what the text says. You
>> >have managed to demonstrate that Paul's values were different from those
>> >of America and Western Europe in the 20th century. This is hardly
>> >surprising. But different does not mean wrong: it just means different.
>>
>> Then you approve of slavery? Or is it your god who approves of it?
>> Or did he change his mind?
>> --
>> Al - aklein at villagenet dot com
>
>What I do or do not approve of isn't relevant. I would remind you also
>that it is quite possible for someone to disapprove of slavery but not
>believe it is the right time or place to try and abolish it. It is even
>possible that Paul felt that way. And I ask again since you seem to be
>making 20th century western morals the standard for all humanity
You mean your god, who is "out of time" concerns himself with *when*
something happens? Slavery is right at some time, but wrong at
others? To someone who is not in any time? Can we talk sense, not
nonsense?
> what
>is your authority to say what is or isn't right for others? Are you the
>one who gets to decide? Or are you perhaps claiming to have had a
>revelation from someone greater than yourself? I'm not saying that
>slavery isn't wrong. I'm simply asking *how* you came to the conclusion
>that it is.
Already answered. I don't need a delusion in the sky to tell me what
is right and wrong.
Frank A.S.
Gwen Saylor wrote in message <6k9t1u$36g$1...@horn.wyoming.com>...
>Frank, Joe, and All --
>
>>Joe Jefferson <jjst...@primenet.com> wrote:
>>Paul's values came, he believed, from God. If that belief was correct
>>then your objections are meaningless: He was right and you are wrong. If
>>that belief was not correct then everything Paul wrote can be dismissed
>>out of hand as the ravings of a lunatic. It is not a question of
>>morality, but a question of fact. Did he or did he not speak for God?
>>This question, however, you did not even attempt to address.
>
>Oh, Frank, what bog of mud and nails have you stepped into now? <
Please note that there are two Franks involved in this discussion. The
Frank to whom you addressed your post is a noted Biblical scholar and
professor. Frank's apology was directed to this Frank, who is just, and only
interested in a critical appraisal of Paul's theology/philosophy:
1. Did He accurately reflect Christ's philosophy? Or was his intent to
deceive and subvert?
2. Did he forge a coherent and practical philosophy to base a church on?
3. Was his attempt successful and standing up to the test of time, compared
to other religions?
4. Is the resulting church in need of revision to meet the demands of our
times and counter encroachments by other religions such as Islam?
Your post dealt solely with the question whether Paul had the mandate from
God to do what he did. Unfortunately this is not a scholarly line of
investigation; it rests solely on personal opinion, as there is no definition
for "mandate from God".
I find the emotional reaction of otherwise cool minds at the mention of
Paul surprising to say the least. Were I to compose a similar emotional
appraisal of Nietzsche I would be an object of derision by the academic
community without doubt.
Why the emotionalism, bias and lack of objectivity? Who IS Paul that he
should unleash or even merit such passion? Perhaps I can't understand, because
I never was religiously indoctrinated in my youth, like so many in these NGs.
I sure hope somebody can explain it to me.
Frank
A friend to Jesus, Buddha, LaoTse and all who love
Chi Wen Tzu always thought three times before taking action.
Twice would have been quite enough.
- Confucius (B.C. 551-479)
Joe Jefferson
Asethotep wrote:
>
> >How do you know? By what authority do you set moral guidelines for<BR>
> >others?<BR>
> <BR>
> Since men wrote the bible, it's obvious that humans have it within their own
Which, since Paul was a human, makes his moral authority as great as
yours. How then can you say that *anything* that any human says or does
is immoral?
> >It seems reasonable to me that if a king was established by God the<BR>
> >people should obey that king.<BR>
> ><BR>
> If any man or woman today plopped a crown a on his/her head and claimed to be
> king/queen by divine right, he/she would be locked away not bowed to.<BR>
Which makes it neither more nor less likely that rulers are established
by God.
> >No intelligent person would think of that WHEN ADDRESSING THE SLAVES. It<BR>
> >would be pointless.<BR>
> ><BR>
> Why not? It would rally the slaves' favor if they believed that they had
> "Jesus" on their side.<BR>
It would also make them more likely to be involved in something that
would get them killed.
> >> Paul's words make Paul a misogynist.<BR>
> ><BR>
> >No they don't.<BR>
> ><BR>
> What planet are you on?? Any book that tells women that they are to bow to men
> is misogynist. Do you have the audacity to say that it is by divine right that
> women have been placed as second class citizens for the last 2000 years?<BR>
Neither the phrase "bow to men" nor "second class citizens" is found
anywhere in Paul's writings.
> Asethotep
> http://members.aol.com/asethotep/index.html
> "I who am the Mother of the universe, the Mistress of all the elements, the
> first offspring of time, the highest of the deities, the Queen of the dead,
> foremost of heavenly beings, the single form that fuses all the gods and
> goddesses..." -Isis Herself
--
Del
In article <3569F2...@primenet.com>, Joe Jefferson
<jjst...@primenet.com> wrote:
>Al Klein wrote:
>>
>> On 25 May 1998 00:16:00 -0700, Joe Jefferson <jjst...@primenet.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Al Klein wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On 24 May 1998 05:43:01 -0700, Joe Jefferson <jjst...@primenet.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Frank T. De Angelis wrote:
>> >> >> He preached submission to ruling tyrants,
>> >> >> associatung their power with (as coming from) God. He preached
>> >> >> abstinence, against sex, and placed women so low on the
>> >> >> Aristotelian-Thomist Catholic Medieval scale of *hierarchy of beings*
>> >> >> that I can't begin to tell you about. He preached for women to blindly
>> >> >> and universally obey their husbands, slaves their masters, and alll
>> >> >> people their political rulers.
>> >>
>> >> >And your reason for thinking he was wrong is?
>> >>
>> >> 1) Slavery is wrong.
>> >
>> >How do you know? By what authority do you set moral guidelines for
>> >others?
>>
>> The rule of the Wiccan.
>
>
>Thank you. You have actually come up with a logical answer, and
>incidently made my point. If the beliefs of Wicca are objectively true
>its morals are valid for everyone. Just as, if the beliefs of
>Christianity are objectively true, *its* morals are valid for everyone.
What are the morals of Christianity?
--
E-mail: remove NOSPAM from jfa...@NOSPAM.earthlink.net
joshua geller
Joe Jefferson <jjst...@primenet.com> writes:
> Al Klein wrote:
> > On 25 May 1998 00:16:00 -0700, Joe Jefferson <jjst...@primenet.com>
> > wrote:
> > >Al Klein wrote:
> > >> 1) Slavery is wrong.
> > >How do you know? By what authority do you set moral guidelines for
> > >others?
> > The rule of the Wiccan.
> Thank you. You have actually come up with a logical answer, and
> incidently made my point. If the beliefs of Wicca are objectively true
> its morals are valid for everyone. Just as, if the beliefs of
> Christianity are objectively true, *its* morals are valid for everyone.
right. which makes it a contest as to which religion is objectively
true. this is a very good reason to avoid this line of argument, for
just about everybody.
> > >No, Marx was borrowing from Christianity.
> > Marx said so?
> I have no idea whether he said so or not. But the other way around is
> clearly ludicrous. Paul died centuries before Marx was even born.
right.
all of the modern secular socialisms are very obviously christian
heresies. anyone who doesn't agree with this either is unfamiliar with
one or both of socialism or christianity or just isn't thinking
clearly (or possibly both, of course).
> > >> Paul's words make Paul a misogynist.
> > >No they don't.
> > For a wife to be a slave to her husband is misogynistic.
> And they are not called nor considered such in the Bible.
it isn't mysogynistic; it does accept the subjugation of women to
men. throughout most of human history this was just an acknowledgement
of reality. until a civilization reaches a certain economic level it
is not possible for women to have 'equal rights'; the major form of
birth control in traditional human society is normally female
infanticide.
best,
josh
Frank T. De Angelis
Well Joe:
I do thank you for your meticulous reply (i.e., detailed to some
extent). Almost all of your comments seem to just be damage control, and
defensively justificatory. Everytime you go to explain and defend you
fall back on that great grammatical and logical stopper: its okay
because god said it. Hmm. Blind faith is fine for blind people, I
suppose, but you are living on the same planet as the rest of us.
Joe Jefferson wrote:
>
> Frank T. De Angelis wrote:
> > My preamble/prefatory remarks: I think Paul was a sneaky little bastard who hated women and, at times, everyone. He was extremely sexist (truly deserving the philosophical community's scorn and criticism as an
anti-intellectual/philosophical sexist pig) and racist (an ethnicist) -
who admonished with the hateful vengeance of a twofaced, contradictive
scoundrel and the thief which he admitted being. He hated sex, women,
philosophy, and Corinthian peoples in general. He was a dictator who
violently cursed people.
> I disagree. He was none of those things.
> > He preached submission to ruling tyrants,
> > associatung their power with (as coming from) God. He preached
> > abstinence, against sex, and placed women so low on the
> > Aristotelian-Thomist Catholic Medieval scale of *hierarchy of beings* that I can't begin to tell you about. He preached for women to blindly and universally obey their husbands, slaves their masters, and all people their political rulers.
>
> And your reason for thinking he was wrong is?
ARE YOU SERIOUS? First, you say you disagree with my description of
Paul. Okay, but then you ask for my reason for thinking he was wrong?
Wow! Which is it? On earth, humans think and reason...hopefully
logically. What is wrong with the list above, you say? Apparently,
*nothing* that a classic or neo-Nazi Catholic would find objectionable,
but within human civilization - here on earth (including Jesus), we
would find quite a bit wrong with the list above (including most
Catholics).
> > A BRIEF AND INCOMPLETE SKETCHNOTE SYNOPSIS OF THE OBJECTIONABLE PAUL
> > (ST. ???):
> >
> > A DEFENSE OF THE EXISTING TYRANICAL POLITICAL ORDER AND SLAVERY; THE
> > *DIVINE RIGHT OF KINGS* IDEOLOGY:
> >
> > Rom. 1, 13:1-7: Paul gives us the very first Christian *DIVINE RIGHT OF KINGS* ideology; he tells us to obey all political leaders because all authority and power comes directly from God, and that the former is
appointed by God *to inflict God's punishment...*
>
> IOW, the command to obey follows logically from the statement that the
> rulers were appointed by God. Seems pretty reasonable to me. Unless of
> course you have had a different revelation? Are you saying that they
> *weren't* appointed by God? How do you know?
Again, are you serious? How do I know? How do you know anything about
your god? Form scriptures? Hitting your head while in a drunken stupor,
and seeing god? Disputed arbitrary and inconsistent documents [with
and/or without contradictory and apocalytic Hebrew biblical scriptures
and the Ugaritic cuneiform matriarchal and polytheistic scriptures that
the Judaic and Christian scriptures came from (were stolen from], by the
self-interested, self-serving priestly castes who continuously created,
altered, and re-interpreted them to fit their ideological outlook at any
given time and place?
This is absolutely absurd. Look, I understand that people have faith and
believe in things carte blanche, for no good (human) reason. First they
say they base it on nothing else, no book (i.e., scripture) nor anything
they have been *born into* or surrounded by in a society of humans who
gave them such ideas; only God it(him?) self. Then they -- ultimately,
and contradictively -- go to some self-serving human written,
mistranslated, and misinterpreted documents - all of which are under
dispute, internal to particular organizations as well as external to
them.
So, self-serving self-appointed people, like Paul, especially those who
were never really with your god (Jesus, as a disciple...okay, *apostle*)
in the first place, tell you something and you take that as the word of
your god who came to you from completely dubious and everchanging
sources? Hmm. How gullibale. No wonder Hitler got his start in the
peasant Catholic regions of Bavaria, and the Hofbraühaus in Munchen!
> > Eph 1, 6: *SLAVES, OBEY YOUR HUMAN MASTERS*
> >
> > Tit. 2:9: *Slaves should be told it is their duty to obey their masters
> > and to give them satisfactory service in every way. They are not to
> > answer back or to be light-fingered...*
>
> Seems like pretty good advice to give a slave. Much better than: "Rise
> up in rebellion against your master and be executed."
Only you, the slave holders, and the feeble minded would.
> > Thes 2, 3: *IF A MAN SHALL NOT WORK HE SHALL NOT EAT* (Hardly humane
> > and Jesus-like).
>
> Look at it in context. This is a command to church members not to be
> lazy and expect other Christians to support them. Note also that it says
> *shall* not work, not *can* not work.
Well, in the exact Greek, especially, there is clearly an inconsistency
with Jesus, here (which is why Marx was much closer to Jesus on this
one. The famous distinction between *from each according to his work, to
each according to his needs* versus *from each according to his
abilities, to each according to his needs* shows that both Marx and
Jesus opted for the latter).
WOMEN IN GENERAL:
> >
> > Cor 1, 6-7: Here Paul talks against men having sex or any physical
> > contact at all with women. Sex is considered so bad, that it should only occur if temptation overcomes a male...then he should marry, for *it is better to marry then burn in hell.*
>
> You'd better go back and read that passage again. It doesn't say what
> you think it says.
I have, several times, and in several translations and the original
Greek. I think (1) YOU DON'T THINK AT ALL and (2) you are stretching for
both justifcation and wish fulfillment, both at the same time.
> > Cor 1, 11: Here Paul clearly considers women to be inferior to man; she ought to cover and bow her head in shame, to give homage to man, while man gives homage to God,but he shouldn't cover his head because he
directly *represents the person and glory of God.* The female always
represents her debt to male authority.
>
> Nothing at all about bowing her head, or that covering her head is out
> of shame. If you're going to object to a passage, object to what it
> says, not what it doesn't say.
>
> > (AGAIN) , *SLAVES, OBEY YOUR MASTERS; WIVES, OBEY YOUR HUSBANDS.*
> > Eph 5:22- *You wives must learn to adapt yourselves to your husbands, as you submit...for the husband is the head of the wife in the same way that Christ is the head of the Church. The willing subjection..be reproduced in the subjection of wives to their husbands...*
> >
> > Cor 1, 14:34: Along with the former rituals of female inferiority, Paul adds here that WOMEN should not speak in church, and if they have any questions they should wait until they get home and ask their husbands.
> >
> > Tim 1, 2:8-3: He gets worse, and says that women should be plain, quiet, learn quietly and humbly, and that he personally doesn't allow them to teach or hold any position of authority - and esp. over men. His claims that his reason for it goes back to man being created first and that it was *Eve and not Adam who was first deceived and fell into sin.* (What a prick this guy is!)
>
> You obviously have very strong feelings about this subject. Why do you
> think that is?
What? again, are you serious? You would ask, what is wrong with grabbing
your women, clubbing her over the head, and urinating on her to mark
your territory?
Were you the victim of some sort of abuse? You do
> understand, I hope, that your feelings don't make Paul wrong.
No, not at all. Like most morons, you illogically grasp for pathetic
straws, assuming that some illegitimate ad Hominem argumental-like
appeal will explain it all.
> > Thes 1, 2:17-: I don't know if this should be in this or the next -- or
> > both -- section/s, but Paul gives some very bad advice, from both a
> > psychological and truthful position, by stating that absence makes the
> > heart grow fonder.
>
> Your statement here is simply incorrect. Paul gives no advice whatsoever
> in this verse. It reads: "But, brothers, when we were torn away from you
> for a short time (in person, not in thought), out of our intense longing
> we made every effort to see you." (NIV) Were you perhaps thinking of
> some other verse?
Actually, you are right, here. Many of the authoritative mainstream
translations add a subheading to this effect (e.g., in Phillips,
*absence makes the heart grow fonder*), and -- in the original Greek, as
well as in most of the English translations -- there is really nothing
*admonishing* about it. It probably can/could be assumed, indirectly,
but I tend to agree with you on this one.
>
> > CHARACTER FLAWS: the unethical and immoral
> >
> > Cor. 2, 11:8: Paul admits to lying, cheating, and stealing... all in the
> > name of *the end justifies the means.* he says he literally stole
> > (wages) from other churches (I robbed *esulesa*)
>
> This is so blatant a distortion of what the passage is saying as to
> appear to be deliberate deception.
No, how can you possibly deny this? I just stated exactly what was said
by Paul, in toto -- and, as a matter of fact, based on either the
literal or figurative meanings of what Paul says himself, in admitting a
wrongdoing -- there is a double clincher here of Paul assuming and
asserting - as total justification, that the end justifies the means.
This should be crystal clear to anyone with or without an education.
Just LOOK and THINK! Who, indeed, is being dishonest, here? You are
living a lie within an illusion, and bathing in bad faith.
>
> > Cor. 1 5-6: Here we have Paul preaching against even *associating* with
> > anyone he considered to be immoral - and to not eat with them, and
> > admonishing them to not go to law in pagan courts. Hmm. Jesus welcomed
> > -- and ate with -- prostitutes, let them bath him in perfume and he
> > washed their feet, etc.
>
> Same comment as above.
>
> > Tit 1, 10:1-2: Paul agrees that *Men of Crete are always liars, evil and
> > beastly, lazy and greedy.*
>
> The correct reference is Tit. 1:10. Yes, Paul said this. Where is your
> evidence that his statement wasn't correct?
Again, how can you possibly be serious? What proof do I have that it
isn;t true that ALL Cretans aren't dumb, stupid, lazy, and evil? That,
my friend, is an a priori false universal statement of prejudice. Any
basic logic or critical thinking class should be able to clearly
demonstrate the faulty thinking to you and any other human being. It is
a classic logical fallacy called *Hasty Generalization.* Got it?
>
> > *NOTHING GOOD CAN (has) EVER COME OUT OF CORINTH*
>
> I can't find this statement anywhere. What is the reference?
(It is N.T. biblical, but not Paul. Okay)
> > At the conlcusion of Cor 1, Paul uses a rare and somewhat hitherto
> > unfamiliar Greek (Greconized Aramaic ?) term, ANATHEMA. It is an awful
> > and hateful CURSE, whose etymological meaning includes
> > anesthetize-vaporize, hang, crucify, etc. [Cf. the Langenscheidt
> > Classical (Biblical) Greek-English Dictionary.]
>
> The verse is 1 Cor. 16:22. It reads, "If anyone does not love the Lord -
> a curse be on him. Come, O Lord!" (NIV) which seems to imply that the
> curse comes from God, not Paul.
Youcan play all of the games you want, but the fact remains, (1) it is a
curse by Paul, and (2) is not translated fully, due to the full impact
of the etymological translational meaning. It means much more than
simply *curse,* okay? I gave you the etymological reference: you should
have looked it up before spouting, but then again...you're all you are
all about, isn't it? You don't want the truth...obviously you can't
handle it, and only want to believe the silly and contradictive beliefs
you cling to. That is the problem of ivesting everything you have in an
empty basket. I'll alwatys choose truth; that's why I'm a philosopher
(and you, *a believer*).
> > ...and all this from a reformed tax collector.
>
> Nope. Paul was never a tax collector.
As Saul, yes, he was a tax collector. Are younow going to say, *well,
that's not Paul...when god changed his name he changed his profession,
etc. - he is re-born as another person...* what hokey shit!
I'm sorry; there are times where you just have to say, *ENOUGH*! I've
done my best; I tried, but on deaf and dumb ears and closed eyes. I'm
sorry, but I there is a point at which an educator and human being will
give up on other fellow humans.
Frank T. De Angelis
Gwen:
Wheew, wow! Right on! I am so glad you stepped in - and have eloquently
added your astute observations of Paul's uniqueness (or *eunichness*?).
Yes, he wasn't anywhere around, was he? How gullible people are, to
believe that -- in retrospect, via the medium of dreams -- he met Jesus
and later pushed his way to up- and out-stage the real disciples
(apostles).
Succinctly put! I wasn't aware of some of what you say in the last few
paragraphs, but it is all well put (and I didn't know you had such a
sense of humor, either).
Frank
http://home.fda.net/~spartacus
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Frank T. De Angelis
Lloyd:
Please take a look at my (first) reply to Jeff (sent, just a few minutes
ago). In reference to the Paul quote of working and eating, it is not a
Marixt communist idea, but a capitalist one.
As I stated in the post, Marx said *From each according to his abilities
to each according to his needs,* meaning, and including, all of those
who were vulnerable in society, for one reason or another. Like Jesus
(as Marx commented on prolifically, in his early years - as well as in
his philosophy doctoral dissertation).
This is why, where, how, and when Lenin later distinguished between the
earlier stage of socialism and that of communism, in his 1917 *State and
Revolution,* with *from each according to his work, to each according to
his needs* designating the former. This is also what distinguished
Lenin from Marx for many a thinker - excluding this one (e.g., alluded
to in the Marxist - George Orwell's *Animal Farm,* as a warning to all
soc/communists), as being analagous to Plato vs. Socrates and Paul vs.
Jesus. How ironic!
Prof./Author Frank T. De Angelis (Spartacus)
http://home.fda.net/~spartacus
Kalle Helenius
Joe Jefferson wrote in message <3569F2...@primenet.com>...
>Al Klein wrote:
>>
>> On 25 May 1998 00:16:00 -0700, Joe Jefferson <jjst...@primenet.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Al Klein wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On 24 May 1998 05:43:01 -0700, Joe Jefferson <jjst...@primenet.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
<snip>
>> >How do you know? By what authority do you set moral guidelines for
>> >others?
>>
>> The rule of the Wiccan.
>
>
>Thank you. You have actually come up with a logical answer, and
>incidently made my point. If the beliefs of Wicca are objectively true
>its morals are valid for everyone. Just as, if the beliefs of
>Christianity are objectively true, *its* morals are valid for everyone.
You would do well to define the morals of your bible, and set those morals
against those of others (whether or not they are only in your mindset or
not). Unless you define the morals, this discussion is pointless.
No. 907, Shop Attendant, Clue-shop for Theists,
Logic section, laid off because lack of business, suing
EAC for severance pay. Remove number to reply.
Al Klein
On 25 May 1998 23:21:00 -0700, Joe Jefferson <jjst...@primenet.com>
wrote:
>And clearly you think he was wrong not to advocate rebellion, despite
>the fact that the slave revolts that did occur within the empire
>invariably turned into bloodbaths. Has it occurred to you that Paul
>might have had more important priorities than leading a slave revolt?
And, since the bible is the inspired word of god, that says that god
had more important priorities than freeing slaves. Slaves, BTW, who
were often killed for no reason, and in very painful manners. Nice
god you've got.
Lloyd Zusman
Joe Jefferson <jjst...@primenet.com> writes:
> Lloyd Zusman wrote:
> >
> > Joe Jefferson <jjst...@primenet.com> writes:
> >
> > > Al Klein wrote:
> > > >
> > > > [ ... ]
> > > >
> > > > 1) Slavery is wrong.
> > >
> > > How do you know? By what authority do you set moral guidelines for
> > > others?
> >
> > I presume that you look to the Bible as the ultimate authority for
> > setting moral guidelines. If so, where in the Bible does it say that
> > human slavery is wrong? If there is nothing in the Bible that
> > condemns human slavery, and if there are words in the Bible which
> > support this institution, then do you therefore believe that human
> > slavery is right?
> >
> > If not, on what authority do *you* condemn human slavery?
>
>
> Human slavery is far too broad and complex a subject for me to have a
> simple either/or view of it. Slavery in the Roman empire in the first
> century bore very little resemblance to slavery in the US in the
> nineteenth century. And neither one is remotely similar to slavery in
> the BDSM scene today.
True. So which of these forms of slavery do you believe that God
condones, and which of these forms of slavery do you believe God
condemns, and which of these forms of slavery do you believe that God
is on the fence about?
Based on what is written in the Bible, it looks like the Roman form of
slavery is OK with God. In this form of slavery, a person was often
forcibly removed from his or her native country during a Roman
military campaign, and was transported back to the Roman homeland to
be the lifelong bondsperson of a Roman citizen or family thereof. I
believe that the offspring of Roman slaves were also considered to be
slaves as well.
Sometimes, Roman citizens who were in debt or who wished certain
favors for themselves or their families would accept slavery as a
condition for these favors or for debt reduction. Other people
lost their Citizen status and became slaves as punishments for
crimes.
Slaves in Rome could sometimes earn or purchase their freedom, and
slaveowners could choose to free them as a gift or as a reward. These
slaves also could be legally whipped and beaten by their masters,
although some of them were treated more considerately than others.
The penalty for a Roman citizen to kill a slave was much lower than
for a Roman citizen to kill another Roman citizen. And the penalty
for a slave to kill a Roman citizen was very strict.
So you're right that Roman slavery was not exactly the same as
19th-century slavery in the U.S. ... but given the fact that freedom
from slavery in Rome was considered to be a gift rather than a
punishment, I think we can safely conclude that Roman slavery was not
usually a bowl of cherries from the slave's point of view.
But Paul clearly instructs his followers to urge slaves to obey their
masters without causing trouble.
> > > > [ ... ]
> > > >
> > > > How about "Masters, free your slaves"? Oh, you never thought of that.
> > >
> > > No intelligent person would think of that WHEN ADDRESSING THE SLAVES. It
> > > would be pointless.
> >
> > Of course, an intelligent believer in God who is addressing slaves
> > could easily say something like this: "God wants all people to live in
> > joy and freedom. God is your only master ... no human can claim that
> > authority. Therefore, walk away from those sinful people who
> > arrogantly presume to be masters, and come into God's house. Throw
> > off your chains. We of Christ will support you, even to our own
> > deaths, against these sinful, arrogant, false 'masters'. Come with
> > us. You are all free."
> >
> >
> > Paul did not say anything like this, but rather, he said things to
> > his followers like, "Exhort servants to be obedient unto their own
> > masters, and to please them well in all things; not answering again;"
> > (Titus 2:9, as mentioned above).
> >
> > Clearly, Paul is taking a stand in favor of the Roman status quo
> > concerning human slavery.
>
>
> And clearly you think he was wrong not to advocate rebellion, despite
> the fact that the slave revolts that did occur within the empire
> invariably turned into bloodbaths. Has it occurred to you that Paul
> might have had more important priorities than leading a slave revolt?
This could very well be. Perhaps Paul was just being prudent ... or
politically expedient. In fact, I think that this is quite likely.
But if we can indeed explain Paul's statements concerning Roman
slavery by assuming that he was gearing his pronouncements to the
audience he was addressing, and in a way that was the most palatable
in the culture he was living in at the time, we then must accept the
possibility that anything and *everything* that Paul has written might
be culturally relative, and not necessarily an expression of absolute
truth.
> > > [ ... ]
> > >
> > > No, Marx was borrowing from Christianity.
> >
> > So, is Marxism, which is often criticized as being an "atheist"
> > doctrine, actually based on sound, Christian principles?
>
>
> Well, I haven't read _Das Kapital_, but I imagine Marx got ideas from a
> great many sources. Most writers do. The church in Jerusalem in the
> first century for example lived together in a society that today would
> be called socialistic. (Without being atheist of course.)
Yes, that's my impression, as well.
> > > [ ... ]
> > >
> > > What I do or do not approve of isn't relevant. I would remind you also
> > > that it is quite possible for someone to disapprove of slavery but not
> > > believe it is the right time or place to try and abolish it. It is even
> > > possible that Paul felt that way. And I ask again since you seem to be
> > > making 20th century western morals the standard for all humanity: what
> > > is your authority to say what is or isn't right for others?
> >
> > So, are you saying that we should apply the concept of cultural
> > relativism to what is said in the Bible? ... that Paul's words about
> > slavery to Romans some 1950-or-so years ago should not be taken as
> > absolute truth in modern culture?
> >
> > [ ... ]
> >
> > My point is this: either what's written in the Bible is absolute truth
> > that is immutable over time and cultures, or it isn't. If it's
> > immutable, then it's clear that human slavery was condoned in the past
> > and hence is still condoned today. If it's not immutable, then we are
> > free re-interpret the Bible in light of today's values.
> >
> > Which is it?
>
>
> This is a bit mixed up. If the Bible is not immutable, then it is still
> not logically permissible to re-interpret the Bible in light of today's
> values. It *is* permissible however to discard it's values completely.
Actually, I see an equal *logical* basis for either re-interpreting
the Bible or discarding it, if indeed the Bible represents some sort
of non-absolute or culturally relative idea of "truth". Why (from the
point of view of logic alone) would one of these two alternatives be
more valid than the other?
> If it is comsidered immutable it's still not clear that slavery is
> actually condoned. Tolerated might be a better word, with explicit
> prohibitions against the mistreatment of slaves.
Let's for a moment consider the premise that the Bible is immutable
and slavery is "tolerated". Under this premise, it would then be OK
with God for us to have slaves (of the type found in Rome 2000 years
ago) as long as we don't overly mistreat them ... and if you happen to
be such a slave under this scenario, you are encouraged to quietly
accept your lot.
But *is* this the true, immutable word of God? If not, how can we
consider *any* of Paul's words as to be anything more sacred than
culturally relative expediencies?
> [ ... ] In neither case is it
> permissible to condemn Paul on moral grounds (which is what the post I
> responded to was doing) without first establishing one's own authority
> to establish rules to govern other people in other cultures.
I agree with you that there is no a priori reason that forces us
unequivocally to condemn Paul on moral grounds just because of his
statements about Roman slavery (although I feel that there are still
compelling, if not 100% ironclad, reasons to do so). On the other
hand, I cannot consider Paul's words to be the Immutable Truth of God
if these words were expressed out of political expediency or in a
culturally relative context.
And therefore, Paul's words about "fornication" and "sexual morality"
might be equally relative from culture to culture.
> [ ... ]
>
> "Defend the cause of the weak and fatherless; maintain the rights of the
> poor and oppressed. Rescue the weak and needy; deliver them from the
> hand of the wicked." - Psalm 82:3-4.
I like this Psalm. But how does one reconcile it with Titus 2:9?
--
Lloyd Zusman
l...@asfast.com
Frank T. De Angelis
Rasmus Gjesdal wrote:
>
> Hi Frank, Pardon the late reply, I have been working on comparing some
> ancient texts. I need some more material on Zoroastrianism to go with what I am looking at.
> (Sent you snail mail regarding your book.)
I'm sorry, but the only real firsthand Persian Zoroastrian source I have
is the Aveda (their Bible), and only parts of it, translated, at that.
Most other sources are second and thirdhand, such as Herodotus, etc.
from the Greek, and modernday commentaries in books on world religions.
Here is a little teaser for you, from my book (the footnotes do not
trail automatically, and the Greek and Hebrew do not come out --
transmit -- at all) [Your entire correspondence follows, and I will
answer the details just as soon as I can get to it all]:
How and why the name Lucifer was chosen; how and why Lucifer
represented the Å‚Prince of DarknessË› and the Å‚fallen bright morning
starË›; why Lucifer was interpreted in place of the originally intended
critique of the king of Babylon, and his fall; etc. - from the Book of
Isaiah Å are all truly nagging questions, requiring answers beyond those
merely begging-the-question, and therefore requiring even further
elucidation( i.e., beyond the logical tautologous circularity of Petito
Principii, Å‚begging the questionË›).
Tracing Lucifer back from St. Jerome is - to be sure - no easy task.
If we begin our search from the other end of history, so to speak, we
find that the ancient Persian religion of Zoroastrianism contained the
origins of monotheism. The original writings and beliefs of a
monotheistic god, coupled with the strict ethical dualism of Good and
Evil, are represented in this ancient and hitherto unique religion. It
is here that we find the origin of, not Lucifer per se, but of the
concepts of fallen angels and the Prince of Darkness. Both are
interdependent with the descriptive concept of the devilÄ…s deception, by
appearing in the form of a bright morning star. All of LuciferÄ…s
characteristics (and, as a matter of fact, the DevilÄ…s, in general) are
all found within this Persian religion. What is lacking, however, in
Zoroastrianism, is the name Lucifer itself.
The very next civilization and empire in history, overtaking and
replacing the Persians, was the Greek. Greek culture, however, contained
both, the god - Lucifer (little known in our culture) and the Greek
version of Zoroastrianism (with Zarathustra), Manicheaism. Manicheaism
was extremely popular in Greece, and was the original religion of St.
Augustine, the very first philosopher of the Church, within the fourth
century C.E. (A.D.), immediately following the toleration and
recognition of Christianity as the official state religion of Rome. It
was AugustineÄ…s City of God, that was written as a reply to those who
accused Christianity of bringing about the downfall of the Roman Empire.
Who else but Augustine could have been influenced by such historical
forces, being responsible for re-creating and securing Lucifer, solely
for Christianity? Who else could have had the ability, knowledge, and
opportunity?; the intellectual passion, imagination, and power?; the
intimate and first hand knowledge of Zoroastrianism, as well as Greek
culture?; and, most importantly, who else lived within the contemporary
time frame with St. Jerome?
Reverend Joseph A. Grispino, in his Confraternity-Douay Version of the
Bible, claims that Åšearly Fathers of the ChurchÄ… influenced St. Jerome
in his insertion of Lucifer for the Hebrew heylel in the Isaiah 14:12
passage; accompanied by a very perplexing footnote preceding it,
suggesting that perhaps this came from Åša Canaanite myth.Ä… 1 Not much
more in the way of details is given - nor known about this, judging
from the commentaries by Catholic scholars (e.g., in the modern St.
Jerome Edition of the Bible). The limited, inconsistent, and even
contradictory information given by priestly sources, I believe, is an
admission of ignorance, concerning the origin of Lucifer. As a
Manichean, Augustine was well aware of the fallen angel imagery and the
Prince of Darkness epithet inherited from that Greco-Persian religion he
embraced earlier. Not long after Emperor ConstantineÄ…s conversion to
Christianity, in the fourth century C.E., Christianity was accepted, if
not proclaimed - as the offical state religion of Rome. This
ÅšintroductoryÄ… period, from the toleration and acceptance of
Christianity to its official sanctioning, spanned the fourth century,
from 313 to 381 C.E. Augustine, who had just converted from Manicheaism
to Christianity (also within this century), struggled intensely with the
philosophical and theological problems of Good and Evil raised in the
Persian religious thought. Later on, Augustine became a bishop of Hippo,
in Africa. St. AugustineÄ…s magnum opus, The City of God, along with his
equally famous On Free Choice of The Will and The Confessions, all point
to the invention and origin of Lucifer as an alternative Satan or Devil.
Although it is certain that Venus (from the Greek Aphrodite, and
originally from Asherah and Ishtar) is the Åšrising morning star,Ä… how
does Lucifer fit in with this astral deity, and through whom, before
reaching the ecclesiastical pen of St. Augustine?
From the themes of Good vs. Evil and (good) angels vs. bad -fallen
angels, to the the preoccupation with refuting Greek and all other
previously inherited ÅšpaganÄ… sources, St. Augustine makes for the
perfect candidate responsible for inventing Lucifer, to be passed on to
St. Jerome and for his Latin Vulgate version of the Bible. Clearly,
both Greek mythology and Greco-Persian religious influences worked their
way into the theological and philosophical mind of Augustine. Judging
from his philosophical-theological treatises, we find an obsession with
explaining how evil comes into the world. He claims that God is not the
author or creator of woe or evil (although yahweh asserts this, in
Isaiah 45:7); he insists that evil is not a positive phenomenon, only a
Å‚privation of good.Ë› This in itself reflects his own personal struggle
against his Greco-Persian past.
According to the Persian scriptures, Zoroaster (the prophet of
Zoroastrianism, for God, Ahura Mazda), bitterly refers to Å‚Angra
Mainyu,Ë› a devil from the time of creation, who opposed God, Ahura
Mazda, with the Å‚Spirit of Good.Ë› This arch enemy, a fallen angel,
fought God, from creation on, creating an evil for every good: e.g.,
killing the frost of winter; the excessive heat of summer; and the
snakes, pests, and human vicesÅ from doubt and disbelief, to witchcraft,
the oppositions of good and evil are always present, from the beginning
of time, i.e., creation. This evil character was the author of death,
and was responsible for creating 99,999 diseases, according to chapter
twenty-two of the Videvdat. This personal representative of evil also
created a number of demons and devils, ordaeval characters. Thus, this
ethical dualism stems from God, Ahura Mazda, and his arch rival enemy,
Angra Mainyu. 2 It is here - with Zoroastrianism and the scriptures of
the Persian Bible, the Avesta - that the Devil begins his infamous
reputation as the Prince of Darkness. AugustineÄ…s personal struggles
with the origin of evil, along with his earlier affiliation with
Manicheaism, led to a philosophical must - for avoiding the conclusion
that God created evil. The concept of the fallen angel, one that came
from Manicheaism, and whose origin in Christianity can be attributed to
St. Augustine, leaves one with the unshakable conclusion that Augustine
passed the ÅšLucifer batonÄ… to Jerome.
If God does not create evil, and if evil is a privation of good, as
Augustine claims, then one wonders how this first Å‚Doctor of the
ChurchË› could have avoided, ignored, or explained away passages in the
Hebrew Bible; such as, for example, Isaiah 45:7, where God creates evil:
Å‚I am the Lord, there is no other; I form the light and create the
darkness. I make well-being and create woe. I the Lord do all of these
things.Ë› How could Augustine really disavow the heavy influence of
Zoroastrianism on him, despite his new acceptance of Christianity, since
much of it too came from his former Persian religion? Is the 666
symbolism of evil in the Book of Revelation, for example, just a
coincidence, or is it perhaps an Augustinian afterthought in connection
with the the so-called author of deathÄ…s creation of 99,999 diseases?
Exactly where and what are we to look at in the Judeo-Christian Bible,
in order to make consistent and non-contradictive sense of evil? In the
New Testament, for example, we are told by St. Paul that Åšmoney is the
root of all evilÄ… (Timothy I, 6:10). The actual quote, people of our
contemporary bourgeois society will be quick to tell us, is not that
money is the root of all evil, but that the Åšlove of money is the root
of all evil.Ä… The implication behind such a qualification, however, is
that some perverse preoccupation and attachment with money is at fault
here, i.e., extreme greed - as with lustful, gluttonous, and avaricious
sins - is behind such a warning. The original Greek text, and a
faithful translation into English however, will render the word and
phrase, fondness or friendship of money, instead of love of money;
implying a very mild and minimal attraction to money, and not some
exorbitant, usurpious, ostentatious, and/or an exagerrated preoccupation
and attachment with it, reflecting greed. The word used for love is
philos, from philia (filia), meaning fondness or friendship.
