Fruit of the Contemplative Life
Fruit of the contemplative life: => Unpacking Religion => : Michel October 09, 2013, 10:30:43 PM
-
...The story of Sándor Csoma de Kőrös (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%A1ndor_K%C5%91r%C3%B6si_Csoma) also shows that it is not so very unlikely that Jesus may have traveled to India; however, I see no reason why he would have to go to India, because Indic religions are just as corrupt as western religions. If Jesus was enlightened, then he would have figured that out, which may have brought him back to Judea, and martyrdom.
This YouTube video is a BBC documentary titled "Jesus Was A Buddhist Monk" It's about the possibility that Jesus traveled near to the northwestern part of India in Kashmir. It also theorises that he went Spain. An interesting possibility.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xY0Ib3aPG6Y
-
Thank-you, Michel for posting the link to the interesting BBC special on Jesus. The video provided interesting questions; however, the Tibetan Buddhist claim has some deep flaws, as Tibet had not embraced Buddhism until about AD 500. So, sticking to the origins of Indian Christianity with Thomas, in Kashmir, works better. I agree, It is unreasonable to believe that Jesus succumbed to crucifixion after only a few hours on the cross.
While we are discussing Jesus, I think the following link would be interesting to add into the discussion
Ancient Confession Found: 'We Invented Jesus Christ' (http://uk.prweb.com/releases/2013/10/prweb11201273.htm)
Biblical scholars will be appearing at the 'Covert Messiah' Conference at Conway Hall in London on the 19th of October to present this controversial discovery to the British public.
the New Testament was written by first-century Roman aristocrats and that they fabricated the entire story of Jesus Christ.
There is simply no reason for first century Roman aristocrats to invent the Jesus story; however, I would accept that Constantine had very good reasons to hijack Christianity in the 4th century, and subvert it for his own purposes; and the Christianity of today is more like Constantine wanted it, than it represents the truth of the life and teachings of Jesus.
Alert citizens need to know the truth about our past so we can understand how and why governments create false histories and false gods. They often do it to obtain a social order that is against the best interests of the common people."
This is worth keeping in mind for anyone who is interested in becoming a mystic. All religions are the product of heavy "engineering" by the hegemony. This does not mean that the contemplative life, and the religious experience is fiction. However, the future mystic must be willing to unpack his or her religion to expose the lies and find the truths.
-
Jhananda:
The video provided interesting questions; however, the Tibetan Buddhist claim has some deep flaws, as Tibet had not embraced Buddhism until about AD 500. So, sticking to the origins of Indian Christianity with Thomas, in Kashmir, works better.
I noticed that as well - Tibetan Buddhism arose several centuries after Jesus. How could they make such an enormous mistake. It doesn't give one confidence in the BBC. However there were other interesting points.
What they said about Thomas was of interest. He may have been influenced by Buddhist ideas. I first came across the Thomas Gospel, which was discovered back in the 1940's in Egypt, through the work of Joseph Campbell, the American scholar and professor in the field of comparative mythology and religion.
There are a couple of lines in the gospel - attributed to what Jesus may have said - that are strikingly similar to Buddhist views:
1) "He who drinks from my mouth shall become as I am, and I shall become as he."
2) "The kingdom of heaven is spread upon the earth, yet men do not see it."
Now that's Buddhist stuff! I interpret this to mean almost anyone can become a messiah by following the mystic's path. And the kingdom of heaven is the liberation of enlightenment achievable through the practice of samadhi. Now it's not to hard to understand why the Romans might want to cut out the Thomas Gospel if they wanted to establish their authority in the hearts and minds of the people.
Was it Constantine who cut out the Thomas gospel in the 3rd century, when he established Roman Catholicism?
There is simply no reason for first century Roman aristocrats to invent the Jesus story; however, I would accept that Constantine had very good reasons to hijack Christianity in the 4th century, and subvert it for his own purposes; and the Christianity of today is more like Constantine wanted it, than it represents the truth of the life and teachings of Jesus.
Quote from: Atwill Alert citizens need to know the truth about our past so we can understand how and why governments create false histories and false gods. They often do it to obtain a social order that is against the best interests of the common people."
This is worth keeping in mind for anyone who is interested in becoming a mystic. All religions are the product of heavy "engineering" by the hegemony. This does not mean that the contemplative life, and the religious experience is fiction. However, they future mystic must be willing to unpack his or religion to expose the lies and find the truths.
I will follow Atwill's debate with great interest. Thank-you for pointing it out.
I am just beginning my studies of the history of all religions. I know almost nothing. I am so glad to have someone like you, with your scholastic background, and as a guiding influence, to help unpack it all.
Of all the religious traditions based on of the various mystics, there does not seem to be a complete body of teachings other than the Pali Canon. If this is the case - then it is the Pali Canon that one should putting all one's energies; so, this is the one that I'm interested in completely unpacking. As for all the other stuff , if it is incomplete and totally corrupted, one should lean the basics, and not worry about the details - let the scholars argue out the nitty-gritty until they're blue in the face, going on lecture tours selling their latest book. I'm getting old fast, and time is so very precious; I'm going to have to make shortcuts in my studies, I can't cover it all.
-
I noticed that as well - Tibetan Buddhism arose several centuries after Jesus. How could they make such an enormous mistake. It doesn't give one confidence in the BBC. However there were other interesting points.
This is a problem I have in general with science and scholarly work being presented in a public TV format. It is almost always heavily laundered and dumbed down to the point that there are numerous errors. On the other hand, they could rescue their obvious faux pas by simply pointing out that the Tibetan Buddhist practice of searching for the next Dalai Lama, and other rulling class figures in Tibetan Buddhism, have antecedents, especially in Indian, or Persian culture; which would be a closer match to the Magi (Matthew 2:1-12 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%202:1-12)) visit to the child Jesus, than Tibetan Buddhism would offer.
What they said about Thomas was of interest. He may have been influenced by Buddhist ideas. I first came across the Thomas Gospel, discovered back in the 1940's in Egypt, through the work of Joseph Campbell, the American scholar and professor in the field of comparative mythology and religion.
I find the link to Thomas in Kashmir has the strongest evidence in support of it. I would like to read more about it, but I am not aware of any literature on the subject. The Wiki on Christianity in India (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_India) offers some insights.
Christianity is India's third-largest religion, with approximately 24 million followers, constituting 2.3 per cent of India's population.[2] The works of scholars and Eastern Christian writings state that Christianity was introduced to India by Thomas the Apostle, who visited Muziris in Kerala in 52 AD to spread the gospel amongst Kerala's Jewish settlements.
There are a couple of lines in the gospel - attributed to what Jesus may have said - that are strikingly similar to Buddhist views:
1) "He who drinks from my mouth shall become as I am, and I shall become as he."
2) "The kingdom of heaven is spread upon the earth, yet men do not see it."
Read the Gospel of Thomas many years ago, and I still have a copy of it. I take the Gospel of Thomas as more influenced by Taoism, than Buddhism, but how that link would occur in India I have no explanation for.
Nonetheless, the first quote that you provided from the Gospel of Thomas (http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/gthlamb.html) I find very intriguing. I provided the whole line, because I think the sentence becomes more significant.
(108) Jesus said, "He who will drink from my mouth will become like me. I myself shall become he, and the things that are hidden will be revealed to him."
This line is particularly significant when we take it into the context of 2 stanzas in the Gospel of Philip (http://gnosis.org/naghamm/gop.html).
And had the word gone out from that place, it would be nourished from the mouth and it would become perfect. For it is by a kiss that the perfect conceive and give birth. For this reason we also kiss one another. We receive conception from the grace which is in one another...
As for the Wisdom who is called "the barren," she is the mother of the angels. And the companion of the [...] Mary Magdalene. [...] loved her more than all the disciples, and used to kiss her often on her mouth. The rest of the disciples [...]. They said to him "Why do you love her more than all of us?" The Savior answered and said to them,"Why do I not love you like her? When a blind man and one who sees are both together in darkness, they are no different from one another. When the light comes, then he who sees will see the light, and he who is blind will remain in darkness."
Here I believe the references of Jesus kissing, or placing his mouth on an others mouth, is not a sexual reference, but a mystic right, or possibly a metaphor; especially when we consider that open sexuality of any kind would not have been condoned in any Middle Eastern culture at the time, or the present. We also have to add in to this premise that in most Eurasian cultures for at least 1,000 years on either side of the life of Jesus there was a world view that involved the 4-5 elements, one of which was the breath, which was associated with the spirit; therefore, I believe it is far more reasonable to say Jesus was breathing his breath of life into others as an initiation right.
Now that's Buddhist stuff! I interpret this to mean almost anyone can become a messiah by following the mystic's path. And the kingdom of heaven is the liberation of enlightenment achievable through the practice of samadhi.
That is certainly one of my central premises; and I believe it was both Siddhartha Gautama's and Jesus.' If that is true, then Jesus' "way truth and life" (John 14:6 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+14%3A6&version=NIV)) was leading a lifestyle that produced the religious experience, which is called 'samadhi' in Sanskrit.
I will follow Atwill's debate with great interest. Thank-you for pointing it out.
I am just beginning my studies of the history of all religions. I know almost nothing. I am so glad to have someone like you, with your scholastic background, and as a guiding influence, to help unpack it all.
As long as I have the breath of life within me, and the energy (virtue/virya) to express myself, then I will be happy to help you and others unpack your belief systems.
-
Thank-you for your interesting reply, Jhananda:
Of all the religious traditions based on of the various mystics, there does not seem to be a complete body of teachings other than the Pali Canon. If this is the case - then it is the Pali Canon that one should putting all one's energies - so, this is the one that I'm interested in completely unpacking. As for all the other stuff , if it is incomplete and totally corrupted, then one should learn only the basics, and not worry about the details - let the scholars argue out the nitty-gritty until they're blue in the face, going on lecture tours selling their latest book. I'm getting old fast, and time is so very precious; I'm going to have to make shortcuts in my studies, I can't cover it all.
Please comment.
-
Please Note that I moved this topic, because we had strayed so far off the original topic.
I agree, Michel, that the core of all religions is the work of one or more mystics. However, the priesthood of every religion has hijacked that mystical/contemplative message.
I also agree that the Pali Canon represents the earliest and most lucid account of the contemplative life and the mysticism that it can lead to. However, the traditional ways in translating and interpreting the Pali Canon have totally hijacked the enlightened message of Siddhartha Gauatama. If they had not, then I believe Jesus and John the Baptist would most probably have gone to Persia or India and settled into being Buddhist monks, but I think they found Buddhism was dead by then, as it is now.
I also agree that we could fritter our precious time away on this planet arguing fine scholarly points, so we should stop wasting time, and just focus upon the truth and lead a contemplative life. On the other hand there are future generations of contemplatives and mystics who would benefit from our unpacking, our meditation practice, and our attainments (phala).
-
Getting back to the topic...
A number of scholars like Joseph Campbell, for example, have pointed out that the New Testament is a mess, that the gospels - Mathew, Mark, Luke and John are contradictory to one and other. If this is the case, how can one be enthusiastic about going into the New Testament in any great detail? What should we be learning about the history of Christianity? I can only think that if we come to an understanding of it, we might arrive at the conclusion that it's not worth our attention, and that then we can point that out to others who are in the dark.
However, let's look at the other side of the coin, here are an number of interesting points: I looked at the Thomas Gospel some time ago. There wasn't that much to it. I also have the impression that even all of the New Testament gospels put together do not provide a complete teaching for a contemplative to follow, they especially pale when put up against the Pali Canon. However, if there are cases of Christian mystics achieving enlightenment, as you point out often, such as Teresa of Avela and John of the Cross, they may have followed the teachings of the New Testament. Therefore, it is possible the idea of the New Testament being a incomplete body of teachings might be wrong. Another possibility is that these mystics discovered the path to enlightenment by themselves, probably because they were contemplatives in a monastic community, or because of being confined under house arrest, or in prison - these could provide the ideal conditions for a practicing mystic to thrive; just imagine being in solitary confinement in a decent, humane, modern prison of some sort, where there's shelter, quietude, good simple food, internet access, etc. Sounds better than dumpster diving for survival.
So, this leaves one with a lot of questions. I am currently reading E. Allison Peers' translation of Teresa of Avila's "the Interior Castle". This might answer some of my questions.
Was it Constantine who cut out the Thomas Gospel in the 3rd century, when he established Roman Catholicism?
-
Getting back to the topic...
A number of scholars like Joseph Campbell, for example, have pointed out that the New Testament is a mess, that the gospels - Mathew, Mark, Luke and John are contradictory to one and other. If this is the case, how can one be enthusiastic about going into the New Testament in any great detail? What should we be learning about the history of Christianity? I can only think that if we come to an understanding of it, we might arrive at the conclusion that it's not worth our attention, and that then we can point that out to others who are in the dark.
While I am not at all interested in supporting the Greco-Roman Church, nonetheless, as a mystic, I have no support by any religion. So, while the Greco-Roman Church has had a long history marginalizing its mystics; and history shows Buddhism and Hinduism have done the same thing; then, as a mystic, I need to support my premises with the literature of all major religions, while pointing out that they are all flawed at the same time.
So, Biblical scholarship shows that the Gospels do not have many errors in them, because there are pre-Constantine copies of it, which agree to current versions, and it was Constantine, who hijacked it. However, there are gross errors in its translation that can all too easily be fixed by a scholar, if he or she does not have an agenda to market, such as Joseph Atwill, the guy you sent me the link for. He has a book to sell, and making a scholar who makes a wild claim gets lots of press.
