truthveracity - Tumblr blog

truthveracity · 3 years

Text

Heaven and the Afterlife

A Developing Theological Concept - Part 2: The Yahweh-alone Movement

Before beginning this discussion, I wanted to ensure everyone reading this summary is aware that the Judeo-Christian Bible was not written in chronological order from the oldest book to the newest. Rather, the various books were sequenced in their appearance after either Jewish scribes and priest or Christian scribes and priest determined the order of the books. For example, many scholars believe one of the oldest book in the Bible is Job and not Genesis, which was one of the last books written. Please keep this in mind in case you’re trying to reconcile historical dates with the placement of books within the Bible.

Ancestor worship was outlawed in the eighth century B.C. as part of a new prophetic movement. During this time, the powerful Assyrian empire was exerting increasingly intolerable pressure on the small vassal kingdoms of Israel and Judah. Because of this situation, a prophetic movement formed which advocated the exclusive worship of one God, Yahweh (yä wā, in Hebrew YHWH). The worship of all other gods and goddesses was to be abandoned.

According to this prophetic movement, Israel’s God Yahweh was the only one with any real power. Yahweh would eventually intervene and alter the political scene in favor of his people. This new religious movement has been called by scholars the “Yahweh-alone movement”. It not only banned the worship of the sky gods, but, also, outlawed the worship of ancestors because they perceived it as a magical deviation from the true worship.

After the Assyrians conquered and destroyed the northern kingdom of Israel in 722 B.C., the Yahweh-alone-ists became even more convinced of their cause. They attributed the military disaster at the hands of the Assyrians to the neglect of the one God whose exclusive worship they advocated.

In the divided and conquered Israel, the small southern kingdom of Judah alone survived. The Judahite king Hezekiah (716-687 B.C.) attempted a cultic and legal reform, emphasizing the exclusivity of Yahweh worship. King Hezekiah’s reform either failed or remained unimplemented because nothing really changed during his reign. It was nearly another century before the Yahweh-alone-ist movement became the decisive factor in official Judahite policy.

In 623 B.C., the Judahite King Josiah proclaimed Yahweh was the only god to be worshipped, apparently accomplishing the aim of the earlier reform. Biblical reports tell of Josiah’s reform getting “rid of mediums and necromancers, of all household gods and idols, and all the abominations” (2 Kings 23:24).

By taking such a decisive step toward monotheism, Josiah drastically reduced private worship and especially ritual activities relating to the dead. The placing of food near or in the tomb as a funeral offering, a ritual that formerly was a real sacrifice to the gods of the underworld, was reduced to a simple gesture of convention or tradition. The ritual was stripped of its cosmological significance.

While Josiah’s reform outlawed certain traditional practices concerning the dead, it did not create new beliefs to replace earlier traditions regarding life after death. A more philosophical examination of the meaning of death and the afterlife appears in the Book of Job, which dates from the fifth century B.C. Job continues the trend begun in the eighth century with King Hezekiah - it devalues the role of the dead.

The Book of Job recognizes that, when one’s earthly life ceases, one is cut off permanently from life on earth, without communication either way, and, perhaps worse, one is cut off from God himself. Job, in his suffering, longs to go to Sheol until the time when God will remember him, but he knows that will not be; there is no hope of it. The Book of Job proclaims that the dead have no knowledge of the living; they cannot influence those on earth. Although a dead man’s descendants may honor him, he knows nothing of it (Job 14:21).

“Who will praise the Most High in Sheol?” asks Ecclesiasticus, written in the second century B.C. “When a man is dead and ceases to be, his gratitude dies with him” (Ecclesiasticus 17:27,28). There can thus be no relationship between Yahweh and the dead.

The two major taboos - 1) prohibiting relating to any deity but Yahweh, and 2) prohibiting a relationship between the dead and Yahweh - condemned the dead to a meaningless fate and existence. They could not even ask for consolation from the living. Since the realms of the living and the dead were completely separated, no communication could take place between them. Things got so bad during this time period, priest avoided any ritual connection with the dead, because they were not even allowed to attend the funerals of their own parents (Leviticus 21:11).