Other Greek words for love, are eros (erow or eroV) and agape (agape);
the latter is used to describe universal and unconditional love, also
known as Christian love, and is frequently found in the New Testament,
while the former is used to describe erotic, sensual, and sexual love
and/or desire. If some greedy preoccupation, commensurate with some
lustful, desirous, and avaricious sense was meant - in the Timothy I,
6:10 passage, then the term eros would have been used: this term,
however, is never used in the Greek New Testament, even though it is
considered the basic term for love and the Life Principle, in general.
The opposite of the Life Principle of love (eros ), thanatos (qanatoV),
the Death Principle, is used all throughout the New Testament. Eros, of
course, is the Greek god (the Roman ÅšCupidÄ…) inseparable from Venus,
goddess of love. Philia (filia), emphasized as friendship-love, was the
main concept favorably used by Aristotle in his Nicomachean Ethics,
being necessary for happiness (eudaimonia, eudaimonia), as well as
be-ing the root word for łphilosophy˛Šphilo-sophia (filosofia),
literally the Å‚friendship-love of wisdom.Ë› Thus, there is no
connotation of Å‚loveË› as an attachment or preoccupation with money,
intended here, but merely a fondness of money, since the very ÅšweakestÄ…
sense of love was chosen for this Timothian St. Paul passage. There is
nothing of a strong desirous nature implied here at all, or the term
eros would (and should) have been employed.
The same idea is repeated in the Timothy II, 3:2 passage. It would
indeed be embarrassing for the priestly castes of our highly competitive
society to have to admit the truth of biblical passages such as these,
since they obviously demonstrate scorn for the very highest values of
our capitalist society and the global economy. It would be patently
false and clearly absurd to pretend that our emphatic values of
laissez-faire capitalism, includingÅ nay, emphasizing the profit
motive, free trade, and the usury of interest bearing capital, are not
exactly what is being condemned here (and elsewhere, throughout the
Bible). The pitiful priestly explanation for this biblical quote almost
necessitates its denial by those who preach the dominant value of the
Protestant (Puritan)work ethic ; thus, showing what usually wins out
when biblical values clash with societyÄ…s economic valuesÅ the former
become modified, in order to fit the latter, as Karl Marx always
claimed. Money is the root of all evil, for Christianity. Essentially,
the Bible condemns capitalism. What, however, is the root of all evil
for St. Augustine?
First, I would like to convey to the reader that the section in
AugustineÄ…s On Free Choice of the Will , Book One, Part III, is entitled
Å‚Lust is the source of evil.Ë› He does not say that lust is a source of
evil, implying one of many, but that it is Å‚the source of evil.Ë› In
Book III, Part X, the connection is made between Å‚sinË› and the supposed
Å‚lustË› in the garden of Eden. (Lust, of course, is identified with the
goddess of love -Eros and Cupid with Aphrodite and Venus.) Augustine
then explores the all-important connection of these concepts with devils
and angels, especially with angels as devils. It is here where
Augustine asserts that God created the angels, and that the DevilÄ…s
origin had to come into existence in this manner. We thus have the
theory of fallen angels, here with St. Augustine, which will later
become so prevalent and obvious in the erroneous translation of Isaiah
14:12. Moreover, Augustine translates and transfers the Manichean
influence of Ahriman, the Persian Prince of Darkness, into his
Christianized description of the Devil. His incorporation and
transfusion of Zoroastrianism into Greco-Romanized Christianity,
fomenting and cementing the coming of Lucifer in the Book of Isaiah, is
crystal clear. Augustine is quite emphatic in pursuing the ethical
dualism and monotheism of his earlier Persian beliefs. He is responsible
for ÅšcreatingÄ… the primordial distinction in Christianity between Good
and Evil, with (good) angels vs. fallen angels - or devils. Extending
the original Zoroastrian distinction, St. Augustine assures the reader,
in Part XII, that Å‚even if all angels were to sin, the Creator of angels
would continue to rule His empire with no defect.Ë› 3
Second, is the connection and development of Lucifer, by Augustine,
through The City of God, his main work, his magnum opus. Book XIX is of
particular note, here; since it is full of his allusions to the
Manichees and their concepts of God and angels, including Å‚The Supreme
Good and Supreme Evil.Ë› We are both instructed as well as warned, in
Part IX, not to be Åšopenly friendly to all Å‚Holy angels,Ë› since Satan
sometimes takes the form of an angel of light in order to tempt men.Ä… 4
One must still ask the nagging question, however, of where the actual
name of Lucifer comes from; conceding that all of the characteristics,
descriptions, and epithets fit perfectly with Zoroastrian origins. From
the de-ceptive transformation of the devil, as Satan, the fallen angel -
into a Å‚bright lightË› - and then as the Å‚prince of darkness,Ë› also
attributed to Baal, the Canaanite god, we have clarified what was
previously ambigu-ous and obscure. Thus, in the final analysis, the
nature and origin of the Christian personifications of evil have been
partially discovered and uncovered by tracing the origins of Lucifer
back from (1) Zoroastrianism and (2) St. Augustine to his contemporary,
(3) St. Jerome. Notwithstanding these discoveries and revelations, we
are still obligated to push further in solving the mystery surrounding
the name Lucifer itself- the rising morning star that fellÅ seemingly
an allusion to Venus.
Lucifer, according to ancient Greek mythology, is the god of
bright-ness; also, as the morning star and light bearer, this is the
star that brings in the day with gladness: he was also the father of
Ceyx, a king of Thessaly, where Mt. Olympus is located, housing the
gods. Å‚All of his fatherÄ…s bright gladness was in his face,Ë› according
to Greek legend.5 This mythological-religious account is embellished
upon by Ovid, the Roman: it includes the important involvement with gods
of nature; e.g., Storm, Wind, Black Clouds, and Lightening. CeyxÄ…s wife
was the daughter of Aolus, king of the winds. These Latin-Roman gods of
nature seem to contain many of the characteristics of El, Baal, and
Yahweh, from the Ugaritic and Hebrew scriptures. Light and fire were
exalted and deified, from one religion to another. Light, photos
(fotoV), however, was traditionally reserved for the Greek son of god,
Apollo, and later, Jesus of Nazareth, based upon the gospel of St. John.
Aside from the prestigious sun god, in almost all religions, both Light
and (interestingly enough) Fire are found to be of primordial importance
in Persian Zoroastrianism. Cremation, as opposed to burial, a
misunderstood and exagerrated aspect of Zoroastrianism, was condemned
(up until recently) by the Roman Catholic Church. Fire, it has been
thought, destroys the soul, not just the body; therefore, fire is a
tool, source, and application of the Devil. Light vs. Darkness, (good)
angels vs. fallen angels, etc., seem to be crucial in the theological
and philosophical problems of ethical dualism that greatly influenced
St. Augustine. So, this is the origin of Lucifer, from Greek culture,
which was, to be sure, well known by Augustine in his day.
In roughly a three hundred year period, from the time of Jesus to St.
Augustine and St. Jerome, there seems to be fertile ground for this
composition and synthesis, culminating in the (re)creation of Lucifer.
Lucifer represents all that Christianity has to oppose and hate, much
like Judaism, with its former pagan cultures. What elements are
accepted, though, become immortalized, symbolized, and deified in the
person of Jesus, e.g., as the son of god, the Light (photos, fotoV), the
Truth, and the Logos (Logos, or Å‚the logical-ordered and spoken wordË›)Å
exactly what Apollo stood for. What, on the other hand (the one on the
conservative ÅšRight,Ä… to be sure), was ruthlessly opposed with a hateful
vengeance, was the other side; the abysmal dark side, the deception of
light - personified in Lucifer - as a fallen angel. Ovid lived and wrote
his mythological and historical poetry, mostly during the Augustan
periods of 27-20 C.E., making him a contemporary of Virgil: ergo, both
poets must have been well known, and had to have made a considerable
impact on St. Augustine, as well as all of the other early Church
Fathers and scholars. Tertullian, Plotinus, Origen, Augustine, and many
other ÅšearlyÄ… theological scholars, no doubt, take some credit for
influencing St. Jerome; all were most assuredly influenced by the famous
Romanized versions of Greek mythology, especially since they
continuously referred to the Latin-Roman names of the gods and
goddesses. It was from the Latinized versions of the Greek accounts that
these early Christians drew from; especially in - and for - their
relentless sexual-pagan criticisms. Tertullian, born in Carthage, lived
circa 160 to 230 of the Common Era (A.D.); Plotinus lived between 204
and 270 C.E.; Origen, from circa 185-253 C.E.; St. Augustine, from
354-430; and St. Jerome, from circa 345- 420 of the Common Era.
AugustineÄ…s intellectual and passionate synthesis of the sexual and
pagan traits associated with Ishtar, Isis, Asherah, Aphrodite, Venus,
and Lucifer, culminated in a new version of a satanic and devilish
character called Lucifer. Christendom now had its own personified
version of evil, to call its very own.
Frank T. De Angelis
Frank A (also, to Joe, Val, and...):
Here is my position, with additional commentaries on Paul, from my book.
The first is a general statement from my intro.; the second and third
large quotes are segments from Part II of *THE POLYTHEISM OF THE BIBLE
AND THE MYSTERY OF LUCIFER*:
It is well known that priestly castes developed simultaneously in both
India and Persia, due to the influence of the invading Aryans. The most
privileged socioeconomic class and caste in India was (and still is)
that of the Brahmins, made up of mostly educated priests and
intellectuals. Similarly, the Persian Mobadn, also a caste of priests
and intellectuals, represented the second highest caste, being directly
under the emperor and nobles. It was the great religious
revolutionaries, Buddha, Mohammed, and Gandhi, who strongly opposed the
caste system, helping to eliminate it from their society. It is clear
that, in addition to these great men, Judaism and Christianity also
contributed their revolutionary leaders, such as Moses and Jesus.
Unfortunately, although very successful, these men did not rid their
culture of privileged priestly castes nor of patriarchal authority and
power. The writing of the Bible itself, starting with the Torah,
reflected the input of the Å‚PË›-riestly source of authorship and a
Å‚RË›-edacter who synthesized it all into one harmonious work. This, I
believe, was the very first Judaic trace of a movement towards a male
dominated caste of priests, who were descendants from the tribe of Levi.
Likewise, the Christian Church, formed by St. Paul and other disciples
of Jesus (Apostles), along with many early Christian leaders, also
represented a strict patriarchal hierarchy of priests (bishops) and
philosophers. All of these religions reflect institutions of a very
stratified social order, with political-economic incentives always
operating beneath the surface.
This book leads the reader back, tracing the very genesis of this
process, including the Åšgenesis of Genesis.Ä… The exploratory nature of
this venture, delving far into biblical origins, takes the reader on a
journey into the past in order to better understand the present and,
ultimately, the future. I firmly believe that our presumed values, and
so-called nature, all reflect this hidden and suppressed past. This
research adventure, as exciting as it has been for me, gave me and
others a serious and sober wake-up call. My hope is that it does the
same for you too. It is difficult to shed the skin of discredited
traditional values, beliefs, habits, opinions, prejudices, and biases,
but, on the other hand, it is even more difficult to remain aloof and
unaffected, once truth enters the scene; since I truly believe, as Jesus
once said, that Å‚the truth will set you freeË› (personally addingÅ Åšand
only the truthÄ…).
Starting out from the sincere perspective of a disinterested
philosopher, literally Åša lover of truth,Ä… this biblical study
originally had no political overtones. From the outset, it was strictly
a quest for fulfilling unanswered questions, and for satisfying a
nagging intellectual and spiritual curiosity. In the interim, however,
the historical connection of politics to religion became an unavoidable
theme. The original (and present) intention has been to genuinely seek
the truth, where ever it may take one. It is with this in mind that I
ask the reader to temporarily suspend, as much as humanly possible, all
presuppositions and judgments regarding the ensuing survey. In the case
of this present study, much has been explored, discovered, and revealed,
pre-empting prior beliefs and knowledge concerning the Judeo-Christian
Bible, language, and history...
...I, much more than the biblical Job (and more like Socrates, and most
who are dedicated and committed to the philosophical tradition),
defiantly and rightfully ask - in the human world of ethics and
accountabilityÅ Å‚why?Ë› - demanding and deserving a reasonable
explanation. I firmly believe in the Socratic conclusion that Å‚the
unexamined life is not worth living.Ë› But to no avail, religion neither
requires a question and answer nor answers that question, since it lives
and bathes in faith. It only requires a leap, once given the tempting
shove of wish fulfillment, and the choice of going either way - with no
regrets. These are the lives we lead, for better or for worse; since
only we are responsible for our actions, and suffer from the
consequences thereof, including our anxiety over the necessity and
inevitability of our having to make choices. Thus, philosophy and
critical thinking may not be able to help us in winning friends and
influencing people. We may not even be able to obtain and secure decent
employment, be it will enrich our lives in deeper, more fundamental, and
more lasting ways.
We need to regain control over our lives, to empower ourselves against
all of the forces of evil, corruption, error, and wishful thinking.
Critical thinking and self-examination are our only Åšgod givenÄ… tools
for such tasks. We may not have the where-with-all to translate and
interpret the Bible by ourselves, but, by the same token we cannot rely
on authorityÅ any human authority! We can however, check The Bible
through interlinear sources - as I have provided references for
through-out this work. We cannot completely trust and/or rely on the
inter-linear Bibles or the concordances however, since they too have
often reflected - and have been molded in order to fit standardized
transla-tions, e.g., StrongÄ…s Comprehensive Concordance with The King
James Authorized Version - and wish fulfillment. Through cross
referencing with Hebrew and Greek dictionaries and lexicons, we can come
to a better and more truthful and authentic understanding of the Bible.
We often have to pay dearly for the painful truth. We may just become
ÅšostrichesÄ… and stick our heads in the sand; that is the optimistic,
complacent, and painless way out of having to face the harsh and
pessimistic realities...
* * * * *
Sigmund Freud was convinced that religious ideas are an illusive
by-product of Å‚wish fulfillment,Ë› i.e., we wish for all of those things
missing in this world of oursÅ such as justice and immortality.
FreudÄ…s last two works, The Future of An Illusion (1927) and
Civilization and ItÄ…s Discontents (1930), are dedicated to this
psychological truth found hidden behind the illusive veil of religion,
according to him. It seems as if the development and formation of the
Bible, via the priestly authors, has become a fabrication of gods,
angels, and devils. The actual existence of these so-called
ÅšcharactersÄ… of the Bible is highly questionable, but the import of
their symbolic application to our lives is not. Contrary to the living
incarnations and personifications portrayed by these authors, the real
existential import, for both the individual and the community, can be
found in social, political, and economic reforms and revolutions.
Sören Kierkegaard was the first philosopher to suggest that Śhell is
right here on earth,Ä… grasped internally as the psychological despair we
experience when we sin. The inescapable anxiety or dread(angst),
ex-perienced by us after freely choosing, e.g., after Abraham Åšmade a
leap of faithÄ… by choosing to sacrifice his son, Isaac, on Mount Moriah,
as God had commanded (being the central theme for his Fear and Trembling
and Concept of Dread), gives real credence to the Bible. Kierkegaard
empha-sizes the main lesson of Job in terms of human unintelligibility,
concerning God and His actions, and calls God the ÅšAbsolute Paradox, the
Absolute UnknownÅ XÄ… (and even refers to God as Å‚a deceiver of Reason,Ë›
hinting at a God/Devil duality).1 For Kierkegaard, it just doesnÄ…t
matter whether or not these stories and characters were real; they
probably werenÄ…t, but more importantly, they still bind us to a law,
message, and moral from a Åšhigher source.Ä… Karl Jaspers, a twentieth
century existential philosopher influenced by Kierkegaard, emphasizes
the delivery of the message via personal communication, citing Jesus and
Socrates (among others), in opposition to their followers who
established institutions and, in the process, missed the mark.2...
...All of the early Christians attacked paganism and eroticism (in
par-ticular), and women and sex (in general). From the well known, and
notoriously infamous (if not outrageous) writings of St. Paul (formerly
Saul, a tax collector) addressing the Corinthians - to the fanatical
raving of Plotinus, e.g., against Å‚the vulgar harlot AphroditeË› and
Eros, we have a very clear sense of the values and attitudes of the
łearly Christian fathers.˛39 We also get a general picture of the
atmosphere surrounding early Christian culture during and preceding the
lives of Augustine and Jerome.40 From TertullianÄ…s unequivocal
condemnation of womenÄ…s ap-parel, ornamentation, and use of perfume, to
Paul, Origen, and JeromeÄ…s fanatical warnings of the temptations of the
flesh, we have a hysteria that is unparalleled in all of world history.
This Å‚hysterectomyË› goes far beyond the HebrewsÄ… patriarchal and
monotheistic sexism, with a fanaticism and fundamentalism necessary and
indispensable for any understanding of the success celebrated by the
Lucifer character.
____________
39 (I too would change my name if I were a former tax collector.)
40 St. PaulÄ…s First Letter (Epistle, for Catholics) to the Corinthians,
from Chapters six through eleven, and 14:34-5 - in the New Testament;
Tertullian, The Apparel of Women, found in Classics of Western Thought,
Vol. I, The Ancient World, ed. Stebelton H. Nulle (New York and
Burlingame: Harcourt, Brace, and World, Inc., 1964), pp. 317-27;
Plotinus, The Good or The One - Enneads, VI. 9, from The Essential
Plotinus, ed. and trans. by Elmer OÄ…Brien, S.J. (New York: 1964), or in
- Elmer OÄ…Brien: Varieties of Mystic Experience (New York: The New
American Library, Mentor-Omega Books 1964/Ä…65), pp. 24-9; JeromeÄ…s
Letters, especially Letter CXXV , found in Classics of Western Thought,
Vol. I , The Ancient World, Fourth Edition, ed. Donald S. Gochberg
(U.S.A.: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers, 1964/ Ä…88),
starting from p. 617, in this recent edition; etc.
(Compliments of/permission by author)
Frank A.S.
>>Professor Frank T. de Angelis wrote:
>Frank A.S. wrote:
>> >It is difficult to shed the skin of discredited
>> >traditional values, beliefs, habits, opinions, prejudices, and biases,
>>
>> Discredited? By whom? I would rather look for "out-dated" values.
>
>No. I mean *discredited,* here - in the sense of false beliefs and myths
>which should be -- yet haven't been -- outdated, as in aufgehoben.
>
Aufgehoben is invalidated. I seems to me you invalidate an awful lot in
one fell sweep, Frank.
Also "shedding the skin" leaves one out in the cold, which has to do with
feelings and emotions.
What have you got to take it's place?
>
>Well, it is strictly professional, based on my findings as a philosopher
>and social scientist.
>
Truth based on authority? Where did I hear that before?
>
>> "God given tools" one would assume you are looking at existence from the
religious perspective.
>> There everything changes, for it is not yourself you are examining but
Christ. You do not think
>> critically yourself and in your own understanding, but let Christ within
you do the critical
>> thinking. WCDI? Would Christ Do It is the question now, not 'should I do
it'.
>> The symbolism for this is contained in the "Bride of Christ" metaphor.
The bride is not self
>> focused but bridegroom focused and utterly fascinated and overwhelmed by
love with and for Him.
>> All thought of and about self has ceases, and now the bride lives only
through His eyes, even
>> when looking after herself.
>> Logic makes me ask myself: Who am I to look in the mirror and
"self-examine" in order to sit
>> in judgment of myself? Would such judgment be believable or would it be
tainted from the start
>> by conflict of interest?
>>
>> >...All of the early Christians attacked paganism and eroticism (in
>> >par-ticular), and women and sex (in general).
>>
>> You likely cannot have a successful society where parentage is
doubtful, extended family
>> uncertain, as well as ancestral lineage unknown and inheritance rights
disputed because mom and
dad
>> were licentious and slept around, can you? I can just imagine that some
people would just love to
>> rehabilitate our ancestral Simian instinctual sexual behaviour, and thus
have reason to disdain
>> controls on sexual expression.
>
>This is now getting into something I would like to spend a lot of time
>responding to; not because I have to think about it, nor because I need
>you organize my thoughts, but because I can not let just a little go by.
>I have a lot to say about this, but not the time or energy at this very
>moment. (I am slightly bewildered. Are you, by any chance, on a
>ministry's payroll to infiltrate, spy on, and subvert philosophers
>away... (".") ("<")
Frank, you just made my day! This is a great compliment coming from you.
Unfortunately NO, I'm
not on anyone's payroll, discounting my superannuation commission of course.
But YES, I am trying to
infiltrate and subvert philosophers of all stripes in order to let them know
that they are being
watched (spied on?) and checked for academic neutrality in their presentation.
Privately they can be
raving true-believers for all I care, but publicly they need to adhere to
strict academic
neutrality, if philosophy is to keep a reputation of academic objectivity.
As you notice I only get into your less- or un-substantiated opinions.
However truisms will also
get a kind mention. Frank you are a brilliant philosopher, but brilliance
inexorably pairs with
hubris which in turn leads to sweeping pronouncements and judgmentalism. After
all what's the use
being the best if you can't pontificate, right?
My problem is being kind and humorous enough not to turn off, but to
nurture. Unfortunately
I often DO get carried away when I see blatant lack of objectivity, because I
myself am a
true-believer in "academic neutrality". And Frank, if I offended you in any
way it's probably
because of this, my own "seal", and I'm truly sorry and seek your forgiveness.
However I would appreciate you explaining to me what you mean by: >away...
(".") ("<") . Away
from atheism? Or agnosticism perhaps?
>
>> >From the well known, and
>> >notoriously infamous (if not outrageous) writings of St. Paul (formerly
>> >Saul, a tax collector) addressing the Corinthians
>>
>> Well known? Yes. But as to "notoriously infamous (if not outrageous)
writings" of Paul, THAT
>> needs to be proven, ...
>
>Once again, as I stated in my posts (naming some of the most prestigious
>philosophers), it is a very typical and well known assessment
>prolifically commented upon within the history of western philosophy as
>a whole. (Really no debate here.)
I must have missed those names, Frank. Perhaps you would be kind enough to
post them again?
Since he is that same Paul et al who are the most printed and sold authors in
history, one would
need to maintain the most meticulous academic neutrality or be suspected of
dispensing sour grapes,
don't you think?
>
>> If you have evidence that Saul was NOT a learned Pharisee in the
service of the Sanhedrin and
>> charged with the persecution of Christians as is generally believed, but
one (in Judaism
despised)
>> tax collector then you DO need to cite PROOF, Frank, not just your personal
remark in brackets,
as
>> if you want to say: Everyone who doesn't know that is obviously
intellectually challenged. With
this
>> you invite suspicion, that you don't know whom exactly you are talking
about, and I'm not
kidding,
>> Frank.
>>
Please Frank, show me how you arrived at the identity of Paul.
Frank
A friend to Jesus and all who love
To overcome evil with good is good,
to resist evil by evil is evil.
- Mohammed (570-632 A.D.)
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil
is for good men to do nothing.
- Edmund Burke (1729-1797)
ric carter
"Kalle Helenius" <Kalle.H...@907.aldata.fi> wrote:
> Joe Jefferson wrote in message <3569F2...@primenet.com>...
> >Thank you. You have actually come up with a logical answer, and
> >incidently made my point. If the beliefs of Wicca are objectively true
> >its morals are valid for everyone. Just as, if the beliefs of
> >Christianity are objectively true, *its* morals are valid for everyone.
>
> You would do well to define the morals of your bible, and set those morals
> against those of others (whether or not they are only in your mindset or
> not). Unless you define the morals, this discussion is pointless.
This discussion is pointless anyway, since none of the debaters will
ever agree with the points presented by others.
Each of the myriads of sects allegedly basing their dogmas [varied] on
biblical texts [of which there's no consensus re: contents or meaning]
will select [and/or interpret] any fragment of biblical text that
supports their dogmatic positions [predetermined], and will ignore all
other texts. Infinite complexity here is possible and thus inevitable.
Groups and individuals basing their morals, dogmas, ideals, mores and
other norms/rules on non-biblical sources have an equally-infinite
number of possible choices re: guidelines and interpretation. Some
few out of all these groups, biblical and otherwise, may reach some
accord in certain areas, but can NEVER reach a meaningful consensus on
substantive issues. That's how these games are played. Followers of
a paradigm only win when the competition goes extinct.
Therefore, the only way for one moral code to prevail, is to kill the
followers of all other moral codes. Xians have been working on this
for centuries, but are still nowhere near their goal. Yow.
Ric "cut'em off at the past!" Carter, http://www.sonic.net/~ric
***
*** try SkeptiChat, the mail.list for interesting loudmouths
***
to join: email 'subscribe skeptichat' to: majo...@lists.sonic.net
to quit: email 'unsubscribe skeptichat' to: majo...@lists.sonic.net
Frank T. De Angelis
Frank:
That one wasn't for public consumption, but was private e-mail
correspondence in direct response TO YOUR PRIVATE E-MAIL CORRESPONDENCE.
In kind is a matter of reciprocity (as opposed to a response to an ng.
e-mail - which it wasn't, and I even checked first to see that it
wasn't). Hmmm. ?
Frank A.S. wrote:
>
> >>Professor Frank T. de Angelis wrote:
> >Frank A.S. wrote:
>
> >> >It is difficult to shed the skin of discredited
> >> >traditional values, beliefs, habits, opinions, prejudices, and biases,
> >>
> >> Discredited? By whom? I would rather look for "out-dated" values.
> >
> >No. I mean *discredited,* here - in the sense of false beliefs and myths which should be -- yet haven't been -- outdated, as in aufgehoben.
> >
> Aufgehoben is invalidated. I seems to me you invalidate an awful lot in one fell sweep, Frank.
Frank, not even close. Aufgehoben from Aufhebung/aufheben DEFINED IN
BOTH THE NARROW AND GENERAL SENSE by G.W.F. Hegel, in his *Science of
Logic* or by me in my Kinesis, 1974 article (A Graduate Journal in
Philosophy at the University of Ill. at Carbondale), *The Authentic
Hegel* - with a revision reviewed and accomp. by Herbert Marcuse - after
partial credit went to my other mentor, Walter Koppelman. This is an
untranslatable into English dialectical term referring to the process of
overcoming and going beyond with and by including what has gone before
it. It is to -- as Hegel instructs, in understanding the German meaning,
and hence, any translation of the term -- *PRESERVE AND DESTROY AT THE
SAME TIME.* *Sublate* is a lot closer than *transcend* (inaccurate by
many of the Hegel-Marx translators, and by almost all of the French
philosophers and translators, including Jean-Paul Sartre/Hazel Barnes,
Jean Hyppolite, Alexander Kojeve, etc.), but *invalidated* is even less
accurate and insightful in understanding the meaning.
> Also "shedding the skin" leaves one out in the cold, which has to do with
> feelings and emotions.
No, it is peeling off the superficial, convoluted, unessential, and
peripheral layers.
> What have you got to take it's place?
Truth (philosophical and empirical - HUMAN).
> >Well, it is strictly professional, based on my findings as a philosopher
> >and social scientist.
> >
> Truth based on authority? Where did I hear that before?
?? I'm talking about my vernacular and claims, here, being in accordance
with professional standards and methods of coming to my analyses.
Sorry Frank. I'm just not going to answer the rest, piece by piece.
I strongly sense no communication at this point.
All I have to say for now is... I'm glad you dropped the *an atheist who
loves Jesus* and sincerely wonder if you are now entering a new phase of
conversion?
> Frank
> A friend to Jesus and all who love
Sincerely,
Frank SPARTACUS http://home.fda.net/~spartacus
hints: Look at Bertrand Russell's *Why I am Not a Christian,* *Marriage
and Morals,* etc.; John Stuart Mill's *Subjection of Women,*
*Autobiography, etc.; Friedrich Nietzsche; Marx; Karl Jaspers; etc.,
etc., etc.
Worse than Matthew...
Tax collector/bounty hunter - for not paying tribute: nomisma tou
ke(e)nsou (by inference) , diokeis, ...
Frank A.S.
ric carter wrote in message <356db32b...@news.sonic.net>...
>
>Therefore, the only way for one moral code to prevail, is to kill the
>followers of all other moral codes. Xians have been working on this
>for centuries, but are still nowhere near their goal. Yow.
>
Christians ever since and still seeks to lengthen the list of martyrs. But
like Christians in the Roman Coliseum, they would rather die than dishonour
their Christ by fighting back.
Frank
A friend to Jesus, Buddha, LaoTse and all who love
Only necessity understood, and bondage
to the highest is identical with true freedom.
- William James (1842-1910)
Greg Nixon
€ To Christians, you sound like one of Satan's hordes that have decimated
€ Christians ever since and still seeks to lengthen the list of martyrs. But
€ like Christians in the Roman Coliseum, they would rather die than dishonour
€ their Christ by fighting back.
€
€ Frank
€ A friend to Jesus, Buddha, LaoTse and all who love
Frank, you are cosmically boring.
--
Greg Nixon <nix...@frontiernet.net>
<http://onesun.cc.geneseo.edu/~nixon/>
"Against stupidity, the very gods themselves contend in vain."
(Joannes von Schiller, The Maid of Orleans, Act. III, sc. 6.)
Joe Jefferson
(Posted and emailed)
Frank T. De Angelis wrote:
>
> Well Joe:
>
> I do thank you for your meticulous reply (i.e., detailed to some
> extent). Almost all of your comments seem to just be damage control, and
> defensively justificatory. Everytime you go to explain and defend you
> fall back on that great grammatical and logical stopper: its okay
> because god said it. Hmm. Blind faith is fine for blind people, I
> suppose, but you are living on the same planet as the rest of us.
You seem to be having difficulty separating my points from Paul's. I
*Never* claimed that God said anything. I pointed out that *Paul*
claimed it, and asked you the source of your moral standards. If you're
really the philosopher you claim to be you should know that claims of
moral authority can't rest simply upon your say so.
> Joe Jefferson wrote:
> >
> > Frank T. De Angelis wrote:
>
> > > My preamble/prefatory remarks: I think Paul was a sneaky little bastard who hated women and, at times, everyone. He was extremely sexist (truly deserving the philosophical community's scorn and criticism as an
> anti-intellectual/philosophical sexist pig) and racist (an ethnicist) -
> who admonished with the hateful vengeance of a twofaced, contradictive
> scoundrel and the thief which he admitted being. He hated sex, women,
> philosophy, and Corinthian peoples in general. He was a dictator who
> violently cursed people.
>
> > I disagree. He was none of those things.
>
> > > He preached submission to ruling tyrants,
> > > associatung their power with (as coming from) God. He preached
> > > abstinence, against sex, and placed women so low on the
> > > Aristotelian-Thomist Catholic Medieval scale of *hierarchy of beings* that I can't begin to tell you about. He preached for women to blindly and universally obey their husbands, slaves their masters, and all people their political rulers.
> >
> > And your reason for thinking he was wrong is?
>
> ARE YOU SERIOUS? First, you say you disagree with my description of
> Paul. Okay, but then you ask for my reason for thinking he was wrong?
> Wow! Which is it? On earth, humans think and reason...hopefully
> logically. What is wrong with the list above, you say? Apparently,
> *nothing* that a classic or neo-Nazi Catholic would find objectionable,
> but within human civilization - here on earth (including Jesus), we
> would find quite a bit wrong with the list above (including most
> Catholics).
Yeah, how disrespectful of me to ask you to offer reasons for your
objections. But please enlighten us mortals as to just how you gained
the right to make your standards of right and wrong normative for
everyone else. Paul at least made a claim of divine revelation; a claim
which, if true, justifies his moral authority. What is the source of
your moral authority?
> > > A BRIEF AND INCOMPLETE SKETCHNOTE SYNOPSIS OF THE OBJECTIONABLE PAUL
> > > (ST. ???):
> > >
> > > A DEFENSE OF THE EXISTING TYRANICAL POLITICAL ORDER AND SLAVERY; THE
> > > *DIVINE RIGHT OF KINGS* IDEOLOGY:
> > >
> > > Rom. 1, 13:1-7: Paul gives us the very first Christian *DIVINE RIGHT OF KINGS* ideology; he tells us to obey all political leaders because all authority and power comes directly from God, and that the former is
> appointed by God *to inflict God's punishment...*
> >
> > IOW, the command to obey follows logically from the statement that the
> > rulers were appointed by God. Seems pretty reasonable to me. Unless of
> > course you have had a different revelation? Are you saying that they
> > *weren't* appointed by God? How do you know?
>
> Again, are you serious? How do I know? How do you know anything about
> your god? Form scriptures? Hitting your head while in a drunken stupor,
> and seeing god? Disputed arbitrary and inconsistent documents [with
> and/or without contradictory and apocalytic Hebrew biblical scriptures
> and the Ugaritic cuneiform matriarchal and polytheistic scriptures that
> the Judaic and Christian scriptures came from (were stolen from], by the
> self-interested, self-serving priestly castes who continuously created,
> altered, and re-interpreted them to fit their ideological outlook at any
> given time and place?
First of all, this is a complete non-sequitor. It does nothing to
support your objections to Paul, or to refute his claim to divine
revelation. I won't comment on your characterization of the Hebrew
scriptures since less than a month ago another poster showed rather
conclusively that you don't know nearly as much about Ugarit or ancient
middle-eastern cultures in general as you pretend to.
> This is absolutely absurd. Look, I understand that people have faith and
> believe in things carte blanche, for no good (human) reason. First they
> say they base it on nothing else, no book (i.e., scripture) nor anything
> they have been *born into* or surrounded by in a society of humans who
> gave them such ideas; only God it(him?) self. Then they -- ultimately,
> and contradictively -- go to some self-serving human written,
> mistranslated, and misinterpreted documents - all of which are under
> dispute, internal to particular organizations as well as external to
> them.
>
> So, self-serving self-appointed people, like Paul, especially those who
> were never really with your god (Jesus, as a disciple...okay, *apostle*)
> in the first place, tell you something and you take that as the word of
> your god who came to you from completely dubious and everchanging
> sources? Hmm. How gullibale. No wonder Hitler got his start in the
> peasant Catholic regions of Bavaria, and the Hofbraühaus in Munchen!
Again a non-sequitor. How could my acceptance or non-aceptance of Paul
as an authority have any bearing on the validity or your objections to
him? For a philosopher you don't seem to have a very good grasp on
logic.
> > > Eph 1, 6: *SLAVES, OBEY YOUR HUMAN MASTERS*
> > >
> > > Tit. 2:9: *Slaves should be told it is their duty to obey their masters
> > > and to give them satisfactory service in every way. They are not to
> > > answer back or to be light-fingered...*
> >
> > Seems like pretty good advice to give a slave. Much better than: "Rise
> > up in rebellion against your master and be executed."
>
> Only you, the slave holders, and the feeble minded would.
>
As well as anyone who values human life. But the idea of non-resistance
is not original to Paul: he was merely drawing on the teaching of Jesus
as recorded in Matthew 5:38-48.
> > > Thes 2, 3: *IF A MAN SHALL NOT WORK HE SHALL NOT EAT* (Hardly humane
> > > and Jesus-like).
> >
> > Look at it in context. This is a command to church members not to be
> > lazy and expect other Christians to support them. Note also that it says
> > *shall* not work, not *can* not work.
>
> Well, in the exact Greek, especially, there is clearly an inconsistency
> with Jesus, here (which is why Marx was much closer to Jesus on this
> one. The famous distinction between *from each according to his work, to
> each according to his needs* versus *from each according to his
> abilities, to each according to his needs* shows that both Marx and
> Jesus opted for the latter).
An inconsistency with Jesus how? Please give the reference showing that
Jesus differed from Paul.
> WOMEN IN GENERAL:
> > >
> > > Cor 1, 6-7: Here Paul talks against men having sex or any physical
> > > contact at all with women. Sex is considered so bad, that it should only occur if temptation overcomes a male...then he should marry, for *it is better to marry then burn in hell.*
> >
> > You'd better go back and read that passage again. It doesn't say what
> > you think it says.
>
> I have, several times, and in several translations and the original
> Greek. I think (1) YOU DON'T THINK AT ALL and (2) you are stretching for
> both justifcation and wish fulfillment, both at the same time.
Well, you're certainly entitled to your opinion. The passage still
doesn't say what you claimed it does.
> > > Cor 1, 11: Here Paul clearly considers women to be inferior to man; she ought to cover and bow her head in shame, to give homage to man, while man gives homage to God,but he shouldn't cover his head because he
> directly *represents the person and glory of God.* The female always
> represents her debt to male authority.
> >
> > Nothing at all about bowing her head, or that covering her head is out
> > of shame. If you're going to object to a passage, object to what it
> > says, not what it doesn't say.
> >
> > > (AGAIN) , *SLAVES, OBEY YOUR MASTERS; WIVES, OBEY YOUR HUSBANDS.*
> > > Eph 5:22- *You wives must learn to adapt yourselves to your husbands, as you submit...for the husband is the head of the wife in the same way that Christ is the head of the Church. The willing subjection..be reproduced in the subjection of wives to their husbands...*
> > >
> > > Cor 1, 14:34: Along with the former rituals of female inferiority, Paul adds here that WOMEN should not speak in church, and if they have any questions they should wait until they get home and ask their husbands.
> > >
> > > Tim 1, 2:8-3: He gets worse, and says that women should be plain, quiet, learn quietly and humbly, and that he personally doesn't allow them to teach or hold any position of authority - and esp. over men. His claims that his reason for it goes back to man being created first and that it was *Eve and not Adam who was first deceived and fell into sin.* (What a prick this guy is!)
> >
> > You obviously have very strong feelings about this subject. Why do you
> > think that is?
>
> What? again, are you serious? You would ask, what is wrong with grabbing
> your women, clubbing her over the head, and urinating on her to mark
> your territory?
No, I wouldn't ask that. I would ask why you object to what Paul wrote.
And now I would ask why you insist on making things up and attributing
them to Paul. Is this your idea of ethical behavior?