So, here are the major corrections for the Gospels:
I
John 3:16 does not say “God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son”
It really says, “God so loved the world that he gave his chosen son”
Chosen is significant for several reasons:
1) First of all, if we are going to stick with the epistemology of the Abrhammic religions, then god does not beget, god creates.
2) Through Adam and Eve, who were creations of god, we are thus ALL children of god.
3) Which make Jesus chosen among the chosen, for some reason, which we have to figure out by retranslating the Gospels.
4) Jesus’ choseness is expressed in his being a Messiah, which means to be chosen. He was thus not chosen by people, but by god.
II
Nazareth
1) Next problem with the translation of the Gospels, is historic records show that there was no city, town or hamlet in Judea that was called “Nazareth” at the time of Jesus.
2) Archaeology of the town that is called “Nazareth” today shows that it was a Roman Garrison town, not a Jewish village.
3) So, then what was all of that in the Gospels about Nazareth?
4) It turns out that the term Nazareth has been mis-interpreted for 1700 years. The term is correctly used as ‘Nazarite.’ A Nazarite is a type of person. It not a place. A Nazarite is a person who took on a religious commitment, which is not unlike what we would today call a monk, or nun. Therefore Jesus was a monk.
5) It just so happens that he earliest Christians did not call themselves “Christians.” They called themselves Nazarite.
6) It also so happens that the Arabic term for a Christian that appears in the Koran is not ‘Christian’ but Nazarite.
III
“I am the way, truth and life” (John 14:6 (http://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=%E2%80%9CI+am+the+way%2C+truth+and+life%E2%80%9D&qs_version=NIV))
So, when Jesus said, “I am the way, truth and life” he was not speaking of blind faith in a belief system about him being god, or the only begotten son of god, but suggesting that people embrace his lifestyle.
IV
Trinitarianism
The central philosophical point of view that is presented in the Greco-Roman version of Christianity is Trinitarianism. Trinitarianism is the belief in a Trinity, which is the Father, the Holy Spirit and the son, who was Jesus, who Greco-Roman Christianity believes was god, or the son of god.
Trinitarianism poses a serious epistemological error in logic and critical thinking, because the Abrahammic religions are based upon monotheism. Therefore Trinitarianism is a fraud.
So, if we add up all of the gross errors in translation of the Gospels that are used to bolster the deeply flawed epistemology of Greco-Roman Christianity, then we would end up with a radically different translation of the Gospels than any branch of Greco-Roman Christianity accepts.
Thus, we do not have to throw the baby out with the bathwater, or dump Jesus, because all branch of Greco-Roman Christianity resort to gross errors in translation and epistemological error in logic and critical thinking. We just need to seek and support the truth, as well as live the Nazarite lifestyle, if we so chose.
However, let's look at the other side of the coin, here is an interesting point: I looked at the Thomas Gospel some time ago. There wasn't that much to it. I also have the impression that even all of the New Testament gospels put together do not provide a complete teaching for a contemplative to follow, especially when put up against the Pali Canon.
I agree, the Pali Canon without a doubt has the clearest description of the contemplative life, and the fruit (phala) there of in any religious text, bar none. However, as we have been in discussion in the GWV for its entire 10 years, is every branch of Buddhism has gotten the all-to-simple writing of the Pali canon grossly wrong, which goes in support of my premises above.
However, if there are cases of Christian mystics achieving enlightenment, as you point out often, such as Teresa of Avela and John of the Cross, they may have followed the teachings of the New Testament - it maybe that they could have used the teachings of Christianity to attain enlightenment. Therefore, it is possible the idea of the New Testament being a incomplete body of teachings might be wrong. Another possibility is that these mystics discovered the path to enlightenment by themselves probably because they were contemplatives in a monastic community, or even being confined under house arrest, or in prisoner - these my be ideal conditions for a practicing mystic.
So, this leaves one with a lot of questions. I am currently reading E. Allison Peers' translation of Teresa of Avila's "the Interior Castle". This might answer some of my questions.
As far as I know no one who is a scholar of Teresa of Avila and John of the Cross understands how they got where they are, except myself. How I got to my understanding, aside from being a contemplative who has also become a mystic, is I have also studied, not only Hindu and Buddhist mysticism, but Christian mysticism, Jewish mysticism, and Islamic mysticism.
In my study I found out that it turns out that Teresa of Avila was a Jewish convert to Christianity. John of the Cross, on the other hand, was a Muslim convert to Christianity. What they had in common was they came from per-Christian Spain, where there had been several renaissances of contemplative and mystical movements, in which Jews, Christians and Muslim where sharing contemplative and mystical concepts.
Islam conquered Persia around AD 700, 650 something like. Just prior to the conquest of Persia Hinduism and Buddhism flourished in Persia for more than 1000 years. Islam then conquered India around AD 1000. In all of that conquering there was an undercurrent of Jewish, Christian and Muslim mystics who were very eclectic in their acquisition of philosophies. Therefore, it is reasonable to propose that Teresa of Avila and John of the Cross may very well have either read, or heard about key passages in the Pali Canon, and understood them as prescriptive and descriptive of the contemplative life and its fruit (phala).
Was it Constantine who cut out the Thomas Gospel in the 3rd century, when he established Roman Catholicism?
The Gospel of Thomas comes to us from the Nag Hammadi texts (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nag_Hammadi_library). It is noteworthy that they were found in a cave near the town of Nag Hammadi. The nearest structure is an ancient Christian monastery, which I do not believe is a coincidence.
In his "Introduction" to The Nag Hammadi Library in English, James Robinson suggests that these codices may have belonged to a nearby Pachomian monastery, and were buried after Bishop Athanasius condemned the use of non-canonical books in his Festal Letter of 367 AD.
Constantine (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantine_the_Great) (27 February c. 272 – 22 May 337) predates Bishop Athanasius condemnation of non-canonical books. However, Constantine called the First Council of Nicaea (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea) in 325, at which the Nicene Creed (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Creed) was professed by Christians, which essentially states that the Jesus is God.
So, we cannot blame Constantine for the destruction of the Christian non-canonical books; however, I believe that he setup the environment that lead to their destruction in requiring that their be a commonly held set of beliefs that defined Christianity.
Fundamentalist Christians tend to reject the Nag Hammadi codices because they carbon date to the third and fourth centuries; however...
The contents of the codices were written in the Coptic language, though the works were probably all translations from Greek.[4] The best-known of these works is probably the Gospel of Thomas, of which the Nag Hammadi codices contain the only complete text. After the discovery, scholars recognized that fragments of these sayings attributed to Jesus appeared in manuscripts discovered at Oxyrhynchus in 1898 (P. Oxy. 1), and matching quotations were recognized in other early Christian sources. Subsequently, a 1st or 2nd century date of composition circa 80 AD has been proposed for the lost Greek originals of the Gospel of Thomas. The buried manuscripts date from the third and fourth centuries.
I believe it is thus reasonable that one or more individuals at the Pachomian monastery could very well have copied them, then buried them, prior to handing over the originals for destruction. The copiests of the codices very possibly had planned on exhuming them at a safe time; however, that safe time may not have arrived prior to their death, so they were lost until recently found.
-
Jhananda:
While I am not at all interested in supporting the Greco-Roman Church, nonetheless, as a mystic, I have no support by any religion. So, while the Greco-Roman Church has had a long history marginalizing its mystics; and history shows Buddhism and Hinduism have done the same thing; then, as a mystic, I need to support my premises with the literature off all major religions, while pointing out that they are all flawed at the same time.
By your questioning of all religious traditions, it's is not hard to understand why you have so many enemies; you are a threat to them. But I am awed by the depth of knowledge that you demonstrate. I'm not in any a position to debate the finer points in our discussion; I have much to learn. But I am very happy to be your student; you have much to offer, and should be taken very seriously; your arguments are very fascinating and compelling. You force people to think and broaden their knowledge. I consider you to be a rare and precious jewel.
Jhananda: ) It turns out that the term Nazareth has been mis-interpreted for 1700 years. The term is correctly used as ‘Nazarite.’ A Nazarite is a type of person. It not a place. A Nazarite is a person who took on a religious commitment, which is not unlike what we would today call a monk, or nun. Therefore Jesus was a monk.
So what religious tradition did Jesus follow as a Nazarite monk? This is getting interesting to say the least.
Jhananda: As far as I know no one who is a scholar of Teresa of Avila and John of the Cross understands how they got where they are, except myself. How I got to my understanding, aside from being a contemplative who has also become a mystic, is I have also studied, not only Hindu and Buddhist mysticism, but Christian mysticism, Jewish mysticism, and Islamic mysticism.
In my study I found out that it turns out that Teresa of Avila was a Jewish convert to Christianity. John of the Cross, on the other hand, was a Muslim convert to Christianity. What they had in common was they came from per-Christian Spain, where there had been several renaissances of contemplative and mystical movements, in which Jews, Christians and Muslim where sharing contemplative and mystical concepts.
Islam conquered Persia around AD 700, 650 something like. Just prior to the conquest of Persia Hinduism and Buddhism flourished in Persia for more than 1000 years. Islam then conquered India around AD 1000. In all of that conquering there was an undercurrent of Jewish, Christian and Muslim mystics who were very eclectic in their acquisition of philosophies. Therefore, it is reasonable to propose that Teresa of Avila and John of the Cross may very well have either read, or heard about key passages in the Pali Canon, and understood them as prescriptive and descriptive of the contemplative life and its fruit (phala).
This makes a lot of sense. If this is the case, it would explain how they may have became enlightened. It's easy to imagine that there were many exchanges of ideas, and all kinds of influences as as a result of the silk road and the spice trail, as well as through the conquest of foreign lands, as you point out.
Jhananda: John 3:16 does not say “God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son” It really says, “God so loved the world that he gave his chosen son”
What source documents did you translate from?
-
By your questioning of all religious traditions, it's is not hard to understand why you have so many enemies; you are a threat to them. But I am awed by the depth of knowledge that you demonstrate. I'm not in any a position to debate the finer points in our discussion; I have much to learn. But I am very happy to be your student; you have much to offer, and should be taken very seriously; your arguments are very fascinating and compelling. You force people to think and broaden their knowledge. I consider you to be a rare and precious jewel.
I can only hope to inspire a few people to meditate deeply before this all-too short life comes to an end.
So what religious tradition did Jesus follow as a monk? This is getting interesting to say the least.
We can only go on what little was written about the life and teachings of Jesus. But, there are clues. The Magi, who came to visit Jesus when he was a child, and the fact that his father, Joseph, as a Nazarite as well, who raised Jesus to be a Nazarite, suggests strongly of a Persian influence. Persian Judaism existed then as a remnant of the Babylonian invasion, which connects him directly to Zoroastrianism, which was saved by Danial, the biblical patriarch; however, while the term 'magi' specifically refers to a Zoroastrian priest, the use of the term in Judea at the time might have been more generally used to refer to any priest of any religion in Persia, and we know that Zoroastrianism, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Janism all existed in Persia at that time.
Since Jesus' father, Joseph, called himself a Nazarite, then I believe that he was essentially a wandering mendicant who very probably wandered from Egypt to Persia, and possibly India, on a regular basis. How he provided for Mary and the child Jesus, and his brother, James, as a Nazarite/mendicant, is hard to say. Perhaps he was a well respected Nazarite/mendicant?
There are numerous problems with the Jesus story. Most notably, what happened to Joseph? He just drops out of the story. Why? Good writing always resolves questions like this, and surely everyone who embraced Christianity in the early days wanted to know about Mary and Joseph.
Another indication of what religion Jesus followed as a monk, is, if it is true, then after he survived his crucifixion, then he moved with Thomas to Kashmir. So, why Kashmir? Well, it was not part of the Roman Empire, and there was a large Jewish community there, which he and Thomas apparently became part of. Did Jesus' father, Joseph, prepare the way for them? According to the Gospels, Jesus promised to come back, but he never did. Why?
Another curious factoid is 'Thomas' is not a personal name. It means 'twin.' In the Gospels James, Jesus's brother, was said to be a twin. Was Thomas his twin, or was Jesus his twin?
This makes a lot of sense. If this is the case, it would explain how they may have became enlightened. There was a great deal of exchange of ideas as as a result of the silk road and the spice trail, as well as through the conquest of foreign lands, as you point out.
I agree. In fact the whole reason why Jerusalem was an important town is because it was at the north end of trade routs through the Arabian peninsula. Mecca just happens to be in the middle of that trade rout. Both cities were ancient trade centers, and that is why they also hosted pilgrimage sites as additional incentive for trade.
What source documents did you translate from?
The Bible and Gospels have common Greek original texts, which can be translated from. I did not translate the whole stanza. Instead I just examined key terms, and fortunately in the case of John 3:16 there has been a major debate over its translation for at least 1,000 years; and that debate is well documented online.
It is not my work. Just Google "john 3:16 controversy," as I did, or check this link What does 'monogenes' (‘μονογενης υιος’) mean? (http://www.answering-islam.org/Who/jesus_monogenes.html). I do not buy his irrational conclusion, but he nonetheless discusses the debate with reasonable depth, and he provides sources.
-
Jhananda:
We can only go on what little was written about the life and teachings of Jesus. But, there are clues...
This leaves us with many unanswered questions - and probably many are unanswerable. As I've said before, Christianity does not provide a complete body of teachings for a contemplative to follow; but it seems that the Pali suttas do. I think Christianity is a dead end, and is not worth considering in any great detail.
