Post by david on Sept 24, 2020 16:19:49 GMT
Dear friends,
There are a lot of people who say that Jesus was a great teacher, and the principle they most give for that is the teaching of transcendental love. Now, only one of the evangelists mentions love of God, and that is John, and he begins with the Prologue "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." This proves he was influenced by Hermetism, and the Corpus Hermeticum contains writing about the love of God. That is where Christianity got it from.
The other principle associated with Christianity is turn the other cheek. This is derived from Plato's dialogue Gorgias in which he says that it is better to be slapped in the face than to slap someone in the face. This contains greater wisdom than the Gospel version, because it implies that we are doing harm to ourselves if we hit someone. There is no such implication in the Gospel stories which is proof they did not understand the spiritual principles underlying morality.
The only mystical principle in the Gospels is the Trinity: The Father, the Son and something which used to be translated as the Holy Ghost, but now the Holy Spirit. The word in the Greek text is pneuma, which can mean spirit, soul, ghost, breath or wind. Now here's a translation problem. It can't be the spirit, because the Father is the Spirit. It can't be the soul, because the Son is the soul. It can't be breath or wind. That leaves ghost, but nobody knows what a Holy Ghost is, and it shocked poor Thomas Pain. It is now translated as the spirit because we are less thoughtful than we used to be and don't realise that this makes it a duplicate of the Father.
So where did the Christians get this from? The only possible source I can conceive of is the Madrian concept of Absolute Deity, which is the Potential underlying Creation. The Madrians were around at that time, and were a spiritual influence. Their claim to have a hereditary tradition is true.
Jesus must have met Madrians, and derived this principle from them, but he was unable to put it into a form that his followers could grasp, which shows a limitation of the intelligence of those who created Christianity. This may have been the fault of his followers rather than that of Jesus, but a good teacher has good pupils. Socrates had Plato, and the brilliance of Plato is measure of the brilliance of Socrates. At this point, some people may think of the Gnostics. Christ was listed as one of the "Aeons" of the Gnostics, but I suppose there are Gnostics who will argue that this is a later incorporation, and not proof that Jesus did not originate it. If he had met Madrians, he might have been impressed by their teaching of the One Goddess, but still wanted to make the male principle the highest. Gnosticism has the highest created "Aeon" as the female figure Barbelo, which gives her a high position, but she was created by the uncreated Father who gave her divine qualities to her. The Gnostic Gospel of Mary Magdalene makes her the teacher of the other disciples, but it is Jesus who originated her teachings, and she only repeated them.
Now, consider Mary Magdalene. Her name is explained by the fact that she came from the town of Magdala, but this is not the usual Greek way of indicating a person's place of origin. She would have been correctly called Mary Magdalia. Magdala is the feminine form of the Greek noun Magdalos, meaning Great Firebrand, or Great Thunderbolt. She was the Goddess, and the New Testament depiction of Her is to belittle Her, drying Jesus' feet with Her hair, and having demons that possessed Her removed from Her.
I can't remember anything in the Gospel writings I have read that is particularly spiritual.
The rest of the Gospels contain good moral principles, but without reasons for believing them, which proves that Jesus picked these principles without understanding them. Anybody can learn a list of principles and repeat it. A teacher is supposed to make you understand. That is just the point I was trying to make: Christianity tells you what to believe, but does not give a reason for it, and that is why it had to curb inquisitiveness. That is the difference between Jesus and Plato. Plato gives reasons so that you understand that what he says is true. In Gorgias, he does not just tell you to practice meekness, he proves it, and he questions people who advocate power and selfishness, analysing their beliefs to prove the fallacy of them. That Jesus could not do.
The story of The Good Samaritan proves that Jesus wanted to overcome prejudice, and therefore had a good moral vision, but we have this Gospel incident:
Matthew Ch I, v18-19:
18. Now early in the morning as he entered into the city, he hungered 19. and when he saw a fig tree in the way, he came to it and found nothing thereon, but leaves only, and said unto it, Let no fruit grow on thee henceforward for ever. And presently the fig tree died away.
Mark Ch XI
And seeing a fig tree afar off having leaves, if haply he might find anything thereon, and when he came he found nothing but leaves; for the time of the fig was not yet. 14. And Jesus answered and said unto it, No man eat fruit of thee hereafter for ever. 20. And in the morning, as they passed by, they saw the fig tree dried up from the roots.