"Was it a sin for me to lower myself in order to elevate you by
preaching the Gospel free of charge? I robbed other churches by
receiving support from them so as to serve you. And when I was with you
and needed something, I was not a burden to anyone, for the brothers who
came from Macedonia supplied what I needed. I have kept myself from
being a burden to you in any way, and will continue to do so." (2 Cor.
11:7-9. NIV)
Clearly Paul was a lot more honest than you are. His "robbing other
churches" consisted of receiving support from them for his missionary
endeavors.
> > > Cor. 1 5-6: Here we have Paul preaching against even *associating* with
> > > anyone he considered to be immoral - and to not eat with them, and
> > > admonishing them to not go to law in pagan courts. Hmm. Jesus welcomed
> > > -- and ate with -- prostitutes, let them bath him in perfume and he
> > > washed their feet, etc.
> >
> > Same comment as above.
Paul's own clarification of the above:
"I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral
people - not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or
the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to
leave the world. But now I am writing you that you must not associate
with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or
greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such
a man do not even eat. What business is it of mine to judge those
outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge
those outside. Expel the wicked man from among you." (1 Cor. 5:9-13.
NIV)
> > > Tit 1, 10:1-2: Paul agrees that *Men of Crete are always liars, evil and
> > > beastly, lazy and greedy.*
> >
> > The correct reference is Tit. 1:10. Yes, Paul said this. Where is your
> > evidence that his statement wasn't correct?
>
> Again, how can you possibly be serious? What proof do I have that it
> isn;t true that ALL Cretans aren't dumb, stupid, lazy, and evil? That,
> my friend, is an a priori false universal statement of prejudice. Any
> basic logic or critical thinking class should be able to clearly
> demonstrate the faulty thinking to you and any other human being. It is
> a classic logical fallacy called *Hasty Generalization.* Got it?
No, 'my friend', it is not a false universal statement of prejudice. It
is an example of hyperbole, as the context clearly shows. It's exactly
the same thing Luke does when he writes: "All the Athenians and the
foreigners who lived there spent their time doing nothing but talking
about and listening to the latest ideas." (Acts 17:21. NIV) Recognizing
it for what it is requires nothing more than common sense.
> > > *NOTHING GOOD CAN (has) EVER COME OUT OF CORINTH*
> >
> > I can't find this statement anywhere. What is the reference?
> (It is N.T. biblical, but not Paul. Okay)
NT Biblical where? I checked every occurrance of the word "Corinth" and
I still can't find the reference.
> > > At the conlcusion of Cor 1, Paul uses a rare and somewhat hitherto
> > > unfamiliar Greek (Greconized Aramaic ?) term, ANATHEMA. It is an awful
> > > and hateful CURSE, whose etymological meaning includes
> > > anesthetize-vaporize, hang, crucify, etc. [Cf. the Langenscheidt
> > > Classical (Biblical) Greek-English Dictionary.]
> >
> > The verse is 1 Cor. 16:22. It reads, "If anyone does not love the Lord -
> > a curse be on him. Come, O Lord!" (NIV) which seems to imply that the
> > curse comes from God, not Paul.
>
> Youcan play all of the games you want, but the fact remains, (1) it is a
> curse by Paul, and (2) is not translated fully, due to the full impact
> of the etymological translational meaning. It means much more than
> simply *curse,* okay? I gave you the etymological reference: you should
> have looked it up before spouting, but then again...you're all you are
> all about, isn't it? You don't want the truth...obviously you can't
> handle it, and only want to believe the silly and contradictive beliefs
> you cling to. That is the problem of ivesting everything you have in an
> empty basket. I'll alwatys choose truth; that's why I'm a philosopher
> (and you, *a believer*).
So I guess it's okay for a philosopher to just make things up and use
them as the basis for your opinions? That must be the difference between
philosophers and scientists. *We* have to stick to the evidence.
> > > ...and all this from a reformed tax collector.
> >
> > Nope. Paul was never a tax collector.
>
> As Saul, yes, he was a tax collector. Are younow going to say, *well,
> that's not Paul...when god changed his name he changed his profession,
> etc. - he is re-born as another person...* what hokey shit!
Actually it would never have occurred to me to say that. I was going to
say that as Saul he was trained as a tentmaker, and after his religious
training he worked as an assistent to the Sanhedrin. It was in this
capacity that he made his famous trip to Damascus. Neither before nor
after his conversion was Paul ever a tax collector. You may be mixing
him up with Matthew, who was a tax collector.
> I'm sorry; there are times where you just have to say, *ENOUGH*! I've
> done my best; I tried, but on deaf and dumb ears and closed eyes. I'm
> sorry, but I there is a point at which an educator and human being will
> give up on other fellow humans.
>
> > > Prof./Author F.T. De Angelis SPARTACUS http://home.fda.net/~spartacus
Professor of WHAT? If the things you wrote in this post ever appeared in
any scholarly publication you would be laughed out of academia.
--
Joe of Castle Jefferson
http://www.primenet.com/~jjstrshp/
Site updated May 8th, 1998.
"Defend the cause of the weak and fatherless; maintain the rights of the
Frank T. De Angelis
Joe:
I clearly stated the notorious and re-re-hashed over remarks of Paul.
Within the whole of recent history of thought, especially that of
western philosophy, there just isn't much reasonable debate on two very
obvious -- no brainer -- points: Paul was as sexist as one could get
(without being a woman beater and pimp), and was a woman hater. He was
the architect of a vicious Divinre Right of Kings ideology and justified
slavery. I gave you ample proof. If you want to deny the obvious, that
is fine. You are entitled to be as ignorant as you want to be. You can
squirm all you want in trying to justify, but most intellectually honest
people -- even many Christians -- don't try to do damage control and let
dying dogs *lie.*
You are certainly entitled to believe in whatever you want to, and I
understand that wish fulfillment is psychologically justified in helping
the weak to survive and cope with reality. Ever since the good ole days
when the Church philosophers reigned (the *St.* philosophers), I see
only one coherent giant, Kierkegaard, and that is because he knew when
to keep his mouth shut...at that point at which people try to begin
defining their gods, he just said -- being both intellectually and
humanly honest and wise -- X (that is, God is the Absolute paradox, the
Absolute Unknown... X). Fine, justkeep it to yourself.
The problem with your justificatory excuses for Paul is that they are
symptomatic of Christian fanaticism - which has had the worst track
record to date concerning persecution. Christians are still persecuting
many of us in a supposedly democratic society, at the work place, etc.
Its just too bad you don't live your pathetic lives like the one great
human you hypocritically espouse to follow, JESUS.
If it were just a matter of Jesus...I could handle that, but
Christians...well, that is quite a different matter. In the final
analysis, I would like to leave you with one simple thought and test:
before you answer anything and anyone, and before you ever act, just ask
yourself...*what would Jesus do? Would he ever say this or take this
action?* If he wouldn't, then DON'T YOU!
As for me, well -the *wise men are always plagued by pests,* aren't
they? The swarm, unfortunately consist of so-called Christians.
F.T. De Angelis SPARTACUS http://home.fda.net/~spartacus
Adjunct Prof./Author of Philosophy, Religion, and Humanities
Frank T. De Angelis
Joe:
I clearly stated the notorious and re-re-hashed over remarks of Paul.
Within the whole of recent history of thought, especially that of
western philosophy (from the absolutely prestigious giants, Russell,
Mill, etc.), there just isn't much reasonable debate on two very obvious
-- no brainer -- points: Paul was as sexist as one could get (without
being a woman beater and pimp), and was a woman hater. He was the
architect of a vicious Divine Right of Kings ideology and justified
slavery. I gave you ample and repetitive proof for this, right from the
horse's mouth (in the original written greek and English - if you ever
bothered to actually read the posts). If you want to deny the obvious,
that is fine. You are entitled to be as ignorant as you want to be. You
can squirm all you want in trying to justify, but most intellectually
honest people -- even many Christians -- don't try to do damage control
and let dying dogs *lie* with such a vindictive person as Paul.
You are certainly entitled to believe in whatever you want to, and I
understand that wish fulfillment is psychologically justified in helping
the weak to survive and cope with reality. Ever since the good ole days
when the Church philosophers reigned (the *St.* philosophers - and
weretruly great thinkers), I see only one coherent giant, Kierkegaard,
and that is because he knew when to keep his mouth shut...at that point
at which people try to begin defining their gods, he just said -- being
both intellectually and humanly honest and wise -- X (that is, God is
the Absolute Paradox, the Absolute Unknown... X). Fine, just keep it to
yourself.
The problem with your justificatory excuses for Paul is that they are
symptomatic of Christian fanaticism - which has had the worst track
record to date concerning persecution, from the Greek and Roman beliefs
to the present (especially politically and in the little bit of
education left in the US). Christians are still persecuting many of us
in a supposedly democratic society, at the work place, in all of the
public schools (especially where I live, where they are trained to
infiltrate and subvert public education -- and heckle in my classes --
at the Creation Science Institute), etc.
Its just too bad you don't live your pathetic lives like the one great
human you hypocritically espouse to follow, JESUS.
If it were just a matter of Jesus...I could handle that, but
Christians...well, that is quite a different matter. In Christianity, I
see this beginning with Paul. In the final analysis, I would like to
leave you with one simple thought and test:before you answer anything
and anyone, and before you ever act, just ask yourself...*what would
Jesus do? Would he ever say this or take this action?* If he wouldn't,
then DON'T YOU!
As for me, well -the *wise men are always plagued by pests,* aren't
they? The swarm, unfortunately consist of so-called Christians.
F.T. De Angelis SPARTACUS http://home.fda.net/~spartacus
Frank T. De Angelis
Rasmus Gjesdal wrote:
<(with brief snips along the way)>
>
> > Briefly, (1) the well known moral philosophy of Socrates is that which claims that moral failure is attributed to ignorance, not to a flaw in character. So, bad actions are not caused by evil intentions, but by a lack of knowledge. (2) If the actual Hermetic writings do not predate the Socratic age of the 5th c. BCE, then, chances are, they are really influenced by Socrates -- judging from the same moral ideology expressed in the original quote I read from the earlier post way back -- and not the ancients (e.g., the Egyptians). (3) Look at page 318 of the third ed. of the Nag Hammadi Library, where the Coptic redacter and Plato, neo-Platonists, and Manichaean influences are propossed within the context of the *gnostic setting.*
> >
> I have two entirely different translations of Hermetic literature. The one set appears to be influenced by Roman/Greek thought. The other seems to be Greek/Egyptian.
> The Roman /Greek seems to lean more toward superstition and be a corruption of earlyer writings. It would also seem that the Gnostic material suffered the same fate, where christianity is a corruption of ancient Gnostic material after it was Romanized.
>
> Heathens may in reality be those who have falsified material and there is no doubt in my mind who they are.
>
> > See what I mean; what I am getting at? The supposed *words of Hermes* (esp. re: this Socratic moral element to the Hermetic quote referred to) may really be a Socratic-Platonic influence in the supposed wording of Hermes, the Greek messenger astraldeity.
> >
> > (beginning on p. 330 of the third ed.), revealing the Coptic rendering of originally Greco-Roman material, e.g., labelled THE PERFECT TEACHING.
> > I am pretty sure I was correct in my initial beliefs here. Anyway,
> > Asclepius is a character with Hermes in the dialogues, and is a Latin name. I believe that this Hermes is a composite of Egyptian, Greek
(Socratic-Platonic, esp. re: morality and knowledge/ignorance, extending
> > to all of the Gnostic gospels, too),
>
> Yes I think it is a collection of much ancient wisdom literature and it may in fact be a product of Alexandria. Asclepius was the son of Apollo according to Greek legend called son also by Hermes Trismegistus. Asclepius was the God of Medicine but it seems that in the Hermetic literature Hermes speaks to all who understands as "son".
>
> >Persian Zoroastrian-Manichaean, and
> > possibly other influences converging here, in the Coptic Nag Hammadi
> > Library. I am almost certain of it.
> >
> Yes, but more.
>
> > The interesting way in which I worked Hermes into my book (*...and The Mystery of Lucifer*) came from the concepts and images of the goat,
god's messenger, ram, etc. of Hermes in building up a Greco-Roman
Christian composite for Jerome's *invention* and fallacious insertion of
*Lucifer* into the O.T. Bible, which was never in the original Hebrew
nor the Greek Septuagint.
> >
> No the Lucifer is a borrowing as are the angels which were nothing but
> falling stars.
Rasmus: It has been a while.
Yes, from Eo(u)s - god of Dawn, and Eosphoros, along with some of my
book's leads from Persian and Greco-Roman influences on Augustine --->
Jerome, whala! Lucifer appears, with all of the
Dionysian-Hermetic-Apollonian-Ishtar/Asherah/Isis/Aphrodite/Venus
characteristics of every- and all things, concepts, people, gods,
temples and other artifacts of worship...all condemned and destroyed,
only to find them in a new personification of a reinvented life
form...Lucifer. How diabolically clever and imaginative
I am interested in what you have said here, above (especially re: the
Asclepius-Apollo connection). I definitely need to read over all of this
much more.
You see, in general (and I tried to do this in/with my book, and in the
posts two weeks ago w/ Gwen S.), I see two very pronounced and basic
trailing lines of influence throughout ancient-classical history (since
I am referring to written works of history, I exclude the Chinese from
this category, quite possibly out of world historical ignorance). One is
the Egyptian - leading through the sketchy Phoenician, early or
pre-Greek (i.e., e.g., the Minoan and Cretan), and Greco-Roman; while
the other is the Sumerian-Akkadian-Babylonian Mesopotamian. Where the
latter connects with the Hebrew and, in turn, the Greco-Roman/Christian,
is -- I am unequivocally convinced, from my extensive research/studies
into--> my book -- the Ugaritic. That is why I refer to it as a
*missing link* culture of language, scriptures, gods, etc.
Keep in Touch, my friend
Ciao,
Frank (Spartacus) http://home.fda.net/~spartacus
Rasmus Gjesdal
Hi Frank,
I thank you again for the correspondence and am looking forward to seeing
your entire book.
The problems we are looking at are problems of interpretation.
I was looking at the crescent moon the last night. I could clearly see the
outline of
the full body and how the reflection of the sun was so clear.
It was difficult to understand how the ancients had not seen this
connection, but
remembered which ancients were blinded.
From St. Hippolytus and his Refutation of all Heresies:
CHAP. V.--ANAXIMANDER; HIS THEORY OF THE INFINITE; HIS
ASTRONOMIC OPINIONS; HIS PHYSICS.
Anaximander, then, was the hearer of Thales. (600BCE) Anaximander was
son of Praxiadas, and a native of Miletus. This man said that the
originating principle of existing things is a certain constitution of the
Infinite, out of which the heavens are generated, and the worlds therein;
and that this principle is eternal and undecaying, and comprising all the
worlds. And he speaks of time as something of limited generation, and
subsistence, and destruction. This person declared the Infinite to be an
originating principle and element of existing things, being the first to
employ such a
denomination of the originating principle. But, moreover, he asserted that
there is an eternal motion, by the agency of which it happens that the
heavens(8) are generated; but that the earth is poised aloft, upheld by
nothing, continuing(so) on account of its equal distance from all (the
heavenly bodies); and that the figure of it is curved, circular,(1) similar
to a column of stone.(2) And one of the surfaces we tread upon, but the
other is opposite.(3) And that the stars are a circle of fire, separated
from the fire which is in the vicinity of the world, and encompassed by
air.
And that certain atmospheric exhalations arise in places where the stars
shine; wherefore, also, when these exhalations are obstructed, that
eclipses take place. And that the moon sometimes appears frill and
sometimes waning, according to the obstruction or opening of its
(orbital) paths. But that the circle of the sun is twenty-seven times(4)
larger than the moon, and that the sun is situated in the highest (quarter
of the firmament); whereas the orbs of the fixed stars in the lowest.
And that man was, originally, similar to a different animal, that is, a
fish. And that winds are caused by the separation of very rarified
exhalations of the atmosphere, and by their motion after they have been
condensed. And that rain arises from earth's giving back (the vapours which
it receives) from the (clouds(6)) under the sun. And that there are flashes
of lightning when the wind coming down severs the clouds. This
person was born in the third year of the XLII. Olympiad.(7)
Now we must reallize that this Hippolytos who wrote the above report was
the simpleton explaining why trigonometry was stupid!!!
Listen to how he carries on about Anaxagoras in his attempt to discredit
intelligence:
"And that the Nile is inundated in summer, by reason of the waters carried
down into it from the snows in northern (latitudes).(2) And that the sun
and moon and all the stars are fiery stones, that were rolled round by the
rotation of the atmosphere. And that beneath the stars are sun and moon,
and certain invisible bodies that are carried along with us; and that we
have no perception of the heat of the stars, both on account of their being
so far away, and on account of their distance from the earth; and further,
they are not to the same degree hot as the sun, on account of their
occupying a colder situation. And that the moon, being lower than the
sun, is nearer us. And that the sun surpasses the eloponnesus in size. And
that the moon has not light of its own, but from the sun. But that the
revolution of the stars takes place under the earth. And that the moon is
eclipsed when the earth is interposed, and occasionally also those (stars)
that are underneath the moon. And that the sire (is eclipsed) when, at the
beginning of the month, the moon is interposed. And that the solstices are
caused by both sun and moon being repulsed by the air. And that the moon is
often turned, by its not being able to make head against the cold. This
person was the first to frame definitions regarding eclipses and
illuminations. And he affirmed that the moon is earthy, and has in it
plains and ravines. And that the milky way is a reflection of the light of
the stars which do not derive their radiance from the sun;(3) and that the
stars, coursing (the firmament) as shooting sparks, arise out of the motion
of the pole. And that winds are caused when the atmosphere is ..........
Now bear in mind that this is the simpleton talking and inconsistencies
such as the moon in one place having no light of it's own because it just
reflected the light of the sun, and in another it was a fiery body comes
from the imbecile Hippolytus and not the great thinker he is trying to
refute.
Now when we attempt to teach the children of the spirit to understand, we
may employ logic and see that in such cases as the shroud of Turin, were
regardless of evidence to it being a forgery they refuse to see it. How
much more do you think will have to be presented for them to understand
that such a god as depicted in the bible never existed and never could
have?
It is a formidable task, and the greatest task facing us today is removing
the insanity of the cult so that there may be a hope that our children can
develope a true civilization instead of the "christian mockery."
The material which the intellectuals attempted to pass on has forever been
destroyed by the simpletons and all we have left are interpretations by
simpletons like Hippolytus.
We may look at the past and see and understand what happened, but to
rediscover the real truths we may be forced to find them all over again
thanks to the cult that is forcing my children to learn about the
resurrection of a body after rigor mortice set in.
Knowledge (Gnosis) lost once, may it never happend again!
Sincerely
--
Rasmus
To state that there are things man does not know, such as his mental
processes, and to research the subject is how man advances.
To state that since there are things man does not understand and therefore
a God must exist is how man regresses.
To state that since there are things man does not understand
the existance of the biblical God is prooven is relegating man to vegetable
mentality
Frank T. De Angelis <spar...@fda.net> skrev i artikkelen
<356AD1...@fda.net>...
Jay Random
Frank T. De Angelis wrote:
>
> earlier stage of socialism and that of communism, in his 1917 *State and
> his needs* designating the former.
Ahem: Lenin said, `From each according to his abilities; to each
according to his work.' Quite a different statement altogether, &
ironically, one closely conforming to Paul's doctrine. As `communism'
(in the sense used above, referring to the end-product of a Marxist
regime, where all needs & wants are satisfied & the state withers away)
does not exist, & in fact cannot exist in a society composed of human
beings, this virtually amounts to an acknowledgement by Lenin that one
must indeed work to survive.
I shall now butt out of this ridiculous debate. I subscribed to
alt.mythology some time ago, but have never had time to actually read it
yet. Now I know what I was missing: still more flamewars & hot air.
Enjoy, people. I'm glad you're not doing this within earshot of me.
--J. Random Shakes His Head & Wanders Off Into The Middle Distance,
D.G.F.V.
Jay Random
Frank T. De Angelis wrote:
>
>
> I clearly stated the notorious and re-re-hashed over remarks of Paul.
> Within the whole of recent history of thought, especially that of
> western philosophy (from the absolutely prestigious giants, Russell,
> Mill, etc.),
Argument from irrelevant authority. Russell, incidentally, went on
public record as saying that it was irrational to condemn the Nazis on
ethical grounds, as ethics are simply a statement of personal prejudice.
Not an authority I'd choose to take.
> there just isn't much reasonable debate on two very obvious
> -- no brainer -- points: Paul was as sexist as one could get (without
> being a woman beater and pimp), and was a woman hater. He was the
> architect of a vicious Divine Right of Kings ideology and justified
> slavery. I gave you ample and repetitive proof for this, right from the
> horse's mouth (in the original written greek and English - if you ever
> bothered to actually read the posts). If you want to deny the obvious,
> that is fine. You are entitled to be as ignorant as you want to be. You
> can squirm all you want in trying to justify, but most intellectually
> honest people -- even many Christians -- don't try to do damage control
> and let dying dogs *lie* with such a vindictive person as Paul.
Go tell that to the Pope. In fact, go tell it to any priest, minister,
or pastor in a mainstream Christian church. They neither regard Paul nor
vindictive, nor regard his epistles as non-canonical.
In re `divine right of kings': Whatever slurs you may cast at Paul, his
idea -- `The powers that be are ordained of God' -- was an improvement
over the idea common in the pagan Mediterranean world, that kings _were_
gods. How many people in the Roman Empire, Jews, Christians,
Manichaeans, & others, were persecuted or executed for refusing to pay
homage to the divinity of the Emperor? Divine right of kings is a long
improvement from divinity of kings.
In re slavery: Show me that it was feasible to have a society _not_
based on slavery at the technological level of ancient Rome, & I will
concede that it was unjustified. We have, in fact, no examples of such a
society.
In re sexism: Every known human society prior to the 20th century
believed implicitly in the necessity of different roles for the sexes.
It is conceivable that it is _we_ who are mistaken on this point. Again,
technology may be the key point; & it would be lunatically foolish of
Paul (or God, as the case may be) to predicate his ethical prescriptions
on the existence of a technological infrastructure to society that would
not even begin to exist for eighteen centuries to come.
> You are certainly entitled to believe in whatever you want to, and I
> understand that wish fulfillment is psychologically justified in helping
> the weak to survive and cope with reality.
As opposed to yourself, the obvious pillar of strength? You flatter
yourself.
I am reminded of C.S. Lewis' observation in _The Pilgrim's Regress_: If
Christian doctrine is wish-fulfillment, then Christians wish for there
to be a strict, vengeful, & absolutely supreme deity, a Hell of eternal
suffering, & innumerable rules & restrictions on the fulfillment of
natural human desires, violation of any one of which can send one to the
said Hell. Now, is it not more likely that believing there is _no_
vengeful God, _no_ hell, & _no_ strict code of behaviour is a
wish-fulfillment fantasy? If I knew to a certainty that I was living in
such a nightmare world as that, I would certainly wish that none of
those things existed to bind me down.
> The problem with your justificatory excuses for Paul is that they are
> symptomatic of Christian fanaticism - which has had the worst track
> record to date concerning persecution,
What, worse than Hitler, Stalin, & Mao? Now you flatter the Christian
fanatics. The greatest religious persecutions in history, BY FAR, have
been the 20th-century persecutions of _all_ religious beliefs by those
tyrants who professed none & would require all their subjects to do the
same.
> from the Greek and Roman beliefs
> to the present (especially politically and in the little bit of
> education left in the US). Christians are still persecuting many of us
> in a supposedly democratic society, at the work place, in all of the
> public schools (especially where I live, where they are trained to
> infiltrate and subvert public education -- and heckle in my classes --
My goodness, one certainly can't allow heckling in classes. I'm sure
that's a crime on a par with crucifixion.
> Its just too bad you don't live your pathetic lives like the one great
> human you hypocritically espouse to follow, JESUS.
Jesus forced his way into the Temple in Jerusalem & chased out the
moneylenders with a bullwhip. This, according to your lights, is
persecution. Don't blame the Christians for imitating _that_; or if you
do, at least have the intellectual honesty not to call it hypocrisy.
> If it were just a matter of Jesus...I could handle that, but
> Christians...well, that is quite a different matter. In Christianity, I
> see this beginning with Paul. In the final analysis, I would like to
> leave you with one simple thought and test:before you answer anything
> and anyone, and before you ever act, just ask yourself...*what would
> Jesus do? Would he ever say this or take this action?* If he wouldn't,
> then DON'T YOU!
That is a matter for each Christian to decide. I would suggest that you
not teach your grandmother to suck eggs.
> As for me, well -the *wise men are always plagued by pests,* aren't
> they? The swarm, unfortunately consist of so-called Christians.
Again, you flatter yourself. I have learnt by long experience that those
people who call themselves wise are the greatest fools. I also observe,
by the list of newsgroups to which you posted this, that _you_ are
making yourself a pest to plague these same Christians -- who, in
general, are wiser than you are, for they know themselves to be neither
wise nor strong.
> F.T. De Angelis SPARTACUS http://home.fda.net/~spartacus
> Adjunct Prof./Author of Philosophy, Religion, and Humanities
I would be amused to discover what you spoon into your hapless students
on the subjects of philosophy & religion. Given that you seem to regard
Russell as a high & praiseworthy authority, & Christianity as the source
of all evil in society, I am rather inclined to pity them. I have
studied philosophy under Christians, agnostics, & atheists -- leaving
out the question of other religious groups for the moment -- but never
under anyone who spouted such venom as you do.
Your derogatory comments about the U.S. educational system are vastly
amusing, in context. You strike me as a sterling example of a good many
things that are wrong with it. Truly, they must give out professorships
in Cracker Jack boxes where you live.
I bid you adieu, sir, serene in the confidence that you will take
offence at the etymology of the term.
--J. Random Knows-A-Philosopher-From-A-Radish, D.G.F.V.
Mr. Foot Grenade
Let's just face it, Paul was a jerk. There is no excuse, except his
many personality deficits and mental illnesses, for his manic claims to
authority. However, how sad it is to see Paul's insanity given equal
weight with Jesus's teaching under the "all scripture is inspired"
blanket. For the first Christians, Jesus, not Paul, was the authority
on how to get into the Kingdom. Paul's letters only reached a few
congregations in the early years, and those congregations did not
presume to think that in Paul's missives they were receiving "New
Testament Scripture". It was only after Paul's death and the ascendency
of imperial, monarchical-episcopate Christianity that Paul's letters
were found desirable as a means of social control for the mass of
believers. Thus they found their way into the canon of "inspired
Scripture".
Oldguyteck
Jay Random <jra...@shaw.wave.ca> wrote in article
<3571B4...@shaw.wave.ca>...
> Frank T. De Angelis wrote:
> >
> Good SHOW ole chap! HIT N RUN LOL!
Ed.................(Oldguyteck) â€
Joe Jefferson
Frank T. De Angelis wrote:
>
>
> I clearly stated the notorious and re-re-hashed over remarks of Paul.
> Within the whole of recent history of thought, especially that of
> obvious -- no brainer -- points: Paul was as sexist as one could get
> (without being a woman beater and pimp), and was a woman hater. He was
> slavery. I gave you ample proof. If you want to deny the obvious, that
> is fine. You are entitled to be as ignorant as you want to be. You can
> squirm all you want in trying to justify, but most intellectually honest
> people -- even many Christians -- don't try to do damage control and let
>
> You are certainly entitled to believe in whatever you want to, and I
> understand that wish fulfillment is psychologically justified in helping
> only one coherent giant, Kierkegaard, and that is because he knew when
> to keep his mouth shut...at that point at which people try to begin
> defining their gods, he just said -- being both intellectually and
> Absolute Unknown... X). Fine, justkeep it to yourself.
>
> symptomatic of Christian fanaticism - which has had the worst track
> many of us in a supposedly democratic society, at the work place, etc.
> Its just too bad you don't live your pathetic lives like the one great
> human you hypocritically espouse to follow, JESUS.
>
> analysis, I would like to leave you with one simple thought and test:
> before you answer anything and anyone, and before you ever act, just ask
> yourself...*what would Jesus do? Would he ever say this or take this
> action?* If he wouldn't, then DON'T YOU!
>
> they? The swarm, unfortunately consist of so-called Christians.
>
Well Frank, it's been fun. I always enjoy debating with true believers.
I have to admit that your faith is much stronger than mine - I simply
can't ignore either logic or evidence the way you do. Nor do my ethics
allow me to simply make things up and attribute them to Paul. I can only
judge by what he wrote, not what you imagine that he wrote. I'm a little
bit too honest for that. But I guess that your faith in the
righteousness of your cause allows you to dispense with inconvenient
notions like integrity.
But hey, you take care of yourself and I guess I'll see you around.
ric carter
Joe Jefferson <jjst...@primenet.com> wrote:
> I *Never* claimed that God said anything. I pointed out that *Paul*
"God" ?!?!? Which one? There are so many...
Ric "carve one daily" Carter, http://www.sonic.net/~ric/church.htm
ric carter
All too true. Throw some Paulists to the lions, eh? But I digress.
Saul/Paul, the torturer and death-squad leader who invented Xianity,
was very likely a Roman agent-provacateur, acting to undermine the
Jewish Revolt. He failed there, but succeeded [beyond his wildest
dreams!] as a justifier of authority. Yow.
Ric "hang'em high" Carter, http://www.sonic.net/~ric/church.htm
Frank T. De Angelis
Rasmus:
I am really not all that familiar with the pre-Socratics, idealists (or
immaterialists) or materialists - to any high degree of competency, let
alone the less than reliable and possibly tainted secondhand sources.
I was never aware of such voluminous and specific ideas coming from
Anaximander. Yes, the distortion via the 3rd c. AD Christian,
Hyppolytus, must have been great - especially in reference to his
*essentialism,* i.e., e.g., the primordial permanence to this Unlimited
*stuff.* This *eternal* and *ageless* *stuff* - aoriston ti (Simplicius)
however, was one of all OPPOSITES in existence, with the basic elements
in historical-philosophical transit to the ancient and modern views on
basic elements with change -- either directly or indirectly -- being
implied, whether it is crudely fire, water, earth, and air - and the
changing combinations thereof, or atoms or photons, electrons,
neutrons...etc. The Pythagoreans also had that Christian metaphysical
likeness (re: permanence), yet they too had their legacy transmitted via
Hippasus, who -- in addition to that *first western dialectical
thinker,* Heraclitus -- elevated fire, a symbol of change, to primordial
status.
As to these philosophers and the(eir) astronomical views of the time, I
am somewhat ignorant beyond the basic views and differences between
Aristotle, Ptolemy, and just a handful of others; so, the astronomical
views of Anaximander and/or Hyppolytus seem peripheral to me, although I
grasp what it is you are getting at here. I am, however, quite open to a
variety of logico-philosophical and common sense interpretations
concerning explanations for the moon's phases and *disappearance.* I
think Plato's view was quite absurd, especially in relation to the
source(s) for the sun and moon's light.
My position on pantheons of various mythologies (mostly Greco-Roman) and
other less famous belief systems (especially the Ugaritic - and more so,
my fascination with the origin of Judaic-Christian written, i.e.,
scriptural gods and language/concepts coming from that particular line
of development) is twofold. First and foremost, I find the Greek
mythological tradition the most prolific, complete, and direct in
influencing our thoughts. What I have in mind here, in a real
progressive, loving, and life enhancing manner, are the concepts
embedded within Eros (Love as life force, etymologically from human
*hero* - cf. Plato's Cratylus), Psyche (Cupid), Eo(u)s (god of Dawn),
etc. Apollo, the Son of God (Light, Logos, and the only god of Truth),
is undoubtedly also of positive pre-Christian influence. Unfortunately,
Dionysius is (1) a mixed bag of blessings, most positively a celebration
of life, tragedy, and, in general, cathartic principles and practices;
(2) the most hated of Christian gods and principles -- along with Eros
(erotic Love, Life) and Eo(u)s -- attached to all goddesses,
culminating in the redacted synthesis and invention of Jerome's Latin
Vulgata, *Lucifer.*
Above all -- regardless of the belief in the existence of the Greek
gods/goddesses -- I look to traces of development in concepts, and the
etymological trial of linguistic meaning and concept formation. This, as
an Hegelian philosopher and a sociologist (a social anthropologist, to
be more specific), does not make anything *sacred* in the modern
Christian sense (or from the Medieval period to the modern Judaic
sense). This non-sacred approach, which I convincingly find in
Mesopotamian, Ugaritic, Greco-Roman culture, etc. is even in the E and J
authorships of the biblical torah. Leading biblical Hebrew scholars,
such as Richard Elliott Friedman (used by me as a springboard to my
research and book, *Who Wrote The Bible?* - 1987), along with the more
popularized Hebrew-biblical studies and translation of Harold Bloom and
David Rosenberg (*The Book of J* - 1990), reaffirm such a view. Many of
these concepts, along with those directly attributed to Jesus and other
religious leaders, are also positive, progressive, life affirming, and
therefore, human-istic and eth-i-cal (ethos) - from the most basic and
obvious criteria possible (although many of the lost and brain-dead will
obviously protest and disagree from either a hidden or not-so-hidden
agenda based solely upon blind faith and authority); versus, of course,
what is obviously life-threatening and destructive - Thanatos, Pathos,
etc. So, philosophically, as well as psychologically, truth converges on
that which is therapeia, leading to eudaimonia.
The gods just couldn't have done any better, I believe, sans their own
blind faith to Fate and Destiny - which is always fat-al... whether it
is transmitted as *God has a reason for everything,* *God is on our
side,* or God had determined, predetermined, or predestined all that
happens and will happen. This very last notion of belief as the trump
card, by the way, is what Hitler always reserved for his (philosophical
? - hardly) method of thought...Fate, in his *Mein Kampf.* Of course, I
prefer Prometheus (in mythology) and Spartacus (in reality).
Yes, it is quite disheartening when humans are so passionate in choosing
to be blinded by faith that they refuse to interpret what is the
clearest of all interpretations of someone's outrageously sexist and
prejudiced statements. What is much worse, however, is when they use
philosophy as a veil for their beliefs and baseless truths.
To claim that something is true -- and, for example, that God exists and
that they know God exists -- because God told them so, even though it
was via humans, is quite a lot to swallow. To not see that as an
intended deductive argument, based on nothing but the most blatant and
fallacious logical appeal to authority is amazing.
Whatsmore, to turn around and accuse/impune my references to Paul's
quotes - which are, to their dismay and stubborn blindeness, crystal
clear, and which have been interpreted by leading philosophers and
believers as confirmation of the obvious...well, there is little hope
for this segment of humanity - at a philosophical or any other level.
I am appealing to authority by mentioning this history of philosophy in
what we all recognize as an inductive argument, by its very nature? It
is really of no wonder to me that the Soviets imprisoned religious
fanatics due to legal insanity.
Love, Peace, and Happiness
Prof./Author F.T. De Angelis (Spartacus)
http://home.fda.net/~spartacus
Joe Jefferson
ric carter wrote:
>
> Joe Jefferson <jjst...@primenet.com> wrote:
>
> > I *Never* claimed that God said anything. I pointed out that *Paul*
>
What are you asking here? Which god I *didn't* claim said anything? That
would be all of them. And the goddesses too. Or were you really asking
which god Paul claimed to have heard?
Carrie Faulk
To:
I posted something mean and nasty (and unintelligible) about
MEN regarding the rants which stemmed from posts connected
with your threads of conversation concerning the Greek
philosophies, which at first seemed to be a private
conversation between you and Rasmus Gjesdal. I have read my
copy of The Nag Hammadi many times, and it is beautiful but
to my Western mindset very ethereal. My curiosity has led
me in many directions, and I have gone through most of your
posts to try to understand the concept of your philosophy.
The threads are very hard to read, mostly because of your
word wrap or margins -- I have received some e-mail about
mine, and have (tried) to correct this -- but back to the
matter of Hermes and other ancient writings.
I have read many esoteric theories of the Masons -- the Old
Operative Masons -- they are collected and incorporated into
The Legend of the Craft (not a book, but a term used in
reference to prehistoric traditions). The Masonic Legends
are very old and have no influence on the modern rituals of
Freemasonry, and the Masons who have written of these
legends do not speak of their ceremonies or techniques
concerning the secret rituals. However, many important
figures in prehistoric, historic and the present era were
and are Masons. In The History of Freemasonry, Albert
Gallatin Mackey, a Mason of the 33rd Degree, in Chapter X,
retells The Legend of Hermes. The sources for the legend,
and the legends themselves that can be traced I offer to you
as follows:
The Polychronicon, a Universal History, written in Latin,
translated into English by Sir John Trevisa, published by
William Caxton in 1482, was written by a Benedictine monk of
St. Werburg's Abbey in Chester. He died in the last half of
the 14th century and his name was Ranulph Higden.
Chronicon, or Chronicle, by St. Isidore, Bishop of Seville,
who died in 636.
Libri Etymologiarum, St. Isidore.
Opera Isidori, edited by 'Matriti' in 1778.
Etymologies, St. Isidore. St. Isidore used Josephus in part
for some of his works, but not all. If I had access to
these works, which I assume, without any particular reason,
might be found in the Vatican libraries, I might be able to
tell you which parts of St. Isidore's works were from
Josephus (Antiquities)
Sanchoniathon, from Cory's "Ancient Fragments", edited by E.
Richmond Hodges in London, 1876.
"de Mysteriis", by Jamblichus, who cites Selencos, who cites
Pythagoras and Plato, who were said to be Masons as well as
Euclid. I don't know if they called themselves Masons, but
they are an integral part of the oral traditions.
If I had read these ancient writings, I would consider
myself too learned to post here, so I will admit my
ignorance. I assume you know of most of these texts,
perhaps you read these ancient tomes every day. They are
out of my realm.
If you are interested in the segments, pages of the
translations, I can give you what Mackey offers, but my aim
is to tell the Legend of Hermes. There are 19 manuscripts
incorporated into The Consitutions of the Masons which are
used in the book. The Constitutions are held by Masonic
antiquarians of many different Lodges in many different
languages, and the Masons, being a secretive fraternal
order, don't 'publish'.