I think the only thing of value in the Christian teachings is that they fulfill some of three virtue factors found in the eightfold path - that's all. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Though unpacking Christianity is interesting, and to some degree useful, for someone such as myself, I reason that I should be placing most of my energies into leading a contemplative life, practicing meditation, and understanding the Pali suttas. I understand why you are interested in unpacking all religious traditions showing how they have marginalized all mystics, their motives, and how deeply flawed they are - your work saves others from having to do so themselves. So, I will continue to read everything you say on the matter - because there maybe something of value to learn.
Jhananda: The Bible and Gospels have common Greek original texts, which can be translated from. I did not translate the whole stanza. Instead I just examined key terms, and fortunately in the case of John 3:16 there has been a major debate over its translation for at least 1,000 years; and that debate is well documented online.
It is not my work. Just Google "john 3:16 controversy," as I did, or check this link What does 'monogenes' (‘μονογενης υιος’) mean?. I do not buy his irrational conclusion, but he nonetheless discusses the debate with reasonable depth, and he provides sources.
There are many interpretations on the meaning of various translations of scripture. I find your interpretations to be highly interesting and indispensable due to the fact that you are a mystic (I'll go along with that until proven otherwise) and all of the others are not. That is why you should be taken very seriously. As for the non-mystics, they might have some valid points to contribute, so they shouldn't be ignored - but we must be cautious, they have all kinds of hidden agendas.
I live my life as if I may die at any moment; therefore I'm in a perpetual state of spiritual crisis - it's a heavy duty emergency. So one has to be very careful how one spends one time.
-
I live my life as if I may die at any moment; therefore I'm in a perpetual state of spiritual crisis - it's a heavy duty emergency. So one has to be very careful how one spends one time.
This sums it all up. No need to waste time with any other occupation, until one is fully liberated and enlightened. After that, then one can occupy one's self constructively in any endeavor one chooses.
-
I came across this interesting passage in the Anupada Sutta, MN 111, where the Buddha is descibing Sariputta's attainments. The metaphors in section 22 below are very similar to what we find in the Christian gospels about Jesus being the son of God, etc. Could it be that these metaphors of Sariputta are what inspired some of the authors of the Christian gospel? Could we say that Jesus was the son of the Dhamma as well? That God in Christianity could be a metaphor for the Dhamma, or what some would call universal truths? The problem with Christianity could be that their metaphors are simply misinterpreted.
21. "Bhikkhus, rightly speaking, were it to be said of anyone:
'He has attained mastery and perfection1055 in noble virtue, [29]
attained mastery and perfection in noble concentration, attained
mastery and perfection in noble wisdom, attained mastery and
perfection in noble deliverance,' it is of Sariputta indeed that
rightly speaking this should be said.
22. "Bhikkhus, rightly speaking, were it to be said of anyone:
'He is the son of the Blessed One, born of his breast, born of his
mouth, born of the Dhamma, created by the Dhamma, an heir in
the Dhamma, not an heir in material things/ it is of Sariputta
indeed that rightly speaking this should be said.
23. "Bhikkhus, the matchless Wheel of the Dhamma set rolling
by the Tathagata is kept rolling rightly by Sariputta."
-
Interesting sutta quote Michel. I find many parallels between Christian doctrine and Buddhist doctrine. In fact I also find many translation errors in both doctrines, and know that if both doctrines were properly translated we would find compelling evidence of a much closer relationship between Jesus and Siddhartha Gautama.
For instance:
Jesus answered, I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
I believe was intended not for people to blindly believe that Jesus was the son of god, but that his life style, of being a nazarite was his way truth and life.
Also, the phrase "way and the truth and the life" would be a reasonable translation of the Sanskrit term "dharma," and the Chinese term "dao."
Also, in your quote of MN 111 note that the terms 'concentration' and 'deliverance' are used. In this case the translator botched the translation of 'samadhi' as 'concentration' and the translation of 'vimokha' as 'deliverance'. It should be 'religious experience' and 'liberation' respectively.
-
In this case the translator botched the translation of 'vimokha' as 'deliverance'. It should be 'liberation.' [...]
I saw this translation as well, and thought that it was very interesting. I find it is worthwhile to exchange Christian words with Indian equivalents. If we do this, it gives us a very different (and in my opinion more correct) understanding of Christianity.
Since we are 2,000 years-removed from Jesus, it is fair to say that our modern understandings of Christian words are incorrect. Further, we are ignorant of what Jesus directly taught the apostles. If we knew, it would allow us to correct ourselves.
Jesus had two teachings. He had a public teaching (the parables), and a direct teaching (for the apostles).
"He spoke to [the public] at length in parables. [...] The apostles approached him and said, 'Why do you speak to them in parables?' He said to them in reply, 'Because knowledge of the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven has been granted to you, but to them it has not been granted.'" (Mt 13:3-11)
"Peter said [after Christ told a parable to the crowd], 'Master, is this parable meant for us or for everyone?'" (Lk 12:41)
It is unfortunate there is no record of Jesus' direct teachings. Although, I would argue that there are fragments of it here and there: mostly, preserved in the Eastern Church, for example in the writings of the desert fathers.
We can only go on what little was written about the life and teachings of Jesus. But, there are clues. The Magi, who came to visit Jesus when he was a child [...] suggests strongly of a Persian influence.
I agree with Jhananda about the Persian influence on Jesus. It is encouraging to me that we have come to the same conclusion. Ironically, there is only one hint about it in the Gospels: the visit of the "magicians" in Matthew.
In antiquity, Persia was a land of magic and mystery. It was at the crossroads between Rome and India, and it had a large, scholarly class who studied disciplines that are very obscurely known to us today.
Obviously, the story in Matthew is an allegory. The magi did not actually visit Jesus. But, they demonstrate that he is a successor of the Persian magicians, and that he is empowered with profane authority (the gold) and spiritual authority (the incense).
-
I saw this translation as well, and thought that it was very interesting. I find it is worthwhile to exchange Christian words with Indian equivalents. If we do this, it gives us a very different (and in my opinion more correct) understanding of Christianity.
I agree, and in fact I believe it goes both ways. People who were raised Christian could understand Buddhism better, if Buddhist doctrine was translated using common Christian terms. It could be what Bodhi was getting at when he used the term 'deliverance' for 'vimokha'. However, the term 'deliverance' does not at all have the same nuance that 'liberation' has. One would have to understand what liberation (vimokha) is, and it is doubtful that Bodhi understands that term. It means to be liberated from the fetters, which are almost identical to the Christian concept of the 7 deadly sins.
Since we are 2,000 years-removed from Jesus, it is fair to say that our modern understandings of Christian words are incorrect. Further, we are ignorant of what Jesus directly taught the apostles. If we knew, it would allow us to correct ourselves.
I agree, but I find Buddhism has the same problem. Most of the problem is related to language shift, in which the meaning of terms changes, or shifts, over time. Typically it is the mystical terminology that gets lost, because mainstream interpretations, such as Bodhi (for example) does not understand the mystical terminology.
Jesus had two teachings. He had a public teaching (the parables), and a direct teaching (for the apostles).
"He spoke to [the public] at length in parables. [...] The apostles approached him and said, 'Why do you speak to them in parables?' He said to them in reply, 'Because knowledge of the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven has been granted to you, but to them it has not been granted.'" (Mt 13:3-11)
"Peter said [after Christ told a parable to the crowd], 'Master, is this parable meant for us or for everyone?'" (Lk 12:41)
It is unfortunate there is no record of Jesus' direct teachings. Although, I would argue that there are fragments of it here and there: mostly, preserved in the Eastern Church, for example in the writings of the desert fathers.
Yes, but it is doubtful that most of his apostles understood his inner teaching, or Christianity, and the Gospels would be quite different.
I agree with Jhananda about the Persian influence on Jesus. It is encouraging to me that we have come to the same conclusion. Ironically, there is only one hint about it in the Gospels: the visit of the "magicians" in Matthew.
In antiquity, Persia was a land of magic and mystery. It was at the crossroads between Rome and India, and it had a large, scholarly class who studied disciplines that are very obscurely known to us today.
Obviously, the story in Matthew is an allegory. The magi did not actually visit Jesus. But, they demonstrate that he is a successor of the Persian magicians, and that he is empowered with profane authority (the gold) and spiritual authority (the incense).
Good points; however, I do not reject the story of the Magi. Perhaps that story is true, but it is just so misinterpreted by mainstream Christianity to be a ridiculous Christmas tale.
-
What do you think Jesus was referring to in this passage?
20 ¶ And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: 21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you. Luke 17:20 - 21
-
What do you think Jesus was referring to in this passage?
20 ¶ And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: 21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you. Luke 17:20 - 21
One of the beliefs of contemporary Christians is that just by "believing" in the dogmas of the Church, when they die they go to heaven. I personally find this teaching silly: and I can only interpret it as being based on laziness.
What Jesus argues for is a complete transformation of the human being in the image of Reality. That transformation begins with "metanoia" (a process he taught beside John the Baptist): to think over one's whole life and one's character, to suffer one's flaws, and to remake oneself. Both Jesus and John the Baptist said, "only sinners can enter the kingdom of heaven." In other words, only a sinner will have the "material" (past experiences) with which he can examine himself properly, and learn about himself.
"He told them another parable: 'The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed, which a man took and planted in his field. Though it is the smallest of all seeds, yet when it grows, it is the largest of garden plants and becomes a tree.'" Mt 12:31-2
This sounds like an analogy for the journey we are all on here: we all begin with an inkling, with a suspicion, that there exists something more than the world that we know. Over time that suspicion, that "particle," expands and grows and accretes until, eventually, it becomes the real "I," the real me, and has an existence which exists almost independently of the external world.
What Jesus says is that the Kingdom of Heaven must be built within you: in other words if you have it HERE, NOW, ON EARTH, then, posthumously, you might count on a continuation of that kingdom after death. But, don't plan on heaven in the afterlife, unless you first build it here in the mortal life.
-
Metanoia (from the Greek μετάνοια, metanoia, changing one's mind) in the psychological theory of Carl Jung denotes a process of reforming the psyche as a form of self healing, a proposed explanation for the phenomenon of psychotic breakdown. Here, metanoia is viewed as a potentially productive process, and therefore patients' psychotic episodes are not necessarily always to be thwarted.
In Carl Jung's psychology, metanoia indicates a spontaneous attempt of the psyche to heal itself of unbearable conflict by melting down and then being reborn in a more adaptive form. Jung believed that psychotic episodes in particular could be understood as existential crises which were sometimes attempts at self-reparation. Jung's concept of metanoia influenced R. D. Laing and the therapeutic community movement which aimed, ideally, to support people whilst they broke down and went through spontaneous healing, rather than thwarting such efforts at self-repair by strengthening their existing character defences and thereby maintaining the underlying conflict.
What Jesus argues for is a complete transformation of the human being in the image of Reality. That transformation begins with "metanoia" (a process he taught beside John the Baptist): to think over one's whole life and one's character, to suffer one's flaws, and to remake oneself. Both Jesus and John the Baptist said, "only sinners can enter the kingdom of heaven." In other words, only a sinner will have the "material" (past experiences) with which he can examine himself properly, and learn about himself.
Very interesting. Are there other references in the gospel to Jesus and John the Baptist teaching a process of metanoia aside from, "only sinners can enter the kingdom of heaven?"
"He told them another parable: 'The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed, which a man took and planted in his field. Though it is the smallest of all seeds, yet when it grows, it is the largest of garden plants and becomes a tree.'" Mt 12:31-2
This sounds like an analogy for the journey we are all on here: we all begin with an inkling, with a suspicion, that there exists something more than the world that we know. Over time that suspicion, that "particle," expands and grows and accretes until, eventually, it becomes the real "I," the real me, and has an existence which exists almost independently of the external world.
What Jesus says is that the Kingdom of Heaven must be built within you: in other words if you have it HERE, NOW, ON EARTH, then, posthumously, you might count on a continuation of that kingdom after death. But, don't plan on heaven in the afterlife, unless you first build it here in the mortal life.
I get the impression that the Christian gospels show us that John the Baptist and Jesus where teaching a very comprehensive process of spiritual development. What is left of their teachings is fragmentary, incomplete, and pales in comparison to the Pali Canon.
-
Metanoia (from the Greek μετάνοια, metanoia, changing one's mind) in the psychological theory of Carl Jung denotes a process of reforming the psyche as a form of self healing, a proposed explanation for the phenomenon of psychotic breakdown. Here, metanoia is viewed as a potentially productive process, and therefore patients' psychotic episodes are not necessarily always to be thwarted.
In Carl Jung's psychology, metanoia indicates a spontaneous attempt of the psyche to heal itself of unbearable conflict by melting down and then being reborn in a more adaptive form. Jung believed that psychotic episodes in particular could be understood as existential crises which were sometimes attempts at self-reparation.
Jung's concept of metanoia influenced R. D. Laing and the therapeutic community movement which aimed, ideally, to support people whilst they broke down and went through spontaneous healing, rather than thwarting such efforts at self-repair by strengthening their existing character defences and thereby maintaining the underlying conflict. [...]
Carl Jung is the modern re-discoverer of this transformation, and he was very wise because he knew:
(1) to throw out all the Christian language which has totally wrong meanings to it,
(2) to explain the process in secular terms, and
(3) to explain it as an objective process.
Most people would never imagine what is hidden behind Jungian psychology: the only clue he kept was that Greek word of Jesus and John the Baptist.
I get the impression that the Christian gospels show us that John the Baptist and Jesus where teaching a very comprehensive process of spiritual development. What is left of their teachings is fragmentary, incomplete, and pales in comparison to the Pali Canon.