It's in two of the Gospels, and therefore must have come from Jesus, and not a Gospel author. Jesus had a vindictive streak. He had good qualities, but also had bad qualities. This is the explanation for the cruelty of the Inquisitions, not that they were false Christians, but were sincere Christians dedicated to the worship of Jesus as God, and this worship made them receptive to his vindictiveness, but they were also receptive to his good qualities. They were proud of the humane conditions of their cells. These kindly sadists were under a dual influence. People who worship Jesus will become aware of his good side and think they have gained spiritual proof that he was God, but they are also influenced by his bad side. When they become sensitive to his bad side, they think it is the presence of the Devil, which is why Christianity became a demonophobic religion.
There is also the teaching of not washing the hands before eating or the pots after cooking. This is in Matthew Ch XV v 2-20, Mark VII v 1-23, Luke, Ch XI, v 38-39.
The Bible Concordances say that people read this without relating it to the historical context, which is that the Jews practiced ritual, so Jesus must have been talking about ritual. Because the Jews practiced ritual does not prove that Jesus was talking about ritual. There has to be something in Jesus' words to link it with ritual, and it is clear from the words that it is not what goes in at the mouth that pollutes and what goes in at the mouth goes out at the draught, that he was talking about hygiene.
In The King James version Mark VII v 3 contains "except they wash their hands oft, eat not." The Concordances say this omits the word pygme meaning fist because it is untranslatable. They tell us it is untranslatable and tell us what it means. They argue from this that fist implies force which implies ritual. This is a ridiculous argument. If Mark had meant ritual, he would have said so. If you read an occult book, you won't find it tells you to practice fist. If they did, you would wonder about the author's mental well being. In fact, pygme does not mean fist, it means with the fist and is the ablative form of the word pyx, meaning fist. The passage means to wash with the hands closed over each other to create a rubbing effect. The New Jerusalem Bible says "except they wash their hands ritually, they do not eat." This is blatant dishonesty.
I'm sorry I haven't got time to copy out these passages, but, if you want to read the exact words of these references, but don't have a Bible, try a decent sized library, but to read a Bible Concord, you will have to find a very large library, such as the principle library of a city.
I am able to give chapter and verse of these references because I kept notes of them, but I now have to move on to passages I never kept notes of, and have to rely on memory. If anybody can confirm that these passages are actually in the Gospels, this will be appreciated.
When people challenged Jesus to perform a miracle, he answered that a faithless people seek a sign, but to them no sign shall be given. He must have claimed to have performed miracles, and refused to perform them when asked. If he could have done them, he would have proved it to avoid being thought a liar. He was a liar, and a fantastic liar. He could not have made up the story of the Resurrection, which must have been made up by the Gospel authors, so they were liars too.
People tell me that Jesus never claimed to be God, but he gives instructions for performing Communion in honour of himself. Communion is performed in honour of God. It was kind of him to tell us how to do it, but it does seem he practiced sanity in moderation.
Jesus was executed by the Romans, which the Gospels tell us was done under pressure from the Jews. It must be remembered that Judaea was not a Roman province but a client kingdom with their own king, so they must have had their own laws and the means of enforcing them. They could have executed Jesus themselves. The Romans must have wanted him dead, and they did not care about blasphemy against the Jewish religion. The explanation is in Matthew Ch X v 34: Think not that I came to place peace but a sword. 35. I came to set at variance a man against his father and a daughter against her mother. Luke XXII v36. Let him sell his garment and buy a sword.
Jesus was not the pacifist he was made out to be. I think we should take another look at this turning the other cheek. The next line is that if anyone compels you to go with him one mile, go with him two. Nobody can compel you to go with him unless you are a slave or a soldier. The Greek text says "hit with a stick". Jesus had a paramilitary organisation in which discipline was enforced with sticks.
The New Testament does encourage charity, which is a good thing, motivated by compassion. Paul urges it, and asks us to remember the poor saints in Jerusalem, which would have made Paul a recipient of charity, moved by compassion for himself. Now, think of Jesus' remarks about going to cities and being received into houses, and his urge to, as far as I can remember, "Consider the lilies of the field. They toil not, neither do they weave." He wanted to live without working.
I was told by an evangelical Christian that it has been proved that Jesus was God by a reference in Josephus' history that mentions James who was the brother of the Christ who performed miracles and rose from the dead. The trouble with this reference is that the first person to quote Josephus was Origen, who did so to prove that history supports the New Testament. He recorded the mention of James, but not of Christ. This is an extraordinary omission considering his purpose. He would only have omitted it if it was not in, which means that the reference to Christ was sneaked into a later version of the text. It shows the practice of the early Christians of honesty in moderation, and makes us doubt the stories of their martyrs. It is a consequence of worshipping a liar.
There are many other matters I could write about, but this has turned out to be a long and time consuming message. The Gospel stories are very short books if you want to go into them, and you'll be able to get through them very quickly.