Before the Deluge, Lamech and his children, (the ones
descended from Adah and Zillah) wanted to preserve the seven
sciences, Masonry being the fifth, originally called
Geometry. All sciences stem from or are founded upon
Geometry, so the legend goes, and they inscribed their
knowledge upon two pillars, one of brick and the other of
marble or stone. (The book offers other accounts of the
materials, according to other forms of the legend, too many
to tell here, as many civilizations have a form of this
legend.)
Hermes discovered one of the pillars after the flood, and
communicated these sciences to mankind. There are many
forms of his name, mauled by scribes, but still Hermes.
Hermes Trimegistus, or the thrice great Hermes, the son of
Taut or Thoth, the Egyptians placed his image beside Osiris
and Isis, as the founder of religious rites, inventor of
letters, and the sciences.
The first Hermes, according to Manetho, quoted by Syncellus,
was actually before the Deluge, and was the inscriber of the
stones or pillars. The second Hermes, son of Agathodemon,
translated the pillars. The third, Thoth/Hermes (same
person), was the counsellor of Osiris and Isis.
The Egyptians say (Jamblichus citing Selencos) that he wrote
36,525 books on the sciences. Some of these were considered
to have been written by the Neo-Platonists, under the name
of Hermes, hence the Hermetic books, the Poemander is one.
Jamblichus says that Plato and Pythagorus derived their
philosophies from the pillars or columns.
Through the Hermetic Masonry, alchemy became the Hermetic
science, and from these very secret rites, the Hermetic
Rites.
They (the Hermetic Masons) allude to the Hermes who wrote 36
books on philosophy and theology, 6 on medicine, and that he
was an Egyptian legislator and priest. The early Masons
adopted him as one of the inventors of Geometry and
Architecture, as they adopted Euclid into their institution.
The list of Masons include some of the world's foremost
movers and shakers, and not only in the sciences.
So I conclude my tale as a peace offering, apology, and
springboard for creative thought.
--Carrie
Jerry Grushow
ric carter wrote:
>
> "Mr. Foot Grenade" <eas...@proaxis.com> wrote:
>
> > Let's just face it, Paul was a jerk. There is no excuse, except his
> > many personality deficits and mental illnesses, for his manic claims to
> > authority.
GG:
Paul was another Jewish madman. Certainly like many Jewish Prophets
he was manic depressive and most likely schizophrenic as well. I suffer
from the same things so I understand the prophets well.
Of course since Paul heard voices he assumed that the voices
came from God which he assumed existed. You call it mental illness. And
of course the mental wards are full of so many people who claim
authority in the name of God. So you can classify all of them as
simple lunatics.
Being a lunatic myself, I am not so lucky. I have to say that
I am either true of a lunatic. Then I must compare the data I get
from God with reality. In general lunatics such as Jesus and Paul do
not have the time to spend contemplating their revelation or lunacy.
Thus they move foward and seek the emotionally weak and downtrodden and
give them hope.
Jesus does not go to Czesar or the Emporors and attempt to
save them. The little people join the belief. Later as the masses
resonate with their belief, the Kings follow suite. Religion them
becomes a tool to control the masses.If everyone was a true Christian,
you would not need prisons.
Was Paul a lunatic? Or was Paul a Prophet of God? One man will
call him a lunatic and another a Prophet. And a Church does not require
all to believe. So believers produce churches and atheists mock them.
It takes a lunatic to know a lunatic. And it is very clear to me
that both Paul and Jesus encountered the same God I have encountered.
The world has the delimma to believe those who only accept as
truth what they can see and measure or to believe the lunatics whose
minds go beyond this universe and peek into the mind of God.
Carrie Faulk
that *Paul*
>
What are you asking here? Which god I *didn't* claim said
anything? That would be all of them. And the goddesses too.
Or were you really asking which god Paul claimed to have
heard?
------------------------------------
Shush, I hear him too! Gotta go trodden down the messes
before . .
Rasmus Gjesdal
Frank T. De Angelis <spar...@fda.net> skrev i artikkelen
<356FFB...@fda.net>...
[Snip for brevity]
========================================================================
> Rasmus: It has been a while.
>
Yes, too long, I have been busy in several areas leaving limited time for
what I would
like to pursue. I feel that before I answer your correspondence I should
refresh my
memory regarding several things brought up, but since I do not really have
the time I
will speak from the hearth.
> Yes, from Eo(u)s - god of Dawn, and Eosphoros, along with some of my
> book's leads from Persian and Greco-Roman influences on Augustine --->
> Jerome, whala! Lucifer appears, with all of the
> Dionysian-Hermetic-Apollonian-Ishtar/Asherah/Isis/Aphrodite/Venus
> characteristics of every- and all things, concepts, people, gods,
> temples and other artifacts of worship...all condemned and destroyed,
> only to find them in a new personification of a reinvented life
> form...Lucifer. How diabolically clever and imaginative
>
Agreed, who decided to interpret the ancients as we do?
Allegorically speaking; the Sumrians talked of the golden age of man when
there was no strife, when harmony reigned and everyone understood each
other.
Then the "Gods" came and confused the tongue (harmony) among mankind.
This is related in the bible as when man attempted to build a tower
reaching
to the heavens making the God angry so that he came and destroyed this and
scattered mankind.
The Greeks were also building a tower leading to heaven and we may again
say that
the God(s) came and destroyed this tower when they were about to reallize
the fruits of their labours.
The Greeks built a tower of knowledge, was not perhaps the true former
sumerian
tower also one of knowledge?
If so, why would the Gods desire man not to acquire this knowledge?
I recall reading in the material from Ugarit of a complaint where the wish
was for the
Gods to leave man alone so he could build his society properly.
What has eluded our perceptions this far?
The ancients had Gods of the sun, of the moon, Baal was the deity like
Tammuz who
heralded the growing season when he was resurrected every year. There were
Gods of spring, Gods of fertility and so on and so forth. What were these
people thinking
of? Or better yet, what have we been thinking of when we interpreted them
as
talking of actual Gods in the fashion we think of "God"?
> I am interested in what you have said here, above (especially re: the
> Asclepius-Apollo connection). I definitely need to read over all of this
> much more.
>
(So do I) http://www.levity.com/alchemy/corpherm.html has the Corpus
Hermeticus
edition translated in London 1650. This was translated by John Everard from
the Ficino Latin translation.
The connection between the son of Hermes Trismegistus/Asclepius may have
been translated into the myths (allegories) of Apollo but there is more and
you are also
aware of the saviour predicted through Zoroastrian sources which also ties
in.
The whole mess is like "Quelle" and the new testament, where stories can be
linked a common ancestor is sought, be this Egyptian or whatever the slight
differences are great enough to warrant a great spread in time.
> You see, in general (and I tried to do this in/with my book, and in the
> posts two weeks ago w/ Gwen S.), I see two very pronounced and basic
> trailing lines of influence throughout ancient-classical history (since
> I am referring to written works of history, I exclude the Chinese from
> this category, quite possibly out of world historical ignorance). One is
> the Egyptian - leading through the sketchy Phoenician, early or
> pre-Greek (i.e., e.g., the Minoan and Cretan), and Greco-Roman; while
> the other is the Sumerian-Akkadian-Babylonian Mesopotamian. Where the
> latter connects with the Hebrew and, in turn, the Greco-Roman/Christian,
> is -- I am unequivocally convinced, from my extensive research/studies
> into--> my book -- the Ugaritic. That is why I refer to it as a
> *missing link* culture of language, scriptures, gods, etc.
>
For the longest time I refrained from looking into Egyptian myths as they
somehow made me feel uneasy. I read all I could on Sumerian, Babylonean,
Accadian ......
The Sumerians stated that man came from the sea, so did the egyptians, so
do the
evolutionists.
There is a myriad of material which should be pursued and correlated, the
biggest
barrier is time, this does not put bread on my table, the other barrier is
my
limited mental abilities, it seems to take too long from the time I get an
idea untill
the concept is developed.
But no real God ever was a partaker in time, thus we have at least that in
common with the real Gods!
> Keep in Touch, my friend
>
> Ciao,
>
> Frank (Spartacus) http://home.fda.net/~spartacus
>
>
Here's a touch: When we know all the answers, when we have no more problems
and no more mysteries to unveil, what will we do to relieve boredom?
Best regards
Frank T. De Angelis
Rasmus Gjesdal wrote:
>
> Frank T. De Angelis <spar...@fda.net> skrev i artikkelen
> <356FFB...@fda.net>...
> [Snip for brevity]
========================================================================
> > Rasmus:
>
> > Yes, from Eo(u)s - god of Dawn, and Eosphoros, along with some of my
> >
> Agreed, who decided to interpret the ancients as we do?
(Exactly what (which) *ancients* and (who) *we*? You wouldn't be
alluding to the Christian bastions of Greco-Roman culture, would you?)
> Allegorically speaking; the Sumrians talked of the golden age of man when there was no strife, when harmony reigned and everyone understood each other.
> Then the "Gods" came and confused the tongue (harmony) among mankind.
(Strictly the Sumerians? Please refresh my memory in giving the source.
Are you referring to the Epic of Gilgamesh (Tablet 1, column i), with
Gilgamesh's secret knowledge of the flood, and in relationship to the
Eanna *House of Heaven*?)
> This is related in the bible as when man attempted to build a tower
> reaching to the heavens making the God angry so that he came and destroyed this and scattered mankind.
(Yes, of course. This was written in the Bible long after the Babylonian
Mesopotamian writings of the tower of *bbl.*)
Of course, this is familiar (or should be) to all of us. So should the
Fall-Up theory, in contradistinction to the Bible's unfair Genesis
temptation and fall - all circumventing inquiry and knowledge.)
> The Greeks were also building a tower leading to heaven and we may again say that the God(s) came and destroyed this tower when they were about to reallize the fruits of their labours.
> The Greeks built a tower of knowledge, was not perhaps the true former
> sumerian tower also one of knowledge?
> If so, why would the Gods desire man not to acquire this knowledge?
>
(Jealousy, like, in the Hebrew Bible, Jealous Yahweh! - *kneah*?)
I recall reading in the material from Ugarit of a complaint where the
wish was for the Gods to leave man alone so he could build his society
properly.
(Jean-Paul Sartre and Erich Fromm are loving you for this, from their
graves! I am somewhat embarassed that my memory does not serve me,
offhand; could this be in the Epic of Aqhat, with Danel, Anat(h), etc.?
Perhaps I will go back and look, since it has been a while - for me.)
> What has eluded our perceptions this far?
>
> The ancients had Gods of the sun, of the moon, Baal was the deity like
> Tammuz who heralded the growing season when he was resurrected every year. There were Gods of spring, Gods of fertility and so on and so forth. What were these people thinking of? Or better yet, what have we been thinking of when we interpreted them as talking of actual Gods in the fashion we think of "God"?
>
(Molto, molto bene. Exactly! Christianity has made quite a difference,
and what a difference it is!)
> I am interested in what you have said here, above (especially re: the
> > Asclepius-Apollo connection). I definitely need to read over all of this much more.
> >
(And wait until you get my book...I know you will be grappling with it
for quite some time to come irrespective of what you agree and/or
disagree with.)
(So do I) http://www.levity.com/alchemy/corpherm.html has the Corpus
Hermeticus edition translated in London 1650. This was translated by
John Everard from the Ficino Latin translation.
> The connection between the son of Hermes Trismegistus/Asclepius may have been translated into the myths (allegories) of Apollo but there is more and you are also aware of the saviour predicted through Zoroastrian sources which also ties in.
(That's right! I must confess, that Zoroastrian-Jesus allusion has been
sitting on my *perverbial* mental back-burner.)
> The whole mess is like "Quelle" and the new testament, where stories can be linked a common ancestor is sought, be this Egyptian or whatever the slight differences are great enough to warrant a great spread in time.
>
(Yes, yes: how perceptive and astute you are, my friend!)
> You see, in general (and I tried to do this in/with my book, and in
the posts two weeks ago w/ Gwen S.), I see two very pronounced and basic
trailing lines of influence throughout ancient-classical history (since
I am referring to written works of history, I exclude the Chinese from
this category, quite possibly out of world historical ignorance). One is
the Egyptian - leading through the sketchy Phoenician, early or
pre-Greek (i.e., e.g., the Minoan and Cretan), and Greco-Roman; while
the other is the Sumerian-Akkadian-Babylonian Mesopotamian. Where the
latter connects with the Hebrew and, in turn, the Greco-Roman/Christian,
is -- I am unequivocally convinced, from my extensive research/studies
into--> my book -- the Ugaritic. That is why I refer to it as a
*missing link* culture of language, scriptures, gods, etc.
> >
> For the longest time I refrained from looking into Egyptian myths as they somehow made me feel uneasy. I read all I could on Sumerian, Babylonean, Accadian ......
> The Sumerians stated that man came from the sea, so did the egyptians, so do the evolutionists.
>
(Don't forget the *first western philosopher, Thales.)
There is a myriad of material which should be pursued and correlated,
the biggest barrier is time, this does not put bread on my table, the
other barrier is my limited mental abilities, it seems to take too long
from the time I get an idea untill the concept is developed.
>
> But no real God ever was a partaker in time, thus we have at least that in common with the real Gods!
>
> >
> Here's a touch: When we know all the answers, when we have no more problems and no more mysteries to unveil, what will we do to relieve boredom?
>
(Share, Love/have Sex and be happy?)
Best regards
>
> --
> Rasmus
>
> http://home.sol.no/~rgjesdal/
>
> To state that there are things man does not know, such as his mental
> processes, and to research the subject is how man advances.
>
> To state that since there are things man does not understand and therefore
> a God must exist is how man regresses.
>
> To state that since there are things man does not understand
> the existance of the biblical God is prooven is relegating man to vegetable
> mentality
+++
frank (SPARTACUS) http://home.fda.net/~spartacus
Nelson Thompson
Rasmus Gjesdal wrote:
> The ancients had Gods of the sun, of the moon, Baal was the deity like
> Tammuz who
> heralded the growing season when he was resurrected every year. There were
> Gods of spring, Gods of fertility and so on and so forth. What were these
> people thinking
> of? Or better yet, what have we been thinking of when we interpreted them
> as talking of actual Gods in the fashion we think of "God"?
May I recommend the book "The Origin of Conciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind" by Julian Jaynes. Still available from Amazon.com.
Jaynes has a fascinating and plausible (if radical) answer to your questions. He backs up his conclusions with evidence drawn from ancient writings, stella and other linguistic remnants of the early days of 'true conciousness'.
Nelson
--
"Specialization is for Insects." R. A. Heinlein
joshua geller
Nelson Thompson <nel...@dynacs.infohwy.com> writes:
> May I recommend the book "The Origin of Conciousness in the
> Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind" by Julian Jaynes. Still available
> from Amazon.com.
> Jaynes has a fascinating and plausible (if radical) answer to your
> questions. He backs up his conclusions with evidence drawn from
> ancient writings, stella and other linguistic remnants of the early
> days of 'true conciousness'.
he is wrong, but he is wrong in an interesting way. the book is
definitely worth a read.
best,
josh
Rasmus Gjesdal
Frank T. De Angelis <spar...@fda.net> skrev i artikkelen
<3573CD...@fda.net>...
> Rasmus Gjesdal wrote:
> >
> > Frank T. De Angelis <spar...@fda.net> skrev i artikkelen
> > <356FFB...@fda.net>...
> > [Snip for brevity]
> ========================================================================
> > > Rasmus:
> <snip you, too>
> >
Spartacus
> > > Yes, from Eo(u)s - god of Dawn, and Eosphoros, along with some of my
> > > book's leads from Persian and Greco-Roman influences on Augustine
---> Jerome, whala! Lucifer appears, with all of the Dionysian-Hermetic-
Apollonian-Ishtar/Asherah/Isis/Aphrodite/Venus characteristics of every-
and all things, concepts, people, gods, temples and other artifacts of
worship...all condemned and destroyed, only to find them in a new
personification of a reinvented life form...Lucifer. How diabolically
clever and imaginative
> > >
Ras
> > Agreed, who decided to interpret the ancients as we do?
>
Spartacus
> (Exactly what (which) *ancients* and (who) *we*? You wouldn't be
> alluding to the Christian bastions of Greco-Roman culture, would you?)
>
Ras
Who else? They had their own interpretation of all ancients. After
borrowing their
material and burning the originals in an attempt to remove the evidence
they
embarged on a crusade of discrediting all ancients which continues to this
very day!
Ras
> > Allegorically speaking; the Sumrians talked of the golden age of man
when there was no strife, when harmony reigned and everyone understood each
other.
> > Then the "Gods" came and confused the tongue (harmony) among mankind.
>
Spartacus
> (Strictly the Sumerians? Please refresh my memory in giving the source.
> Are you referring to the Epic of Gilgamesh (Tablet 1, column i), with
> Gilgamesh's secret knowledge of the flood, and in relationship to the
> Eanna *House of Heaven*?)
>
Ras
I believe this came from "History begins in Sumer" By S. N. Kramer. It may
be in
the Gilgamesh epic as well.
Ras
> > This is related in the bible as when man attempted to build a tower
> > reaching to the heavens making the God angry so that he came and
destroyed this and scattered mankind.
>
Spartacus
> (Yes, of course. This was written in the Bible long after the Babylonian
> Mesopotamian writings of the tower of *bbl.*)
>
> Of course, this is familiar (or should be) to all of us. So should the
> Fall-Up theory, in contradistinction to the Bible's unfair Genesis
> temptation and fall - all circumventing inquiry and knowledge.)
>
Ras
The tale I most frequently refer to is the "Rib" tale from the afore
mentioned book by
Prof S. N. Kramer where he tells of the creation of the holy plants by
Ninhursag and
how En-Ki was tricked into eating them and how Ninhursag subsequently
created
the healing deitys which cured him. How "She who makes live" became "Lady
of the rib" according to the Hebrews in an entirely different fashion than
the original.
Ras
> > The Greeks were also building a tower leading to heaven and we may
again say that the God(s) came and destroyed this tower when they were
about to reallize the fruits of their labours.
> > The Greeks built a tower of knowledge, was not perhaps the true former
> > sumerian tower also one of knowledge?
> > If so, why would the Gods desire man not to acquire this knowledge?
> >
> (Jealousy, like, in the Hebrew Bible, Jealous Yahweh! - *kneah*?)
>
Ras.
Who were they jealous of unless the Gnostics were right? The material from
nag hammadi indicates how man became superior mentally to the Gods and
caused
them to become jealous. Also, there is the tale of Ialdabaot (YHWH) where
he would clamour about his greatness and becoming jealous when his mother
would remind him of how much greater his father (Source) was.
Ras
> I recall reading in the material from Ugarit of a complaint where the
> wish was for the Gods to leave man alone so he could build his society
> properly.
>
Spartacus
> (Jean-Paul Sartre and Erich Fromm are loving you for this, from their
> graves! I am somewhat embarassed that my memory does not serve me,
> offhand; could this be in the Epic of Aqhat, with Danel, Anat(h), etc.?
> Perhaps I will go back and look, since it has been a while - for me.)
>
Ras
I am not sure though I believe it may have come from the legend of Aqhat. I
did not
find it in my notes and will also have to go back and find the exact
reference.
Ras
> > What has eluded our perceptions this far?
> >
> > The ancients had Gods of the sun, of the moon, Baal was the deity like
> > Tammuz who heralded the growing season when he was resurrected every
year. There were Gods of spring, Gods of fertility and so on and so forth.
What were these people thinking of? Or better yet, what have we been
thinking of when we interpreted them as talking of actual Gods in the
fashion we think of "God"?
> >
Spartacus
> (Molto, molto bene. Exactly! Christianity has made quite a difference,
> and what a difference it is!)
>
Ras
It could be referred to as a stumbling block for christians and folly for
the philosopher!
Spartacus
> > I am interested in what you have said here, above (especially re: the
> > > Asclepius-Apollo connection). I definitely need to read over all of
this much more.
> > >
>
Spartacus
> (And wait until you get my book...I know you will be grappling with it
> for quite some time to come irrespective of what you agree and/or
> disagree with.)
>
(Looking forward to it.)
Ras
> (So do I) http://www.levity.com/alchemy/corpherm.html has the Corpus
> Hermeticus edition translated in London 1650. This was translated by
> John Everard from the Ficino Latin translation.
> > The connection between the son of Hermes Trismegistus/Asclepius may
have been translated into the myths (allegories) of Apollo but there is
more and you are also aware of the saviour predicted through Zoroastrian
sources which also ties in.
>
Spartacus
> (That's right! I must confess, that Zoroastrian-Jesus allusion has been
> sitting on my *perverbial* mental back-burner.)
>
Ras
That's the one which in my case seem to take so long to connect obvious
ties.
> > The whole mess is like "Quelle" and the new testament, where stories
can be linked a common ancestor is sought, be this Egyptian or whatever the
slight differences are great enough to warrant a great spread in time.
> >
Spartacus
> (Yes, yes: how perceptive and astute you are, my friend!)
>
> > You see, in general (and I tried to do this in/with my book, and in
> the posts two weeks ago w/ Gwen S.), I see two very pronounced and basic
> trailing lines of influence throughout ancient-classical history (since
> I am referring to written works of history, I exclude the Chinese from
> this category, quite possibly out of world historical ignorance). One is
> the Egyptian - leading through the sketchy Phoenician, early or
> pre-Greek (i.e., e.g., the Minoan and Cretan), and Greco-Roman; while
> the other is the Sumerian-Akkadian-Babylonian Mesopotamian. Where the
> latter connects with the Hebrew and, in turn, the Greco-Roman/Christian,
> is -- I am unequivocally convinced, from my extensive research/studies
> into--> my book -- the Ugaritic. That is why I refer to it as a
> *missing link* culture of language, scriptures, gods, etc.
Ras
It is all there, and every time the poor christians turn a shovel in the
Near East to
fortify their ill supported tale they give us more material by which to
make the
necessary connections. But there is a lot of work, and a lot of "back
burners".
> > >
> > For the longest time I refrained from looking into Egyptian myths as
they somehow made me feel uneasy. I read all I could on Sumerian,
Babylonean, Accadian ......
> > The Sumerians stated that man came from the sea, so did the egyptians,
so do the evolutionists.
> >
>
Spartacus
> (Don't forget the *first western philosopher, Thales.)
>
Ras
I don't, but then Hippolytus stated that Thales received his knowledge from
the
babylonean wise men and the Egyptians. He supposedly conversed with
Zoroaster.
> There is a myriad of material which should be pursued and correlated,
> the biggest barrier is time, this does not put bread on my table, the
> other barrier is my limited mental abilities, it seems to take too long
> from the time I get an idea untill the concept is developed.
> >
> > But no real God ever was a partaker in time, thus we have at least that
in common with the real Gods!
> >
> > >
> > Here's a touch: When we know all the answers, when we have no more
problems and no more mysteries to unveil, what will we do to relieve
boredom?
> >
Spartacus
> (Share, Love/have Sex and be happy?)
>
Ras
(Or invent memory loss and stupidity?)
Sincerely
Rasmus Gjesdal
Nelson Thompson <nel...@dynacs.infohwy.com> skrev i artikkelen
<35748576...@dynacs.infohwy.com>...
> Rasmus Gjesdal wrote:
>
> > The ancients had Gods of the sun, of the moon, Baal was the deity like
> > Tammuz who
> > heralded the growing season when he was resurrected every year. There
were
> > Gods of spring, Gods of fertility and so on and so forth. What were
these
> > people thinking
> > of? Or better yet, what have we been thinking of when we interpreted
them
> > as talking of actual Gods in the fashion we think of "God"?
>
> May I recommend the book "The Origin of Conciousness in the Breakdown of
the Bicameral Mind" by Julian Jaynes. Still available from Amazon.com.
>
> Jaynes has a fascinating and plausible (if radical) answer to your
questions. He backs up his conclusions with evidence drawn from ancient
writings, stella and other linguistic remnants of the early days of 'true
conciousness'.
>
> Nelson
> --
> "Specialization is for Insects." R. A. Heinlein
>
Thank you, I will have to try to get hold of it.
If we but get enough links a formidamle, sound chain can be put together.
Sincerely
Rasmus Gjesdal
Frank T. De Angelis <spar...@fda.net> skrev i artikkelen
<35728B...@fda.net>...
> Rasmus:
>
> I am really not all that familiar with the pre-Socratics, idealists (or
> immaterialists) or materialists - to any high degree of competency, let
> alone the less than reliable and possibly tainted secondhand sources.
I do not believe there is an expert who really can put together a just
picture of what
the ancient philosophies really were. Not only are we faced with
translaters who translated material with preconceptions about what these
people were like, but the
most valued data of the ancients may still remain beyond our grasp.
Alexandrias
ashes may not for all eternity ceep their knowledge a mystery, I believe
much of the material can be reconstructed from elsewhere, how about
storming the Vatican?
There is a library of ancient material which should be released to real
schoolars and
not be cept for the eyes of the church-puppets alone!
> I was never aware of such voluminous and specific ideas coming from
> Anaximander.
The only extant sentence from Anaximander which can be attributed to his
pen is
something to the effect that "Neither hot nor cold prevails permanently,
but each
'pays preparations' in order to ceep a balance between them."
After that we have things stated about his writings which were made untill
in the third and fourth century we get derogatory statements made for the
sole purpose of
discrediting the person.
The other reason we can not really know anything for certain, or perhaps I
should only speak for myself here, but I do not trust that any material
which has come through the hands of the "Church-puppets is authentic! There
is not anything I can regard as a truthful representation of ancient
thought as the actions of the Christians
of the past has demonstrated that they have no ethical or moral obligations
other than what their church interest dictates.
>Yes, the distortion via the 3rd c. AD Christian,
> Hyppolytus, must have been great - especially in reference to his
> *essentialism,* i.e., e.g., the primordial permanence to this Unlimited
> *stuff.* This *eternal* and *ageless* *stuff* - aoriston ti (Simplicius)
> however, was one of all OPPOSITES in existence, with the basic elements
> in historical-philosophical transit to the ancient and modern views on
> basic elements with change -- either directly or indirectly -- being
> implied, whether it is crudely fire, water, earth, and air - and the
> changing combinations thereof, or atoms or photons, electrons,
> neutrons...etc. The Pythagoreans also had that Christian metaphysical
> likeness (re: permanence), yet they too had their legacy transmitted via
> Hippasus, who -- in addition to that *first western dialectical
> thinker,* Heraclitus -- elevated fire, a symbol of change, to primordial
> status.
>
Pythagoras and what is stated about his teachings is something which is
about the
most suspect of all. There is ample evidence for Christian "doctoring" of
his material
in order that they could employ it for their benefit. What we have from
Pythagoras
are notes to his lectures, the books have conveniently vanished and I can
only
see one reason for it being so.
> As to these philosophers and the(eir) astronomical views of the time, I
> am somewhat ignorant beyond the basic views and differences between
> Aristotle, Ptolemy, and just a handful of others; so, the astronomical
> views of Anaximander and/or Hyppolytus seem peripheral to me, although I
> grasp what it is you are getting at here. I am, however, quite open to a
> variety of logico-philosophical and common sense interpretations
> concerning explanations for the moon's phases and *disappearance.* I
> think Plato's view was quite absurd, especially in relation to the
> source(s) for the sun and moon's light.
>
What is stated were the views of Plato may or may not have been what he
really said
as far as I can see. As far as the Refutation of Heresies by St. Hipplytus
and the
material written by Ireneaus against so called heretics only indicate the
fact that
the church fathers were simpletons. (For a view of Polycarp read Hebrews in
the bible, the views are about as identical as can be.)
I understand your complaint, I recently received from a friend on the net
Alvin b. Kuhns book called "Shadows of the third Century". Have you read
it? I am thinking of
ptiing it up among my pages because it should be available I would just
like to know if it is still in publication first.
The futility and lies which lie behind the theological doctrines were
tackled by Kuhn
in a most impressive fashion. Theological concepts as preached by the
Christians
have been prooven false and has been known to be so for the last hundred
years.
The possibility of God(s) does not rest on the validity of Christianity or
die by christianity's exposure as a fraud.
The worst fate possible is to fet to the end of one's physical existance
and then find out he should have done some honest research, never mind
namecalling and
discrimination here. The perception of what reality really is must be
pursued, no effort
need be vasted on making "a dead horse run."
> Yes, it is quite disheartening when humans are so passionate in choosing
> to be blinded by faith that they refuse to interpret what is the
> clearest of all interpretations of someone's outrageously sexist and
> prejudiced statements. What is much worse, however, is when they use
> philosophy as a veil for their beliefs and baseless truths.
>
((I read material you sent regarding the Roman soldier Saul (Paul) very
well done I
thought I should stay out of the fray as you handled it admirably, only
it's a shame some people refuse to see.)
> To claim that something is true -- and, for example, that God exists and
> that they know God exists -- because God told them so, even though it
> was via humans, is quite a lot to swallow. To not see that as an
> intended deductive argument, based on nothing but the most blatant and
> fallacious logical appeal to authority is amazing.
>
Just a minute here, I know of one person at a well known hospital who hears
God
talk to him all the time! (The mental condition is one we need to find out
more about
since there are too many similarities. Is there implanted information on a
DNA level
which make individuals dramatize certain character valences?)
> Whatsmore, to turn around and accuse/impune my references to Paul's
> quotes - which are, to their dismay and stubborn blindeness, crystal
> clear, and which have been interpreted by leading philosophers and
> believers as confirmation of the obvious...well, there is little hope
> for this segment of humanity - at a philosophical or any other level.
> I am appealing to authority by mentioning this history of philosophy in
> what we all recognize as an inductive argument, by its very nature? It
> is really of no wonder to me that the Soviets imprisoned religious
> fanatics due to legal insanity.
>
> Love, Peace, and Happiness
>
> Prof./Author F.T. De Angelis (Spartacus)
> http://home.fda.net/~spartacus
>
(Logic has no place among those who has a cup full. They do not look at the
cup either because the stench would be unbearable.)
People who can insist that the Turin shroud is authentic after all the
evidence to the contrary are not people who can be reached mentally!
May the Gods bring peace and harmony!
Jeff Marshall
>Nelson Thompson <nel...@dynacs.infohwy.com> writes:
>
>> May I recommend the book "The Origin of Conciousness in the
>> Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind" by Julian Jaynes. Still available
>> from Amazon.com.
>
>> Jaynes has a fascinating and plausible (if radical) answer to your
>> questions. He backs up his conclusions with evidence drawn from
>> ancient writings, stella and other linguistic remnants of the early
>> days of 'true conciousness'.
>
>definitely worth a read.
I second that opinion. A good book that might cause you ask far more
interesting questions then it purports to answer. I wonder if Jaynes
"copped" out and didn't write his real conclusions for fear of academic
censure.
AOI
Jeff
>
>best,
>
>josh
joshua geller
"Jeff Marshall" <mag...@flash.net> writes:
> josh geller wrote:
> >Nelson Thompson <nel...@dynacs.infohwy.com> writes:
> >> Jaynes has a fascinating and plausible (if radical) answer to your
> >> questions. He backs up his conclusions with evidence drawn from
> >> ancient writings, stella and other linguistic remnants of the early
> >> days of 'true conciousness'.
> >he is wrong, but he is wrong in an interesting way. the book is
> >definitely worth a read.
>
> I second that opinion. A good book that might cause you ask far more
> interesting questions then it purports to answer. I wonder if Jaynes
> "copped" out and didn't write his real conclusions for fear of academic
> censure.
possibly so. there's a lot of that going on. it's hard to say exactly
what you mean if people not liking it might lose you your job. this is
one of the reasons why certain types of research are best done by
amateurs.
best,
josh
Nelson Thompson
joshua geller wrote:
> > >he is wrong, but he is wrong in an interesting way. the book is
> > >definitely worth a read.
Now you have piqued my interest! How can we know that Jaynes is wrong? Is there some evidence he ignored or overlooked?
> > I second that opinion. A good book that might cause you ask far more
> > interesting questions then it purports to answer. I wonder if Jaynes
> > "copped" out and didn't write his real conclusions for fear of academic
> > censure.
>
> possibly so. there's a lot of that going on. it's hard to say exactly
> what you mean if people not liking it might lose you your job. this is
> one of the reasons why certain types of research are best done by
> amateurs.
How could his conclusions have been any more controversial? He came about as close as one can to saying "I have proof that God is a fiction of Man's conciousness" without actually saying it in so many words.Any how... I'm more interested in reading what you gentlemen have to say about Jaynes' theory.
joshua geller
> > > >he is wrong, but he is wrong in an interesting way. the book is
> > > >definitely worth a read.
> Now you have piqued my interest! How can we know that Jaynes is
> wrong?
who 'we'?
best,
josh
Brian Voth
Nelson Thompson wrote:
>
> joshua geller wrote:
[regarding Julian Jaynes' theory in Origins of Consciousness...]
> > > >he is wrong, but he is wrong in an interesting way. the book is
> > > >definitely worth a read.
>
I'd also like to hear some dissenting opinions.
> > > I wonder if Jaynes "copped" out and didn't write his real
> > > conclusions for fear of academic censure.
> How could his conclusions have been any more controversial? He
> came about as close as one can to saying "I have proof that God
> is a fiction of Man's conciousness" without actually saying it
> in so many words.Any how... I'm more interested in reading what
> you gentlemen have to say about Jaynes' theory.
Agreed. Falsifying one religion is dicey enough, but
Jaynes' theory throws a wrench in the works of just about all
of them. With consciousness being the product of language and
not some divine spark or spiritual phenomenon, all religions
which are dependent on mind/body duality are called into question.
I personally have one issue to raise with Jaynes theory
and that is the idea that every bicameral mind uses voice instructions.
I think that auditory hallucinations occur in few people, conscious
or bicameral, and that information sent between the halves of the
brain is normally non-obtrusive. I would agree that in the
bicameral mind, the right side identifies the patterns and sends
the proper response to the left to carry it out. In the conscious
mind the left side plays a much more active role since it is able
to think. It can inhibit the suggestions of the right half when
it deems them inappropriate and replace them with ones of its own.
Naturally, conflict can occur when both sides come to different
conclusions. In this situation, the dominant hemisphere would prevail.
Now, suppose that the left is actively inhibiting the right, but the
stress of the situation is making the right side more and more
insistant on getting it's actions carried out. At some point we
might see a breakthrough where the right side forcibly takes control
of the left and makes it do what it wants. This breakthrough might
take the form of a commanding voice, visual hallucination, or other
powerful sensory experience. The conscious part of the brain (the
left side) would view the intrusion of the right as being foreign,
godlike, or otherwordly in origin. If the intrusion was strong
enough, the person might feel as if they were being forced to do
actions by an external force (an angel, devil, etc.) and appear
as if they were just watching themselves do things.
These intrusions would thus be somewhat rare, and likely
occur in very few individuals since they require a special set of
circumstances to manifest. However, the importance of these
events, both to the person experiencing them and to anyone who
believes that the person is communicating with god, would make
them very notable. Ancient literature would contain more references
to these events since they carry such great weight and are generally
dramatic in nature. With this in mind it is possible that Jaynes
could have been mistaking the frequent references to hearing voices
in ancient texts as being indicative of all bicameral people.
Brian
--
"All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point
is to discover them." -- Galileo Galilei
Alice Turner
Nelson Thompson wrote in message <3575CBD5...@dynacs.infohwy.com>...
>joshua geller wrote:
>
>> > >he is wrong, but he is wrong in an interesting way. the book is
>> > >definitely worth a read.
[snip]
>How could his conclusions have been any more controversial? He came about
as close as one can to saying "I have proof that God is a fiction of Man's
conciousness" without actually saying it in so many words.
He was careful to speak almost entirely of the past, or of primitive
peoples. But it didn't take a giant IQ to realize that he was also speaking
obliquely of the "born agains," and so forth. To say nothing of St. Paul!
And what about Joseph Smith!
Alice Turner
Maranatha
Nelson Thompson <nel...@dynacs.infohwy.com> wrote in article
<35748576...@dynacs.infohwy.com>...
Rasmus Gjesdal wrote:
<cut>
The ancients had Gods of the sun, of the moon, Baal was the deity like
Tammuz who heralded the growing season when he was resurrected every year.
There were Gods of spring, Gods of fertility and so on and so forth. What
were these people thinking of? ...
=========================
<Maranatha>
As far back as there were human beings, they understood that events of
today lead to consequences of tomorrow. This trait reflects an awareness of
causality, and the concept of causality is one of the great elucidating
insights into human thought. This is not to say that they always understood
which events led to which consequences (most of us do not know that very
surely now). But as farmers, for example, they learned that if you plant a
seed you can harvest some wheat a few months later. They learned about
seasons and reasons for planting at different times. They learned about the
'dos and don'ts' that nature imposed upon them, and so on.
The principle of causality was so powerful felt that people were certain
that there was more to it than meets the common senses. Thus, many of these
causal experiences became embodied in IDOLATRY (gods and deities in every
shape and form and for every event and occasion), in the occult, in omens
of future events, in astrology, and later in folklore.
I am the last one to criticise these ancient belief structures. For every
perceived need, there is an attempt to meet it. Our ancestors met the
challenges of their time to the best of *their* minds ability.
Regards
Maranatha :)
==========================
Rasmus Gjesdal
Gwen Saylor <gw...@wave.park.wy.us> skrev i artikkelen
<6l50n9$3vn$1...@horn.wyoming.com>...
> Frank and All --
>
> >"Frank T. De Angelis" <spar...@fda.net> wrote to Rasmus Gjesdal:
>
Pardon me for interjecting.
>
> >while
> >the other is the Sumerian-Akkadian-Babylonian Mesopotamian. Where the
> >latter connects with the Hebrew and, in turn, the Greco-Roman/Christian,
> >is -- I am unequivocally convinced, from my extensive research/studies
> >into--> my book -- the Ugaritic. That is why I refer to it as a
> >*missing link* culture of language, scriptures, gods, etc.