One of the things I was thinking recently was how remarkable the book The Dark Night of the Soul is. At one stage I would never have anticipated it. But here in John of the Cross was a Master, a veritable spiritual genius, and an exquisite author. And he developed in solitude, in Castille, in the 16th century.
What are we missing, then, about John the Baptist? About Jesus? It is gone. What we know about John the Baptist is speculative: That he was a contemporary of Jesus. That Jesus may have been his follower for a short time. And that he taught about a very unique way by which the human being can re-make himself.
-
Carl Jung is the modern re-discoverer of this transformation, and he was very wise because he knew:
(1) to throw out all the Christian language which has totally wrong meanings to it,
(2) to explain the process in secular terms, and
(3) to explain it as an objective process.
Most people would never imagine what is hidden behind Jungian psychology: the only clue he kept was that Greek word of Jesus and John the Baptist.
Metanoia is equivalent to the dark night of the soul. I am glad to have come across Jung's concept of metanoia, thanks to you, aglorincz. When I under go a dark night, I'll be able to use Jung's language to explain it to my psychiatrist. Hopefully he won't have me committed and heavily medicated when I am undergoing this process. I should start preparing them for this possibility.
One of the things I was thinking recently was how remarkable the book The Dark Night of the Soul is. At one stage I would never have anticipated it. But here in John of the Cross was a Master, a veritable spiritual genius, and an exquisite author. And he developed in solitude, in Castille, in the 16th century.
I look forward to reading John of the Cross's writings after I finish reading the Nikayas. It is noteworthy that in mainstream Buddhism the dark night of the soul is not mentioned. Check out Ajhan Brahm and most other Thervadins, for instance. To them the process of the death of the ego is unheard of. However there are some groups on internet forums, like Dharma Overground, who acknowledge it. Many think the dark night is just a manifestation of mental illness. I know that Jhananda thinks sutta MN 36 is the closest description we have to the dark night in the discourses. But the sutta describes what happens when the Buddha stopped his breaths during meditation. I can tell you that if I stopped my breaths some of the symptoms described in the sutta below would not occur. This leads me to believe that the original sutta in the Pali may have been somehow misinterpreted or tampered with.
(Dark Night of the Soul)
Aggivessana, then it occurred to me, what if I practiced stopping the in-breaths and the out-breaths, entering through the nose and mouth? When I practiced stopping in-breaths and out-breaths entering through the nose and mouth, air entering through the ears made much noise. It was like the sound that came from the bellows of the smithy. In the same manner when I stopped in-breaths and out breaths, entering through the nose and mouth, air entering through the ears made much noise. My effort was aroused repeatedly, my mindfulness was established, the body was not appeased owing to the difficult exertion. Aggivessana, even these arisen unpleasant feelings did not take hold of my mind and settle.
Aggivessana, then it occurred to me what if I practiced stopping the in-breaths and the out-breaths further. I stopped the air, entering through the nose and mouth and ears. When I practiced stopping in-breaths and out-breaths entering through the nose, mouth and the ears, a lot of air disturbed the top of my head. Like a strong man was carving the top of my head with a sharp blade. In the same manner when I stopped in-breaths and out breaths, entering through the nose and mouth, and ears, a lot of air disturbed the top of my head. My effort was aroused repeatedly, my mindfulness was established, and the body was not appeased owing to the difficult exertion. Aggivessana, even these arisen unpleasant feelings did not take hold of my mind and settle.
Aggivessana, then it occurred to me what if I practiced stopping the in-breaths and the out-breaths still more. I stopped the air, entering through the nose, mouth and ear lobes, further. When I practiced stopping in-breaths and out-breaths entering through the nose, mouth and the ears further, I felt a lot of pain in the head...Like a strong man giving a head wrap with a strong turban. In the same manner when I stopped in-breaths and out breaths, entering through the nose, mouth, and ears further, I felt a lot of pain in the head. My effort was aroused repeatedly, unconfused mindfulness established, the body was not appeased owing to the difficult exertion. Aggivessana, even then these arisen unpleasant feelings did not take hold of my mind and settle.
Aggivessana, then it occurred to me what if I practiced stopping the in-breaths and the out-breaths, for a longer time. I stopped the air, entering through the nose mouth and ears, for a longer time. When I practiced stopping in-breaths and out-breaths entering through the nose, mouth and the ears for a longer time, I felt a lot of pain in the stomach .As though a clever butcher or his apprentice was carving the stomach with a butcher"s knife. In the same manner when I stopped in-breaths and out breaths, entering through the nose and mouth, and ears for a longer time I felt a lot of pain in the stomach. My effort was aroused repeatedly, unconfused mindfulness established. My body was not appeased owing to the difficult exertion. Aggivessana, even then these arisen unpleasant feelings did not take hold of my mind and settle.
Aggivessana, then it occurred to me what if I practiced stopping the in-breaths and the out-breaths, for a longer time. I stopped the air, entering through the nose mouth and ears, for a longer time. When I practiced stopping in-breaths and out-breaths entering through the nose, mouth and the ears for a longer time, I felt a lot of burning in the body. Like a strong man taking a weaker one, by his hands and feet was burning and scorching him in a pit of burning charcoal. In the same manner when I stopped in-breaths and out breaths, entering through my nose and mouth, and ears for a longer time I felt a lot of burning in the body. My effort was aroused repeatedly, unconfused mindfulness established, the body was not appeased owing to the difficult exertion. Aggivessana, even then these arisen unpleasant feelings did not take hold of my mind and settle. Then the gods seeing me thus said, the recluse Gotama is dead. A certain deity said thus: The recluse Gotama is not dead. Will not die. He will become perfect like this.
-
Thank-you aglorincz, and Michel for this most interesting exploration into the term metanoia, and how it has been mistranslated from the Greek to Latin, to English, as merely repentance, when it really was more about transformation through self discovery/self-awareness. Surely a contemplative's version of the bible would end up so very radically different than what is accepted by the mainstream Christian religion.
-
This morning I found myself reflecting upon a verse from the King James
Matthew 18:20
For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.
Matthew 18:20
20 For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them.”
For where there are two or three gathered together in my name,+ there I am in their midst.”
Mattityahu 18:20 Orthodox Jewish Bible (OJB)
20 For where two or three are gathered as a Chavurah and are a Kehillah in my name [Moshiach], there I am in the midst of them.
I just have a problem with any mystic saying something like this. It is just too self-promotional. So, I searched the key term "Moshiach." Wiki gave us the following:
Messiah (Hebrew: מָשִׁיחַ; mashiah, moshiah, mashiach, or moshiach, "anointed [one]") is a term used in the Hebrew Bible to describe priests and kings, who were traditionally anointed with holy anointing oil as described in Exodus 30:22-25. For example, Cyrus the Great, the king of Persia, although not a Hebrew, is referred to as "God's mashiach" in the Bible.
Historical
In Jewish eschatology, the term mashiach, or "Messiah," came to refer to a future Jewish King from the Davidic line, who is expected to be anointed with holy anointing oil and rule the Jewish people during the Messianic Age.[1][2][3] The Messiah is often referred to as "King Messiah" or, in Hebrew, מלך המשיח (melekh mashiach), and in Aramaic, malka meshiḥa.[4]
Orthodox views have generally held that the Messiah will be descended from his father through the line of King David,[5] and will gather the Jews back into the Land of Israel, usher in an era of peace, build the Third Temple, father a male heir and re-institute the Sanhedrin, among other things. Jewish tradition alludes to two redeemers, both of whom are called mashiach and are involved in ushering in the Messianic age: Mashiach ben David and Mashiach ben Yosef. In general, the term Messiah unqualified refers to Mashiach ben David (Messiah, son of David).[1][2]
We can conclude that the "my name" in the translation of Matthew 18:20 is wrong. It really should be translated as "Messiah," which might very well have been a larger concept than a self-reference if Jesus ever indeed uttered this phrase. Thus we have the following rendering of this passage:
For where there are two or three gathered together (for the) Messiah, there I am in their midst.”
If we consider that the idea of the Messiah in Jesus' mind was not that he was the only begotten son of god, who would now be worshiped as part of a trinity, which is not monotheism, but for him messianism was all about himself being the Messiah of his age, not for every more, which is reasonable, and thus he was promoting the concept of a divinely chosen ruler/king of Israel among his followers.
-
Here is another web page that examines whether Jesus was The Only Begotten Son of God (What does ‘μονογενης υιος’ mean?) (http://www.answering-islam.org/Who/jesus_monogenes.html)
So where did this word begotten come from? The word that is being translated as only begotten by the KJV is monogenes. The KJV translators liked to translate word-for-word when it was possible. So when they came to monogenes they translated mono as only and genes as begotten. That is easy...
Reasons why monogenes should not be translated as only begotten:
The word monogenes also appears elsewhere in the New Testament:
By faith Abraham, when God tested him, offered Isaac as a sacrifice. He who had received the promises was about to sacrifice his one and only [monogenes] son, even though God had said to him, "It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned." Abraham reasoned that God could raise the dead, and figuratively speaking, he did receive Isaac back from death.
—Hebrews 11:17-19 (NIV)
This time the NIV (1973) does not have an explanatory footnote offering only begotten as an alternate rendering, as it does for John 3:16, but it is the same Greek word monogenes. To say Isaac was Abraham’s only-begotten son would make no sense since according to the Bible, Abraham begat Ishmael as well as Isaac. But "one of a kind", "one and only", or "unique" would fit because Isaac was special. Abraham's wife, Sarah, was too old to have a child but she nevertheless became pregnant.
Dr. James R. White notes,
The key element to remember in deriving the meaning of monogenes is this: it is a compound term, combining monos, meaning only, with a second term. Often it is assumed that the second term is gennasthai/gennao, to give birth, to beget. But note that this family of terms has two nu’s, νν, rather than a single nu, ν, found in monogenes. This indicates that the second term is not gennasthai but gignesthai/ginmai, and the noun form, genos. G. L. Prestige discusses the differences that arise from these two derivations in God in Patristic Thought (London: SPCK, 1952), 37-51, 135-141, 151-156.
Genos means "kind or type", ginomai is a verb of being. Hence the translations "one of a kind," "one and only," "of sole descent." Some scholars see the -genes element as having a minor impact upon the meaning of the term, and hence see monogenes as a strengthened form of monos, thereby translating it "alone," "unique," "incomparable."
An example of this usage from the LXX is found in Psalm 25:16,
turn to me and be gracious to me,
for I am lonely (monogenes) and afflicted: (NASB)
(White, The Forgotten Trinity [Minneapolis, MN, Bethany House Publishers, 1998], pp. 201-202, fn. 27)
Note that the so-called LXX (mentioned above) is a Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament that existed in Jesus' day. Sometimes we can gain insight into Greek New Testament words by how Hebrew words were translated into Greek by the Jewish scholars. In this case, the Hebrew word for lonely was translated into Greek as monogenes. So this helps us justify that monogenes means "alone," "unique," or "incomparable."
Reasons why monogenes may be translated as only begotten:
From the discussion above, we see that the seemingly obvious translation of monogenes to only begotten may not be the most accurate. However, the Greek word monogenes does not have a single equivalent corresponding word in English.
-
Thank you, Jhanananda, for the additional reading. There is so much that is altered in translation; you also see how whole dogmas come to be built up based on translation errors.
I cannot read the original Greek, but the glimpses I've had of it suggest that the Greek texts are very rich, and more relevant to the mystic. It is no wonder the west and east had a schism: given the west was working with a different language version of the religion.
-
(Dark Night of the Soul)
Aggivessana, then it occurred to me, what if I practiced stopping the in-breaths and the out-breaths, entering through the nose and mouth? When I practiced stopping in-breaths and out-breaths entering through the nose and mouth, air entering through the ears made much noise. It was like the sound that came from the bellows of the smithy. In the same manner when I stopped in-breaths and out breaths, entering through the nose and mouth, air entering through the ears made much noise. My effort was aroused repeatedly, my mindfulness was established, the body was not appeased owing to the difficult exertion. Aggivessana, even these arisen unpleasant feelings did not take hold of my mind and settle.
Aggivessana, then it occurred to me what if I practiced stopping the in-breaths and the out-breaths further. I stopped the air, entering through the nose and mouth and ears. When I practiced stopping in-breaths and out-breaths entering through the nose, mouth and the ears, a lot of air disturbed the top of my head. Like a strong man was carving the top of my head with a sharp blade. In the same manner when I stopped in-breaths and out breaths, entering through the nose and mouth, and ears, a lot of air disturbed the top of my head. My effort was aroused repeatedly, my mindfulness was established, and the body was not appeased owing to the difficult exertion. Aggivessana, even these arisen unpleasant feelings did not take hold of my mind and settle.
Aggivessana, then it occurred to me what if I practiced stopping the in-breaths and the out-breaths still more. I stopped the air, entering through the nose, mouth and ear lobes, further. When I practiced stopping in-breaths and out-breaths entering through the nose, mouth and the ears further, I felt a lot of pain in the head...Like a strong man giving a head wrap with a strong turban. In the same manner when I stopped in-breaths and out breaths, entering through the nose, mouth, and ears further, I felt a lot of pain in the head. My effort was aroused repeatedly, unconfused mindfulness established, the body was not appeased owing to the difficult exertion. Aggivessana, even then these arisen unpleasant feelings did not take hold of my mind and settle.