May She be with you,
David.
There are a lot of people who say that Jesus was a great teacher, and the principle they most give for that is the teaching of transcendental love. Now, only one of the evangelists mentions love of God, and that is John, and he begins with the Prologue "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." This proves he was influenced by Hermetism, and the Corpus Hermeticum contains writing about the love of God. That is where Christianity got it from.
The other principle associated with Christianity is turn the other cheek. This is derived from Plato's dialogue Gorgias in which he says that it is better to be slapped in the face than to slap someone in the face. This contains greater wisdom than the Gospel version, because it implies that we are doing harm to ourselves if we hit someone. There is no such implication in the Gospel stories which is proof they did not understand the spiritual principles underlying morality.
The only mystical principle in the Gospels is the Trinity: The Father, the Son and something which used to be translated as the Holy Ghost, but now the Holy Spirit. The word in the Greek text is pneuma, which can mean spirit, soul, ghost, breath or wind. Now here's a translation problem. It can't be the spirit, because the Father is the Spirit. It can't be the soul, because the Son is the soul. It can't be breath or wind. That leaves ghost, but nobody knows what a Holy Ghost is, and it shocked poor Thomas Pain. It is now translated as the spirit because we are less thoughtful than we used to be and don't realise that this makes it a duplicate of the Father.
So where did the Christians get this from? The only possible source I can conceive of is the Madrian concept of Absolute Deity, which is the Potential underlying Creation. The Madrians were around at that time, and were a spiritual influence. Their claim to have a hereditary tradition is true.
Jesus must have met Madrians, and derived this principle from them, but he was unable to put it into a form that his followers could grasp, which shows a limitation of the intelligence of those who created Christianity. This may have been the fault of his followers rather than that of Jesus, but a good teacher has good pupils. Socrates had Plato, and the brilliance of Plato is measure of the brilliance of Socrates. At this point, some people may think of the Gnostics. Christ was listed as one of the "Aeons" of the Gnostics, but I suppose there are Gnostics who will argue that this is a later incorporation, and not proof that Jesus did not originate it. If he had met Madrians, he might have been impressed by their teaching of the One Goddess, but still wanted to make the male principle the highest. Gnosticism has the highest created "Aeon" as the female figure Barbelo, which gives her a high position, but she was created by the uncreated Father who gave her divine qualities to her. The Gnostic Gospel of Mary Magdalene makes her the teacher of the other disciples, but it is Jesus who originated her teachings, and she only repeated them.
Now, consider Mary Magdalene. Her name is explained by the fact that she came from the town of Magdala, but this is not the usual Greek way of indicating a person's place of origin. She would have been correctly called Mary Magdalia. Magdala is the feminine form of the Greek noun Magdalos, meaning Great Firebrand, or Great Thunderbolt. She was the Goddess, and the New Testament depiction of Her is to belittle Her, drying Jesus' feet with Her hair, and having demons that possessed Her removed from Her.
I can't remember anything in the Gospel writings I have read that is particularly spiritual.
The rest of the Gospels contain good moral principles, but without reasons for believing them, which proves that Jesus picked these principles without understanding them. Anybody can learn a list of principles and repeat it. A teacher is supposed to make you understand. That is just the point I was trying to make: Christianity tells you what to believe, but does not give a reason for it, and that is why it had to curb inquisitiveness. That is the difference between Jesus and Plato. Plato gives reasons so that you understand that what he says is true. In Gorgias, he does not just tell you to practice meekness, he proves it, and he questions people who advocate power and selfishness, analysing their beliefs to prove the fallacy of them. That Jesus could not do.
The story of The Good Samaritan proves that Jesus wanted to overcome prejudice, and therefore had a good moral vision, but we have this Gospel incident:
Matthew Ch I, v18-19:
18. Now early in the morning as he entered into the city, he hungered 19. and when he saw a fig tree in the way, he came to it and found nothing thereon, but leaves only, and said unto it, Let no fruit grow on thee henceforward for ever. And presently the fig tree died away.
Mark Ch XI
And seeing a fig tree afar off having leaves, if haply he might find anything thereon, and when he came he found nothing but leaves; for the time of the fig was not yet. 14. And Jesus answered and said unto it, No man eat fruit of thee hereafter for ever. 20. And in the morning, as they passed by, they saw the fig tree dried up from the roots.