>
> Okay, so you're saying Ugarit is where the Babylonians hooked up
> with the Hebrews and also the Greeks (via the Minoan Bronze Age)?
> <??>
>
> Then why is it we are told in the OT that Abram (aka Abraham) came
> from Ur of the Chaldees (on the lower course of the Euphrates), went
> first to Har(r)an (just northeast of the famous Ebla in Mesopotamia,
> where Abram had relatives and where, like in Ur, was a strong belief
> in the god Sin [Nanna]), and settled in Canaan (on land given to him
> by his vicious god who didn't care that other people were already
> living there)? Where is Ugarit in this story (aside from being a
> city-state of the *other people* living in Canaan)?
>
There is absolutely no evidence supporting biblical Abraham. The records
found at Mari from the time of the family of Terah where a record of this
family was discovered
that included the names of all the family members.
The family which moved to Harran obviously worshipped the Moon God as did
the previous biblical patriarchs. (One of the clues are the ages of the
first biblical patriarchs which were counted in months, not years.) The God
which supposedly
revealed himself to Abraham was not the Moon God Nanna/Sin. The God of the
Hebrews were from all evidence the son of El (Ilu) Yammu, the evil deity
recruiting
Souls for his netherworld. He does not seem to go back to Abraham as the
evil he
was capable of is totally missing from Genesis.
> Also -- You've never discussed with us the gap between the dating
> of the high culture at Ugarit (from which come the Ugaritic texts) of
> 1450 - c. 1200 BC, and the correlating high culture point of the
> Hebrews (I'll even fudge it a little and give 'em 1000 BC, as that's
> when David conquered Salem [Jerusalem].).
>
How can the biblical account which is totally unsubstantiated be discussed
with
substantiated records of the time?
The twelve tribes were most assuredly the dozin tribes of people who
evicted the Egyptians from the land about the time when the offspring of
Moses were supposed to have evicted the natives.
David has absolutely no historical backing as he is portrayed in the bible
and the Hebrew tradition regarding this Solomo has no material confirming
it untill 20+
generations after the great Greek lawgiver Solon!
> Stey-yu.
> Hen to Pan,
> Gwen
Sincerely
Rasmus Gjesdal
Maranatha <h-...@compcom.com.au> skrev i artikkelen
<01bd8f67$f4ae29a0$1099...@h-g-s.compcom.com.au>...
>
>
> Nelson Thompson <nel...@dynacs.infohwy.com> wrote in article
> <35748576...@dynacs.infohwy.com>...
> Rasmus Gjesdal wrote:
>
> <cut>
> The ancients had Gods of the sun, of the moon, Baal was the deity like
> Tammuz who heralded the growing season when he was resurrected every
year.
> There were Gods of spring, Gods of fertility and so on and so forth. What
Quite a conventional interpretation which seem to explain t all away and
reduce
the ancients to a primitive level where they did the best they could with
what little
they had.
What I rather see is that these ancients who met the physical requirements
in much
the fashion mentioned had a spiritual side which saw the spiritual as a
duality of the
physical. Where the sun, moon and stars were physical representations of
spiritual
attributes, the sun reflecting the light within each and every one of us.
The sprouting
of seeds represented the spiritual awareness which came to us after we
learned to
shed the compulsions of the bodies and as that which once resurrected
stayed
resurrected.
It seems the ancients desired saviours from the physical existance which by
so many were called a trap.
The Pythagorean mathematics is known by virtually every mathematician
today, what
is little known is that such mathematics preceeded Pythagoras by
millenniums,
Pythagoras did not invent modern mathematics, we just popularized his
material on
it. I do not want to discredit Pythagoras but the point is that people
capable of
advanced mathematics milleniums ago were no more simpletons than those
people who today has difficulty grasping the same mathematical concepts.
There were simpletons in ancient times as there is today, generally though,
the
baffling evidence does not indicate increased mental capability at all if
one looks at
the mental attributes as a physical phenomenon. but then, mental activity
is not physical and has no connection with time or space.
Regards
root
First of all, ladies and gents, the Hebrew text really says, "I Shall Be,
What I Shall Be." It is a reference to the Holy Spirit, stated in terms
of tenses.
Second of all folks, you have heard me say it before, and I will say it
again and again, there are anachronistic scientific riddles in the OT,
in the METRIC system, if you please, and they cannot be ignored.
Exodus 24 specifically is a riddle about the middle wavelength of blue light
in the metric system (470 nanometers). Since there are similar metric
riddles in other religious systems, notably the Hindu tradition and the
Scandinavian, there is no way to dispute the existence of the riddle, or its
ancient origins. Likewise, Genesis 1 and 2 in the Hebrew give the correct
sequence for evolution, state that the Earth is the third planet from the
Sun, and the story of God planting a Garden in Time (`Eden') and the River
that flowed out of Time gives the sequence for the separation of the four
forces of nature known to physicists. (The Hebrew names of the `rivers'
are directly translatable to these forces, and any Hebrew scholar with a
knowledge of modern physics would have to agree.)
So, what on Earth are you debating about anyway? Are you just talking
to hear the empty meaningless words coming out of your lips?
ro...@gte.net
Jeff Marshall
Greetings!
Nelson Thompson wrote:
>
>How could his conclusions have been any more controversial? He came about
as close as one can to saying "I have proof that God is a fiction of Man's
conciousness" without actually saying it in so many words.Any how... I'm
more interested in reading what you gentlemen have to say about Jaynes'
theory.
His conclusions would have been more controversial if he said the voices
were NOT hallucinated.
AOI
Jeff Marshall
http://members.tripod.com/~graalquest/
My ICQ# is 5504005 or,
Page me online: http://wwp.mirabilis.com/5504005
Red Celt
On Wed, 03 Jun 1998 17:19:01 -0500, Nelson Thompson
<nel...@dynacs.infohwy.com> wrote:
<snip>
>How could his conclusions have been any more controversial?
>He came about as close as one can to saying "I have proof that God is a fiction of Man's conciousness"
>without actually saying it in so many words.Any how... I'm more interested in reading what you gentlemen
>have to say about Jaynes' theory.
>
>Nelson
Personally, I found his book to be both fascinating and
thought-provoking. It was an enjoyable read and whilst I didn't agree
with his conclusions 100% I was able to keep reading....
Until one point where he took one of his conclusions (wrongy made,
IMHO) and then used it as the foundation for what seemed a sizeable
chunk of the remainder of the book.
It was at this point that he lost my sympathy for his ideas and I
stopped reading.
Such a shame, I would have liked to have known what more he had to
say. But his assertion that A=B therefore B=C become too much for this
reader when I disagreed wether or not A really was equal to B.
Anyways... I'm starting to ramble ;)
Red Celt
a.a.#883
joshua geller
vta...@gte.net (root) writes:
> Second of all folks, you have heard me say it before, and I will say it
> again and again, there are anachronistic scientific riddles in the OT,
> in the METRIC system,
says who?
> if you please, and they cannot be ignored.
you need to show something exists before you can talk about it being
ignored.
> Exodus 24 specifically is a riddle about the middle wavelength of blue light
> in the metric system (470 nanometers).
demonstrate this from the hebrew text, or shut the fuck up.
my best,
josh
Frank T. De Angelis
Hi Gwen, again:
Gwen Saylor wrote:
>
> Frank and All --
>
> >"Frank T. De Angelis" <spar...@fda.net> wrote to Rasmus Gjesdal:
>
<snip personal>
> >I see two very pronounced and basic trailing lines of influence throughout ancient-classical history (since
> >I am referring to written works of history, I exclude the Chinese from this category, quite possibly out of world historical ignorance).
>
> And India? and Tibet and Anatolia and .... <g>
Of course. India, I cover in depth - in PT I, but the causal time-lines
are murky (at least, to me, not warranting the drawing of any
conclusions or inferences beyond paralells). I touch upon basic Chinese
and Tibetan philosophical symbols and key concepts - including their
matri-patriarchal leanings showing evidence of some evolution; but,
again, I feel that only parallels can be drawn. Anatolia; bingo, I
ignore out of ignorance. When I say (the) two (most) basic, pronounced,
and definitive trails of direct, discernible influence...well, I really
mean it; but I do not ignore or discount other possibilities. I hope you
didn't expect me to mention them in my posts, did you?
> >One is
> >the Egyptian - leading through the sketchy Phoenician, early or
> >pre-Greek (i.e., e.g., the Minoan and Cretan), and Greco-Roman;
Here I meant to say, early/pre-Greek Minoan Cretan and Cypriote, and
Mycenaean to classical Greco-Roman.
> The Phoenicians had existed as a culture for millenia before the
> Egyptians began attempting to take them over city-state by city-state.
Yes, perhaps, but not before their (Eyg.) culture existed, predating
them, and as a hegemonous dominant force.
> It wasn't until the time of the 12th dynasty that one could begin to
> say that all of Phoenicia was being indoctrinated in some small way or
> another. IOW it was some time after 1991 BC (the founding of the
> 12th dynasty) before the Egyptians managed to influence the
> Phoenicians to any degree that counts. This conquering stuff does
> not speak to any superiority on the part of the Egyptians. And -- You
> don't do yourself or your research any favors by discounting the idea
> that Ugarit was a Phoenician city-state.
The point at which the Ugaritic, and their gods Baal, Asherah (actually,
at(h)irat, Anat(h), etc.) were at their peak, their golden age - and at
the time of their definitive scriptural writings, was circa 200-600
years before the first writings of the torah. The language and concepts
- from word-to-word in biblical Hebrew, the Ugaritic gods, the names and
epithets for the gods of the Hebrew pantheon -exposed and expressed
within the Hebrew language itself, etc., etc., etc., all make it perfect
and as highly probable as anyone could possibly get from the evidence,
that this connection is direct and indubitable.
>
> <art joke warning> My art history professor used to tell us "Cretan"
> was just a tacky way of saying "Minoan," Frank.
I'm glad he had an artist flair, Gwen, along with some sensitivity to
ethnicity and ethnocentrism, however correctly or incorrectly perceived
and/or exaggerated and punful it may have been.
<g> And BTW, the
> Minoan was a culture before and overlapping the Greek culture, not
> something one should consider "pre-Greek." <sheesh> Since the
> Minoan Bronze Age influenced, was influenced by, and/or was related
> to the corresponding Phoenician Age, this linear view of yours begins
> to break down...
The so-called linear development from Ugaritic to Hebrew certainly
doesn't, but I never said that the Minoans weren't pre AND coexisting.
That is precisely why I almost always say pre- and/or early Greek in one
and the same breath.
> >while
> >the other is the Sumerian-Akkadian-Babylonian Mesopotamian. Where the
> >latter connects with the Hebrew and, in turn, the Greco-Roman/ Christian, is -- I am unequivocally convinced, from my extensive research/studies into--> my book -- the Ugaritic. That is why I refer to it as a *missing link* culture of language, scriptures, gods, etc.
>
> Okay, so you're saying Ugarit is where the Babylonians hooked up
> with the Hebrews
This, yes, definitely.
and also the Greeks (via the Minoan Bronze Age)?
> <??>
??? I see and call them as I see them. I see this, part for part and
piece by piece, as bi-conditional; that is to say, some influences from
and some to the Ugaritic re: the Minoans. There is, however, a very
strong parallel of relationships in the language/concepts of both,
moreso than the Cypriote *Greeks,* which demonstratea much stronger
Phoenician influence. Both the Minoan Cretans and the Cypriotes have the
Phoenician (--> Greek) alphabet, this no one is disputing whatsoever.
> Then why is it we are told in the OT that Abram (aka Abraham) came
> from Ur of the Chaldees (on the lower course of the Euphrates), went
> first to Har(r)an (just northeast of the famous Ebla in Mesopotamia,
> where Abram had relatives and where, like in Ur, was a strong belief
> in the god Sin [Nanna]), and settled in Canaan (on land given to him
> by his vicious god who didn't care that other people were already
> living there)? Where is Ugarit in this story (aside from being a
> city-state of the *other people* living in Canaan)?
This requires quite a long answer. (1) All of what we have been
discussing comes under the heading of inductive reasoning and logic;
that means, with degrees of probability resting upon the varying weight
of the evidence, not deductive. So, nothing is conclusive, and
everything issomewhat speculative. (2) The Hebrew writings reflect the
time period in which they were written, including THEIR terminology. So,
for example, the Canaanites are referred to in this more general manner;
their references to many peoples and cultures is up in the air, e.g.,
the several references to *Sea Peoples* could refer to several groups in
addition to Philistines, Phoenicians, etc., etc., etc.; many peoples and
cultures --as well as places -- mentioned we do not hear about
anywhereelse, while others we can relate to; many other sources and
contemporary events both in- and outside of the Hebrews landings in
Egypt, Ur, and Canaan are found nowhere in the biblical hebrew -which
should be there; the reference to the Chaldees/Chaldeans of Ur is
precisely a people of THAT time in which the Bible was being written,
long after the actual time period in which they were referring to, that
is, the Mesopotamians. in complete contrast to this, the Babylonians of
the tower of Babel comes too early in the Bible tobe historically
accurate; etc. AND THERE WITHIN LIES THE TRICK. We can not assume the
time order, chronology, or veracity of most of the events described in
the Bible, despite the overwhelming verification concerning the
historicity and accuracy in comparison to all of the other ancient
works, which were more poetical and mythical. In fact, until we get to
Herodotus, the 6th-5th c. BCE Greek *Father of History* (misnomer or
not), all former histories are considerably less than indubitable. Aside
from partiality, the historical accuracy of ancient history can not
really meet rigorous verifiable standards per se, until almost a century
later, beginning with Thucydides.
As for Sin, yes, the long tradition of Mesopotamia (utu, in Sumerian),
especially from the Akkadian to Babylonian, worshipped Sin. So? The long
lines, from the sun and moon astraldeities, from shamash [ sms,
s(h)amas(h)] to the Ugaritic shapash [sps, s(h)apas(h)], back to the
Hebrew shamash [sms, s(h)mas(h)] to Sin (assoc. w/ Egyp. Seth ?),
Semele, etc. are all similar. Many gods are still worshipped into other
cultures, as Isis was in Rome, etc. So? Sin, the moon god, has its
origin in the Epic of Gilgamesh, making its first appearance in Sumerian
Mesopotamia, beyond which should be of no surprise in its trail of
influence through Akkadian to other sources. I don't know what you are
getting at here.
>
> And could you explain to me the connection between the accounts
> found in the texts at Ebla and your "*missing link*?"
Explain? Could you be a little more specific? Explain what?
The Phoenician language proper (without pictographs, hieroglyphs, etc.),
that is, per se, was not fully developed and internationally influential
until the 10th and 9th centuries, long after the Ugaritic tablets and
the Ugaritic Golden Age (beginning after their second late bronze age
and one hundred fifty years before the XIX Dynasty in Egypt with
Ramesses II).
> In addition, I am unaware of any Greek texts that were found at Ras
> Esh-Shamrah (Ugarit). In the several archives at Ugarit there have
> been found tablets in the following languages (aside from Ugaritic):
> Babylonian, Hurrian, Cypro-Minoan, Sumerian, and Hittite cuneiform
> and Egyptian and Hittite hieroglyphic (NOTE: no Greek). Is the
> little bit of "Cypro-Minoan" found there upon what you are basing
> the Greek part of your claim? While Crete did play a role in the
> transmission of ancient Near Eastern civilization to Europe, it did
> not play the only role by any means, and its influence was merely on
> the extreme edge of classical Greek culture, no matter how effective
> or interesting it may have been of itself.
I honestly don't recall, offhand, but you forgot to mention Akkadian
cuneiform writings also found in the numerous Ras Shamra finds.
Personally, my interests led me to reading the Ugaritic only. The
Mesopotamian-Anatolian Hittite-Hurrian (and Persian) forms of cuneiform
are quite different, much more complex, and, hence, harder to read.
> Also -- You've never discussed with us the gap between the dating
> of the high culture at Ugarit (from which come the Ugaritic texts) of
> 1450 - c. 1200 BC, and the correlating high culture point of the
> Hebrews (I'll even fudge it a little and give 'em 1000 BC, as that's
> when David conquered Salem [Jerusalem].).
The gap? The dating? Ugaritic hegemony lasted until the 1200-1150 BCE
period in the Canaanite-Syrian areas, when they disappeared - and the
destruction of Ugarit, coinciding with both the defeat of the *Sea
Peoples* and the settlement of the Hebrew Israelite tribes. Where is
there a problem?
> Explain to me how Ugarit connects to and thus is the "*missing link*"
> between Greece and Babylon (and the Hebrews), given the
> difficulties that arise from: the OT info on the life of Abraham,
> the findings at Ebla, the fact that no texts in Greek and little
> Cypro-Minoan were found at Ugarit, and the fact of the gap in time
> between the Ugaritic texts and the cultured Hebrews.
In twenty thousand words or less? Perhaps you and/or I overestimated my
claims on the *Greek* connection, but I talked (above) of Minoan
bi-conditional parallels.
*It's been nice*
Frank
Sparetacus http://home.fda.net/~spartacus
Frank T. De Angelis
Gwen Saylor wrote:
>
> Frank and All --
>
<big clip>
>
> And could you explain to me the connection between the accounts
> found in the texts at Ebla and your "*missing link*?"
> Explain to me how Ugarit connects to and thus is the "*missing link*"
> the findings at Ebla, <snip>
>Gwen
> --------------------------------------------------------------
Gwen:
I already answered all of this, but the question(s) about the texts at
Ebla (?), which is not at all obvious. If you mean, aren't they
important, and influentially between Babylonian and Northwest Semitic
languages, the answer is yes.
If you ask me what this proves or disproves about my thesis...absolutely
nothing. Cf. pp 5 and 176 (the Ugaritic/Minoan expert Cyrus Gordon - and
Michael Coogan) on Ebla, from the *Oxford Companion to the Bible.*
PLEASE BE SURE to read this CAREFULLY (look at the precise wording)
BEFORE responding.
Thank you so much for your strong, thoughtful, and logical submissions.
Prof./Author Frank T. De Angelis http://home.fda.net/~spartacus
Frank T. De Angelis
Hi Gwen:
While you are looking up Ebla (esp. p. 176, Cyrus Gordon) in the *Oxford
Companion to the Bible, * I thought i wouldinterject one more thing:
If we are going to talk about *missing link* cultures (mine) and *gaps*
(yours), Ebla opens many more cans of worms than you thought it helped
to close. This *Pandora's box* may be a connecting link, but from and to
what? I have never read the tablets, nor translations of them; only
secondhand info. such as the ebla entry answered by Gordon in the Oxford
Companion to the Bible.
But, beyond all of those things, just look at the basic logic and
chronology (which I know you are very good at doing). Ebla writings,
circa 2300 BCE; Ugaritic, circa 1400-1200 BCE; Mid-Babylonian- Hammurabi
and his Code, circa 1750-96 BCE; biblical Hebrew writings begin between
922-722 BCE. What does this look like to you, especially since the most
prolific of the Babylonian writings are actually predated by the Ebla
tabs? It seems that there is a basic common sense connection, perhaps,
within and between the Akkadian and Babylonian rather than Babylonian
and Ugaritic, let alone Hebrew, no? The largest possible gap is that
after the Elba, more than anything else, no? You thought the Ugaritic to
biblical Hebrew gap was wide when it could only have ranged from one to
about six or so hundred years, when the Elba out-distance that gap by
leaps and bounds, ranging from between around 900 YEARS to Ugarit, and
up to 1600 to the beginning of the frist writings in the Hebrew Bible.
Food 4 Thought. Buon Appetito!
Frank T. de Angelis http://home.fda.net/~spartacus
Wuff
>vta...@gte.net (root) writes:
>says who?
>my best,
>josh
<piggyback>
The one thing that constantly amazes me is the way that idiots like this
manage to blithely ignore the fact that in 2 millennia, their WonderBook (tm)
has *never* managed to predict a single piece of scientific data.
Not a single one. If you beg to differ, vtailor, then kindly offer a few
examples.
Explain why sciencists work hard, sometimes for decades, to produce a piece
of theory which explains a little more about the way the universe works, and
idiots like yourself go 'Oh, yeah. That's been explained by our book for ages.'
You're like little kids in a school playground claiming they were just about
to give the right answer.
Vin
Frank T. De Angelis
Hi Gwen:
<snip personal/private correspondence>
>Gwen S. wrote:
> --some slight snippage so this won't be quite so long <g>--
> >> An English edition of _Elseviers Encyclopedie van de Bijbel_
> >> (originally compiled by a panel of leading Dutch experts on biblical exegesis -both Protestants and Roman Catholics- under the editorship of P.A. Marijnen), called _The Encylopedia of the Bible_ (Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1965, LCCN 64-23557) states, under the subject "Divine Name" (the following is a direct quote without quotation marks):
> >>
> >> The general Semitic word for "god" is El (cf. Matt. 27:46).
> >> In the O.T., apart from poetry, it occurs only as a composite
> >> part of a proper name, for example, Nathana_el_. In Hebrew
> >> an _h_ was added to it, as was in Arabic also (_Allah_,
> >> derived from _al-ilah_). _Elohim_ (mentioned 2550 times in
> >> the O.T.) is really a plural of this--while _Eloah_ is the
> >> poetical singular derived in turn from _Elohim_.
The *only* part is simply not correct, and I supply painstakenly ample
and obvious evidence in my book. The problems are complex, however,
since the modifiers and *Hebrew dinger, el* does not appear in the
syntax where you would expect - and could be two lines away!
Yes, elohim, the only reference to god(s) in Genesis 1, is plural (with
other possible alternate meanings)... and you know I seize upon that
first in my book claiming Hebrew biblical polytheism.
Although this info. you supply is generally correct, there are numerous
exceptions, not to mention an additional logical consideration: you
cannot logically prove a negative truth, that it does not exist. It is
easy for me to show exceptions...as a matter of fact, *el,* *yah,* etc.
occur by themselves, in addition to many many other atypical variations,
and I certainly identify, quote, expose, and exploit, if you will, all
of those combinations and lack thereof. El, however, was a god of the
Hebrews and it was in many other pantheons, as the head of the assembly
(mentioned in Hebrew, Ugaritic, etc.). Many instances of these are
mentioned in my book. The original hebrew Bibles I use are based upon
the MT of the Stüttgartensia/L. codex (actually, codices), and can be
seen, easily, as I show them in my book, from parallel and interlinear
texts - plainly available to any- and every-one. The general tendency of
these dictionary/encyc./lexicons, concordances, etc. sources (even the
Oxford Companion to the Bible, which I referred to yesterday - in
reference to the Ebla tabs.) cannot possibley be expected to include all
of this, EVEN IF the authors/contributors/editers ARE aware of such
exceptiuons and anomalies.
> >> What I obtain from this information is that El was not the god of
> >> the Hebrews. The name *El* is not used alone in the OT. When El
> >> *is* used in the OT as a name (and not as a portion of a name of a
> >> person, as in the example above), it is combined with an *aspect*
> >> or other god name and used in that form to designate a quality of
> >> the "God" or a specific god of the Elohim pantheon. For example,
> >> in Genesis 14:18, El Elion is denoted as the "God" of Melchizedek
> >> (translated "God Most High" in KJV). Elion is a god of the Elohim
> >> pantheon. I strongly feel that the Hebrews were trying mightily to
> >> worship a god that in their minds combined all the powers of the
> >> Elohim. It's my view that "El Elion" denotes the aspect of "Elohim" the Hebrews had earlier understood as the god "Elion."
Absolutely! That is what I have been *complaining* about (vociferously
claiming.)
I quote
> >> further the same source (cited above):
> >
> >All of the above is certainly true, BUT you will also find many
> >instances of el being used alone, and as both *a god* and *god* as god specifically - in both the Hebrew O.T. and Ugaritic epics. (I really
meant *all of the above.* Seriously, I do not think I have ever seen
anyone comprehensively explore the use and variations of el as much as
yours truly, along with the transition from the Sumerian-Akkadian
Mesopotamian dingir (the unpronounced universal and generic symbol for
god appearing in cuneiform writing before each and every god/dess) and
later formulations of il, ilium (Troy), etc. and ellu, elu/m for *pure*
and *holy* through the later Mesopotamian writings (Babylonian-Assyrian)
into the Ugaritic and Hebrew-Aramaic-Chaldean. Do not forget the
Baylonian creation/scriptures, Enuma Elis(h), literally, (The) *One Who
is High.* There is a very long trail of numerous variations before and
into the Hebrew O.T. for the el, and its combinations (e.g., with
adonay, and the other cultural parallels - most of which I tried to tie
together with Indian (Sanskrit/Hindu - Hindi) - (Pali text) Thai, some
Arabic (Allah), etc. It was quite an ambitious project, to say the
least!) I did not ignore the Egyptian, Phoenician, and countless other
influences (e.g., Hittite, Hurrian, Kassite, etc.) but I just didn't
have the voluminous and clear influence as with the Meso-Ug-Hebrew trail
of evidence - for me.
>
> You are tracking the linguistic trail, which clearly points out the
> extreme similarity between the cuneiform alphabet in Ugarit and the
> early Hebrew alphabet. I don't disagree with the evidence of that
> view. But you say here that, "All of the above is certainly true,"
> and you reiterate, "I really meant *all of the above.*," while at the
> same time you are not agreeing with the point I made using the quote
> as evidence of what a panel of experts agreed to say.
No, not the *only* part you quote from, above.
The quote says
> the _name_ El, apart from poetry, occurs only as a *part* of a proper
> name. If the *name* El, alone and translated "God," is not what you
> mean by "*a god* and *gods*," it does not apply to what I'm saying.
> It is my view that "el" *became* the generic norm for "god" *after*
> it had already been a _name_ for quite some time. Thus I say El
> *is not* voluminously represented as a name in the OT or even at all.
> "Elohim," OTOH, *is*. When we have something like "El Shadday," do
> we not really simply have "Shadday God?"
>
Yes, we certainly do, but you know what? We also have it without the el,
too (?).
> >> >and even though I myself have given
> >> >evidence for the non-originality of yahweh (on the heels of the
> >> >Ugaritic scholars, especially Michael Coogan),
> >>
> >> What *is* the evidence that Yahweh (JHVH), the name, is not original
> >> to the Hebrews (Jews)?
> >
> >The Ugaritic yw-el was combined to give *el's son, yw-el* in Ug. M.
> >Coogan and others speculate on *(Y/)Joel* and *Yahweh* actually being
> >identical and coming from the Ugaritic. I know that, from looking at
> >these transliterations into English, they don't appear to be the same,
> >but... there is more to it than meets the eye (Ug and Heb. consonants
> >were originally YW, L, and YWL for the three above). Yah and yahweh,
> >along with el were used in VARIOUS ways within the O.T, including being
> >all by themselves.
>
> Yes, but I don't see Yah being used there alone *as a name*.
It is, on several occasions, both early and late in the entire OT.
Again, this aspect is fully covered in my book.
Even
> if at Ugarit El had a son, YWL, do you not see this is no evidence
> that El is Yahweh? It is only evidence that El had a son, YWL.
Yes, correct...and that is why I say that there is some evidence for
this, and that other scholars make a much stronger claim, which I am not
quite willing to make.
> Even though most scholars say the name JHVH was replaced by Elohim
> when at the time of the Exodus the people began avoiding the god's
> name, *that* is no evidence to me that JHVH, the then new name,
> hadn't been the combined Elohim in the minds of the leaders for a
> long time. As I said before, JHVH seems to have replaced the idea
> of the Elohim (the combination of the deities or IOW pantheon _and_
> the individual gods). Since Baal is used in the OT as a name for
> "God" many numbers of times, I wonder if Baal, son of El, isn't
> what was meant at Ugarit by YWL. Does the text speak of an
> individual deity that cannot be Baal somehow?
I am sorry, but the truth is, and I don't expect you or anyone else to
believe this, the Ugaritic has numerous names and epithets for Baal,
including a modifier, Aleyan, substitutes, Haddad, etc. Many! But, the
yw, el, and yw-el are exact trnasliterations, while the exact
transliteration(s) for Baal are bl, byl, etc. in addition to the
epithets of *rider of the clouds,* *Prince,* *Prince Moon,* *Thunderer,*
etc., etc., etc. - which, again (I know you are getting sick of this) I
try to cover as comprehensively as possible in my book.
>
> >> >I never discount piecemeal archeological evidence, though, and find it especially interesting that an early Hebrew inscription read, *yahweh's consort, asherah...*
> >>
> >> El Kuhn (sp? got this from a video I own) - inscription:
> >> "And from his enemies save him by his Asherah"
> >> Contilet Ashrud (sp? same reason) - inscription:
> >> "May -X- be blessed by Yahweh of Samaria and by his Asherah"
> >>
> >> I believe these are both tomb inscriptions. It appears that the
> >> Asherah in question could belong to the tenant of the tomb rather
> >> than to Yahweh. <g> *But* I really don't have a problem with Yahweh's
> >> possibly having had a consort (of whatever name) in the minds of the
> >> Jews, considering that all gods and goddesses had previously had mates.
> >> This is definitely no conclusive proof that Yahweh was El.
> >
> >Could very well be, but it would still -- at least, minimally -- show
> >the Hebrew cultural integration of yahweh with asherah. True, this is
> >nothing new.
Don't forget, the actual Ugaritic transliteration for asherah is atirat
or athirat - and I show this in the Ugaritic cuneiform in my book.
> >It was nice talking with you. The video with the Hebrew inscriptions
> >sounds interesting.
>
> The video is one in the Time-Life series on Archaeology taken from
> the Discovery Channel's series. The particular video is called
> "Divine Goddesses," and includes two separate films (as do they all).
> The one I quoted is called "The Forbidden Goddess," while the other
> is "Women of Lesbos."
Yes, by God! Molto, molto bene! I use and refer to both in my book, *The
Forbidden Goddess* video and the original article/theme-title, *Women of
Lesbos* in Archeology magazine. They are in footnotes. Take a look at
some of the abridged sources I use in my book, as I extract a few from
my bibliuography, below.
I highly recommend the series; the on-location
> filming is great, and I appreciate that the archaeologists speak in
> these films for themselves. "The Forbidden Goddess" incorporates an
> argument between scholars on the meaning of the texts about Yahweh
> and Asherah and gives evidences. There is another video in the
> series you especially would enjoy on the topic of the contemporary
> archaeological debate about whether the Hebrews were actually
> Canaanites themselves. The videos in the series are the best way
> I've found to keep astride of the sometimes amazing archaeological
> discoveries in all areas of the world as they are presently occurring.
>
> >If you like, I could e-mail you (in or out of an
> >Attachment, depending upon your format preference) some chosen segments
> >from my book on these points. If you do, let me know, and if you want it
> >in an Attachment, (if the Hebrew, Greek, etc, fonts and cuneiform
> >graphics etc. will come out). I have Mac/Claris Works 3.0 - I can put it
> >in simple text, RTF, Dos, Word, Word Perf., Micro Soft, etc. - for most
> >numbers around 2, 3, 4, etc.
>
> I think not at present, Frank, but thanks for the offer.
>
> >Pascal was very sharp, wasn't he?
>
> Indeed he was. <g>
>
> Stey-yu.
> Hen to Pan,
> Gwen
>
> o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o
> "I have made this letter longer than usual because
> I lack the time to make it shorter."
> Pascal
> -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
> All email is copyrighted. Please don't quote mine
> without my permission.
> *:*:*;*:*:*;*:*:*;*:*:*;*:*:*;*:*:*;*:*:*;*:*:*;*:*
EXCERPTS/ABRIDGED:
A BIBLIOGRAPHY OF REFERENCES CITED:
A& E: Å‚ Job: The DevilÄ…s Test,Ë› in Å‚ Mysteries of the BibleË› t.v.
series, by Arts and Entertainment, 1996.
Anderson, Bernhard W. Understanding the Old Testament, Fourth Ed. New
Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc./Simon & Schuster, 1957/Ä…86.
Allegro, John M. The Chosen People: A Controversial History of the Jews.
New York: Doubleday and Co., Inc., 1972.
Å‚The Politics of First-Century Judea: Searching For Jesus,Ë› (various
contributors) in/title for - Archeology Magazine, November/ December,
1994.
Augustine, St. On Free Choice of The Will. U.S.A.: The Bobbs-Merrill
Company, Inc., 1964.
________, Å‚The City of God.,Ë› in Philosophy in the Middle Ages. ed.
Arthur Hyman & James J. Walsh. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company,
1973/Ä…74.
Aveni, Anthony. Conversing With The Planets. New York: Time Books/
Random House, 1992.
Baltsan, Hayim. WebsterÄ…s New World Hebrew Dictionary. U.S.A.: Prentice
Hall, 1992.
Baly, Denis. God and History in the Old Testament. New York: Harper &
Row Publishers, Inc., 1976.
Bloom, Harold and David Rosenberg (trans.). Book of J, New York: Grove
Weiden-feld Pub., 1990.
Caplice, Richard. Introduction to Akkadian . Rome: Biblical Institute,
1983.
Catholic - The New _____Encyclopedia. Washington: Catholic University of
America, 1967.
Coogan, Michael. Stories From Ancient Canaan. Philadelphia:
Westminster Press, 1978.
Curtis, Adrian. Cities of the Biblical World: Ugarit (Ras Shamra).
Michigan: William B. ErdmanÄ…s Publishing Company, 1985.
Desroaches-Noblecourt, Christiane. Tutankhamen: Life and Death of a
Pharaoh. England/U.S.A.: Penguin Books, 1963/84.
Dictionarie Étymologique de la Langue Latine Histoire Des Mots. Paris
Librairie: Quatriome Édition, Klincksiek, Ś59 (Paris, France).
Eisenman , Robert and Michael Wise. The Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered. New
York: Barnes and Noble Books, 1992.
Erman, Adolf. Life in Ancient Egypt. trans. by H.M. Tirard. New York:
Dover Pub-lications, 1971.
Euripides V, The Bacchae. ed. David Grene and Richmond Lattimore New
York: Washington Square Press, 1959/Ä…69.
Feyerabend, Dr. Karl, LangensheidtÄ…s Pocket Greek Dictionary: Classical
Greek- English. Berlin/Munich, Germany: Langensheidt.
Frazier, Sir James. ed. Theodor H. Gaster, The New Golden Bough. U.S.A.:
Doubleday Anchor Books, 1959. (includesÅ
_______, Golden Bough - The. England: , 1890. [Abridged ed. New
York:Mac Millan Company, 1922).]
Friedman, Richard Elliott. Who Wrote the Bible . U.S.A.: Harper and Row
Publi-shers, 1987.
Fromm, Erich. You Shall Be As Gods: A Radical Interpretation of the Old
Testament and Its Tradition . Greenwich, Conn.: Fawcett Publications,
Inc., 1966.
_______. Die Kunst des Liebens. Frankfurt/Berlin: Ullstein Bücher,
1956.
Gardner, John and John Maier (trans.). Gilgamesh. U.S.A., Vintage
Books/Random House, 1984.
Golb, Norman. Who Wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls ? New York: Scribner,
Pub., 1995.
Gordon,Cyrus. Evidence for the Minoan Language . New Jersey: Ventnor
Publi-shers, 1966.
_________. Ugarit and Minoan Crete: The Bearing of Their Texts on the
Origins of Western Culture. New York: W.W. Norton & Company,
Inc.,1966.
Grispino, Reverend Joseph A. (ed.).The Old Testament: Complete with
Annotations. New York: The Guild Press, Inc., 1952/Åš65.
Hamilton, Edith. Mythology. Boston: Little, Brown, and Company, 1942.
Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich. Baillie, J.B. (trans.). The
Phenomenology of the Mind . New York and Evanston: Harper and Row
Publishers, 1967.
_________. Phänomenologie des Geistes. Frankfurt-Berlin-Wien: Verlag
Ullstein Gmbh, 1970/Ä…73.
Heidel, Alexander. The Babylonian Genesis: The Story of Creation.
Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1942/Ä…65.
Herdner, Mille A. Corpus des Tablettes en Cunéformes Alphabétiques
Découvertes ŕ Ras Shamra-Ugarit de 1929 ŕ 1939 (Paris, France).
Hobson, Christine. The World of the Pharaohs: A Complete Guide to
Ancient Egypt . New York: Thames and Hudson, 1987.
Holladay,William L. A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old
Testament . Netherlands: Leiden E.J.Brill, 1971.
Homer, trans. by W.H.D. Rouse. The Iliad. New York: Mentor Books,
1938/Ä…50/Ä…62.
_________, trans. by W.H.D. Rouse. The Odyssey. New York: Mentor
Classics, 1937.
Hurwitz, Solomon Theodore Halevy. Root-Determinatives In Semitic Speech
. New York: Columbia University Press, 1913/ AMS Press, Inc., 1966.
ITV Learning Channel program, Å‚The Forbidden Goddess,Ë› premiered on
November 11, 1993.
Jaspers, Karl. Socrates, Buddha, Confucius Jesus. U.S.A.: Harcourt Brace
Jovanovich, Inc., 1957/Ä…62.
Jung, C.G. ed. by Violet S. de Laszlo. Psyche and Symbol: A Selection
from the Writings of C.G. Jung. Garden City, New York: Doubleday Anchor
Books, Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1958.
Keller, Werner. The Bible as History , 2nd rev. ed. New York: William
Morrow and Company, 1956/81.
Kierkegaard, Sören. Edifying Discourses, Vol. II. trans. by D. F. and
Lillian Marvin Swenson. Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1944.
_______. trans. by Walter Lowerie.Fear and Trembling. New York:
Princeton Uni-versity Press/Doubleday Anchor Books.
_______. trans. by D.F. Swenson. Philosophical Fragments. New
Jersey:Princeton University Press, 1936/Ä…62.
Å‚King James.Ë› The Way of Life: The Holy Bible - ____Version, 1611. New
York: American Bible Society, 1972.
Kramer, Samuel Noah. From the Poetry of Sumer: Creation, Glorification,
Adoration. Berkeley/L.A.: University of California,1979.
Koran, The. trans. N. J. Dawood. Great Britain: Penguin Books,
1956-Ä…74.
Krupp, Dr. E.C. Echoes of the Ancient Skies: The Astronomy of Lost
Civilizations. New York : Harper and Row Publishers, 1983.