Aggivessana, then it occurred to me what if I practiced stopping the in-breaths and the out-breaths, for a longer time. I stopped the air, entering through the nose mouth and ears, for a longer time. When I practiced stopping in-breaths and out-breaths entering through the nose, mouth and the ears for a longer time, I felt a lot of pain in the stomach .As though a clever butcher or his apprentice was carving the stomach with a butcher"s knife. In the same manner when I stopped in-breaths and out breaths, entering through the nose and mouth, and ears for a longer time I felt a lot of pain in the stomach. My effort was aroused repeatedly, unconfused mindfulness established. My body was not appeased owing to the difficult exertion. Aggivessana, even then these arisen unpleasant feelings did not take hold of my mind and settle.
Aggivessana, then it occurred to me what if I practiced stopping the in-breaths and the out-breaths, for a longer time. I stopped the air, entering through the nose mouth and ears, for a longer time. When I practiced stopping in-breaths and out-breaths entering through the nose, mouth and the ears for a longer time, I felt a lot of burning in the body. Like a strong man taking a weaker one, by his hands and feet was burning and scorching him in a pit of burning charcoal. In the same manner when I stopped in-breaths and out breaths, entering through my nose and mouth, and ears for a longer time I felt a lot of burning in the body. My effort was aroused repeatedly, unconfused mindfulness established, the body was not appeased owing to the difficult exertion. Aggivessana, even then these arisen unpleasant feelings did not take hold of my mind and settle. Then the gods seeing me thus said, the recluse Gotama is dead. A certain deity said thus: The recluse Gotama is not dead. Will not die. He will become perfect like this.
Hi Michel. o/
This is indeed indicative of the Dark Night of the Soul, the first one, in fact. What happens when one cannot breathe? They die. The passage is an allegory, which is rich with metaphor. The Buddha did not physically "hold his breathe" he intended on what it was to be dead. The point in the repetition signifies a "true intent". This man was consumed with this thought or belief. In this case, what it is to be dead.
The result of this: hands and feet was burning and scorching him in a pit of burning charcoal. (Charism arises) In the same manner when I stopped in-breaths and out breaths, entering through my nose and mouth, and ears for a longer time (The action of what it is to be dead, Meditation. I believe the notation of the ears, and the earlier reference to wind or air coming though them could indicate the meaning of a quiet place. "meditated in a quiet place") I felt a lot of burning in the body. (Charism) My effort was aroused repeatedly, (The word aroused indicates an observation, not a cognitive action) unconfused mindfulness established, (Observing thoughts that arise but not grasping or engaging. "unconfused" in that you are indeed dead) the body was not appeased owing to the difficult exertion. (It was uncomfortable, yet made only as observation. This particular line is very interesting. In my own experiences this is not always the case, yet there are times that it is.) Aggivessana, even then these arisen unpleasant feelings did not take hold of my mind and settle.(Did not give up the meditation session, nor did he "grasp" any of them. They were only observed.)
The burning of the hands and feet are the charisms. As described by "burning" means that the body is interpreting them, there is desire present. Most likely in this case desire was the intent on what it was to be dead.
Then the gods seeing me thus said, the recluse Gotama is dead.
This is the second Jhana, the thoughts have stopped, the mind is silent, therefor Gotama (Identity) is dead. This also means that the mediator stuck with the interpreted burning charisms (desire), until it was relinquished here.
A certain deity said thus: The recluse Gotama is not dead. Will not die. He will become perfect like this.
So if we can conclude that the mind was still to this point, what does a certain deity refer to? Insight, the inner "you". "Gotama knew" at that point that his identity was not dead. He "knew" that "this" Gotama will not die. And that the path to the death of the identity is through meditation.
Think of Dissociation, or math equations.
1. "Gotama knew" at that point that his identity was not dead because a certain deity (Insight) told him so. (A certain deity said thus: The recluse Gotama is not dead.)
2. Dissociated from 1. He "knew" that "this Gotama" will not die. (Will not die. There was intention in simply leaving that sentence like that. It does not give a title to "who" will not die. It refers to the inner self.)
1+2=3
3. The recluse Gotama + the un-named inner self = He. "He" can only become perfect by following the instruction given above in the passage.
So, the dark night of the soul, what do we know about it? Well, lets start at the 4 Noble Truths.
1. The truth of Suffering- the truth that life is suffering
2. The truth of Origin of suffering- impermanence is the origin
3.The truth of Cessation of suffering- the identity, that is perception, is the origin of impermanence
4.The truth of a Path of liberation from suffering- culminates to the 8th fold of the Noble Eightfold Path (within the context of the 4 noble truths)
In order for a meditator to attain the first Jhana, or the 8th fold of the N8P he has assimilated the 4 Noble truths, much in the way the Buddha describes above, as was his first experience with religious phenomena, or jhana, or the 8th fold of the N8P.
The assimilation of the 4 noble truths is the first Dark Night of the Soul.
(Sorry guys, please feel free to move this to Ecstatic Buddhism, or Unpacking Buddhism, or another Buddhist focused thread. I hadnt realised where I was responding.^.^)
-
Thank you, Jhanananda, for the additional reading. There is so much that is altered in translation; you also see how whole dogmas come to be built up based on translation errors.
I cannot read the original Greek, but the glimpses I've had of it suggest that the Greek texts are very rich, and more relevant to the mystic. It is no wonder the west and east had a schism: given the west was working with a different language version of the religion.
Alexander, I am glad that you gained from the investigation into the correct translation of the Bible and Gospels. I believe we will all have to spend quite a bit of time digging into them many more times.
Cal, I am not sure if your reflections upon the dark night of the soul as expressed in the suttas needs to move or not, because I believe unpacking Buddhist doctrine can help us unpack Christian doctrine, and vice versa.
-
It is interesting to note that the Qur'an comments upon central Christian doctrine (http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Contra/tqachrist.html).
They say: "Allah has begotten a Son". Glory be to Him! His is what the heavens and the earth contain; all things are obedient to Him. Creator of the heavens and the earth! When he decrees a thing, He need only say "Be", and it is.
Then God will say: ‘Jesus, son of Mary, did you ever say to mankind: "Worship me and my mother as gods besides God?"’
Wonderful Originator of the heavens and the earth; how can He have a son when He has no consort? He created all things, and He hath full knowledge of all things.
The Jews say Ezra is the son of God, while the Christians say the Messiah is the son of God. Such are their assertions, by which they imitate the infidels of old. God confound them! How perverse they are!
They say, ‘God has begotten a son.’ God forbid! Self-sufficient is He. His is all that the heavens and the earth contain. Surely for this you have no sanction. Whould you say of God what you know not?
Such was Jesus, the son of Mary. That is the whole truth, which they still doubt. God forbid that He Himself should beget a son! When He decrees a thing He need only say: ‘Be,’ and it is.
Those who say: ‘The Lord of Mercy has begotten a son,’ preach a monstrous falsehood, at which the very heavens might crack, the earth break asunder, and the mountains crumble to dust. That they should ascribe a son to the Merciful, when it does not become the Lord of Mercy to beget one!
Say: ‘How then can you be so bewitched?’
We have revealed to them the truth, but they are liars all.
Never has God begotten a son, nor is there any other god besides Him. Were this otherwise, each god would govern his own creation, each holding himself above the other. Exalted be God above their falsehoods!
Surely they lie when they declare: "Allah has begotten children".
Had it been His will to adopt a son, He would have chosen whom He pleased out of His own Creation.
Say: 3 "If the Lord of Mercy had a son, I would be the first to worship him".
He (exalted be the glory of our Lord!) has taken no wife, nor has He begotten any children. The Blaspheming One among us has uttered a wanton falsehood against God, although we had supposed no man or jinee could tell of Him what is untrue.
Say: ‘GOD is One, the Eternal God. He begot none, nor was He begotten. None is equal to Him.’
-
One of the things which I got from the study of G. I. Gurdjieff was a greater insight into the Christian religion.
People have been told almost since the creation of the world that they are asleep and that they must awaken. How many times is this said in the Gospels, for instance? "Awake," "watch," "sleep not." Christ's disciples even slept when he was praying in the Garden of Gethsemane for the last time. It is all there. But do men understand it? Men take it simply as a form of speech, as an expression, as a metaphor. They completely fail to understand that it must be taken literally. And again it is easy to understand why. In order to understand this literally it is necessary to awaken a little, or at least to try to awaken. I tell you seriously that I have been asked several times why nothing is said about sleep in the Gospels. Although it is there spoken of almost on every page.
It turns out he is right, and injunctions to "awaken," "watch," and "sleep not" are recurring in the Gospels.
"But of that day or hour, no one knows, neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. Be watchful! Be alert! You do not know when the time will come. It is like a man traveling abroad. He leaves home and places his servants in charge, each with his own work, and orders the gatekeeper to be on the watch. Watch, therefore; you do not know when the lord of the house is coming, whether in the evening, or at midnight, or at cockcrow, or in the morning. May he not come suddenly and find you sleeping. What I say to you, I say to all: 'Watch!'"
At that time the kingdom of heaven will be like ten virgins who took their lamps and went out to meet the bridegroom. Five of them were foolish and five were wise. The foolish ones took their lamps but did not take any oil with them. The wise, however, took oil in jars along with their lamps. The bridegroom was a long time in coming, and they all became drowsy and fell asleep. At midnight the cry rang out: 'Here's the bridegroom! Come out to meet him!' "Then all the virgins woke up and trimmed their lamps. The foolish ones said to the wise, 'Give us some of your oil; our lamps are going out.' 'No,' they replied, 'there may not be enough for both us and you. Instead, go to those who sell oil and buy some for yourselves.' But while they were on their way to buy the oil, the bridegroom arrived. The virgins who were ready went in with him to the wedding banquet. And the door was shut. Later the others also came. 'Sir! Sir!' they said. 'Open the door for us!' But he replied, 'I tell you the truth, I do not know you.' Therefore keep watch, because you do not know the day or the hour.
I interpret these quotes to reference the religious experience; with the arrival of the master or the groom representing its appearance. Watchfulness is key for the religious experience. In the second quote, the lesson seems to be that a wholesome lifestyle is not enough: watchfulness is also needed.
It turns out there is a Greek word for the "watchfulness" recommended by Jesus in the Gospels, and which played a larger role in the Eastern Church.
Nepsis
It signifies an attitude of attentiveness, whereby one keeps watch over one's inward thoughts and fantasies, maintaining guard over the heart and intellect.
I don't know what everyone else's experience is, but whenever I heard the word "watchfulness" in the west, it was interpreted to mean "keep watch for the apocalypse/second coming." So, the interpretation of the word in the west is completely incorrect.
The Greek meaning shows the clear parallel to the 7th fold of the 8th fold path.
Samma-sati
And what is right mindfulness? There is the case where a monk remains focused on the body in & of itself — ardent, alert, & mindful — putting aside greed & distress with reference to the world. He remains focused on feelings in & of themselves... the mind in & of itself... mental qualities in & of themselves — ardent, alert, & mindful — putting aside greed & distress with reference to the world. This is called right mindfulness...
Now, who would have suspected this was in the Christian religion? It does not help Jesus taught the apostles in secret, and the record of his teachings we have is mostly parables.
"He spoke to [the public] at length in parables. [...] The apostles approached him and said, 'Why do you speak to them in parables?' He said to them in reply, 'Because knowledge of the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven has been granted to you, but to them it has not been granted.'"
-
Thank-you, Alexander, for posting an interesting nuance to the Gospels in Greek, that the English versions may not have. Yes, I take that sense of watchfulness to be mindfulness (sati).
-
This whole tangent started about a week ago. I followed a link to another link that lead me to reading the Wikipedia version of Buddhist Cosmology. To be perfectly honest, I wish I hadn't, it only served to give me a solid serving of confusion. Now I don't remember how, but I ended up looking at some iconography this morning, and following link to another link etc. I was "stopped" at iconography painted on the Sistine Chapel. Specifically the image of God extending his arm and finger to a point and that of a man (Adam) extending relatively less to touch at the finger of god. There is some powerful implication in this image, and while reflecting, I continued my tangent and ended up researching some into the story of Adam and Eve.
https://www.google.com/search?q=Sistine+chapel&newwindow=1&tbm=isch&imgil=bKozlJFMFUbaNM%253A%253BUEaV0S5DyhggzM%253Bhttps%25253A%25252F%25252Fen.wikipedia.org%25252Fwiki%25252FSistine_Chapel_ceiling&source=iu&pf=m&fir=bKozlJFMFUbaNM%253A%252CUEaV0S5DyhggzM%252C_&biw=1680&bih=913&usg=__eO6Dc66FvOt4s7p_p1c67Sg1DgY%3D&ved=0CDoQyjdqFQoTCJva5sz08sgCFYQ9PgodlPoD6g&ei=LfQ3VtuPGIT7-AGU9Y_QDg#imgrc=jQ6qzGGngZbG8M%3A&usg=__eO6Dc66FvOt4s7p_p1c67Sg1DgY%3D (https://www.google.com/search?q=Sistine+chapel&newwindow=1&tbm=isch&imgil=bKozlJFMFUbaNM%253A%253BUEaV0S5DyhggzM%253Bhttps%25253A%25252F%25252Fen.wikipedia.org%25252Fwiki%25252FSistine_Chapel_ceiling&source=iu&pf=m&fir=bKozlJFMFUbaNM%253A%252CUEaV0S5DyhggzM%252C_&biw=1680&bih=913&usg=__eO6Dc66FvOt4s7p_p1c67Sg1DgY%3D&ved=0CDoQyjdqFQoTCJva5sz08sgCFYQ9PgodlPoD6g&ei=LfQ3VtuPGIT7-AGU9Y_QDg#imgrc=jQ6qzGGngZbG8M%3A&usg=__eO6Dc66FvOt4s7p_p1c67Sg1DgY%3D)
I'd like to note some specific correlations;
-Adam and Eve and Buddhist Temporal Cosmology and Evolution
-Adam and Eve and Christian "Dependent Origination"
The Conflict of Adam and Eve with Satan.