Israelite theology focused on the practices of a this-worldly religion rather than on the futile speculations of the life of the dead. The pious who meet with unfortunate circumstances on earth had to be promised rewards in this life. God rewarded Job in his lifetime with health, family, and wealth. Job received his blessing “twice as much as he had before” (Job 42:10).

Next time – we’ll investigate the re-establishment in the hope of an afterlife from a Judeo-Christian perspective, which began with the Babylonian destruction of Jerusalem in 586 B.C.

0 notes

truthveracity · 3 years

Text

Heaven and the Afterlife

A Developing Theological Concept - Part 1: Ancestor Worship

Over the centuries what people have believed about life and death has changed drastically. Often, political desire or ‘crowd control’ had more influence on what a certain religion purported to believe than any ‘revelation from God’.

Humanity, or society, has traditionally been manipulated through the use of religion, and our societal values have always been manifested in our religion. This interrelationship and manipulation is easily seen by consider- ing what has been believed by varying groups of people concerning the ‘afterlife’ as supported by their culture.

This review will be based on our Judeo-Christian heritage from before recorded history up to the present, as well as sources outside of this heritage. It will focus mainly on how our beliefs developed, what influences came into play over the centuries, and what this tells us about our God and ourselves.

In the beginning the earliest Hebrew understanding of the cosmos grew out of prevailing Mesopotamian and Canaanite mythology.

Ancient Semites pictured the world as a three-tiered structure: 1) an upper realm of the gods (heaven), 2) a middle world given by the gods to humans (earth), and 3) a lower domain consisting of a great cave far below the surface of the earth (the netherworld (Sheol).

Sheol was a dark and silent place that was ruled by Mot, “Death”, who controlled the dead and the in-fernal gods.

Humans, living on the earth, were affected and influenced by both the upper and lower worlds.

Communication with the deities of the upper world as well as the gods of the lower world was extremely important. Everyone viewed themselves as weak and dependent on the gods. Only by establishing temples, sponsoring priests and temple choirs, offering lavish sacrifices, chanting elaborate prayers, and heeding sorcerers and prophets could a person be assured of divine benevolence. This was one of the earliest attempts to control god and nature.

With the growing importance of proper communication with the “gods” to ensure their benevolence [an effort to gain control], a group of priests, or priesthood, developed to insure ‘things were done right.’ Of course, they held all of the power. Only priests, thoroughly trained in public and private ritual and lore, knew the intricacies of communication with the upper and lower worlds. Communicating with the gods of the dead came to represent ancestor worship.

Ancestor worship - on behalf of genealogically related individuals - venerated forefathers and foremothers from whom the living expected personal protection and, more importantly, numerous offspring. Gradually, formalized rituals developed to express the veneration of ancestors.

Ancestor worship did not involve the community at large. It may therefore be said ancestor worship was a private ritual. Small groups of family members would venerate their ancestors in private worship without the participation of any larger political or ethnic grouping.

When the “gods of heaven” were invoked or worshiped, the entire community was involved. Priests in state temples offered regular sacrifices to the gods of heaven on behalf of the local or state ruler, and, through him, on behalf of the whole society. These were public rituals that extended far beyond the confines of an individual family lineage.

The more important public rituals celebrated the cycle of the agricultural year: the sowing and reaping of grain, or the eating of the first fruits of the season. These rituals connected the people not with their dead relatives, but with the gods of the sky who were responsible for rain. Without this communication with the “sky gods,” people believed no vegetation could grow in the arid zones of the ancient Near East.

Both kinds of rituals - the public ones addressed to the celestial gods and the private ones directed to the ancestors in Sheol - coexisted. In fact, the same people practiced them. The type of ritual performed depended not on what the supplicant hoped to gain, but for whom the gain was intended. If a family member would benefit, then a private ritual was performed. If the community as a whole would benefit, a public ritual was conducted.

In this concept of the cosmos, to die meant to change one’s place in the ritual universe. Transfer to Sheol required some earthly actions. The family was required to bury the body, thereby removing it from the sight of the celestial gods and bringing it into contact with the dead person’s new realm of being. Burial usually occurred in an underground vault or was simply carried out by covering the body with dirt.