Lambert, W. G. Babylonian Wisdom Literature. England: Oxford University
Press/ Clarenondon Press, 1960/Ä…75.
Lee, Dorothy. Freedom and Culture. U.S.A.:Prentice Hall, Inc.,1959.
Leick, Gwendolyn. Sex and Eroticism in Mesopotamian Literature.
London/New York: Routledge Pub., 1994.
Lipin, L.A. The Akkadian Language. Moscow: Nauka Publications, 1973.
Living, The - Talmud: Wisdom of the Fathers. Canada: Meridian/Signet
Classic, 1959.
Lost , The - Books of The Bible and The Forgotten Books of Eden .
Cleveland/New York/Canada: The World Publishing Company, 1926/7.
Luther, Martin. Die Bibel, Nach Der Ãœbersetzung - Martin Luthers.
Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1984 (Stuttgart, Germany).
Malinowski, Bronislaw. Magic, Science, and Religion and Other Essays.
Garden City, New York: Doubleday Anchor, 1948/Ä…54.
Matthews, Victor H. and Don C. Benjamin. Old Testament Parallels: Laws
and Stories from the Ancient Near East . New Jersey: Paulist Press,
1991.
Messadié, Gerald. trans. by Marc Romano, A History of the Devil. New
York/Tokyo: Kodansha International, Inc., 1993 ( French)/ 1996.
Montgomery, Å‚Texts from Ras Shamra,Ë› published in The American
Philosophical Society, 1935.
Morgan, Lewis H. , LL. D. Ancient Society. Chicago: Charles H. Kerr &
Company, 1877.
NestleÄ…s, The Interlinear Greek-English New Testament. Great Britain:
Samuel Bagster and Sons, Ltd., 1958/Ä…67.
Nietzsche, Friedrich. Die Geburt der Tragödie [und] Der griekishe
Staat.. Stuttgart: Alfred Kröner Verlag, 1964.
.
NIV ,The - Interlinear Hebrew-English Old Testament. Michigan:
Zondervan Corp., 1979/1987.
Nulle, Tertullian, Å‚The Apparel of Women,Ë› in Classics of Western
Thought, , Vol. I. The Ancient World. ed. Stebelton H. New York and
Burlingame: Harcourt, Brace, and World, Inc., 1964.
Oates, John. Babylon . New York: Thames and Hudson, Inc., 1979.
OÄ…Brien, Elmer. Varieties of Mystic Experience. New York: The New
American Library, Mentor-Omega Books 1964/Ä…65.
Oxford, The - Companion to the Bible. (Bruce M. Metzger and Michael D,
Coogan, eds.). New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993.
Peckham, S. Brian. The Development of the Late Phoenician Scripts.
U.S.A.: Harvard Press, 1968.
Pennick, Nigel. The Pagan Book of Days. Vermont: Destiny Books, 1992.
Phillips, J.B. (trans.). The New Testament: in Modern English. New
York: The Macmillan Company, 1947-Ä…58/Ä…68.
Plato, The Collected Dialogues of Plato. ed. Edith Hamilton and
Huntington Cairns. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1951/Ä…59.
Plotinus, The Good or The One - Enneads,Ë› VI. 9, from The Essential
Plotinus. ed. and trans. by Elmer OÄ…Brien, S.J. New York: 1964.
Reiner, Erica. A Linguistic Analysis of Akkadian. The Hague,
Netherlands: Mouton and Co., Pub., 1965/6.
_______ and David Pingree. Bibliotheca Mesopotamica, Vol. II, Part I:
The Venus Tablet of Ammisaduqa. Malibu, California : Undena
Publications, 1975.
Robinson, Andrew. The Story of Writing . London: Thames and Hudson,
Ltd., 1995.
Robinson, James M., gen. ed. The Nag Hammadi Library in English. San
Francisco: Harper & Row Publishers, 1978/88.
Safran, Bezalei (ed.). Hasidism: Continuity or Innovation? Cambridge,
Mass./ London, Eng.: Harvard University Press, 1988.
Schele, Linda and David Freidel. A Forest of Kings: The Untold Story of
The Ancient Maya. New York: William Morrow and Co., Inc.,1990.
Segert, Stanislau. A Basic Grammar of the Ugaritic Language .
California: University of California, Berkeley/L.A., 1984.
Septuagint Version of The Old Testament . U.S.A.: Samuel Bagster and
Sons, Ltd., London/Zondervan Edition,1970.
Solomon, Theodore Halevy Hurwitz. Root-Determinatives In Semitic Speech.
New York: Columbia University Press, 1913/ AMS Press, Inc., 1966.
Speiser, E.A. Genesis: The Anchor Bible, A New Translation with
Introduction and Commentary by - . New York: Doubleday and Company,
1964)
Strong, James. StrongÄ…s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible. New York:
Abingdon Press, 1890/4.
Terray, Emmanuel. trans. Mary Klopper. Marxism and Primitive Societies
: Two Studies . New York: Monthly Review Press, 1972.
Traupman, John C, Ph. D. The New College Latin and English Dictionary
U.S.A.: Bantam Books, Inc., 1966/77.
Vulgata, Biblia. Sacra Juxta Clementium, a R.P. Alberto Colunga, O.P,
et. Dr. Laurentio Turrado. Malriti, Biblioteca de Autores Cristianos,
MCMLIII.
Vulgatam, Biblia Sacra Juxta Clementinam, Nova Edito, a R.P. Alberto
Colunga, O.P., et Dr. Laurentio Turrado. Matriti, Biblioteca de Autores
Cristianos, MCMLIX.
Walker, C.B.F. Reading the Past: Cuneiform. London: British Museum
Publications, 1987.
Ward, Benedicta. Miracles and The Medieval Mind: Theory, Record and
Event 1000- 1215 . Philadelphia: University of Penn. Press, 1982.
Whorf, Benjamin Lee. Language, Thought, and Reality. Massachusetts: The
MIT Press, 1956/Ä…72.
Williams, Hector. Vancouver, comp., Å‚Secret Rites of Lesbos,Ë› in
Archeology Magazine, July/August, 1994.
Compliments of/with permission by
F.T. De Angelis http://home.fda.net/~spartacus
Adjunct Professor/Author of Philosophy, Religion, Humanities
Frank T. De Angelis
Frank T. De Angelis
To Whom It May Concern:
Here are the relevant passages giving the Hebrew names for gods
(originally in Ugaritic) with biblical passges that you yoursel-f/ves
can check on (the Hebrew letters and others, ALONG WITH ALL QUOTE MARKS,
will not transmit correctly here, and only some of the many footnotes
are provided for here): ALL OF THE FOLLOWING IS COPYRIGHTED; ONLY QUOTES
FOR POSTS HERE ARE AUTHORIZED WITH PERMISSION BY AUTHOR FOR LIMITED USE:
This theory has been long accepted, and is known as the Documentary
Hypothesis. It must be understood, however, that these multiple authors
were responsible for giving both separate and numerous names for god.
The different names also reflect very different characteristics and
modes of behavior. El, Elohim, Yah, Yahweh, Adonai(ay), El Shaddai(ay),
Abyir, Kadoosh, Kneah, and many other names and epithets were given to
god(s) by the various contributors to this highly eclectic work that we
now know as The Bible.
Regardless of whether or not the Documentary Hypothesis is correct,
these different names and corresponding characteristics for God actually
represent distinctly separate gods. All of these Å‚godsË› of the original
Hebrew Bible were really taken from earlier civilizations and religious
texts, especially from the ancient city of Ugarit...
...El is the main god in the Ugaritic religion, and also signifies a
deity per se; however, El is depicted as both a bull (thor) and Å‚God,
the father.Ë› El- thor will become essential to the Hebrew language and
religion, and, hence, the Judeo-Christian Bible. Although Yahweh (h w h
y) is considered God-the-Father, the Bible begins with Elohim (\ y h la,
meaning Å‚gods,Ë› being plural in Hebrew), as the only word for god in the
entire first chapter of Genesis. Later on, El (la) will also be used as
the name for god. Asherah, the main goddess of Ugarit, was also
worshiped by the Hebrews, and was even identified as Å‚YahwehÄ…s
consort.˛7 This is just the beginning of a long series of influences
and connections between Ugaritic and Hebrew. In the Hebrew Bible, para
(r p) is the word used for bull; egel (l g u) is used for Å‚bullockË›
(often mistranslated as Å‚calf,Ë› as in the Exodus account describing the
Å‚golden calf of AaronË›); and ha/sh/shor (or hashor), as the [herd of]
bull[s] from God, the Father. We can now begin to unravel several
threads of the Ugaritic-Canaanite...
____________
7 There are numerous references to this fairly recent archeological
find. Cf. Bruce M. Metzger and Michael D, Coogan(eds.),The Oxford
Companion to the Bible (New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993),
p.52; this was also affirmed on the ITV Learning Channel program, The
Forbidden Goddess, of November 11, 1993.
... The Å‚EË› version of the Bible calls God Elohim (\ y h la), which is
actually plural for gods, while the Å‚JË› version of the biblical
accounts refers to God as Yahweh (h w h y). As I stated before, El is
the Ugaritic term for god, the Bull, and Father of the gods. When the
Jews settled in Canaan, they incorporated this Ugaritic terminology into
their own religion. They borrowed, displaced, and replaced the term(s)
for God with Elohim and El. The very first biblical writings reflect
these, and many other major differences, in these separate versions.
In addition to the fact that the E version appears first, in the first
chapter of Genesis, it is believed by some (and I follow Dr. FriedmanÄ…s
belief here) that it was the very first Hebrew biblical source.1 It is
also believed that both the E and J writers existed during the period
when Israel was divided into two kingdoms, Israel in the north and Judah
in the south. The era for this division dates between 922 and 722
B.C.E., with the E (Elohim) version representing Israel, and J emerging
from Judah, in the south. Thus, (1) the northern Ugaritic Canaanite
influence on Israel is obvious; the Hebrew god of Å‚EË› is the god of
Ugarit, and (2) the Bible begins with Creation by Elohim, that is, godsÅ
clearly implying polytheism.
There are numerous passages, all throughout the Bible, where the plural
for god, elohim, is used.12 Polytheism however, is not just reflected
in the E(-lohist) version of the Bible, nor is it just found in the
serpentÄ…s address to Hava (Eve) in the Å‚JË› version (Genesis 3:5), where
the plural, gods, is used: Å‚elohim knows that on the day you eat [from
the tree of knowledge], your eyes will be opened, and you will become
like us[elohim, gods]Ë›; later, in Genesis 3:22, yahweh (God- \ y h l a
yahweh - h w h y) states that Å‚mankind [ \ d a h, the man ] will become
like us.Ë› David RosenbergÄ…s translation, in the Book of J, captures many
of these inherently polytheistic qualities - with, for example, Å‚your
eyes will fall open like gods.Ë› The following phrases are also used: Å‚
ÅšLook,Ä… said Yahweh, Åšthe earthling sees like one of us, knowing good
and badÄ…; (and laterÅ ) Åšbetween us, letÄ…s descend, baffle their tongue
until each is scatterbrain to his friend.ą ˛13
There are many other phrases throughout the Bible, giving more clues of
polytheistic aspects. A glimpse of matriarchy surfaces when Hava gives
birth to Cain, and announces that she has Åšcreated a man with yahweh.Ä…
(Genesis 4:2) It seems that there is an ambiguity in the language
here, and of an amphibilous nature, at that. When angels arrive in
Sodom, they are addressed by Lot as Å‚my lords.Ë› (Genesis 19:2) While
talking to each other, faithful Hebrew family members (e.g., Jacob to
his father Isaac) constantly refer to Å‚yahweh your god.Ë› In the story
of Å‚AaronÄ…s golden calf,Ë› there is the exclamation, Å‚Israel, here are
your gods.Ë› (Exodus 32:4)
Aside from other names for god(s), given by both the E and J writers,
there are those of Å‚P,Ë› Å‚D,Ë› and Å‚RË›: the P(-riestly) version;
D(-euter-onomist), who gives a separate account of that book; and
R(-edacter), Ezra, whose eclectic synthesis skillfully blended
everything together. This completes the list of writers who were
separated out from the Torah, according to the Documentary Hypothesis.
The Priestly version introduces the name el shadday (ydc la) as Å‚God
Almighty,Ë› but yahweh is usually translated into English as Å‚Lord,Ë›
along with adonay (y n d a), and several other names for Lord and God.
God appeared to Noah (or Noe) as elohim (\ y h la), and tells us that He
appeared to Abraham as el shadday (ydc la), and to moshe (Moses) as
yahweh (h w h y); however, in his introductory appearance for moshe, he
announced, with all of the witty puns typical of J, that he was [y]ah
yah (h y h a), or Å‚I am [who] I amË› (Exodus 3:13-4). The biblical
scholars of the Documentary Hypothesis offer a wealth of evidence in
demonstrating that el shadday comes from the P source of authorship, and
The Talmud characterizes adonay as a name used when Å‚punishment
comes.˛13 Adon is the Hebrew root for adonay, and means lord or master.
Later this will exert an influence on the Greeks, and become adonis
(unless the influence was vice versa; i.e., reversed). Shad is the root
for shadday, and means breast (of a female), with shadday being plural
for breasts. The Akkadian Mesopotamians clearly influenced the Hebrews
here. Although shadu means mountains in Akkadian, the term was also
included in Å‚the Great Mother Mountains,Ë› shadu Aruru rabitam, (also
identified as Ishtar).14 Thus, the female breasts-mountains connection
indicates feminine divinity, but is now, with the Jews, transformed into
the Hebrew El-God Almighty (i.e., elohim yahweh), from Å‚the Great Mother
Mountains,Ë› Ishtar.
Names for god(s) are very similar in many ancient cultures. Il/ilu is
the Mesopotamian designation for a deity; the cuneiform dingir,
referring to any deity, is never pronounced. This Mesopotamian religion
is the very first in writing, beginning with the story of Gilgamesh,
from Sumerian Mesopotamia. In the Ugaritic texts, El is the main god,
Father of the gods, Head of the Assembly of gods, and the Bull. All of
these writings, however, predate those of the Hebrew Bible. El is also
the main god in the Hebrew Bible, although elohim is mentioned first,
and, once again, is plural for gods. Based on some biblical passages,
the Hebrew term, el, is also used to refer to Å‚the FatherÅ Head of the
assembly of gods,Ë› and is identified with the bull. Anu is Å‚the
Father,˛łthe sky god,˛ and the one who Śsends the bull from heaven,ą in
the story of Gilgamesh. This god has a name, identifying him - to an
extent - with the following: Ad(d)u (Babylonian); Adhi and Atman
(Indian-Hindu); Aton-ra (Egyptian); Allah (Islamic); samadhi, ahi(y)msa,
and ahuras (Indian); Ahura Mazda (Persian-Zoroastrian); Ad(d)ad
(Mesopotamian); and Haddad, Hadu, or Hadd (mostly Ugaritic-Canaanite,
with Phoenician and Minoan variations) - to name a few. Ad(d)u, Hadd,
Haddad, and Aleyan were all names for the Ugaritic-Philistine god, Baal,
the archrival of the Hebrew god, yahweh. There are many different
(probable) claims as to the possible origins and connections between all
of these names and terms. It has been suggested by Michael Coogan, for
example, that the origin of Allah, with his epithets of The Merciful,
Compassionate, and Kind, is to be found in the Ugaritic god, El, since
his name contains all of those very same epithets.15 Many of these
terms, however, are directly related to the Hebrew adonay(ai), adon,
adam (mankind), and dama (ground, the root for adam). Adam, simply the
term for mankind, along with adon and adonay, are all found first in the
Ugaritic texts, predating the biblical Hebrew. The root for adonay is
adon (}d a Å‚lordË›), but they, along with adam (\ d a), come from the
common root dama (ground, soil, and land). In modern Hebrew, baal (l u
b) is a word with various meanings - both positive and negative. In
addition to being the name for that Å‚evilË› Ugaritic enemy of yahweh,
baal, it also means Å‚bully,Ë› Å‚lord,Ë› Å‚boss,Ë› Å‚landlord,Ë› Å‚ally,Ë›
Å‚husband,Ë› Å‚ruler,Ë› etc. 16 Thus, we have both adon and baal for lord -
in both Ugaritic and Hebrew- with the latter clearly being influenced by
the former; after all, the Ugaritic scriptures were written well over
fourteen hundred years before the Hebrew torah; even in its initial
stages. (Aleyan is of equal interest here.)...
____________
11 Since all Hebrew letters are small case, even the personal
pronouns, I translate them literally as such, without prejudice and
distinction (or vowels).
12 Cf., e.g., the Rosenberg translation in the Book of J, pp. 63, 65,
and 75, respectively - where there is some delightfully unusual wording.
13 Speiser, op. cit., pp xxiv,122, and 124 (the entire introduction
explains the separate authorships.); Metzger and Coogan, op. cit. p.
548; and Judah Goldin (ed. and trans.) The Living Talmud: Wisdom of the
Fathers (Canada: Meridian/Signet Classic, 1959), p. 71, where in
Genesis, 15:13 punishment comes via Å‚his D and N Name (Adonai).Ë›
14 For shad-shadday(breasts)- in Hebrew, cf. Hayim Baltsan, WebsterÄ…s
New World Hebrew Dictionary (U.S.A.: Prentice Hall, 1992), p. 496; for
the Aruru-Ishtar connection, cf. John Gardner and John Maier(trans.),
Gilgamesh, (U.S.A., Vintage Books/Random House, 1984), pp. 69 and 71;
for the shadu Å‚mountainË› connection, cf. Speiser, op. cit., p.124 and
Michael Coogan, Stories From Ancient Canaan (Philadelphia: Westminster
Press, 1978), p.19 (according to Coogan, El Shaddai doesnÄ…t really mean
God Almighty, but God the Mountain. This is also alluded to by Speiser,
in the passage cited, as well as Friedman (based on lecture notes from
his Humanities classes), that the origin of El Shaddai comes from the
Akkadian Å‚Great Mountains.Ë› Mountain in Hebrew is hr or hara (r h),
from the Ugaritic hr (mtn.) and ha (breast); breast is shad, also from
the Ugaritic shad.
15 Coogan, Stories From Ancient Canaan, ibid., p. 12. (Coogan only
alludes to this Ugaritic origin, being more cautious by saying that it
is Å‚strikingly closeË› to the Islamic.)
16 Hayim Baltsan, op. cit., p.29.
... There are many variations of the el found in both the Old as well as
the New Testament. Judging from the gospels According to Mark and
Matthew, we must conclude that Jesus was talking in a foreign dialect,
even though he shouted out an Aramaic phrase (his native tongue,
simi-lar to Hebrew): Å‚Eli Eli Lema SabachthaniË› (in Matthew 27:46) and
Å‚Eloi Eloi Lama SabachtaniË› (Mark 15:34). This statement comes from
Jesus when he is dying on the cross, but is accompanied and preceded by
the following qualification in the Mark passage: Å‚Å which is being
interpreted asÅ ,Ë› leading one to believe that it was indeed a foreign
dialect. These are all references to el (god), with the translation
being, Å‚my God, my God, why hath thou forsaken me?Ë› Undoubtedly both
Eli and Eloi came from el, as did el-roi, el-r i, elohe, and elyon.
Yahweh appears to Abra-ham as el shaddai, but appears to Hagar as el-roi
(god of seeing) and/or el-r i (one who sees me, god) in Genesis, Chapter
Seventeen.17 As the Bible story continues, we find many other
derivatives of el (e.g., in Ishmael and Jacob). Ishmael, the son of
Abraham and Hagar, is named god heard by yahweh, while Jacob (heel
clutcher) is named god clutcher (i.e., Israel) by Åšthe god of J,Ä… who
never ceases to pass up a pun on words. (See Anthony QuinnÄ…s treatment
of Ishmael in the Philosophical Summary and Conclusion of this work.)
(Now, for El, Aleyan, and Elyon.)
The Jacob-to-Israel transition occurs via JacobÄ…s Å‚wrestling matchË›
with a man assumed to be god, el elohe israel, or Å‚god, the god of
Jacob-IsraelË› (Genesis 32:24-33:19). Elyon, another Hebrew-Aramaic
variation for el, comes from the Ugaritic-Phoenician influence on
Hebrew.18 Many names of persons and places (e.g., temples and other
holy places named Beth-El) will now contain el as an essential component
of the human-divine connection, much like the Egyptian use of ra and re.
This also reflects - and explains - the importance of the Hebrew name,
Immanuel, in Isaiah 7:14 and 8:8; not to mention its importance as the
fulfilled prophecy for Jesus. Jesus is also named Emmanouhl, or Emman-u-
el, according to Matthew 1:23, since the name means immanent/with god,
according to the translation and explanation in/of Matthew, who adds,
Å‚which is being interpreted as Åšgod is with usÄ….Ë›
If we now trace the Å‚godsË› of the original Hebrew Bible literally - as
they develop and evolve, passage-by-passage - we come to a higher level
of understanding, adding even more credence to the thesis of
polytheism.19 This process will also help in demonstrating to the reader
precisely why the Documentary Hypothesis is a well established theory.
Chapter One of Genesis, written by E (from the north, i.e., Israel),
uses only one term for god, elohim (\ y h la). This is solely the work
of the E author, where an impersonal god (a generic deity, with a
plural, implying gods) Å‚creates the worldË› (e.g., in Genesis 1, 2:4,
5:2, etc.). The E source comes from a culture influenced by the
Ugaritic-Canaanite god el, and his writings reflect this bias. In
Chapter Two of Genesis, yahweh ( h w h y - literally- the consonants,
yhwh) is added, as the god of J. The god of this author Å‚makes the
worldË› (e.g., in Genesis, 2:4), and in a completely different order than
EÄ…s elohim. The differences in the Creation by E also correlate with the
terms, e.g., (a)ish (cy a, male) and isha/issa/isherah (h c a, female)
(ashah/asherah/isherah ?), as opposed to the Creation in Chapter Two,
with adam (\ d a, man-kind) and hava(h) (h w h, the life principle).
Now, both of these Å‚godsË› will be synthesized together, adding yahweh to
elohim, giving us the common, present day Å‚Lord GodË› (mis)translation
into English. Thus, from Genesis 2:4, the elohim yahweh (literally,
Å‚yahweh of the gods,Ë› or Å‚the god yahwehË›) multi-reference begins to
take its final shape and form in the (Priestly) torah.
It is in Genesis 3:5, that we come to the realization that mankind
would, could, and will become just like the gods, godlike, if Åšhe eats
from the tree of knowledgeÄ… (which he/we did). The plural, gods, is to
be found in both the elohim terminology and the repetitive god
references of we and us, as Åšthe word of GodÄ… (and of the serpent, too).
Chapter Seventeen begins with el shadday presenting himself to Abraham.
This god (along with other - and completely separate - ter-minology) is
that of P, a Priestly author from the north, favoring E, yet combining
both accounts of J and E. It is highly probable that E and P were both
priests. Aaron is favored in the E-P sources, and stories are included
(e.g., Å‚AaronÄ…s golden calf,Ë› and the Aaronite criticism of MosesÄ…
Cushite wife, in the Å‚snow-white MiriamË› story) that are not found in
the J biblical account.20 As opposed to elohim,whose sign of the
covenant with Noah was the rainbow (Genesis 9:15), this godÄ…s sign, with
Abraham, will be that of circumcision (Genesis 7:10). Although the term,
el, is accompanied by shadday, as the god of Abraham, it will also
appear alone and unqualified, and will ÅšshareÄ… with many other archaic
variations (all throughout Genesis, and the Bible per se). In Genesis
33:19, a new concept and archaic expression is introduced with both el
and elohe. It is here that el is the god of gods of Israel (israel elohe
el).
Another name for god, in Genesis, is abyir (r y b a), the Mighty One
(Bull) of Jacob, in 49:24. Abbyir was a term for bull, mighty one, and
angel in the biblical Hebrew (probably from father, ab[v]u).21 The next
two consecutive passages (i.e., Genesis 49:25-6) refer to shadday (the
Almighty) and the (ancient sacred)mountain (r h ). All of this will have
tremendous significance (and will be discussed later on in connection
with the Hebrew bull- el of Canaanite influence). The Book of Exodus
also contains additional (names for) gods. The J writer, for example,
gives us yahweh, telling us that Å‚He is Å Jealous YahwehË› and Å‚The
Jealous OneË› (y a n k and a n k, kneah and/or kanay) (Exodus
34:13-16). In Exodus 20:5, He is the y a n k, who both hates and
punishes.
Although yahweh was introduced back in Chapter Two of Genesis, He tells
us that He first introduced himself to Moses, in Exodus, both as yah and
yahweh (Exodus 3:13-15). Now this godÄ…s covenant with moshe (h c m) is
symbolized through the Sabbath, along with other signs. Most of the
different Å‚godË› references are lost in the (English) translation(s).
Yahweh and adonay, e.g., are both translated as Å‚LordË›; however, in the
Book of Isaiah, the two are combined, yielding yahweh adonay, or Å‚Lord
of the Lord AlmightyË› (as it has been translated, at times). In the
first chapter of Isaiah, the concept of yahweh is that of a god Å‚who
reasons,Ë› even though he has earned the paternal respect from being
jealous, irrational, and feared in the past. Although yahweh has been
feared in the past, there now seems to be a new level of threat and
damnation in these later Å‚hateË› Books of the Bible, with Åšhell, fire,
and damnationÄ… (much like the last Book of Revelation in the New
Testament). Thus, from Isaiah1:17, with a Åšyahweh who reasons,Ä… to
Isaiah 1:24, with Å‚yahweh adonay,Ë› the result is that of a clever and
almighty god, seeking revenge against his enemies. The blasphemies that
occur, for this god, are those involving the worship of Moon cults and
corrupt rulers (all designated as Å‚harlotsË›), and sacrifices of rams,
goats, and bulls; these are the sworn enemies of a powerful and
łAll-Mighty God,˛adonay (found in Isaiah 1:23). In Hebrew, adonay (ynda)
contains the same first letter found in el (la), where the Åšaleph,Ä… is
either an ÅšaÄ… or ÅšeÄ…; thus having many similarities with the Islamic
Allah, especially in light of the Exodus 33-34 passages, where God tells
us He possesses the characteristics of being Jealous, Compassionate, and
Merciful. One of the Hebrew meanings for baal was ally; the Ugaritic
god, Baal, certainly was an ally to El, as Asherah was a consort.
Likewise, we find the Hebrew yahweh, as an ally of el, and Asherah, as
YahwehÄ… s consort. Asherah, from the Mesopotamian Ishtar, also
represents Aphrodite and Venus. Similarly, Al-Uzzah, a daughter of
Allah, was also worshiped as a female deity, Venus. The negative
connotations for baal, in Hebrew, clearly reflect the patriarchal
leadersÄ… condemnation of all foreign non-Hebrew religious influences
(especially those from Ugarit). The strong adversarial role between
yahweh and baal comes to a climax in the great Å‚show downË› on Mt.
Carmel, in the Hebrew Book of Kings, where Yahweh and Elijah emerge
victorious (of course). Whether we look to the El/Baal Ugaritic Å‚team,Ë›
or the Hebrew match-up of el/yahweh, we have exactly the same functions,
characteristics, and epithets for both sets of gods: Å‚thundererË›;
Å‚bullË›; Å‚mighty oneË›; Å‚the almightyË›; Å‚rider of the cloudsË›; Å‚storm
godË›; Å‚lord over menË›; Å‚Father of godsË›; and Å‚God/head of the assembly
of gods.Ë› Other god-names, for both cultures, include Å‚The Holy One,Ë›
kadoosh (cwdk or cdk, kdsh) and Å‚Host(s),Ë› tsavot (twakx, Hebrew from
the Ugaritic and Chaldean). Both of these names are to be found all
throughout the Bible, with the former appearing in the torah, e.g., in
Exodus 19:7 and 19:24, and in Leviticus 27:33 (with many other Å‚earlyË›
references). God, as a/the Host (s) occurs predominantly within the
later Books of the Old Testament, and is often translated as Åšalmighty.Ä…
____________
17 Speiser, op. cit., pp. 116-18.
18 Ibid., pp. 104 and 109. Also,.pp.32-6, with May-ya-el (supposedly
Methusael) and muta-sa-ili (man of god), coming from Mutum-ilum,
Muti-ilum, and Mutum-el (My /god is the husband) in Mesopotamia. Also,
N.B., Aleyan (Baal) in Ugaritic.
19 For easy comparative access, I will cite references, mostly from
the Biblia Hebraica Stüttgartensia, a version of the Leningrad codex, in
The Interlinear NIV Hebrew-English Old Testament (Michigan: Zondervan
Corp., 1979/1987).
20 This is made very clear in FriedmanÄ…s book, op. cit., pp.70-4 and
76-9.
21 Cf. William L. Holladay, A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of
the Old Testament (Netherlands: Leiden E.J. Brill, 1971), p.2 (from
abyir to abbyir; also cf. James Strong, StrongÄ…s Exhaustive Concordance
of the Bible (New York: Abingdon Press, 1890/4), p.7 of the Hebrew and
Chaldee Dictionary, entries # 46 and 47.
22 Cf. Bloom, op. cit., pp.5 and 195-8.
... In the Book of Exodus (6:3), yahweh presents himself to Moses,
claiming He already presented himself to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as el
shaddai (or shadday). This Book, however, also calls God el, elohim,
bezalei (in Exodus 31:1), jemuel (in Exodus 6:15), and resorts to the
strong imagery of God as both the bull, para (r p, as in 29:3), and the
bullock, egel (l g u, as in passage 32:8; once again mistaken for - and
mistranslated as - calf).
If we now turn our attention to Isaiah, we find quite a collection of
gods being referred to: adonay is found all throughout the first few
chapters (1:23, 3:1, 3:15-17,Å ); abyir is a reference in passage 1:24; a
citing of el is to be found in 12:1; yah appears, e.g., in 12:2; a
reference to shadday occurs in 13:6; and, of course, yahweh appears all
through-out Isaiah, as well as the other Books of the Bible (with the
exception of Esther, where there is no mention of god).
Thus far we have observed and examined a variety of Hebrew names for
god, all in the Bible, particularly in the torah and the later Book of
Isaiah. Are these indeed, Å‚just different names and descriptions for
the same God,Ë› or are they so radically different that they actually
refer to different gods? Are these not separate gods, and different
types of gods with different patterns of behavior? Do their differences
in behavior not constitute and reflect different Åšmodes of operatingÄ…?
The modus operandi of elohim Å‚creatingË› versus that of yahweh
Å‚making,Ë› just doesnÄ…t appear to be that significant at first glance,
although creation implies more of bringing something into existence from
nothing. The difference between one Åšcreating male and female together,Ä…
however, versus the other first Åšmaking mankind from the ground, and
then the life principle, as a helping side, or rib,Ä… is very
significant. Upon closer inspection, we find the differences between
these two, even greater. The god of E-P is impersonal, comes directly
from the Ugaritic god (El), and implies plurality. The god of J appears
to be more unique and personal(Yahweh); He makes covenants, and
interacts with men via the assistance of angels and dreams; He wrestles
with humans (Jacob, e.g.), and is jealous of humans (Moses, e.g.) -
indicating strong emotions; He even talks to animals. Furthermore,
there are completely separate (and often inconsistent and contradictory)
accounts and stories that occur in one version, but not in the other.
The J version of the flood story has the disaster lasting forty (40)
days and forty nights, while the P (priestly caste) version has the
flood for a duration of one hundred fifty (150) days. This latter
version also has God ordering Noah to pick two of each kind of animal
(one pair of male and female), for salvation, thanks to the ark, while
the J version requires seven pairs of the Å‚clean animalsË› (7 pairs).
In P, all life Å‚expired,Ë› while in J, it Å‚diedË›; in the latter, the ark
is the essential symbol of faith, while in the former, there is an
emphasis placed on the Temple/Tabernacle. The differences continue with
the Ten Commandments of J, in Exodus 34:14-28, versus those of P, in
20:1-17 (not to mention the version in Deuteronomy 5:16-21).23
____________
23 These connections came to me directly and solely through Friedman,
op. cit., pp. 55, 75, and 251-2, respectively. (Dr. Friedman seems to
have been more comprehensive regarding these differences in the various
accounts than anyone else. Details of the different versions never cease
throughout his entire book.)
(A PT II will follow)
Sincerely,
Prof./Author F.T. De Angelis http://home.fda.net/~spartacus
Brian Voth
Alice Turner replies to Joshua Geller:
[Regarding Julian Jaynes' "Origins of Consciousness..."]
>> How could his conclusions have been any more controversial? He came about
>> as close as one can to saying "I have proof that God is a fiction of Man's
>> conciousness" without actually saying it in so many words.
>
> He was careful to speak almost entirely of the past, or of primitive
> peoples. But it didn't take a giant IQ to realize that he was also speaking
> obliquely of the "born agains," and so forth. To say nothing of St. Paul!
> And what about Joseph Smith!
And to say nothing of the modern day revivalists who also
talk to god. The last part of his book addressed schizophrenia
and speaking in tongues among other vestiges of bicameral origins.
It would have been easy for him to include religious experiences
as well. However, he may have deliberately left the subject out
because it might have been too controversial.
I read a book by Dr. Michael Persinger called "The
NeuroPsychological Bases of God Beliefs" which explores this
subject and covers it quite well. Dr. Persinger was influenced
by Jaynes' work and has done a lot of good research on his own.
He sites the right hemispheric intrusion as a possible source of
religious experiences. The religious experience is perhaps a
brief episode of bicameral operation forced upon the conscious
mind.
joshua geller
Jaynes is wrong; he is confusing the magickal techniques that the
ancients were using with some kind of pathological process. There is a
difference in kind between work done with gods, demons, spirits
etc. by magicians and the hallucinations of schizophrenics: the one is
the deliberate induction of disocciative states with intent, to
accomplish specific purposes, and the other is a disease process and
not under the conscious control of anyone.
I don't know if he was willfully mistaken; I suspect he was just
wrong. It hasn't been easy, in recent centuries, to come by the
training necessary to understand this kind of stuff, at least in the
west. It has also been dangerous, because the dogma has been, since
the late 1600's or so, that this stuff is all medieval bullshit which
no respectable person would practice.
Like I have said before, I don't want to complain too hard, because
however annoying the recent state of affairs was, it is much
preferrable to the one which preceded it, where you had to seriously
worry about getting in legal trouble for knowing this stuff. But it
has caused a lot of misunderstanding, which continues.
Anyone who is at all interested in knowing *about* this stuff, should
read the work of Dame Frances Yates, specifically:
"Giordano Bruno and the Hermetic Tradition"
"The Art of Memory"
"The Rosicrucian Enlightenment"
"John Dee" by Peter French, Ph.D is an extremely interesting and
complete portrait of a typical Renaissance Magus; a man who was at one
and the same time a scientist and a magician.
If anyone is interested in actually learning to *do* this stuff, work
with gods and spirits, do alchemical research and so on, they should
write me a letter and I'll point them at the right books to read.
my very best,
josh
Frank T. De Angelis
A NOTE TO ALL OF MY CRITICS: The Burden of Proof:
I have given extensive proof for biblical Hebrew (and Christian)
polytheism, and of the Ugaritic connection of direct origin - mostly in
the alt.philosophy.debate and alt.philosophy ngs - my home away from
home.
The burden of proof lies with(in) you...my critics. What I have
delivered here, with generous excerpts from my book - in two parts, is
proof for the different gods, not just *names...for God*/s.
The abundant proof for my theses are both in quality and quantity, that
is, for example, with the totality of relations(hips) as well as the
preponderance of evidence. Take, for example, the sole use of *yah*
instead of *yah-weh* in the Hebrew Bible; the Exodus reference -- which
this whole thread unraveled on -- is *ah yah,* *I am yah - [or] am.*
The (quantitatively added, as well as qualitative) corroborating
reference, which I also state, includes Psalms 68:5 (or, in English,
68:4 - in modern day Bibles translated into western languages), which
states, once again -- with god telling us his name -- that he is *yah,*
which is mistranslated into *yahweh* or *JAH* (with the latter as being
much, much closer, for once, found in the King James Authorized
Version).
I am much more sympathetic for the mythological pantheons, once again,
due to their lack of modern day sacredness, hegemony, hypocrisy, and
censorhip. It is somewhat obvious that there was much more of a
cross-cultural bi-conditional exchange of gods with the Greek and Hebrew
pantheons (and, later, to a much lesser extent with the Greco-Roman and
Christian remnants of polytheism and devil personifications, with, for
example, Lucifer, (H)ades, Virgo, (H)elios, etc.). The names of the
Hebrew Bible are not names for God, but names of different gods
restructured by politically powerful priestly caste writers and
redacters.
In the final analysis, I rest my case - finding no credible oppositions
within this medium nor by the top biblical/Hebrew/Ancient scholars I
consider to be the best - and are considered to be such within the
academic community.
Sincerely,
F.T. De Angelis
Adjunct Prof./Author of Philosophy, Religion, and Humanities
Cf. my research intro. of what I've been into...on
http://home.fda.net/~spartacus
Frank T. De Angelis
Another *Platonic Apologetic* Message...
...to (all) those responsible for the attempts at sabotaging my
internet freedom of speech (and Trade) - esp. re: a particular
electronic bookstore:
I feel as though the ad hoc and post hoc assumptions, tied to the blind
acceptance of -- and the fallacious argumental appeal to -- authority,
along with (Freudian based, and explained) wishful thinking by the
faithful, do not quite measure up to (and as) evidence. My book is
evidence.
frankly *Give me Liberty...* and/or I'll fight to the death.
Frank T. De Angelis
Another *Platonic Apologetic* Message...
...to (all) those responsible for the attempts at sabotaging my
internet freedom of speech - esp. re: a particular electronic bookstore:
Rasmus Gjesdal
Frank T. De Angelis <spar...@fda.net> skrev i artikkelen
<357A89...@fda.net>...