"...This is the most ancient story in the world--it has survived because it embodies the basic fact of human life. A fact that has not changed one iota; amid all the superficial changes of civilization's vivid array, this fact remains: the conflict of Good and Evil; the fight between Man and the Devil; the eternal struggle of human nature against sin.
That the Adam and Eve story pervaded the thoughts of ancient writers is seen in the large number of versions that exist, or whose existence may be traced, through the writings of Greeks, Syrians, Egyptians, Abyssinians, Hebrews, and other ancient peoples. As a lawyer might say who examines so much apparently unrelated evidence--there must be something back of it...."
BUT Adam and Eve wept for having come out of the garden, their first abode.
2 And, indeed, when Adam looked at his flesh, that was altered, he wept bitterly, he and Eve, over what they had done. And they walked and went gently down into the Cave of Treasures.
3 And as they came to it Adam wept over himself and said to Eve, "Look at this cave that is to be our prison in this world, and a place of punishment!"
4 "What is it compared with the garden? What is its narrowness compared with the space of the other?
5 "What is this rock, by the side of those groves? What is the gloom of this cavern, compared with the light of the garden?
6 "What is this overhanging ledge of rock to shelter us, compared with the mercy of the Lord that overshadowed us?
7 "What is the soil of this cave compared with the garden-land? This earth, strewed with stones; and that, planted with delicious fruit-trees?"
8 And Adam said to Eve, "Look at thine eyes, and at mine, which afore beheld angels in heaven, praising; and they, too, without ceasing.
9 "But now we do not see as we did: our eyes have become of flesh; they cannot see in like manner as they saw before."
10 Adam said again to Eve, "What is our body to-day, compared to what it was in former days, when we dwelt in the garden?"
11 After this Adam did not like to enter the cave, under the overhanging rock; nor would he ever have entered it.
12 But he bowed to God's orders; and said to himself, "Unless I enter the cave, I shall again be a transgressor."
There are many religious implications in this. I have not researched the author at all, but his reflections on the events that "transpire" after Adam and Eve were kicked from the garden served me in providing "fictional perspective", that some of it just happens to be true. ;D
For example in; "And as they came to it (Cave of Treasure) Adam wept over himself and said to Eve, "Look at this cave that is to be our prison in this world, and a place of punishment!" I see the First Noble Truth.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_and_Eve (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_and_Eve)
In the Book of Genesis of the Hebrew Bible, chapters one through five, there are two creation narratives with two distinct perspectives. In the first, Adam and Eve are not referenced by name. Instead, God created humankind in God's image and instructed them to multiply and to be stewards over everything else that God had made. In the second narrative, God fashions Adam from dust and places him in the Garden of Eden. Adam is told that he can till the ground and eat freely of all the trees in the garden, except for a tree of the knowledge of good and evil, of which he is prohibited from eating. Subsequently, Eve is created from one of Adam's ribs to be Adam's companion. However, a serpent tricks Eve into eating fruit from the forbidden tree, and she gives some of the fruit to Adam. God curses the serpent and the ground. God prophetically tells the woman and the man what will be the consequences of their sin of disobeying God. Then he banishes 'the man' from the Garden of Eden.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_cosmology#cite_note-21 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_cosmology#cite_note-21)
Vivartakalpa
The Vivartakalpa begins with the arising of the primordial wind, which begins the process of building up the structures of the universe that had been destroyed at the end of the last mahākalpa. As the extent of the destruction can vary, the nature of this evolution can vary as well, but it always takes the form of beings from a higher world being born into a lower world. The example of a Mahābrahmā being the rebirth of a deceased Ābhāsvara deva is just one instance of this, which continues throughout the Vivartakalpa until all the worlds are filled from the Brahmaloka down to Naraka. During the Vivartakalpa the first humans appear; they are not like present-day humans, but are beings shining in their own light, capable of moving through the air without mechanical aid, living for a very long time, and not requiring sustenance; they are more like a type of lower deity than present-day humans are.
Over time, they acquire a taste for physical nutriment, and as they consume it, their bodies become heavier and more like human bodies; they lose their ability to shine, and begin to acquire differences in their appearance, and their length of life decreases. They differentiate into two sexes and begin to become sexually active. Then greed, theft and violence arise among them, and they establish social distinctions and government and elect a king to rule them, called Mahāsammata, "the great appointed one". Some of them begin to hunt and eat the flesh of animals, which have by now come into existence."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agga%C3%B1%C3%B1a_Sutta[/b]]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agga%C3%B1%C3%B1a_Sutta (http://[b)
Aggañña Sutta
The Buddha said that sooner or later, after a very long time, there would come a time when the world shrinks. At a time of contraction, beings are mostly born in the Abhassara Brahma world. And there they dwell, mind-made, feeding on delight, self-luminous, moving through the air, glorious — and they stay like that for a very long time. But sooner or later, after a very long period, this world begins to expand again. At a time of expansion, the beings from the Abhassara Brahma world, having died from there, are mostly reborn in this world. Here they dwell, mind-made, feeding on delight, self-luminous, moving through the air, glorious — and they stay like that for a very long time.
Now while I noted a large amount of things in the specifics of "Adam and Eve", I'm going to leave them until I've finished, as I'm reading them from the Bible and I don't want to misinterpret something. But I will share them. Just thought I'd share the pattern I'm seeing whilst on mah tangent.
-
I found this to be an interesting read. I am unsure how much truth lies in it, but thought i would share it none-the-less.
http://www.ancient-origins.net/news-general/why-christmas-held-25th-december-001161 (http://www.ancient-origins.net/news-general/why-christmas-held-25th-december-001161)
-
Yes, Call, Why Christmas is held on 25th December (http://www.ancient-origins.net/news-general/why-christmas-held-25th-december-001161) is because it was the winter solstice about 2,000 years ago. The winter solstice was observed by many cultures in the ancient world, so the early Christian church appropriated and subverted it. Thanks for the link.
-
On your comments regarding the Garden of Edan, I take both the Garden of Edan and the Cave of Treasure to be metaphors for the human genitalia, especially the female genitalia being specifically the Cave of Treasure, so that it is an admonish to avoid too much pleasure taking, and seek the inner most pleasure of the charisms, as we here are pursuing.
Your comments regarding Buddhism belong elsewhere unless there is a specific parallelism, and if so we should start a new thread on the influence of Buddhism upon Christianity, which can be a very interesting subject.
-
On your comments regarding the Garden of Edan, I take both the Garden of Edan and the Cave of Treasure to be metaphors for the human genitalia, especially the female genitalia being specifically the Cave of Treasure, so that it is an admonish to avoid too much pleasure taking, and seek the inner most pleasure of the charisms, as we here are pursuing.
Your comments regarding Buddhism belong elsewhere unless there is a specific parallelism, and if so we should start a new thread on the influence of Buddhism upon Christianity, which can be a very interesting subject.
Hmm yes, I was noting parallels between them, but I havnt kept up with it. It's interesting to think of the garden of edan and the cave of treasures as human genitalia. When I was looking at the above I recall looking at both respectively different and much broader. I seen the cave of treasures as the physical world, and the garden of edan as the immaterial domains. It's rekindled an interest in the subject.
-
I seen the cave of treasures as the physical world, and the garden of edan as the immaterial domains. It's rekindled an interest in the subject.
I take both as reasonable hypotheses.
-
Ancient Confession Found: 'We Invented Jesus Christ' (http://uk.prweb.com/releases/2013/10/prweb11201273.htm)
London (PRWEB UK) 8 October 2013
American Biblical scholar Joseph Atwill will be appearing before the British public for the first time in London on the 19th of October to present a controversial new discovery: ancient confessions recently uncovered now prove, according to Atwill, that the New Testament was written by first-century Roman aristocrats and that they fabricated the entire story of Jesus Christ. His presentation will be part of a one-day symposium entitled "Covert Messiah" at Conway Hall in Holborn (full details can be found at http://www.covertmessiah.com).
I seem to recall looking at this claim before and concluding that, while the Gospels may very well have not been written by any of the apostles; and the Christian Church was clearly hijacked by the hegemony of Rome in the 4th century; and all translations of the Gospels depend upon gross mistranslations; nonetheless, this is insufficient evidence to reject the existence of Jesus. The problem is Christian doctrine has so doctored the life and teachings of Jesus, that there is little truth in mainstream Christianity, and their bogus translations of the Gospels.
-
I found this new Blog from Michale Hawkins a worthy read. Salvation from What? (https://enlightenmentorsalvation.wordpress.com/2016/03/25/salvation-from-what/).
Reading his blog, I was reminded of my father who claimed to be an agnostic most of his life, but he had so much conviction in his denial of a spiritual dimension, and an existence of God, that he was really an atheist. Then two years before his death he became a born-again Christian. Which to me just showed how much a fraud he was. If he was going to live the life of an atheist, then he might as well die as one instead of taking an easy out by just embracing a deeply flawed interpretation of the Way, truth and life of Jesus.
Which, by the way, reminds me of Buddhism in the sense of: way = path (magga); truth = dhamma, or belief, or philosophy; and life = a lifestyle as described by the Noble Eight fold Path.
-
Two sources of Christian criticism which could be very useful to any western person wishing to take up a fruitful contemplative life:
jesus never existed (http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/), which is based upon a single and hopeless failure in logic, because the existence of Jesus, or God, can neither be proven or disproven intellectually beyond a shadow of a doubt; because there is simply no physical proof that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt either way either premise; however, it has been my experience that by leading a rigorous, self-aware, fruitful contemplative life I have found incontrovertible proof for both premises. Nonetheless, I also find that most of what has been written on both subject is mostly fiction.
I do not believe that I have read Beyond Belief (http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/beyond-belief02.pdf), which seems to have Christian criticism in its table of contents, which could be quite useful, so I plan to start reading through it as time is available.
-
Here is an interesting article on possibly pushing back the date of the redaction of the bible and the extent of literacy at the time and in the culture.
The article misses some serious problems with literature and literacy prior to the common era. It just so happens almost no culture wrote their religious books down prior to 65BCE. Then around 65BCE it all got written in a storm.
What was going on in 65BCE was the Persian Emperor, who had conquered India, set up scriptoriums to set down in print much of the religious literature of the day, including the Pali Canon and the Bible.
My interpretation of this even, as an anthropologist who has studied ancient literature extensively, is prior to the redaction of religious literature, the priesthood of each religion had control of religious literature through memorization. This meant anyone who wanted to understand the teachings of the ancient sages, mystics, and prophets of the past had to go to a priest to do so, which more often than not came with a donation.
This means control of the religion's literature was a livelihood for the priests, and a source of power. This means, when King Malinda (Minander) had the religious literature written down, he took power from the priesthood and took it for himself, and gave it freely to the population who were interested in literacy.
Now, how common was literacy? Books needed to be printed for access to literature, which required Gutenberg to invent the printing press in 1439. Literacy; however, was not common in any culture until the 19th century. Now literacy is so common that we almost never meet someone who is illiterate.
So, in my opinion, the article has a number of problems with its basic premises.
The Bible was written way earlier than we thought, mathematicians suggest (http://www.sciencealert.com/the-bible-was-written-way-earlier-than-we-thought-mathematicians-discover)
Even if you’re not religious, there’s no denying the enormous - and sometimes devastating - influence that the Bible as an historic text has had on the world over the past 3,000 years. And yet, when it comes to the most widely distributed book on the planet, we still can’t agree on who wrote it, and when.
So a bunch of mathematicians teamed up with archaeologists to shed a bit of light on the origins of the Bible, by using artificial intelligence to come up with an estimate of how many people could read and write during certain periods in ancient history.
Led by mathematician Shira Faigenbaum-Golovin from Tel Aviv University in Israel, the team came up with new image processing techniques and a handwriting recognition tool to investigate 16 inscriptions found in the desert fortress of Arad, just west of the Dead Sea.
Dated to around 600 BCE (so about 2,600 years ago) these ink inscriptions detail fairly mundane military commands and supply orders, and were written on ceramic pottery shards called ostraca during the late First Temple Period - 24 years before the Kingdom of Jerusalem was overthrown by the Babylonian king.