It's in two of the Gospels, and therefore must have come from Jesus, and not a Gospel author. Jesus had a vindictive streak. He had good qualities, but also had bad qualities. This is the explanation for the cruelty of the Inquisitions, not that they were false Christians, but were sincere Christians dedicated to the worship of Jesus as God, and this worship made them receptive to his vindictiveness, but they were also receptive to his good qualities. They were proud of the humane conditions of their cells. These kindly sadists were under a dual influence. People who worship Jesus will become aware of his good side and think they have gained spiritual proof that he was God, but they are also influenced by his bad side. When they become sensitive to his bad side, they think it is the presence of the Devil, which is why Christianity became a demonophobic religion.
There is also the teaching of not washing the hands before eating or the pots after cooking. This is in Matthew Ch XV v 2-20, Mark VII v 1-23, Luke, Ch XI, v 38-39.
The Bible Concordances say that people read this without relating it to the historical context, which is that the Jews practiced ritual, so Jesus must have been talking about ritual. Because the Jews practiced ritual does not prove that Jesus was talking about ritual. There has to be something in Jesus' words to link it with ritual, and it is clear from the words that it is not what goes in at the mouth that pollutes and what goes in at the mouth goes out at the draught, that he was talking about hygiene.
In The King James version Mark VII v 3 contains "except they wash their hands oft, eat not." The Concordances say this omits the word pygme meaning fist because it is untranslatable. They tell us it is untranslatable and tell us what it means. They argue from this that fist implies force which implies ritual. This is a ridiculous argument. If Mark had meant ritual, he would have said so. If you read an occult book, you won't find it tells you to practice fist. If they did, you would wonder about the author's mental well being. In fact, pygme does not mean fist, it means with the fist and is the ablative form of the word pyx, meaning fist. The passage means to wash with the hands closed over each other to create a rubbing effect. The New Jerusalem Bible says "except they wash their hands ritually, they do not eat." This is blatant dishonesty.
I'm sorry I haven't got time to copy out these passages, but, if you want to read the exact words of these references, but don't have a Bible, try a decent sized library, but to read a Bible Concord, you will have to find a very large library, such as the principle library of a city.
I am able to give chapter and verse of these references because I kept notes of them, but I now have to move on to passages I never kept notes of, and have to rely on memory. If anybody can confirm that these passages are actually in the Gospels, this will be appreciated.
When people challenged Jesus to perform a miracle, he answered that a faithless people seek a sign, but to them no sign shall be given. He must have claimed to have performed miracles, and refused to perform them when asked. If he could have done them, he would have proved it to avoid being thought a liar. He was a liar, and a fantastic liar. He could not have made up the story of the Resurrection, which must have been made up by the Gospel authors, so they were liars too.
People tell me that Jesus never claimed to be God, but he gives instructions for performing Communion in honour of himself. Communion is performed in honour of God. It was kind of him to tell us how to do it, but it does seem he practiced sanity in moderation.
Jesus was executed by the Romans, which the Gospels tell us was done under pressure from the Jews. It must be remembered that Judaea was not a Roman province but a client kingdom with their own king, so they must have had their own laws and the means of enforcing them. They could have executed Jesus themselves. The Romans must have wanted him dead, and they did not care about blasphemy against the Jewish religion. The explanation is in Matthew Ch X v 34: Think not that I came to place peace but a sword. 35. I came to set at variance a man against his father and a daughter against her mother. Luke XXII v36. Let him sell his garment and buy a sword.
Jesus was not the pacifist he was made out to be. I think we should take another look at this turning the other cheek. The next line is that if anyone compels you to go with him one mile, go with him two. Nobody can compel you to go with him unless you are a slave or a soldier. The Greek text says "hit with a stick". Jesus had a paramilitary organisation in which discipline was enforced with sticks.
The New Testament does encourage charity, which is a good thing, motivated by compassion. Paul urges it, and asks us to remember the poor saints in Jerusalem, which would have made Paul a recipient of charity, moved by compassion for himself. Now, think of Jesus' remarks about going to cities and being received into houses, and his urge to, as far as I can remember, "Consider the lilies of the field. They toil not, neither do they weave." He wanted to live without working.
I was told by an evangelical Christian that it has been proved that Jesus was God by a reference in Josephus' history that mentions James who was the brother of the Christ who performed miracles and rose from the dead. The trouble with this reference is that the first person to quote Josephus was Origen, who did so to prove that history supports the New Testament. He recorded the mention of James, but not of Christ. This is an extraordinary omission considering his purpose. He would only have omitted it if it was not in, which means that the reference to Christ was sneaked into a later version of the text. It shows the practice of the early Christians of honesty in moderation, and makes us doubt the stories of their martyrs. It is a consequence of worshipping a liar.
There are many other matters I could write about, but this has turned out to be a long and time consuming message. The Gospel stories are very short books if you want to go into them, and you'll be able to get through them very quickly.
May She be with you,
David.