> A NOTE TO ALL OF MY CRITICS: The Burden of Proof:
>
> I have given extensive proof for biblical Hebrew (and Christian)
> polytheism, and of the Ugaritic connection of direct origin - mostly in
> the alt.philosophy.debate and alt.philosophy ngs - my home away from
> home.
>
> The burden of proof lies with(in) you...my critics. What I have
> delivered here, with generous excerpts from my book - in two parts, is
> proof for the different gods, not just *names...for God*/s.
>
Back again Frank.
Your critics be damned, full speed ahead!
There is no doubt that the early clans which evolved to become the Jews
was a polytheistic group of people. You are however quite generous when it
comes to
the early time frame of their existance. The earlyest mention of the God of
these
Hebrews(?) comes from the Moabite stone of the 9th century BCE:
"I took from there the vessels of YHWH and dragged them
before Chemosh."
Had this been written the other way around, theologeans would have assumed
that
it indicated that the chief Moabite deity was showing subservience to YHWH,
but as it
was written it is YHWH who indicate that he is subservient to Chemosh.
In the Lachish ostraca from the fall of Jerusalem do we
YHWH is mentioned several times, but so what? He is not portrayed as we see
him in
the bible. In the Elephantine Aramaic papyrii from the 6th century BCE do
we find the letters YHW
Yahu or Yaho, but again so what- untill he is portrayed as the bible depict
him there will not be any
evidence of YHWH of the bible for with the deity would certain qualities
also have to follow.
From M. Weippert -"The Settlement of the Israelite Tribes in
Palestine", London 1971 is also an Egyptian reference. This is a locality
mentioned in southern Palestine
by pharoah Amenhotep III of the 18th dyn.: "the shasu-land of Jahu" t3 S3sw
yhw3
which means "the area of the wandering clans of Yahu", and then it refers
to the Midianites of Jethro
or the Israelites around Kadesh-Barnea.
Linking the Israelites to the Shasu and their evil deity is fought
vehemently by theologeans, but it seems
they are fighting a loosing battle.
> The abundant proof for my theses are both in quality and quantity, that
> is, for example, with the totality of relations(hips) as well as the
> preponderance of evidence. Take, for example, the sole use of *yah*
> instead of *yah-weh* in the Hebrew Bible; the Exodus reference -- which
> this whole thread unraveled on -- is *ah yah,* *I am yah - [or] am.*
> The (quantitatively added, as well as qualitative) corroborating
> reference, which I also state, includes Psalms 68:5 (or, in English,
> 68:4 - in modern day Bibles translated into western languages), which
> states, once again -- with god telling us his name -- that he is *yah,*
> which is mistranslated into *yahweh* or *JAH* (with the latter as being
> much, much closer, for once, found in the King James Authorized
> Version).
>
One most salient point is that biblical Hebrew does not appear untill after
Alexander the Great
and indicate influence by booth Greek and Zoroastrian thought. What exactly
was believed
before that time is anyones guess and the evidence found by archeologists
may best be
envisioned as just so many monkey's digging around looking for proof and
eventually they
do find some weak links, unconvincingly to those who have evolved past the
state of the
monkeys but evidence to them.
> I am much more sympathetic for the mythological pantheons, once again,
> due to their lack of modern day sacredness, hegemony, hypocrisy, and
> censorhip. It is somewhat obvious that there was much more of a
> cross-cultural bi-conditional exchange of gods with the Greek and Hebrew
> pantheons (and, later, to a much lesser extent with the Greco-Roman and
> Christian remnants of polytheism and devil personifications, with, for
> example, Lucifer, (H)ades, Virgo, (H)elios, etc.). The names of the
> Hebrew Bible are not names for God, but names of different gods
> restructured by politically powerful priestly caste writers and
> redacters.
>
> In the final analysis, I rest my case - finding no credible oppositions
> within this medium nor by the top biblical/Hebrew/Ancient scholars I
> consider to be the best - and are considered to be such within the
> academic community.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> F.T. De Angelis
> Adjunct Prof./Author of Philosophy, Religion, and Humanities
> Cf. my research intro. of what I've been into...on
> http://home.fda.net/~spartacus
>
In conclusion it may be assumed that whoever the original tribe of Judah
was,
they most assuredly were a tribe who was given to one of the seventy sons
of Ilu (El)
Be that the tribe Shasu or Judah, or wether the god was YHWH or Yammu does
not really
matter, the important point is that the biblical material does not add up,
it is most assuredly
a conglomeration of various myths assembled after Alexander the Great.
It may be less painful to find out the truth before one's term in these
animal bodies come to
an end than after. Wishful thinking is the religion of the simpleton and
our existance is more
than mere coincidence as I have attempted to indicate on my pages below.
The refutation of
the material on the Hebrew deity does not mean that there is less to it
than we so far have believed
but rather that there really may be true hope for us all since our fate is
not tied to the whim of a
captious deity.
Sincerely
Frank T. De Angelis
You said it, and I'm glad you did - because I'm tired (right now,
anyway). Succinctly put.
(Although the torah wasn't completed until much later, let alone the
entire OT, how could Alexander the Great predate the earliest books of
the torah? - do you mean this? No.)
Frank
Rasmus Gjesdal
Frank T. De Angelis <spar...@fda.net> skrev i artikkelen
<357BD3...@fda.net>...
> Rasmus Gjesdal wrote:
> >
> > Frank T. De Angelis <spar...@fda.net> skrev i artikkelen
> > <357A89...@fda.net>...
> > > A NOTE TO ALL OF MY CRITICS: The Burden of Proof:
> > >
> > >
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> You said it, and I'm glad you did - because I'm tired (right now,
> anyway). Succinctly put.
>
> (Although the torah wasn't completed until much later, let alone the
> entire OT, how could Alexander the Great predate the earliest books of
> the torah? - do you mean this? No.)
>
> Frank
>
Frank,
Yes, I certainly mean this!
The earlyest extant material of the Torah is the material found recently
and
referred to as "The Dead Sea Scrolls". This material was written a few
hundred years
after Alexander the Great and has allegedly been written by a sect known as
Essenes. This is referred to as the Essene Hypothesis, and it's all but
abandoned by
schoolars today. (I have access to the communication among those schoolars
discussing the Dead Sea Scrolls over internet.)
Todays theory, accepted by a great number of Scolars is that the material
found
in the caves at Qumran was the material which was deposited there by
Israelite
authorities who hid them from the emerging Roman army at about 70 AD for
the sake
of prosperity.
Since the material there is written after Alexander the Great we can with
certainty
state that Alexander the Great predate the earlyest material of the Torah.
Since the material found at the Caves by Qumran reflect a Judaism which is
not
identical with the Judaism which is practiced today the question would be
how much later todays Judaism evolved.
Because of all these different, yet similar renditions of the Torah we may
say that
the material at Qumran reflect the views of the Israelites of 2000 years
ago.
The material at Ugarit reflect the belief of the Israelite ancestors of
3500 years ago
and the material of Sumer and Ebla reflect these people's ancestors of 5000
years ago.
That there is a difference in the interpretation only means that the faith
has changed
and that the cult is not an authentic reflection of any singular deity but
rather a
compilation of myths from various cults of the area known as "The Cradle of
Civilization".
Gwen Saylor
Frank and All --
I'm still not seeing the post I'm replying to in my reader, Frank,
but as you've assured me you did post it, I reply here:
--snip--
>> And India? and Tibet and Anatolia and .... <g>
>
>Of course. India, I cover in depth - in PT I, but the causal time-lines
>are murky (at least, to me, not warranting the drawing of any
>conclusions or inferences beyond paralells). I touch upon basic Chinese
>and Tibetan philosophical symbols and key concepts - including their
>matri-patriarchal leanings showing evidence of some evolution; but,
>again, I feel that only parallels can be drawn. Anatolia; bingo, I
>ignore out of ignorance. When I say (the) two (most) basic, pronounced,
>and definitive trails of direct, discernible influence...well, I really
>mean it; but I do not ignore or discount other possibilities. I hope you
>didn't expect me to mention them in my posts, did you?
It's simply that what you have written here and in the recent past is,
frankly, quite linear. Also, you've not until now said you meant the
"two (most) basic, pronounced, and definitive trails of direct,
discernible influence." Even so, I question the directions of lines
so swiftly, so easily drawn. And -- when you say "I cover," it makes
it clear that you think I am questioning the veracity of your book.
That's not so; I haven't read it; how can I question it? I'm only
questioning what you write to usenet.
--snip--
>> The Phoenicians had existed as a culture for millenia before the
>> Egyptians began attempting to take them over city-state by city-state.
>
>Yes, perhaps, but not before their (Eyg.) culture existed, predating
>them, and as a hegemonous dominant force.
Force is not necessarily primo, Frank. <g> And I feel that as
history becomes more thoroughly re-written it will be realized even
by the average layman that the Phoenician Culture flourished
side-by-side with the cultures of Egypt and Sumeria. Note that
Jericho was built about 10,000 BC; there were settlements at Byblos
about 9,000 BC; the Egyptians began domesticating crops and using
balances for weighing about 5,000 BC; the Early Dynastic Period
began in Egypt about 3100 BC; the Minoan Culture began to flourish
on the island of Crete about 3000 BC; Byblos was an active seaport
and trade center about 3000 BC. The influence of the Egyptians has
been stressed by generations of Egyptologists (obsessed
archaeologists), while other cultures have gone begging for anything
even near to the same attention.
--snip--
>The point at which the Ugaritic, and their gods Baal, Asherah (actually,
>at(h)irat, Anat(h), etc.) were at their peak, their golden age - and at
>the time of their definitive scriptural writings, was circa 200-600
>years before the first writings of the torah. The language and concepts
>- from word-to-word in biblical Hebrew, the Ugaritic gods, the names and
>epithets for the gods of the Hebrew pantheon -exposed and expressed
>within the Hebrew language itself, etc., etc., etc., all make it perfect
>and as highly probable as anyone could possibly get from the evidence,
>that this connection is direct and indubitable.
I think you're missing the point. I don't doubt that the Hebrews were
influenced to the highest degree by the Phoenicians, whose area they
were attempting to steal. There are those scholars who even feel the
Hebrews *were Canaanites* (aka Phoenicians). I do doubt that the
Torah was written early. What I really resent, however, is your
continual references to "the Ugarit civilization" and "Ugaritic
religion," divorcing Ugarit from the Phoenician Culture.
>> <art joke warning> My art history professor used to tell us "Cretan"
>> was just a tacky way of saying "Minoan," Frank.
>
>I'm glad he had an artist flair, Gwen, along with some sensitivity to
>ethnicity and ethnocentrism, however correctly or incorrectly perceived
>and/or exaggerated and punful it may have been.
*She* knew her stuff alright, and rarely (if effectively) joked.
--snip--
>>and also the Greeks (via the Minoan Bronze Age)? <??>
>
>??? I see and call them as I see them. I see this, part for part and
>piece by piece, as bi-conditional; that is to say, some influences from
>and some to the Ugaritic re: the Minoans. There is, however, a very
>strong parallel of relationships in the language/concepts of both,
>moreso than the Cypriote *Greeks,* which demonstratea much stronger
>Phoenician influence. Both the Minoan Cretans and the Cypriotes have the
>Phoenician (--> Greek) alphabet, this no one is disputing whatsoever.
What do I have to say to impress you with Byblos? You cannot continue
to discuss the Phoenicians as if they didn't exist until after Ugarit.
I realize there is a different alphabet elsewhere than there was found
at Ugarit. That doesn't make Ugarit *not* Phoenician. Several
languages co-exist within one culture (Look at the Western Culture
today.). The Minoans had dealings with *all* the Phoenicians.
>> Where is Ugarit in this story (aside from being a
>> city-state of the *other people* living in Canaan)?
>
>This requires quite a long answer.
--snip so there's more new text than old or this can't be sent--
> AND THERE WITHIN LIES THE TRICK. We can not assume the
>time order, chronology, or veracity of most of the events described in
>the Bible, despite the overwhelming verification concerning the
>historicity and accuracy in comparison to all of the other ancient
>works, which were more poetical and mythical.
--snip--
All nicely said. Now if you would only reflect this sort of view in
your other posts, then I would have no reason to accuse you of
being linear. It is precisely, however, this "overwhelming
verification concerning the historicity and accuracy in comparison to
all of the other ancient works" that makes me wonder if the entire
Elohim thing was due to a purposeful manipulative coverup of Hebraic
Sumero-Babylonian pantheon worship on the part of the early Hebrews.
And what makes you think it isn't possible that the Hebrews (Abraham's
batch) came out of Ur *after* its conquering by the Chaldeans and
*after* Babel was destroyed by Xerxes? Even having asked that, I
assure you that I don't take for granted that the Bible is
historically accurate. How can anyone?
>As for Sin, yes, the long tradition of Mesopotamia (utu, in Sumerian),
>especially from the Akkadian to Babylonian, worshipped Sin. So? The long
>lines, from the sun and moon astraldeities, from shamash [ sms,
>s(h)amas(h)] to the Ugaritic shapash [sps, s(h)apas(h)], back to the
>Hebrew shamash [sms, s(h)mas(h)] to Sin (assoc. w/ Egyp. Seth ?),
Aka Set? No, I don't think so. <g> Sin was a Moon God; Set was
earliest a God of Darkness (and later aligned with Anat, probably a
Moon Goddess, by the Hyksos).
>Semele, etc. are all similar. Many gods are still worshipped into other
>cultures, as Isis was in Rome, etc. So? Sin, the moon god, has its
>origin in the Epic of Gilgamesh, making its first appearance in Sumerian
>Mesopotamia, beyond which should be of no surprise in its trail of
>influence through Akkadian to other sources. I don't know what you are
>getting at here.
The deities worshipped by the Hebrews point at another possibility:
that the Hebrews *did* come out of Ur to Harran, that Sin was the
chosen god (thus all those godly polemics against moon gods), that
Marduk was his enemy (as he was the enemy of Sin's people), that
Marduk's comparable attributes to those of Baal are no happy
accident, that indeed the influence of the surrounding Phoenicians
(Canaanites) is apparent in the writings of the early Hebrews but
that the names of their supposed deities superimpose themselves
over the true names of the real deities of the early Hebrews --
Babylonian deities... Babylonian deities who were in conflict with the
followers of a man who had a serious hangup against idols and with
all deities except one.
>> And could you explain to me the connection between the accounts
>> found in the texts at Ebla and your "*missing link*?"
>
>Explain? Could you be a little more specific? Explain what?
The texts at Ebla apparently speak of people with the same names
as many Hebrews spoken of in the OT. The texts at Ugarit speak of
stories about the deities of the Phoenicians.
About the early date at Ebla (2300 BC) -- Ebla is just northeast of
Harran, where Abraham's *forefathers* lived according to the OT.
>The Phoenician language proper (without pictographs, hieroglyphs, etc.),
>that is, per se, was not fully developed and internationally influential
>until the 10th and 9th centuries, long after the Ugaritic tablets and
>the Ugaritic Golden Age (beginning after their second late bronze age
>and one hundred fifty years before the XIX Dynasty in Egypt with
>Ramesses II).
Fine. Then what language did the people of Byblos speak? What
language did the people of the other Phoenician city-states speak?
They didn't talk?
--snip--
>The gap? The dating? Ugaritic hegemony lasted until the 1200-1150 BCE
>period in the Canaanite-Syrian areas, when they disappeared - and the
>destruction of Ugarit, coinciding with both the defeat of the *Sea
>Peoples* and the settlement of the Hebrew Israelite tribes. Where is
>there a problem?
Some sources say straight out that Ugarit was destroyed in about
1370 BC by the Sea People, Frank. Archaeologically speaking,
*scattered nomadic tribes* of possibly Israelites are noted to have
been in the Palestine area about 1400 BC. They don't seem to have
been very civilized. They also don't seem to have written anything.
Stey-yu.
Hen to Pan,
Gwen
--------------------------------------------------------------
And when one hears the cry of his heart and the call of his
spirit, we say that such a one is possessed of a madness,
and we cleanse ourselves of him.
Kahlil Gibran, _A Tear and a Smile_
--------------------------------------------------------------
Frank T. De Angelis
Rasmus:
Oh, okay. Enough said. You mean, literally, the oldest biblical-like
material we actually have in our hot little hands, yes, the Dead Sea
Scrolls of circa 200 BCE - CE.
The Masoretic Text(s) Bible dates the Hebrew to only the Middle-Medieval
ages, and the Sinaiticus codex (from Sinai) -- with New Testament -- is
actually the oldest complete Bible. (Also, do not forget the original
Septuagint in Greek, which was actually written a few centuries, BCE.)
I was referring to the Documentary Hypothesis (I call *theory*) dating
the very first OT material of the torah (which we do not have, of
course) back to 922-722 BCE.
frank
Rasmus Gjesdal
Frank T. De Angelis <spar...@fda.net> skrev i artikkelen
<357CC6...@fda.net>...
That is the situation in a nut shell!
The oldest biblical material is based on material which allegedly was
written.....
The fact that the same material can not be found back then, but very close
stories which
the biblical stories could have be based on are facts we should ignore?
That the biblical tales are remarkable and do not correlate with scientific
data is something else
which we are supposed to ignore?
We are supposed to take these unbelievable tales and believe that what
someone once stated about them,
counter to all evidence is true,and base our lives, our existence upon this
without questioning it's validity?
I for one can't do this, but seek answers from other sources which allign
with science and explain
mysteries for I agree with the ancients who stated "There are no mysteries,
only phenomenons
we as yet have not discovered the science behind".
This does not mean the same as that there is only the physical since the
physical by itself could
never do or be aware of being aware. What it means is that we are back at
the drawing board.
With the help of the ancient material we can find and the logic which is
ours we need to build a
solid foundation. Should anything biblical be found to be valid, fine, no
need to hide the bibles.
No need to hide anything because that which is a lie will dissipate in the
face of true answers,
we need only the willingness to accept true answers without having to
allign them with unfounded
preconceived allegations.
Frank T. De Angelis
Gwen Saylor wrote:
>
>
> --snip--
> >> And India? and Tibet and Anatolia and .... <g>
> >
> >Of course. India, I cover in depth - in PT I, but the causal time-lines are murky (at least, to me, not warranting the drawing of any
> >conclusions or inferences beyond paralells). I touch upon basic Chinese and Tibetan philosophical symbols and key concepts - including their matri-patriarchal leanings showing evidence of some evolution; but, again, I feel that only parallels can be drawn. Anatolia; bingo, I
ignore out of ignorance. When I say (the) two (most) basic, pronounced,
and definitive trails of direct, discernible influence...well, I really
mean it; but I do not ignore or discount other possibilities. I hope you
didn't expect me to mention them in my posts, did you?
>
> It's simply that what you have written here and in the recent past is,
> frankly, quite linear. Also, you've not until now said you meant the
> "two (most) basic, pronounced, and definitive trails of direct,
> discernible influence." Even so, I question the directions of lines
> so swiftly, so easily drawn. And -- when you say "I cover," it makes
> it clear that you think I am questioning the veracity of your book.
No, it's just that I want you to know that I have not at all neglected
the other lines of parallel and/or cross-cultural development. Also, my
numerous references to bi-conditional influence should demonstrate more
than just linear (I would call it -->) highly probable cause-effect
relationships. I just want you to know that I did not discount nor
neglect other than what I am driving hard on...with the Ugaritic and
former Mesopotamian areas of direct and indirect influence; that's all.
> That's not so; I haven't read it; how can I question it? I'm only
> questioning what you write to usenet.
>
I know. That's exactly why I posted Pt I and PT II from my book for your
pleasure, edification, and inspection.
--snip--
> >> The Phoenicians had existed as a culture for millenia before the
> >> Egyptians began attempting to take them over city-state by city-state.
> >
> >Yes, perhaps, but not before their (Eyg.) culture existed, predating
> >them, and as a hegemonous dominant force.
>
> Force is not necessarily primo, Frank. <g>
I didn't mean force, necessarily. But, now that you mention it, I
subscribe fully to a Marxian view of world history that shows little in
the way of qualitative change without revolutions, and a void of
revolutions where little domination and accumulation of wealth and
slaves appear. In other words, we only see the European and some Asian
lines of history because of the empire builders who enslaved, in one way
or another, both internally (their own people) and externally, have been
able to exploit their labor. This, as a matter of fact, is precisely
what Ugarit was not, and why it was not recognized in some of the
literature as a dominant force, yet it was...on the Hebrews.
And I feel that as
> history becomes more thoroughly re-written it will be realized even
> by the average layman that the Phoenician Culture flourished
> side-by-side with the cultures of Egypt and Sumeria.
Perhaps, but I see little evidence of much to go on, despite the statues
and inscriptions.
Note that
> Jericho was built about 10,000 BC; there were settlements at Byblos
> about 9,000 BC; the Egyptians began domesticating crops and using
> balances for weighing about 5,000 BC; the Early Dynastic Period
> began in Egypt about 3100 BC; the Minoan Culture began to flourish
> on the island of Crete about 3000 BC; Byblos was an active seaport
> and trade center about 3000 BC. The influence of the Egyptians has
> been stressed by generations of Egyptologists (obsessed
> archaeologists), while other cultures have gone begging for anything
> even near to the same attention.
>
Yes, I definitely agree, and I am pushing my lost souls ...that I see as
overwhelmingly influential, from Mes. to Ug. Again, from the language,
words and concept, beliefs- gods, etc. I am making a strong beeline to
the Hebrew Bible and biblical gods. That's my focus, and althouth the
Phoenician El and the alphabet suggests much in the way of your
interests, mine are documented in Ugaritic and are corroborated in this
trail of steady signature breadcrumbs.
--snip--
> >The point at which the Ugaritic, and their gods Baal, Asherah (actually,
> >at(h)irat, Anat(h), etc.) were at their peak, their golden age - and at
> >the time of their definitive scriptural writings, was circa 200-600
> >years before the first writings of the torah. The language and concepts
> >- from word-to-word in biblical Hebrew, the Ugaritic gods, the names and
> >epithets for the gods of the Hebrew pantheon -exposed and expressed
> >within the Hebrew language itself, etc., etc., etc., all make it perfect
> >and as highly probable as anyone could possibly get from the evidence,
> >that this connection is direct and indubitable.
>
> I think you're missing the point. I don't doubt that the Hebrews were
> influenced to the highest degree by the Phoenicians, whose area they
> were attempting to steal. There are those scholars who even feel the
> Hebrews *were Canaanites* (aka Phoenicians). I do doubt that the
> Torah was written early. What I really resent, however, is your
> continual references to "the Ugarit civilization" and "Ugaritic
> religion," divorcing Ugarit from the Phoenician Culture.
Well, you are going to have to face the fact that, aside from the
admittedly inseparable and surrounding Phoenician influence (which is
all-too-often an abstract generic umbrella for the Canaanite and Syrian
Ugaritic civilization), Ugarit was more than a unique city and more than
a autonomous cuneiform language. Furthermore, ITS pantheon is well
documented, regardless of what and where you think the Phoenicians ought
to be given credit for.
>
> >> <art joke warning> My art history professor used to tell us "Cretan"
> >> was just a tacky way of saying "Minoan," Frank.
> >
> >I'm glad he had an artist flair, Gwen, along with some sensitivity to
> >ethnicity and ethnocentrism, however correctly or incorrectly perceived
> >and/or exaggerated and punful it may have been.
>
> *She* knew her stuff alright, and rarely (if effectively) joked.
Good point, *she*... I can't believe I did that.
> --snip--
> >>and also the Greeks (via the Minoan Bronze Age)? <??>
> >
> >??? I see and call them as I see them. I see this, part for part and
> >piece by piece, as bi-conditional; that is to say, some influences from
> >and some to the Ugaritic re: the Minoans. There is, however, a very
> >strong parallel of relationships in the language/concepts of both,
> >moreso than the Cypriote *Greeks,* which demonstratea much stronger
> >Phoenician influence. Both the Minoan Cretans and the Cypriotes have the
> >Phoenician (--> Greek) alphabet, this no one is disputing whatsoever.
>
> What do I have to say to impress you with Byblos? You cannot continue
> to discuss the Phoenicians as if they didn't exist until after Ugarit.
*AS IF THEY DIDN'T EXIST* IS NOT THE SAME AS *DIDN'T EXIST.
* I realize there is a different alphabet elsewhere than there was found
> at Ugarit. That doesn't make Ugarit *not* Phoenician. Several
> languages co-exist within one culture (Look at the Western Culture
> today.). The Minoans had dealings with *all* the Phoenicians.
Well, if we call the Ugaritic culture, language, gods, etc. which are
better documented than the Phoenician - by far, then nothing seems to
make sense, does it?
> >> Where is Ugarit in this story (aside from being a
> >> city-state of the *other people* living in Canaan)?
> >
> >This requires quite a long answer.
> --snip so there's more new text than old or this can't be sent--
> > AND THERE WITHIN LIES THE TRICK. We can not assume the
> >time order, chronology, or veracity of most of the events described in
> >the Bible, despite the overwhelming verification concerning the
> >historicity and accuracy in comparison to all of the other ancient
> >works, which were more poetical and mythical.
> --snip--
>
> All nicely said. Now if you would only reflect this sort of view in
> your other posts, then I would have no reason to accuse you of
> being linear. It is precisely, however, this "overwhelming
> verification concerning the historicity and accuracy in comparison to
> all of the other ancient works" that makes me wonder if the entire
> Elohim thing was due to a purposeful manipulative coverup of Hebraic
> Sumero-Babylonian pantheon worship on the part of the early Hebrews.
> And what makes you think it isn't possible that the Hebrews (Abraham's
> batch) came out of Ur *after* its conquering by the Chaldeans and
> *after* Babel was destroyed by Xerxes? Even having asked that, I
> assure you that I don't take for granted that the Bible is
> historically accurate. How can anyone?
>
Well, that is what I have been saying since the inception of my book
(and in these posts), but, I would add to the Mesopotamian, the Ugaritic
as the essential written link in the process.
As for Sin, yes, the long tradition of Mesopotamia (utu, in Sumerian),
> >especially from the Akkadian to Babylonian, worshipped Sin. So? The long
> >lines, from the sun and moon astraldeities, from shamash [ sms,
> >s(h)amas(h)] to the Ugaritic shapash [sps, s(h)apas(h)], back to the
> >Hebrew shamash [sms, s(h)mas(h)] to Sin (assoc. w/ Egyp. Seth ?),
>
> Aka Set? No, I don't think so. <g>
Nor do I, just a flight of fancy.
Sin was a Moon God; Set was
> earliest a God of Darkness (and later aligned with Anat, probably a
> Moon Goddess, by the Hyksos).
A little far fetched, but not that wide a gap as you might think. Put
both of them together, and you start to see more of the connections, as
I have, in the evolutionary build-up of the Lucifer composite character
-- which I have traced, in PT II of my book -- in the Christian versions
of the Bible (Is. 14:12).
> >Semele, etc. are all similar. Many gods are still worshipped into other
> >cultures, as Isis was in Rome, etc. So? Sin, the moon god, has its
> >origin in the Epic of Gilgamesh, making its first appearance in Sumerian
> >Mesopotamia, beyond which should be of no surprise in its trail of
> >influence through Akkadian to other sources. I don't know what you are
> >getting at here.
>
> The deities worshipped by the Hebrews point at another possibility:
> that the Hebrews *did* come out of Ur to Harran, that Sin was the
> chosen god (thus all those godly polemics against moon gods), that
> Marduk was his enemy (as he was the enemy of Sin's people), that
> Marduk's comparable attributes to those of Baal are no happy
> accident
(no, they certainly aren't)
, that indeed the influence of the surrounding Phoenicians
> (Canaanites) is apparent in the writings of the early Hebrews but
> that the names of their supposed deities superimpose themselves
> over the true names of the real deities of the early Hebrews --
> Babylonian deities... Babylonian deities who were in conflict with the
> followers of a man who had a serious hangup against idols and with
> all deities except one.
>
> >> And could you explain to me the connection between the accounts
> >> found in the texts at Ebla and your "*missing link*?"
> >
> >Explain? Could you be a little more specific? Explain what?
>
> The texts at Ebla apparently speak of people with the same names
> as many Hebrews spoken of in the OT. The texts at Ugarit speak of
> stories about the deities of the Phoenicians
(so you say; I would question your self-serving assumptive wording. I
would have to see these tablets before commenting, or at least, see more
from even the secondhand sources on exactly what they contain.)
>
> About the early date at Ebla (2300 BC) -- Ebla is just northeast of
> Harran, where Abraham's *forefathers* lived according to the OT.
>
> >The Phoenician language proper (without pictographs, hieroglyphs, etc.),
> >that is, per se, was not fully developed and internationally influential
> >until the 10th and 9th centuries, long after the Ugaritic tablets and
> >the Ugaritic Golden Age (beginning after their second late bronze age
> >and one hundred fifty years before the XIX Dynasty in Egypt with
> >Ramesses II).
>
> Fine. Then what language did the people of Byblos speak? What
> language did the people of the other Phoenician city-states speak?
> They didn't talk?
>
Well, as we have seen before, many of these cultures, Ugarit included -
as you, yourself have alluded to, have written in several languages.
Almost all of the tablets ever found have several languages. Byblos?
Well, yes, I have seen -- and tried to translate, as everone else has,
unsuccessfully, a tablet wqith some Phoenician letters, some
hieroglyphs, and some unknown. So?
t --snip--
> >The gap? The dating? Ugaritic hegemony lasted until the 1200-1150 BCE
> >period in the Canaanite-Syrian areas, when they disappeared - and the
> >destruction of Ugarit, coinciding with both the defeat of the *Sea
> >Peoples* and the settlement of the Hebrew Israelite tribes. Where is
> >there a problem?
>
> Some sources say straight out that Ugarit was destroyed in about
> 1370 BC by the Sea People, Frank.
I don't think that is possible, and none of the sources I worked with
ever came close to that claim, but...who knows? By the way, statues,
inscriptions, and other artifacts fill the archeologists' *dance cards*
with abundant evidence of Ugaritic culture going back to the 5th
millennium, BCE.
Archaeologically speaking,
> *scattered nomadic tribes* of possibly Israelites are noted to have
> been in the Palestine area about 1400 BC. They don't seem to have
> been very civilized. They also don't seem to have written anything.
>
There are proto-Sinaitic letters, and especially Hebrew-Palestinian
pictographs...sure.
in the > Stey-yu.
> Hen to Pan,
> Gwen
It;s been nice, Gwen.
Ciao, for now...
prof./Author Frank http://home.fda.net/~spartacus
Frank T. De Angelis
Date:
Tue, 09 Jun 1998 08:49:20 +0200
From:
spar...@fda.net
Organization:
spartacus-tribune publications
Newsgroups:
alt.atheism, alt.christnet.philosophy,
alt.philosophy.debate, alt.religion.christian, alt.mythology,
alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic, alt.philosophy
Gwen Saylor wrote:
>
>
> --snip--
> >> And India? and Tibet and Anatolia and .... <g>
> >
> >Of course. India, I cover in depth - in PT I, but the causal time-lines are murky (at least, to me, not warranting the drawing of any
> >conclusions or inferences beyond paralells). I touch upon basic Chinese and Tibetan philosophical symbols and key concepts - including their matri-patriarchal leanings showing evidence of some evolution; but, again, I feel that only parallels can be drawn. Anatolia; bingo, I
ignore out of ignorance. When I say (the) two (most) basic, pronounced,
and definitive trails of direct, discernible influence...well, I really
mean it; but I do not ignore or discount other possibilities. I hope you
didn't expect me to mention them in my posts, did you?
>
> It's simply that what you have written here and in the recent past is,
> frankly, quite linear. Also, you've not until now said you meant the
> "two (most) basic, pronounced, and definitive trails of direct,
> discernible influence." Even so, I question the directions of lines
> so swiftly, so easily drawn. And -- when you say "I cover," it makes
> it clear that you think I am questioning the veracity of your book.
No, it's just that I want you to know that I have not at all neglected
the other lines of parallel and/or cross-cultural development. Also, my
numerous references to bi-conditional influence should demonstrate more
than just linear (I would call it -->) highly probable cause-effect
relationships. I just want you to know that I did not discount nor
neglect other than what I am driving hard on...with the Ugaritic and
former Mesopotamian areas of direct and indirect influence; that's all.
> That's not so; I haven't read it; how can I question it? I'm only
> questioning what you write to usenet.
>
I know. That's exactly why I posted Pt I and PT II from my book for your
pleasure, edification, and inspection.
--snip--
> >> The Phoenicians had existed as a culture for millenia before the
> >> Egyptians began attempting to take them over city-state by city-state.
> >
> >Yes, perhaps, but not before their (Eyg.) culture existed, predating
> >them, and as a hegemonous dominant force.
>
> Force is not necessarily primo, Frank. <g>
I didn't mean force, necessarily. But, now that you mention it, I
subscribe fully to a Marxian view of world history that shows little in
the way of qualitative change without revolutions, and a void of
revolutions where little domination and accumulation of wealth and
slaves appear. In other words, we only see the European and some Asian
lines of history because of the empire builders who enslaved, in one way
or another, both internally (their own people) and externally, have been
able to exploit their labor. This, as a matter of fact, is precisely
what Ugarit was not, and why it was not recognized in some of the
literature as a dominant force, yet it was...on the Hebrews.
And I feel that as
> history becomes more thoroughly re-written it will be realized even
> by the average layman that the Phoenician Culture flourished
> side-by-side with the cultures of Egypt and Sumeria.
Perhaps, but I see little evidence of much to go on, despite the statues
and inscriptions.
Note that
> Jericho was built about 10,000 BC; there were settlements at Byblos
> about 9,000 BC; the Egyptians began domesticating crops and using
> balances for weighing about 5,000 BC; the Early Dynastic Period
> began in Egypt about 3100 BC; the Minoan Culture began to flourish
> on the island of Crete about 3000 BC; Byblos was an active seaport
> and trade center about 3000 BC. The influence of the Egyptians has
> been stressed by generations of Egyptologists (obsessed
> archaeologists), while other cultures have gone begging for anything
> even near to the same attention.
>
Yes, I definitely agree, and I am pushing my lost souls ...that I see as
overwhelmingly influential, from Mes. to Ug. Again, from the language,
words and concept, beliefs- gods, etc. I am making a strong beeline to
the Hebrew Bible and biblical gods. That's my focus, and althouth the
Phoenician El and the alphabet suggests much in the way of your
interests, mine are documented in Ugaritic and are corroborated in this
trail of steady signature breadcrumbs.
--snip--
> >The point at which the Ugaritic, and their gods Baal, Asherah (actually,
> >at(h)irat, Anat(h), etc.) were at their peak, their golden age - and at
> >the time of their definitive scriptural writings, was circa 200-600
> >years before the first writings of the torah. The language and concepts
> >- from word-to-word in biblical Hebrew, the Ugaritic gods, the names and
> >epithets for the gods of the Hebrew pantheon -exposed and expressed
> >within the Hebrew language itself, etc., etc., etc., all make it perfect
> >and as highly probable as anyone could possibly get from the evidence,
> >that this connection is direct and indubitable.
>
> I think you're missing the point. I don't doubt that the Hebrews were
> influenced to the highest degree by the Phoenicians, whose area they
> were attempting to steal. There are those scholars who even feel the
> Hebrews *were Canaanites* (aka Phoenicians). I do doubt that the
> Torah was written early. What I really resent, however, is your
> continual references to "the Ugarit civilization" and "Ugaritic
> religion," divorcing Ugarit from the Phoenician Culture.
Well, you are going to have to face the fact that, aside from the
admittedly inseparable and surrounding Phoenician influence (which is
all-too-often an abstract generic umbrella for the Canaanite and Syrian
Ugaritic civilization), Ugarit was more than a unique city and more than
a autonomous cuneiform language. Furthermore, ITS pantheon is well
documented, regardless of what and where you think the Phoenicians ought
to be given credit for.
>
> >> <art joke warning> My art history professor used to tell us "Cretan"
> >> was just a tacky way of saying "Minoan," Frank.
> >
> >I'm glad he had an artist flair, Gwen, along with some sensitivity to
> >ethnicity and ethnocentrism, however correctly or incorrectly perceived
> >and/or exaggerated and punful it may have been.
>
> *She* knew her stuff alright, and rarely (if effectively) joked.
Good point, *she*... I can't believe I did that.
> --snip--
> >>and also the Greeks (via the Minoan Bronze Age)? <??>
> >
> >??? I see and call them as I see them. I see this, part for part and
> >piece by piece, as bi-conditional; that is to say, some influences from
> >and some to the Ugaritic re: the Minoans. There is, however, a very
> >strong parallel of relationships in the language/concepts of both,
> >moreso than the Cypriote *Greeks,* which demonstratea much stronger
> >Phoenician influence. Both the Minoan Cretans and the Cypriotes have the
> >Phoenician (--> Greek) alphabet, this no one is disputing whatsoever.
>
> What do I have to say to impress you with Byblos? You cannot continue
> to discuss the Phoenicians as if they didn't exist until after Ugarit.
*AS IF THEY DIDN'T EXIST* IS NOT THE SAME AS *DIDN'T EXIST.
* I realize there is a different alphabet elsewhere than there was found
> at Ugarit. That doesn't make Ugarit *not* Phoenician. Several
> languages co-exist within one culture (Look at the Western Culture
> today.). The Minoans had dealings with *all* the Phoenicians.
Well, if we call the Ugaritic culture, language, gods, etc. which are
better documented than the Phoenician - by far, then nothing seems to
make sense, does it?
> >> Where is Ugarit in this story (aside from being a
> >> city-state of the *other people* living in Canaan)?
> >
> >This requires quite a long answer.
> --snip so there's more new text than old or this can't be sent--
> > AND THERE WITHIN LIES THE TRICK. We can not assume the
> >time order, chronology, or veracity of most of the events described in
> >the Bible, despite the overwhelming verification concerning the
> >historicity and accuracy in comparison to all of the other ancient
> >works, which were more poetical and mythical.
> --snip--
>
> All nicely said. Now if you would only reflect this sort of view in
> your other posts, then I would have no reason to accuse you of
> being linear. It is precisely, however, this "overwhelming
> verification concerning the historicity and accuracy in comparison to
> all of the other ancient works" that makes me wonder if the entire
> Elohim thing was due to a purposeful manipulative coverup of Hebraic
> Sumero-Babylonian pantheon worship on the part of the early Hebrews.