Find Shows Widespread Literacy 2,600 Years Ago in Judah (http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode/find-shows-widespread-literacy-2-600-years-ago-in-judah/?WT.mc_id=SA_DD_20160413)
-
The Nag Humadi texts have proven to aide in the unpacking of Christian doctrine. Here are some interesting articles based upon the Nag Humadi texts:
Scholars Have Found a Rare Copy of Heretical Writings on Jesus And His 'Brother (http://www.sciencealert.com/greek-first-apocalypse-james-nag-hammadi-library-teaching-tool?utm_source=ScienceAlert+-+Daily+Email+Updates&utm_campaign=1ff1e46593-MAILCHIMP_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_fe5632fb09-1ff1e46593-365491701)'
Copy of 'Jesus' secret revelations to his brother,' discovered by biblical scholars (https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/11/171130133824.htm?utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=ScienceDaily_TMD_1&utm_source=TMD)
Egyptian wedding certificate key to authenticating controversial biblical text (https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/11/171130133824.htm?utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=ScienceDaily_TMD_1&utm_source=TMD)
The Lost Tomb Of Jesus? Religious Scholar Provides Insight On The Controversy (https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/02/070228135009.htm?utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=ScienceDaily_TMD_1&utm_source=TMD)
The Platonist Christianity of Marius Victorinus (http://www.mdpi.com/2077-1444/7/10/122?utm_source=TrendMD&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=Religions_TrendMD_1)
Saint Luke: chronicler of the first Christmas and most published of any doctor (http://bjgp.org/content/65/641/653?utm_source=TrendMD&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=Br_J_Gen_Pract_TrendMD_1)
-
I have been recently reflecting upon the use of the term 'Tektōn' in the original Gospels, so I examined again its definition, which is as follows:
The Ancient Greek noun tektōn (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tekt%C5%8Dn)(τέκτων) is a common term for an artisan/craftsman, in particular a carpenter, wood-worker, mason, builder or teacher. The term is frequently contrasted with an iron-worker, or smith (χαλκεύς) and the stone-worker or mason (λιθολόγος, λαξευτής).[1]
Septuagint
The characteristic Ancient Greek distinction between the general worker or wood-worker and the stonemason and the metal-worker occurs frequently in the Septuagint:
Isaiah 41:7 "So the carpenter (tektōn) encouraged the goldsmith, and he that smootheth with the hammer him that smote the anvil, saying, ...[2]
The distinction occurs in lists of workmen working on building or repairs to the temple in Jerusalem, for example in the repairs carried out under the priest Jehoiada and "the carpenters and builders, that wrought upon the house of the LORD,... And to masons, and hewers of stone, and to buy timber and hewed stone to repair the breaches of the house of the LORD," in 2 Kings 12:11–12. This same incident is recounted in similar language, using tekton again, in the account of Josephus.[3]
New Testament
Gospel references
The term is chiefly notable for New Testament commentators' discussion of the employment of Jesus and his adoptive father Joseph, both described as "tekton" in the New Testament. This is translated as "carpenter" in English-language Bibles.
The term occurs in combination with the definite article in the Gospel of Mark,[6:3] to describe the occupation of Jesus.[4]
“ Is not this the carpenter (ho tektōn) the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us?[4] ”
The term is also used in the Gospel of Matthew in relation to Jesus' adoptive father Joseph.[13:55]
“ Is not this the carpenter's son (ho tou tektōnos huios)?[4] ”
In modern scholarship, the word has sometimes been re-interpreted from the traditional meaning of carpenter and has sometimes been translated as craftsman, as the meaning of builder is implied, but can be applied to both wood-work and stone masonry.[4]
Hebrew naggar interpretation
In the Septuagint the Greek noun tektōn either stands for the generic Hebrew noun kharash (חרש), "craftsman," (as Isaiah 41:7) or tekton xylon (τέκτων ξύλον) as a word-for-word rendering of kharash-'etsim (חָרַשׁ עֵצִים) "craftsman of woods." (as Isaiah 44:13).[5] The term kharash occurs 33 times in the Masoretic Text of the Hebrew Bible.
As an alternative to kharash, some authors have speculated that the Greek term corresponds to the Aramaic term naggara (Hebrew |נגר naggar "craftsman") and in 1983 Geza Vermes (1983) suggested that given that the use of the term in the Talmud "carpenter" can signify a very learned man, the New Testament description of Joseph as a carpenter could indicate that he was considered wise and literate in the Torah.[6] This theory was later popularized by A. N. Wilson to suggest that Jesus had some sort of elevated status.[7][8]
The original text with "There is no carpenter or son of carpenter that can take it apart" is found in Avodah Zarah 50b in discussion of whether to prune a tree on the Sabbath, with "carpenter" used in Isidore Epstein (Soncino) and Michael Rodkinson's translations and Ezra Zion Melamed's Lexicon.[9] In the modern English version of the Talmud Jacob Neusner the passage reads as follows:
1.5 A. Said R. Joseph bar Abba ... "people may remove worms from a tree or patch the bark with dung during the Sabbatical Year, but people may not remove worms or patch the bark during the intermediate days of a festival. ... But there is no craftsman let alone a disciple of a craftsman who can unravel this teaching."
B. Said Rabina, "I am not a craftsman let alone a disciple of a craftsman, but I can unravel this teaching. What is the problem anyhow? ..."[10]
However the Greek term tekton does not carry this meaning, the nearest equivalent in the New Testament is Paul's comparison to Timothy of a "workman" (ἐργάτης ergatēs) rightly "dividing" the word of truth. This has been taken as a carpentry-image by some Christian commentators.[11] The suggested term naggar "craftsman" is not found in biblical Aramaic or Hebrew, or in Aramaic documents of the New Testament period,[12] but is found in later Talmudic texts where the term "craftsman" is used a metaphor for a skilled handler of the word of God.[13][14]
For this reason I accept that the use of the term 'Tektōn' suggests 'wise' especially in the interpretation of the bible.
-
This is a great effort, Jeff, and unfortunately one that is lacking in most people's studies of the Bible. The process of translation alters many meanings over time. Most people do not adopt this type of critical approach.
One example of a mistranslation which I learned is the line "it's easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle." This one mistranslates the word "rope" for "camel" (the Greek word for the two is almost identical) which creates a much more appropriate metaphor.
Another which I believe I learned from you was the "of Nazareth" title of Jesus. This actually comes from the term "Nazirite" which was a sect of the Essenes (who we can assume Jesus belonged to).
The reference to Jesus' siblings is another point which is plainly stated in the Gospels, and contradicts what I was taught growing up (that Jesus was an only child).
I recently returned to the Bible this past year with a critical eye, and coming from the body of knowledge of a mystic, found large parts of it contradictory and baffling. Many of the mythological elements, such as the virgin birth, the folklore about Mary, and the miracles, are very strange. I often wonder why they were included at all.
-
Thank-you, Alexander, for posting your interesting comments. Upthread here we have a book that we discussed, which investigates bias in the translation of the Gospels. Some of that bias gives voice to many of the myths about Jesus, and other progenitors, some of it is more recent biases based upon more recent belief systems. All of this constitutes what lies behind language shift. So, if we want to understand the life and teachings of Yeshua ben David (Jesus's Aramaic name) we will have to dump language shift to get there.
-
Over the years I have come across a number of references to Eastern Christianity, and the later Greco-Roman reaction to its earlier cousin. One of those important influences was Arius (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arius) (AD 256–336).
To begin with Arius's name suggests a link to the Aryan people, who we refer to as "Persian." And, it was the Persians who were the home of the earliest known Christian church, which is also known as the Eastern Christian Church.
Arius (/əˈraɪəs, ˈɛəri-/; Koinē Greek: Ἄρειος, Áreios; 250 or 256–336) was a Libyan presbyter and ascetic,[1] and priest in Baucalis in Alexandria, Egypt.[2] His teachings about the nature of the Godhead in Christianity, which emphasized God the Father's uniqueness and Christ's subordination under the Father,[3] and his opposition to what would become the dominant Christology, Homoousian Christology, made him a primary topic of the First Council of Nicaea, which was convened by Emperor Constantine the Great in 325.
After Emperors Licinius and Constantine legalized and formalized the Christianity of the time in the Roman Empire, Constantine sought to unify the newly recognized Church and remove theological divisions.[4] The Christian Church was divided over disagreements on Christology, or, the nature of the relationship between Jesus and God. Homoousian Christians, including Athanasius of Alexandria, used Arius and Arianism as epithets to describe those who disagreed with their doctrine of coequal Trinitarianism, a Homoousian Christology representing God the Father and Jesus Christ the Son as "of one essence" ("consubstantial") and coeternal.
Negative writings describe Arius's theology as one in which there was a time before the Son of God, when only God the Father existed. Despite concerted opposition, Arian Christian churches persisted throughout Europe, the Middle East, and North Africa, especially in various Germanic kingdoms, until suppressed by military conquest or voluntary royal conversion between the fifth and seventh centuries.
The Son's precise relationship with the Father had been discussed for decades before Arius's advent; Arius intensified the controversy and carried it to a Church-wide audience, where others like Eusebius of Nicomedia proved much more influential in the long run. In fact, some later Arians disavowed the name, claiming not to have been familiar with the man or his specific teachings.[5][6] However, because the conflict between Arius and his foes brought the issue to the theological forefront, the doctrine he proclaimed—though not originated—is generally labeled as "his".
It become known as the "Arian heresy."
Early life and personality
Reconstructing the life and doctrine of Arius has proven to be a difficult task, as none of his original writings survive. Emperor Constantine ordered their burning while Arius was still living, and any that survived this purge were later destroyed by his Orthodox opponents. Those works which have survived are quoted in the works of churchmen who denounced him as a heretic. This leads some — but not all — scholars to question their reliability.[7]
Now, we should all be asking ourselves, "Why would Emperor Constantine care about Christian doctrine, when he never considered himself a Christian?" And, "Why would Emperor Constantine burn Arius's writing?"
It seems to me that Constantine was interested in controlling the doctrine of Christianity for his own purposes.
Arius was of Berber descent.[1] His father's name is given as Ammonius. Arius is believed to have been a student at the exegetical school in Antioch, where he studied under Saint Lucian.[8] Having returned to Alexandria, Arius, according to a single source, sided with Meletius of Lycopolis in his dispute over the re-admission of those who had denied Christianity under fear of Roman torture, and was ordained a deacon under the latter's auspices. He was excommunicated by Bishop Peter of Alexandria in 311 for supporting Meletius,[9] but under Peter's successor Achillas, Arius was re-admitted to Christian communion and in 313 made presbyter of the Baucalis district in Alexandria.
Although his character has been severely assailed by his opponents, Arius appears to have been a man of personal ascetic achievement, pure morals, and decided convictions. Paraphrasing Epiphanius of Salamis, an opponent of Arius, Catholic historian Warren H. Carroll describes him as "tall and lean, of distinguished appearance and polished address. Women doted on him, charmed by his beautiful manners, touched by his appearance of asceticism. Men were impressed by his aura of intellectual superiority."[10]
As we can see from the history of how mystics are commonly marginalized Arius was also demonized.
Though Arius was also accused by his opponents of being too liberal, and too loose in his theology, engaging in heresy (as defined by his opponents), some historians argue that Arius was actually quite conservative,[11] and that he deplored how, in his view, Christian theology was being too freely mixed with Greek paganism.[12]
This might explain why Constantine demonized Arius, and had Arius' writing burned; because Constantine may have wanted Christian theology mixed with Greek paganism.
The Arian controversy
Main article: Arianism
Arius is notable primarily because of his role in the Arian controversy, a great fourth-century theological conflict that led to the calling of the first ecumenical council of the Church. This controversy centered upon the nature of the Son of God, and his precise relationship to God the Father. Before the council of Nicaea, the Christian world knew several competing Christological ideas. Church authorities condemned some of these ideas but did not put forth a uniform formula. The Nicaean formula was a rapidly concluded solution to the general Christological debate.[13]
Beginnings
The Trinitarian historian Socrates of Constantinople reports that Arius sparked the controversy that bears his name when Alexander of Alexandria, who had succeeded Achillas as the Bishop of Alexandria, gave a sermon stating the similarity of the Son to the Father. Arius interpreted Alexander's speech as being a revival of Sabellianism, condemned it, and then argued that "if the Father begat the Son, he that was begotten had a beginning of existence: and from this it is evident, that there was a time when the Son was not. It therefore necessarily follows, that he [the Son] had his substance from nothing."[14] This quote describes the essence of Arius's doctrine.
Socrates of Constantinople believed that Arius was influenced in his thinking by the teachings of Lucian of Antioch, a celebrated Christian teacher and martyr. In a letter to Patriarch Alexander of Constantinople Arius' bishop, Alexander of Alexandria, wrote that Arius derived his theology from Lucian. The express purpose of Alexander's letter was to complain of the doctrines that Arius was spreading, but his charge of heresy against Arius is vague and unsupported by other authorities. Furthermore, Alexander's language, like that of most controversialists in those days, is quite bitter and abusive. Moreover, even Alexander never accused Lucian of having taught Arianism; rather, he accused Lucian ad invidiam of heretical tendencies—which apparently, according to him, were transferred to his pupil, Arius.[15] The noted Russian historian Alexander Vasiliev refers to Lucian as "the Arius before Arius".[16]
Origen and Arius
Like many third-century Christian scholars, Arius was influenced by the writings of Origen, widely regarded as the first great theologian of Christianity.[17] However, while both agreed on the subordination of the Son to the Father, and Arius drew support from Origen's theories on the Logos, the two did not agree on everything. Arius clearly argued that the Logos had a beginning and that the Son, therefore, was not eternal, the Logos being the highest of the Created Order. This idea is summarized in the statement "there was a time when the Son was not." By way of contrast, Origen believed the relation of the Son to the Father had no beginning, and that the Son was "eternally generated". However, it must be remembered that to Origen, the universe, and even all souls had no beginning.[18]
Arius objected to Origen's doctrine, complaining about it in his letter to the Nicomedian Eusebius, who had also studied under Lucian. Nevertheless, despite disagreeing with Origen on this point, Arius found solace in his writings, which used expressions that favored Arius's contention that the Logos was of a different substance than the Father, and owed his existence to his Father's will. However, because Origen's theological speculations were often proffered to stimulate further inquiry rather than to put an end to any given dispute, both Arius and his opponents were able to invoke the authority of this revered (at the time) theologian during their debate.[19]
Arius emphasized the supremacy and uniqueness of God the Father, meaning that the Father alone is infinite and eternal and almighty, and that therefore the Father's divinity must be greater than the Son's. Arius taught that the Son had a beginning, contrary to Origen, who taught that the Son was less than the Father only in power, but not in time. Arius maintained that the Son possessed neither the eternity nor the true divinity of the Father, but was rather made "God" only by the Father's permission and power, and that the Logos was rather the very first and the most perfect of God's productions, before ages.[20][21]
This goes on and on, but leads to some rather interesting nuances in the early history of Christianity, which supports our mystical tendencies. I suggest the members of this forum read further on this subject.