> And what makes you think it isn't possible that the Hebrews (Abraham's
> batch) came out of Ur *after* its conquering by the Chaldeans and
> *after* Babel was destroyed by Xerxes? Even having asked that, I
> assure you that I don't take for granted that the Bible is
> historically accurate. How can anyone?
>
Well, that is what I have been saying since the inception of my book
(and in these posts), but, I would add to the Mesopotamian, the Ugaritic
as the essential written link in the process.
As for Sin, yes, the long tradition of Mesopotamia (utu, in Sumerian),
> >especially from the Akkadian to Babylonian, worshipped Sin. So? The long
> >lines, from the sun and moon astraldeities, from shamash [ sms,
> >s(h)amas(h)] to the Ugaritic shapash [sps, s(h)apas(h)], back to the
> >Hebrew shamash [sms, s(h)mas(h)] to Sin (assoc. w/ Egyp. Seth ?),
>
> Aka Set? No, I don't think so. <g>
Nor do I, just a flight of fancy.
Sin was a Moon God; Set was
> earliest a God of Darkness (and later aligned with Anat, probably a
> Moon Goddess, by the Hyksos).
A little far fetched, but not that wide a gap as you might think. Put
both of them together, and you start to see more of the connections, as
I have, in the evolutionary build-up of the Lucifer composite character
-- which I have traced, in PT II of my book -- in the Christian versions
of the Bible (Is. 14:12).
> >Semele, etc. are all similar. Many gods are still worshipped into other
> >cultures, as Isis was in Rome, etc. So? Sin, the moon god, has its
> >origin in the Epic of Gilgamesh, making its first appearance in Sumerian
> >Mesopotamia, beyond which should be of no surprise in its trail of
> >influence through Akkadian to other sources. I don't know what you are
> >getting at here.
>
> The deities worshipped by the Hebrews point at another possibility:
> that the Hebrews *did* come out of Ur to Harran, that Sin was the
> chosen god (thus all those godly polemics against moon gods), that
> Marduk was his enemy (as he was the enemy of Sin's people), that
> Marduk's comparable attributes to those of Baal are no happy
> accident
(no, they certainly aren't)
, that indeed the influence of the surrounding Phoenicians
> (Canaanites) is apparent in the writings of the early Hebrews but
> that the names of their supposed deities superimpose themselves
> over the true names of the real deities of the early Hebrews --
> Babylonian deities... Babylonian deities who were in conflict with the
> followers of a man who had a serious hangup against idols and with
> all deities except one.
>
> >> And could you explain to me the connection between the accounts
> >> found in the texts at Ebla and your "*missing link*?"
> >
> >Explain? Could you be a little more specific? Explain what?
>
> The texts at Ebla apparently speak of people with the same names
> as many Hebrews spoken of in the OT. The texts at Ugarit speak of
> stories about the deities of the Phoenicians
(so you say; I would question your self-serving assumptive wording. I
would have to see these tablets before commenting, or at least, see more
from even the secondhand sources on exactly what they contain.)
>
> About the early date at Ebla (2300 BC) -- Ebla is just northeast of
> Harran, where Abraham's *forefathers* lived according to the OT.
>
> >The Phoenician language proper (without pictographs, hieroglyphs, etc.),
> >that is, per se, was not fully developed and internationally influential
> >until the 10th and 9th centuries, long after the Ugaritic tablets and
> >the Ugaritic Golden Age (beginning after their second late bronze age
> >and one hundred fifty years before the XIX Dynasty in Egypt with
> >Ramesses II).
>
> Fine. Then what language did the people of Byblos speak? What
> language did the people of the other Phoenician city-states speak?
> They didn't talk?
>
Well, as we have seen before, many of these cultures, Ugarit included -
as you, yourself have alluded to, have written in several languages.
Almost all of the tablets ever found have several languages. Byblos?
Well, yes, I have seen -- and tried to translate, as everone else has,
unsuccessfully, a tablet wqith some Phoenician letters, some
hieroglyphs, and some unknown. So?
t --snip--
> >The gap? The dating? Ugaritic hegemony lasted until the 1200-1150 BCE
> >period in the Canaanite-Syrian areas, when they disappeared - and the
> >destruction of Ugarit, coinciding with both the defeat of the *Sea
> >Peoples* and the settlement of the Hebrew Israelite tribes. Where is
> >there a problem?
>
> Some sources say straight out that Ugarit was destroyed in about
> 1370 BC by the Sea People, Frank.
I don't think that is possible, and none of the sources I worked with
ever came close to that claim, but...who knows? By the way, statues,
inscriptions, and other artifacts fill the archeologists' *dance cards*
with abundant evidence of Ugaritic culture going back to the 5th
millennium, BCE.
Archaeologically speaking,
> *scattered nomadic tribes* of possibly Israelites are noted to have
> been in the Palestine area about 1400 BC. They don't seem to have
> been very civilized. They also don't seem to have written anything.
>
There are proto-Sinaitic letters, and especially Hebrew-Palestinian
pictographs...sure.
in the > Stey-yu.
> Hen to Pan,
> Gwen
It;s been nice, Gwen.
Ciao, for now...
prof./Author Frank http://home.fda.net/~spartacus
Frank T. De Angelis
Date:
Tue, 09 Jun 1998 08:49:20 +0200
From:
"Frank T. De Angelis" <spar...@fda.net>
Reply-To:
spar...@fda.net
Organization:
spartacus-tribune publications
Newsgroups:
alt.atheism, alt.christnet.philosophy,
alt.philosophy.debate, alt.religion.christian, alt.mythology,
alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic, alt.philosophy
Gwen Saylor wrote:
>
>
> --snip--
> >> And India? and Tibet and Anatolia and .... <g>
> >
> >Of course. India, I cover in depth - in PT I, but the causal time-lines are murky (at least, to me, not warranting the drawing of any
> >conclusions or inferences beyond paralells). I touch upon basic Chinese and Tibetan philosophical symbols and key concepts - including their matri-patriarchal leanings showing evidence of some evolution; but, again, I feel that only parallels can be drawn. Anatolia; bingo, I
ignore out of ignorance. When I say (the) two (most) basic, pronounced,
and definitive trails of direct, discernible influence...well, I really
mean it; but I do not ignore or discount other possibilities. I hope you
didn't expect me to mention them in my posts, did you?
>
> It's simply that what you have written here and in the recent past is,
> frankly, quite linear. Also, you've not until now said you meant the
> "two (most) basic, pronounced, and definitive trails of direct,
> discernible influence." Even so, I question the directions of lines
> so swiftly, so easily drawn. And -- when you say "I cover," it makes
> it clear that you think I am questioning the veracity of your book.
No, it's just that I want you to know that I have not at all neglected
the other lines of parallel and/or cross-cultural development. Also, my
numerous references to bi-conditional influence should demonstrate more
than just linear (I would call it -->) highly probable cause-effect
relationships. I just want you to know that I did not discount nor
neglect other than what I am driving hard on...with the Ugaritic and
former Mesopotamian areas of direct and indirect influence; that's all.
> That's not so; I haven't read it; how can I question it? I'm only
> questioning what you write to usenet.
>
I know. That's exactly why I posted Pt I and PT II from my book for your
pleasure, edification, and inspection.
--snip--
> >> The Phoenicians had existed as a culture for millenia before the
> >> Egyptians began attempting to take them over city-state by city-state.
> >
> >Yes, perhaps, but not before their (Eyg.) culture existed, predating
> >them, and as a hegemonous dominant force.
>
> Force is not necessarily primo, Frank. <g>
I didn't mean force, necessarily. But, now that you mention it, I
subscribe fully to a Marxian view of world history that shows little in
the way of qualitative change without revolutions, and a void of
revolutions where little domination and accumulation of wealth and
slaves appear. In other words, we only see the European and some Asian
lines of history because of the empire builders who enslaved, in one way
or another, both internally (their own people) and externally, have been
able to exploit their labor. This, as a matter of fact, is precisely
what Ugarit was not, and why it was not recognized in some of the
literature as a dominant force, yet it was...on the Hebrews.
And I feel that as
> history becomes more thoroughly re-written it will be realized even
> by the average layman that the Phoenician Culture flourished
> side-by-side with the cultures of Egypt and Sumeria.
Perhaps, but I see little evidence of much to go on, despite the statues
and inscriptions.
Note that
> Jericho was built about 10,000 BC; there were settlements at Byblos
> about 9,000 BC; the Egyptians began domesticating crops and using
> balances for weighing about 5,000 BC; the Early Dynastic Period
> began in Egypt about 3100 BC; the Minoan Culture began to flourish
> on the island of Crete about 3000 BC; Byblos was an active seaport
> and trade center about 3000 BC. The influence of the Egyptians has
> been stressed by generations of Egyptologists (obsessed
> archaeologists), while other cultures have gone begging for anything
> even near to the same attention.
>
Yes, I definitely agree, and I am pushing my lost souls ...that I see as
overwhelmingly influential, from Mes. to Ug. Again, from the language,
words and concept, beliefs- gods, etc. I am making a strong beeline to
the Hebrew Bible and biblical gods. That's my focus, and althouth the
Phoenician El and the alphabet suggests much in the way of your
interests, mine are documented in Ugaritic and are corroborated in this
trail of steady signature breadcrumbs.
--snip--
> >The point at which the Ugaritic, and their gods Baal, Asherah (actually,
> >at(h)irat, Anat(h), etc.) were at their peak, their golden age - and at
> >the time of their definitive scriptural writings, was circa 200-600
> >years before the first writings of the torah. The language and concepts
> >- from word-to-word in biblical Hebrew, the Ugaritic gods, the names and
> >epithets for the gods of the Hebrew pantheon -exposed and expressed
> >within the Hebrew language itself, etc., etc., etc., all make it perfect
> >and as highly probable as anyone could possibly get from the evidence,
> >that this connection is direct and indubitable.
>
> I think you're missing the point. I don't doubt that the Hebrews were
> influenced to the highest degree by the Phoenicians, whose area they
> were attempting to steal. There are those scholars who even feel the
> Hebrews *were Canaanites* (aka Phoenicians). I do doubt that the
> Torah was written early. What I really resent, however, is your
> continual references to "the Ugarit civilization" and "Ugaritic
> religion," divorcing Ugarit from the Phoenician Culture.
Well, you are going to have to face the fact that, aside from the
admittedly inseparable and surrounding Phoenician influence (which is
all-too-often an abstract generic umbrella for the Canaanite and Syrian
Ugaritic civilization), Ugarit was more than a unique city and more than
a autonomous cuneiform language. Furthermore, ITS pantheon is well
documented, regardless of what and where you think the Phoenicians ought
to be given credit for.
>
> >> <art joke warning> My art history professor used to tell us "Cretan"
> >> was just a tacky way of saying "Minoan," Frank.
> >
> >I'm glad he had an artist flair, Gwen, along with some sensitivity to
> >ethnicity and ethnocentrism, however correctly or incorrectly perceived
> >and/or exaggerated and punful it may have been.
>
> *She* knew her stuff alright, and rarely (if effectively) joked.
Good point, *she*... I can't believe I did that.
> --snip--
> >>and also the Greeks (via the Minoan Bronze Age)? <??>
> >
> >??? I see and call them as I see them. I see this, part for part and
> >piece by piece, as bi-conditional; that is to say, some influences from
> >and some to the Ugaritic re: the Minoans. There is, however, a very
> >strong parallel of relationships in the language/concepts of both,
> >moreso than the Cypriote *Greeks,* which demonstratea much stronger
> >Phoenician influence. Both the Minoan Cretans and the Cypriotes have the
> >Phoenician (--> Greek) alphabet, this no one is disputing whatsoever.
>
> What do I have to say to impress you with Byblos? You cannot continue
> to discuss the Phoenicians as if they didn't exist until after Ugarit.
*AS IF THEY DIDN'T EXIST* IS NOT THE SAME AS *DIDN'T EXIST.
* I realize there is a different alphabet elsewhere than there was found
> at Ugarit. That doesn't make Ugarit *not* Phoenician. Several
> languages co-exist within one culture (Look at the Western Culture
> today.). The Minoans had dealings with *all* the Phoenicians.
Well, if we call the Ugaritic culture, language, gods, etc. which are
better documented than the Phoenician - by far, then nothing seems to
make sense, does it?
> >> Where is Ugarit in this story (aside from being a
> >> city-state of the *other people* living in Canaan)?
> >
> >This requires quite a long answer.
> --snip so there's more new text than old or this can't be sent--
> > AND THERE WITHIN LIES THE TRICK. We can not assume the
> >time order, chronology, or veracity of most of the events described in
> >the Bible, despite the overwhelming verification concerning the
> >historicity and accuracy in comparison to all of the other ancient
> >works, which were more poetical and mythical.
> --snip--
>
> All nicely said. Now if you would only reflect this sort of view in
> your other posts, then I would have no reason to accuse you of
> being linear. It is precisely, however, this "overwhelming
> verification concerning the historicity and accuracy in comparison to
> all of the other ancient works" that makes me wonder if the entire
> Elohim thing was due to a purposeful manipulative coverup of Hebraic
> Sumero-Babylonian pantheon worship on the part of the early Hebrews.
> And what makes you think it isn't possible that the Hebrews (Abraham's
> batch) came out of Ur *after* its conquering by the Chaldeans and
> *after* Babel was destroyed by Xerxes? Even having asked that, I
> assure you that I don't take for granted that the Bible is
> historically accurate. How can anyone?
>
Well, that is what I have been saying since the inception of my book
(and in these posts), but, I would add to the Mesopotamian, the Ugaritic
as the essential written link in the process.
As for Sin, yes, the long tradition of Mesopotamia (utu, in Sumerian),
> >especially from the Akkadian to Babylonian, worshipped Sin. So? The long
> >lines, from the sun and moon astraldeities, from shamash [ sms,
> >s(h)amas(h)] to the Ugaritic shapash [sps, s(h)apas(h)], back to the
> >Hebrew shamash [sms, s(h)mas(h)] to Sin (assoc. w/ Egyp. Seth ?),
>
> Aka Set? No, I don't think so. <g>
Nor do I, just a flight of fancy.
Sin was a Moon God; Set was
> earliest a God of Darkness (and later aligned with Anat, probably a
> Moon Goddess, by the Hyksos).
A little far fetched, but not that wide a gap as you might think. Put
both of them together, and you start to see more of the connections, as
I have, in the evolutionary build-up of the Lucifer composite character
-- which I have traced, in PT II of my book -- in the Christian versions
of the Bible (Is. 14:12).
> >Semele, etc. are all similar. Many gods are still worshipped into other
> >cultures, as Isis was in Rome, etc. So? Sin, the moon god, has its
> >origin in the Epic of Gilgamesh, making its first appearance in Sumerian
> >Mesopotamia, beyond which should be of no surprise in its trail of
> >influence through Akkadian to other sources. I don't know what you are
> >getting at here.
>
> The deities worshipped by the Hebrews point at another possibility:
> that the Hebrews *did* come out of Ur to Harran, that Sin was the
> chosen god (thus all those godly polemics against moon gods), that
> Marduk was his enemy (as he was the enemy of Sin's people), that
> Marduk's comparable attributes to those of Baal are no happy
> accident
(no, they certainly aren't)
, that indeed the influence of the surrounding Phoenicians
> (Canaanites) is apparent in the writings of the early Hebrews but
> that the names of their supposed deities superimpose themselves
> over the true names of the real deities of the early Hebrews --
> Babylonian deities... Babylonian deities who were in conflict with the
> followers of a man who had a serious hangup against idols and with
> all deities except one.
>
> >> And could you explain to me the connection between the accounts
> >> found in the texts at Ebla and your "*missing link*?"
> >
> >Explain? Could you be a little more specific? Explain what?
>
> The texts at Ebla apparently speak of people with the same names
> as many Hebrews spoken of in the OT. The texts at Ugarit speak of
> stories about the deities of the Phoenicians
(so you say; I would question your self-serving assumptive wording. I
would have to see these tablets before commenting, or at least, see more
from even the secondhand sources on exactly what they contain.)
>
> About the early date at Ebla (2300 BC) -- Ebla is just northeast of
> Harran, where Abraham's *forefathers* lived according to the OT.
>
> >The Phoenician language proper (without pictographs, hieroglyphs, etc.),
> >that is, per se, was not fully developed and internationally influential
> >until the 10th and 9th centuries, long after the Ugaritic tablets and
> >the Ugaritic Golden Age (beginning after their second late bronze age
> >and one hundred fifty years before the XIX Dynasty in Egypt with
> >Ramesses II).
>
> Fine. Then what language did the people of Byblos speak? What
> language did the people of the other Phoenician city-states speak?
> They didn't talk?
>
Well, as we have seen before, many of these cultures, Ugarit included -
as you, yourself have alluded to, have written in several languages.
Almost all of the tablets ever found have several languages. Byblos?
Well, yes, I have seen -- and tried to translate, as everone else has,
unsuccessfully, a tablet wqith some Phoenician letters, some
hieroglyphs, and some unknown. So?
t --snip--
> >The gap? The dating? Ugaritic hegemony lasted until the 1200-1150 BCE
> >period in the Canaanite-Syrian areas, when they disappeared - and the
> >destruction of Ugarit, coinciding with both the defeat of the *Sea
> >Peoples* and the settlement of the Hebrew Israelite tribes. Where is
> >there a problem?
>
> Some sources say straight out that Ugarit was destroyed in about
> 1370 BC by the Sea People, Frank.
I don't think that is possible, and none of the sources I worked with
ever came close to that claim, but...who knows? By the way, statues,
inscriptions, and other artifacts fill the archeologists' *dance cards*
with abundant evidence of Ugaritic culture going back to the 5th
millennium, BCE.
Archaeologically speaking,
> *scattered nomadic tribes* of possibly Israelites are noted to have
> been in the Palestine area about 1400 BC. They don't seem to have
> been very civilized. They also don't seem to have written anything.
>
There are proto-Sinaitic letters, and especially Hebrew-Palestinian
pictographs...sure.
in the > Stey-yu.
> Hen to Pan,
> Gwen
It;s been nice, Gwen.
Ciao, for now...
prof./Author Frank http://home.fda.net/~spartacus
Gwen Saylor
Frank --
>No, it's just that I want you to know that I have not at all neglected
>the other lines of parallel and/or cross-cultural development. Also, my
>numerous references to bi-conditional influence should demonstrate more
>than just linear (I would call it -->) highly probable cause-effect
>relationships. I just want you to know that I did not discount nor
>neglect other than what I am driving hard on...with the Ugaritic and
>former Mesopotamian areas of direct and indirect influence; that's all.
It's easy for you to say this, but it appears from your postings that
your interest lies in those cultural flow lines you are specifically
interested in because of your book or as a result of your research
for the book. I've found it extremely difficult to get you to talk
about much else.
>> That's not so; I haven't read it; how can I question it? I'm only
>> questioning what you write to usenet.
>
>I know. That's exactly why I posted Pt I and PT II from my book for your
>pleasure, edification, and inspection.
And thanks. It's helped somewhat, but I find myself wondering if you
realize this is practically the only tack you take.
--snip--
> Force is not necessarily primo, Frank. <g>
>
>I didn't mean force, necessarily. But, now that you mention it, I
>subscribe fully to a Marxian view of world history that shows little in
>the way of qualitative change without revolutions, and a void of
>revolutions where little domination and accumulation of wealth and
>slaves appear. In other words, we only see the European and some Asian
>lines of history because of the empire builders who enslaved, in one way
>or another, both internally (their own people) and externally, have been
>able to exploit their labor. This, as a matter of fact, is precisely
>what Ugarit was not, and why it was not recognized in some of the
>literature as a dominant force, yet it was...on the Hebrews.
War only causes more war. What may seem to some to be a qualitative
change caused by revolution is simply a relaxation because the war's
over. Domination, accumulation, and slavery don't necessarily lead
to revolution. They lead to the desire for more control and, yes,
to war, but to empire building sorts of battles and then ultimately
to war. Revolution is caused by a desire to have more than nothing,
which at the time is one's only possible fair share. It, as well as
empire building, is habitual and therefore cyclical. Both are caused
directly by a group's inability to simply live the best way they can
and be satisfied with that. I do see the Phoenicians as a people who
primarily attempted to make good lives for themselves without feeling
they had to rule over others to get what they wanted. They were also
so independent early on that they had no need to revolt. The Hebrews
don't really seem to have understood either concept or to have taken
blame in what their lifestyles caused. Yes, I know Ugarit influenced
the Hebrews. But in addition to having been influenced also by all
of the other surrounding groups, the Hebrews also had some pretty
peculiar ideas of their own.
>> And I feel that as
>> history becomes more thoroughly re-written it will be realized even
>> by the average layman that the Phoenician Culture flourished
>> side-by-side with the cultures of Egypt and Sumeria.
>
>Perhaps, but I see little evidence of much to go on, despite the statues
>and inscriptions.
Little evidence doesn't mean a thing doesn't or didn't exist. It
just means the evidence is scant for now.
>> The influence of the Egyptians has
>> been stressed by generations of Egyptologists (obsessed
>> archaeologists), while other cultures have gone begging for anything
>> even near to the same attention.
>
>Yes, I definitely agree, and I am pushing my lost souls ...that I see as
>overwhelmingly influential, from Mes. to Ug. Again, from the language,
>words and concept, beliefs- gods, etc. I am making a strong beeline to
>the Hebrew Bible and biblical gods. That's my focus, and althouth the
>Phoenician El and the alphabet suggests much in the way of your
>interests, mine are documented in Ugaritic and are corroborated in this
>trail of steady signature breadcrumbs.
Breadcrumbs is really all someone interested in the Phoenicians has
anyway at this time.
--snip--
>> What I really resent, however, is your
>> continual references to "the Ugarit civilization" and "Ugaritic
>> religion," divorcing Ugarit from the Phoenician Culture.
>
>Well, you are going to have to face the fact that, aside from the
>admittedly inseparable and surrounding Phoenician influence (which is
>all-too-often an abstract generic umbrella for the Canaanite and Syrian
>Ugaritic civilization), Ugarit was more than a unique city and more than
>a autonomous cuneiform language. Furthermore, ITS pantheon is well
>documented, regardless of what and where you think the Phoenicians
>ought to be given credit for.
We'll never agree on this point. <g> At least, not until more is
revealed about the Phoenicians and the early guesswork about Ugarit
can be firmly stifled.
--snip--
>> What do I have to say to impress you with Byblos? You cannot continue
>> to discuss the Phoenicians as if they didn't exist until after Ugarit.
>
>*AS IF THEY DIDN'T EXIST* IS NOT THE SAME AS *DIDN'T EXIST.
<LOL!> That's my line. <g>
>> I realize there is a different alphabet elsewhere than there was found
>> at Ugarit. That doesn't make Ugarit *not* Phoenician. Several
>> languages co-exist within one culture (Look at the Western Culture
>> today.). The Minoans had dealings with *all* the Phoenicians.
>
>Well, if we call the Ugaritic culture, language, gods, etc. which are
>better documented than the Phoenician - by far, then nothing seems to
>make sense, does it?
To you. And only for now.
--snip--
>Well, that is what I have been saying since the inception of my book
>(and in these posts), but, I would add to the Mesopotamian, the Ugaritic
>as the essential written link in the process.
Well, of course you would. <g>
--snip--
>> The texts at Ebla apparently speak of people with the same names
>> as many Hebrews spoken of in the OT. The texts at Ugarit speak of
>> stories about the deities of the Phoenicians
>
>(so you say; I would question your self-serving assumptive wording. I
>would have to see these tablets before commenting, or at least, see more
>from even the secondhand sources on exactly what they contain.)
*MY* "self-serving assumptive wording?" <LOL! Truly hilarious!> You
should talk!! Okay, Frank, you just keep right on not knowing much
except what you know directly (or so you say), and don't you dare
get out that encyclopedia and just look up Ebla. You answered my
question anyway. No, you couldn't explain it.
--snip--
>> Fine. Then what language did the people of Byblos speak? What
>> language did the people of the other Phoenician city-states speak?
>> They didn't talk?
>>
>Well, as we have seen before, many of these cultures, Ugarit included -
>as you, yourself have alluded to, have written in several languages.
>Almost all of the tablets ever found have several languages. Byblos?
>Well, yes, I have seen -- and tried to translate, as everone else has,
>unsuccessfully, a tablet wqith some Phoenician letters, some
>hieroglyphs, and some unknown. So?
If we don't even know how they talked (let alone much of how
they wrote), how can we presume they had no influence? Again,
the evidence is simply scant, not nonexistent.
--snip--
>> Some sources say straight out that Ugarit was destroyed in about
>> 1370 BC by the Sea People, Frank.
>
>I don't think that is possible, and none of the sources I worked with
>ever came close to that claim, but...who knows?
<g> Believe me, someone will always claim they know the thing you
least expect to hear. Know this, I don't make up the things I post to
you. <g>
>By the way, statues,
>inscriptions, and other artifacts fill the archeologists' *dance cards*
>with abundant evidence of Ugaritic culture going back to the 5th
>millennium, BCE.
The early beginnings of culture, yes, okay. The height of the
civilization in the texts, no.
>> Archaeologically speaking,
>> *scattered nomadic tribes* of possibly Israelites are noted to have
>> been in the Palestine area about 1400 BC. They don't seem to have
>> been very civilized. They also don't seem to have written anything.
>>
>There are proto-Sinaitic letters, and especially Hebrew-Palestinian
>pictographs...sure.
The point, of course, being that Ugarit was dissolved at about
the time the Hebrews were barely struggling to begin. There
doesn't seem in that evidence to be a direct link from the highly
civilized city-state of Ugarit to the nomads we know weren't even
yet thinking about writing their oh-so-famous Bible.
Stey-yu.
Hen to Pan,
Gwen
--------------------------------------------------------------
Frank T. De Angelis
Hi Gwen:
(The entire text of your post follows.)
I have not limited my interest to the themes of my book. If you take a
look at alt.philosophy or alt.philosophy.debate you will see numerous
threads like this one, filled with many posts by me, with philosophical
themes far removed from this one or my book(s). For example, take a look
at the very long and on-going thread entitled *Law* or *Beneath Logic,*
(here I only mentioned once, an out-of-print book of mine called *How
Logic is Not Logical.*) Once (thrice) again, why I do not mention your
prized Phoenician culture and pantheon that much (which I do a little,
both in the posts and in my book), is because we have very, very little
in the way of actual, original, and discernible Phoenician scriptural
writings regarding anything we have discussed. (At this stage of the
argument, this is just a repetively moot and circular point.)
It is only within the apropos context of the Bible and ancient history
that my posts with you have any relevance, and -- as far as that goes --
my research and work is directly relevant to everything we've been
through, here. Unfortunately, much of what you refer to could be better
clarified if you read (1) the Ugaritic sources trans. by Cyrus Gordon
and Michael Coogan, (2) saw and compared some of the Ugaritic cuneiform
with the biblical Hebrew, and (3) could read the key passages I refer to
in the Bible, in Hebrew, or -- atleast (4) Richard Elliott Friedman's
*Who Wrote The Bible* (1987). Apparently the excerpts from my book
didn't do the trick or even help, but...well, never mind that.
(P.S. Now I am perplexed. I did not see any posts in the routing to your
private e-mail letter, and mine (reproduced below) was a private e-mail
(I think)! Oh well, here is my response to your last e-mail, without
your comments or any private matters, since I had no indication that it
was anything but private e-mail. Confused again!)
<I say that there is some evidence for el to be the father of yahweh,
and footnote Michael Coogan's claim which I back off from in one place
and leave it at that in another. By the way, the Ugaritic yw-el, when
stretched out with later vowel sounds, becomes yahwehl - as in the later
MT biblical Hebrew. Look a little more familiar? Also, as I said before
(in my post with my book excerpts) that, along with Friedman and the
actual order of the biblical Genesis 1-2 beginning, elohim comes before
yahweh.
The English (esp. in the King James/AV) was mistranslated from Luther's
Bibel and German pronunciation, mistakenly giving us Jah and Jehovah,
for yah and yahweh (yw). I said that if we combine the Hebrew words
yah-weh and el we get yw-el (actually, yvl). In the original consonantal
Hebrew, of course, there is an exact transliteration with the Ugaritic.
Again, I say, in light of this (and only to this extent) -- along with,
and in the context of the Ug. -- there is some evidence to demonstrate
that yahweh was the son of el (just as *Ben El* would be *son of god,*
or *is(h)-ra-el,* *men of god* (translated as *children,* including
women), and Samuel (or Sheol) = *s(h)vl,* meaning *sun of god,* and
Samson being *(power/strength of the) sun - *s(h)ms(h)* sun, from the
Meso. s(h)ms(h) *sun god* [with the Ugaritic *being s(h)ps(h)*].
sms= shmsh = Samas= Shamash in any of these earlier languages, as we
transliterate, literally, from the original consonantal into a more
reasonable facsimilie with alphabetical vowels and/or vowel-like marks.
(a) there was orignally no distinction between the samekah, *s,* and the
shin/sheen, *sh,* in all of these languages. (b) It can actually look
very different from what you might think; e.g., above, both Sheol (one
word for hell and underworld, and ?) and Samuel, in the biblical Hebrew
reads = shvl. Go figure!?>
Thanks,
Prof./Author Frank T. De Angelis (See me at...)
http://home.fda.net/~spartacus
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Frank T. De Angelis
Frank T. De Angelis wrote:
>
> Hi Gwen:
Sorry; there was a fatal mistake in my last ng post/e-mail. Correction.
errata:
...meant to say, *both Saul and Sheol = *s(h)vl,* not *Samuel, * which
means *sun of god,* as I state in the same paragraph.
Gwen Saylor
Frank and All --
>Frank T. De Angelis <spar...@fda.net> wrote:
>I have not limited my interest to the themes of my book. If you take a
>look at alt.philosophy or alt.philosophy.debate you will see numerous
>threads like this one, filled with many posts by me, with philosophical
>themes far removed from this one or my book(s). For example, take a look
>at the very long and on-going thread entitled *Law* or *Beneath Logic,*
>(here I only mentioned once, an out-of-print book of mine called *How
>Logic is Not Logical.*) Once (thrice) again, why I do not mention your
>prized Phoenician culture and pantheon that much (which I do a little,
>both in the posts and in my book), is because we have very, very little
>in the way of actual, original, and discernible Phoenician scriptural
>writings regarding anything we have discussed. (At this stage of the
>argument, this is just a repetively moot and circular point.)
>
>It is only within the apropos context of the Bible and ancient history
>that my posts with you have any relevance, and -- as far as that goes --
>my research and work is directly relevant to everything we've been
>through, here. Unfortunately, much of what you refer to could be better
>clarified if you read (1) the Ugaritic sources trans. by Cyrus Gordon
>and Michael Coogan, (2) saw and compared some of the Ugaritic cuneiform
>with the biblical Hebrew, and (3) could read the key passages I refer to
>in the Bible, in Hebrew, or -- atleast (4) Richard Elliott Friedman's
>*Who Wrote The Bible* (1987). Apparently the excerpts from my book
>didn't do the trick or even help, but...well, never mind that.
Do not ever assume that I haven't understood every word you've said.
You are mistaking my disagreement with your ideas as my not having
understood (-or- an inability on my part to understand -or- what you
perceive as my not understanding from lack of education), -or- you
are using a manipulative tricky way of talking in order to attempt to
give others the idea that I am incapable of understanding you (which
I assure you they do see through). You're either incorrect or an
ass (dependent solely on motive).
Since there is little that you can offer to alt.mythology in regard to
the Phoenician pantheon except as it relates to the theme of your book
and your -theory- of the separate civilization of Ugarit, and because
your discussion of your theory doesn't enlighten us about the pantheon
of the Phoenicians but discusses Ugarit's connection to the Hebrews,
and because you denigrate the Phoenician culture and what other
mythologists (most, IME all) consider to be a pantheon wondrously
endetailed by the finds at Ras Shamrah (Ugarit), and because you
have described your theory in detail and your distaste for those who
appreciate the Phoenicians several (if not many) times, I feel you
would be doing us a service in this group to leave us out of your
newsgroup list in the future when you discuss this view, which you
personally think has much to do with mythology (but which really does
not). I realize you discuss other topics elsewhere, but this theory
of yours is in the main what we hear droning on and on from you in
this particular group. I have tried with humor to encourage you to
be less irascible about this, but you don't take hints. I've tried to
discuss Ugarit and Phoenicia in ways that might let you know that your
particular viewpoint is not thoroughly (or mainly) entertained amongst
other scholars or, in fact, amongst the mythologists here. Please
refrain from posting your view of Ugarit to this newsgroup in the
future; you have stated it again and again and thoroughly. I feel I
can speak for most of the others here because I am one of only a very
few people here who has attempted to pursue any knowledge you
earlier might have been thought to hold on this topic. Notice that
very few people from this group ever post to you in group. If that
fact were pursued I feel it would point up a general lack of interest
in what you are saying. Please respect the fact that I did try to
discuss this with you (at length) and that now I'm asking you not to
discuss it further here.
Since this topic has been covered fully, any further discussion here
in alt.mythology on this topic on your part will amount to SPAM
advertising of your book IMO.
To the group at alt.mythology:
I realize I've just spoken for a group without its verbal permission.
If what I've said doesn't represent the views of the majority of the
group, let it be known I've spoken what in my heart I hope the group
does think. If I've overstepped my bounds by doing this, please
forgive me. I've really had enough of this particular person's lack
of take on the Phoenicians and Ugarit.
--I'm snipping the rest of your post because it is the same as that
which you posted to me in our ongoing private conversation on
"The Name of God." It does not apply to the conversation herein
to the slightest degree.--
Frank T. De Angelis
Gwen Saylor wrote:
>
> Frank and All --
>
> >Frank T. De Angelis <spar...@fda.net> wrote:
> >I have not limited my interest to the themes of my book. If you take a look at alt.philosophy or alt.philosophy.debate you will see numerous
threads like this one, filled with many posts by me, with philosophical
themes far removed from this one or my book(s). For example, take a look
at the very long and on-going thread entitled *Law* or *Beneath Logic,*
(here I only mentioned once, an out-of-print book of mine called *How
Logic is Not Logical.*) Once (thrice) again, why I do not mention your
prized Phoenician culture and pantheon that much (which I do a little,
both in the posts and in my book), is because we have very, very little
in the way of actual, original, and discernible Phoenician scriptural
writings regarding anything we have discussed. (At this stage of the
argument, this is just a repetively moot and circular point.)
> >
> >It is only within the apropos context of the Bible and ancient history that my posts with you have any relevance, and -- as far as that goes -- my research and work is directly relevant to everything we've been through, here. Unfortunately, much of what you refer to could be better clarified if you read (1) the Ugaritic sources trans. by Cyrus Gordon and Michael Coogan, (2) saw and compared some of the Ugaritic cuneiform with the biblical Hebrew, and (3) could read the key passages I refer to in the Bible, in Hebrew, or -- atleast (4) Richard Elliott Friedman's *Who Wrote The Bible* (1987). Apparently the excerpts from my book didn't do the trick or even help, but...well, never mind that.
>
> Do not ever assume that I haven't understood every word you've said.
> You are mistaking my disagreement with your ideas as my not having
> understood (-or- an inability on my part to understand -or- what you
> perceive as my not understanding from lack of education), -or- you
> are using a manipulative tricky way of talking in order to attempt to
> give others the idea that I am incapable of understanding you (which
> I assure you they do see through). You're either incorrect or an
> ass (dependent solely on motive).
assume one heck of a diabolical lot on my part, too.
>Since there is little that you can offer to alt.mythology in regard to
>the Phoenician pantheon except as it relates to the theme of your book
I have offered quite a bit on pantheons, relating to mythology, with and
without the Ugaritic. Just because there isn't much of anything original
and completed that I chose to comment on -- concerning the Phoenicians
-- hardly makes mythology vanish into the night.
and your -theory- of the separate civilization of Ugarit, and because
> your discussion of your theory doesn't enlighten us about the pantheon
> of the Phoenicians but discusses Ugarit's connection to the Hebrews,
> and because you denigrate
Denigrate? Well, if you ask me if I consider anything *sacred* in the
Christian sense of sin - with the lack therin of blind faith, no.
Denigrate? There is hardlyenough evidence of anything beyond the
Phoenician alphabet to denigrate, dear.
Nor does anyone else, since you have entered into circular debates. I
keep answering only because you keep asking repetitive questions and
seem to challenge what I am saying. I don't mind; but, you just can't
pull the logic both ways now, can you? Phoenicia is not the only
residence for mythology.
> Since this topic has been covered fully, any further discussion here
> in alt.mythology on this topic on your part will amount to SPAM
> advertising of your book IMO.
>
Now you arejust getting absurd. Your words don't amount to much of
anything if you are going to limit mythology and accuse me of spamming.
That's justsilly. If you didn't challenge me, I wouldn't have kept this
overdue end going. As a professor, I hardly shut students up and/or
ignore questions...even silly ones.
To the group at alt.mythology:
> I realize I've just spoken for a group without its verbal permission.
>
> If what I've said doesn't represent the views of the majority of the
> group, let it be known I've spoken what in my heart I hope the group
> does think. If I've overstepped my bounds by doing this, please
> forgive me. I've really had enough of this particular person's lack
> of take on the Phoenicians and Ugarit.
>
This is all quite silly, and beneath my dignity; so I'll save us all the
agony of bantering back and forth - to everyone's delight, since it
appears you're not going to refrain from silly replies - and I can't see
how anyone could possibly benefit from anymore of this.
Thank you for relieving me from my committment to truth and
education...and for realizing that we just have to give up on people
sometimes - even tolerant and temperate educators such as myself.
Ciao (from this thread with you, anyway. Not from alt.mythology.)
Frank
(P.S. Unfortunately, now you know why professors try to stay away from
ngs. Some people spoil all of the potential credibility and raison d'
etre of it.)