-
A recent controversy in early Christian literature has emerged in the discovery of fake Dead Sea Scroll fragments (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/how-forgers-fooled-the-bible-museum-with-fake-dead-sea-scroll-fragments/ar-BB11czAS?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=wispr)
Last year, the Museum of the Bible in Washington, DC, said five of its most valuable artifacts — once thought to be part of the historic Dead Sea Scrolls — were fake. Now the museum is facing a harder truth: All of its 16 expensive fragments are forgeries.
This weekend, at a conference in Washington scrambled by the coronavirus pandemic, experts released a 200-page report (https://museumofthebible.org/dead-sea-scroll-fragments) revealing how the forgeries fooled scholars and buyers on the antiquities market.
"After an exhaustive review of all the imaging and scientific analysis results, it is evident that none of the textual fragments in Museum of the Bible's Dead Sea Scroll collection are authentic," said the leader of the investigation, Colette Loll, the director of Art Fraud Insights, in a statement (https://museumofthebible.org/dead-sea-scroll-fragments).
-
Jesus! That is really crazy. So much like this keeps happening.
-
Jesus! That is really crazy. So much like this keeps happening.
We just have to keep in mind that for most of its history religion is just a business, full of its own marketing hype.
-
Genesis Apocryphon
When we combine the epic of Gilgamesh, a flood myth predating Judaism by thousands of years, into the Genesis Apocryphon feminist perspective on Genesis, plus correct the deeply flawed translations advanced by church patriarchy, we continue to get an increasingly radically different version of the Judaeo-Christian religious mythology without the heavy-handed hegemonic misogynist manipulation.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genesis_Apocryphon
-
When we examine closely the Apostle known in the New Testament of western Christianity as Thomas we have to seriously question western Christian doctrine as it has been presented by the Western Churches.
Thomas the Apostle
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_the_Apostle)
Thomas the Apostle (Aramaic: 𐡀𐡌𐡅𐡕𐡌, Biblical Hebrew: תוֹמא הקדוש or תוֹמָא שליחא (Toma HaKadosh Thomas the Holy or Toma Shlikha Thomas the Messenger/Apostle in Hebrew-Aramaic), Classical Syriac: ܬܐܘܡܐ, Tʾōmā, meaning "twin"; Koinē Greek: Θωμᾶς),[a] also known as Didymus ("twin"), was one of the Twelve Apostles of Jesus according to the New Testament. Thomas is commonly known as "Doubting Thomas" because he initially doubted the resurrection of Jesus Christ when he was told of it (as is related in the Gospel of John alone); he later confessed his faith ("My Lord and my God") on seeing the wounds left over from the crucifixion.
Names and etymologies
The name Thomas (Koine Greek: Θωμᾶς) given for the apostle in the New Testament is derived from the Aramaic תְּאוֹמָא Tʾōmā[21][22] (Classical Syriac: ܬܐܘܿܡܵܐ/ܬ݁ܳܐܘܡܰܐ Tʾōmā/Tāʾwma), meaning "twin" and cognate to Hebrew תְּאוֹם tʾóm. The equivalent term for twin in Greek, which is also used in the New Testament, is Δίδυμος Didymos.
Other names
The Nag Hammadi copy of the Gospel of Thomas begins: "These are the secret sayings that the living Jesus spoke and Didymus, Judas Thomas, recorded." Early Syrian traditions also relate the apostle's full name as Judas Thomas.[c] Some have seen in the Acts of Thomas (written in east Syria in the early 3rd century, or perhaps as early as the first half of the 2nd century) an identification of Thomas with the apostle Judas, Son of James, better known in English as Jude. However, the first sentence of the Acts follows the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles in distinguishing the apostle Thomas and the apostle Judas son of James. Others, such as James Tabor, identify him as Jude, brother of Jesus mentioned by Mark. In the Book of Thomas the Contender, part of the Nag Hammadi library, he is alleged to be a twin to Jesus: "Now, since it has been said that you are my twin and true companion, examine yourself…"[23]
Acts Of Thomas. (https://madrascourier.com/insight/acts-of-thomas-the-advent-of-christianity-in-india/)
The early 3rd-century text called Acts of Thomas is one of the New Testament apocrypha. References to the work by Epiphanius of Salamis show that it was in circulation in the 4th century. The complete versions that survive are Syriac and Greek. There are many surviving fragments of the text. Scholars detect from the Greek that its original was written in Syriac, which places the Acts of Thomas in Edessa. The surviving Syriac manuscripts, however, have been edited to purge them of the most unorthodox overtly Encratite passages, so that the Greek versions reflect the earlier tradition.
I recently stumbled upon this article on Thomas in India. (https://madrascourier.com/insight/acts-of-thomas-the-advent-of-christianity-in-india/)
In conclusion to get to whatever truth the Bible and gospels may contain one would have to realize it has been misinterpreted for centuries and all translations into English are deeply flawed. For instance: the personal name 'Thomas' was not a personal name at the time of Jesus. At that time Thomas meant "twin". The implications of this deeply flawed translation suggests there were not 12 apostles, and Jesus recognized Thomas as his clone; therefore, 'Thomas' was not doubting Thomas, but his spiritual twin.
-
Thomas the Apostle
Toma is Aramaic for twin
Maybe he had a twin
The plot thickens
-
Thomas the Apostle
Toma is Aramaic for twin
Maybe he had a twin
The plot thickens
Correct, The Nag Hammadi copy of the Gospel of Thomas begins:
"These are the secret sayings that the living Jesus spoke and Didymus, Judas Thomas, recorded." Early Syrian traditions also relate the apostle's full name as Judas Thomas.[c] Some have seen in the Acts of Thomas (written in east Syria in the early 3rd century, or perhaps as early as the first half of the 2nd century) an identification of Thomas with the apostle Judas, Son of James, better known in English as Jude. However, the first sentence of the Acts follows the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles in distinguishing the apostle Thomas and the apostle Judas son of James. Others, such as James Tabor, identify him as Jude, brother of Jesus mentioned by Mark. In the Book of Thomas the Contender, part of the Nag Hammadi library, he is alleged to be a twin to Jesus: "Now, since it has been said that you are my twin and true companion, examine yourself…"[23]
-
This is what the Yoga monastery from NM has about St Thomas. The same website that has the article about the Unknown Life of Jesus.
Before embarking on an outline of the various beliefs held by Saint Thomas Christians, it should be made clear that the teachings of Saint Thomas Christianity are not a set of imposed dogmas, but rather a way of spiritual life. Saint Thomas Christians emphasize spiritual practice and the experience and knowledge gained from such practice rather than the intellectual concepts of theology and dogma. Naturally there is a broad framework within which the Saint Thomas Christians pursue their spiritual life, but theological details are left up to the individual. Obviously a person who does not believe in God and in the spiritual legacy of Jesus (see The Christ of India) and the Apostle Thomas (see The Apostle of India) would not become or remain a Saint Thomas Christian. Yet there are certain concepts which, when rightly understood as metaphysical rules of the spiritual road, facilitate the individual’s seeking. They need not be blindly believed, but it helps to accept them provisionally–that is, with an open mind and the understanding that in time the seeker will come to know for himself their truth and relevance.
The Three Eternal Things
Saint Thomas Christians believe that there are three eternal things: the transcendental God beyond creation, the immanent God (Ishwara) and the individual spirits within him, and the eternally cycling creation. And these Three Eternals are the real Father, Son(s), and Holy Spirit.
God
God is the ever-existent Spirit, the Absolute Consciousness That encompasses all things but is encompassed by none. Therefore God is totally beyond the reach of the human intellect and utterly indefinable or intellectually comprehensible. We can easily say what God is not–for anything we might say will not express him; but we cannot say a single word about what he is.
In Vedic religion, Sanatana Dharma, God is referred to as Brahman, the Absolute Being that is transcendent and beyond any qualities or conditionings whatsoever. However, with the inconsistency that is a marked trait of Eastern thinking, the ancient seers have given us a definition that enables us to get as much of a grasp of God as is possible for our minds. God is said to be Sat-Chit-Ananda: Existence, Consciousness, and Bliss.
Sat
God does not exist in the sense that things in relativity exist. Rather, he is existence itself. Or, more to the point, God is the very ground, the basis, of existence, in and through which all things exist. He is the ocean and all else are the waves. “He shining, all things shine,” says the Veda, and: “His shadow is immortality.” God can equally fittingly be called Reality itself.
Chit
God is Pure Consciousness, the very Principle of Consciousness itself. He is therefore omniscient–not in the sense of just knowing all things in the present moment, but in the sense of knowing all things whatsoever–past, present, and future–simultaneously. This is because God is outside of time and all things are present to him; nothing is past and nothing is future. God is the Eternal Now. Since all things are known to him, we can say that God is Conscious, as well.
Ananda
“God is ever-new joy.” This was the definition of God given by the great Master, Paramhansa Yogananda. God is not joyful, he is joy itself. God, then, is ever-existent, infinitely-conscious bliss.
Link: https://ocoy.org/original-christianity/esoteric-christian-beliefs/
-
I can’t keep track of all of them
Now you have me fascinated
St Thomas Christians (Christians of India)
Mongolian Christians (Nestorian?)
Ethiopian Christians (have their own version of the Bible)
-
I read a book on medieval history for relaxation and it talks a lot how Christianity split into all kinds of factions quite early after the teacher was gone. Kind of reminded me how buddhist split into a bunch of sects almost immediately after Buddha's death.
-
I read a book on medieval history for relaxation and it talks a lot how Christianity split into all kinds of factions quite early after the teacher was gone. Kind of reminded me how buddhist split into a bunch of sects almost immediately after Buddha's death.
Yes, the more I study very early Christianity the more I realize there was a larger expression of Christianity before the first Nicaean council (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea)
The First Council of Nicaea (/naɪˈsiːə/ ny-SEE-ə; Ancient Greek: Σύνοδος τῆς Νῑκαίᾱς, romanized: Sýnodos tês Nīkaíās) was a council of Christian bishops convened in the Bithynian city of Nicaea (now İznik, Turkey) by the Roman Emperor Constantine I in AD 325.
This ecumenical council was the first effort to attain consensus in the church through an assembly representing all Christendom. Hosius of Corduba may have presided over its deliberations.[4][5] Its main accomplishments were settlement of the Christological issue of the divine nature of God the Son and his relationship to God the Father,[2] the construction of the first part of the Nicene Creed, mandating uniform observance of the date of Easter,[6] and promulgation of early canon law.[3][7]
-
I recently did some more writing on:
The Apostle known as Thomas
When we examine closely the Apostle known in the New Testament of western Christianity as 'Thomas' we have to seriously question western Christian doctrine as it has been presented by the Western Churches.
From Wikipedia
"The name Thomas (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_the_Apostle)(Koine Greek: Θωμᾶς) given for the apostle in the New Testament is derived from the Aramaic תְּאוֹמָא Tʾōmā[21][22] (Classical Syriac: ܬܐܘܿܡܵܐ/ܬ݁ܳܐܘܡܰܐ Tʾōmā/Tāʾwma), meaning "twin" and cognate to Hebrew תְּאוֹם tʾóm. The equivalent term for twin in Greek, which is also used in the New Testament, is Δίδυμος Didymos."
Since the name 'Thomas' was not a personal name at the time of Jesus but meant 'twin.' This means since the authors of the New Testament composed it in Greek then they knew 'Thomas' meant 'twin' and had no interest in making it into a personal name.
The implications of this deeply flawed translation suggests there may not have been 12 apostles, and Jesus clearly recognized Thomas as his clone; therefore, 'Thomas' was not doubting Thomas, but Jesus's spiritual twin.
Additionally in the Book of Thomas (http://gnosis.org/naghamm/gosthom.html), part of the Nag Hammadi library, he is alleged to be a twin to Jesus, which means Jesus acknowledged the apostle "Thomas" as his chosen heir.
"Now, since it has been said that you are my twin and true companion, examine yourself…"[23]
The implication of this is when the apostle "Thomas" is dismissed as the doubter, and a recent translation of the Gospel of Thomas is titled "Thomas the Contender," and no published translation of the New Testament translates 'Thomas' as 'twin' then we can conclude the institutions of western Christianity have throughout their 1700 year history made every effort to deny "Thomas" was Jesus's chosen representative. And, western Christianity's focus upon Peter and Paul, instead of Thomas, represents a corruption of the life and teaching of Jesus.
In conclusion to get to whatever truth the Bible and gospels may contain one would have to realize it has been intentionally misinterpreted and mistranslated for centuries and all translations into English are deeply flawed.
-
Thanks for this, Jeffrey. Indeed, it wasn't until, about 15 years ago now, I purchased a library of biblical language tools that I really started to understand just how corrupted Christian doctrine is. By focusing on Peter (first in the line of Popes) and Paul (agent of the Empire), the early Church chose the books of the Bible in a way that would completely remove Jesus' deep teachings on attainment - which are present in the Gospel of Thomas and many other apocryphal/repressed texts. In this sense, orthodoxy really does amount to total control.
-
I so much agree with you, Michael, the more I scrutinize the New Testament and post Nicaean church the more I realize just how much it was engineered to suppress mysticism in favor of blind faith in a deeply flawed version of the life and teachings of Jesus.