It was believed that although the flesh decayed and the bones dried up, a shadowy replica of the deceased became manifest and descended into the vast underground mausoleum where it would continue its existence.

Next time - The Establishment of the Yahweh-alone Movement

#controlling people through religion

0 notes

truthveracity · 10 years

Text

Congratulations!

guess who has a job.

3 notes · View notes

truthveracity · 10 years

Text

Life is a Challenge

Life is a precious gift; however, life is also, at best, a challenge. At times it seems we tend to go madly dashing from one out of control situation to another and rarely do we actually have any control over anything. Sometimes we are innocently living our lives when we are overrun by out of control events. It seems we have no power . . . we have no control and often all we can hope to accomplish is to keep from drowning as the tsunami of life washes over us. The realities of the world we live in prevents us from being able to manage our lives the way we want to because there are simply too many factors in play for us to be able to manage anything.

The largest crapshoot we face is our health. We take vitamins, eat right, rest, and reduce our hours of unprotected sunlight, try to reduce our stress levels and yet “shit happens” everyday. Sometimes we can recover and go on with our lives; sometimes we can’t . . . and sometimes our lives are taken from us even though we want to go on living.

In our work lives, we make plans for success, but the cacophony of our competitors, regulators, shifting market trends, fashion, etc., keep the process in a constant state of flux.

Our relationships with our friends and lovers are also often out of our control. We try to be loving, supportive and steady yet there is always competing desires, misunderstood intentions, jealousy, self-centeredness and enough hormonal dissonance to disturb any “happy dream” we might have had for our day, week, month or year. At best we can keep a steady state for a few days and then something will inevitably happen to cause us or others sadness, pain, loneliness and frustration. Try as we might with as much focus, attention and commitment we might give a relationship, nothing ever goes the way we would have liked for it to nor the way we intended.

Western culture has developed several mechanisms for dealing with these facets, but all of them lack any true answers. Christianity has developed a ‘debt approach’ with its god in that they believe if they perform certain rituals, say certain prayers or give a tithe, God will be indebted to them and will deliver a blessing to them in return. Historical fact does not support this belief system, but it is ingrained in their ethos none-the-less. Even historically Jews would sacrifice their children in an effort to ‘control’ their God (for example, Gen 22:7). In addition to killing children they were equally as willing to sacrifice animals. For all of recorded history, humankind has worshipped the gods in an effort to control the uncontrollable and bring order to a chaotic situation.

Beginning in the 1800s philosophers began to question the roll and need for a god. Nietzsche’s view at this time is that arbitrariness prevails within human experience: concepts originate via the transformation of nerve stimuli into images, and “truth” is nothing more than the invention of fixed conventions for practical purposes, especially those of repose, security and consistency. Furthermore, the idea of power (for which he would later become known) appears as an explanatory principle, but Nietzsche tends at this time to invoke hedonistic considerations of pleasure and pain in his explanations of cultural and psychological phenomena. Nietzsche believed we should live a robust life, full of freedom, so we will not waste a single breath in bondage.

Another philosopher, Søren Aabye Kierkegaard (1813-1855) was a profound and prolific writer in the Danish “golden age” of intellectual and artistic activity. Kierkegaard spoke about Christianity's “inverted dialectic”, which demands that we exercise “double vision”, to see in worldly things their spiritual opposites, such as hope in hopelessness, strength in weakness and prosperity in adversity. The inverse dialectic also requires that we “reduplicate” our thoughts in our actions, but in so doing that we “work against ourselves”. This was aimed at subverting our focus on worldly goals in order to refocus on other-worldly goals.

Henri-Louis Bergson (1859 – 1941) was a major French philosopher, who was influential especially in the first half of the 20th century. Bergson rejected what he saw as the overly mechanistic predominant view of causality. He argued that we must allow space for free will to unfold in an autonomous and unpredictable fashion. Élan vital, one of Bergson's essential concepts was an idea with the goal of explaining evolution. Bergson portrays Élan vital as a kind of vital impetus which explains evolution in a less mechanical and more lively manner, as well as accounting for the creative impulse of mankind. Bergson believed that “to exist is to change, to change is to mature, to mature is to go on creating oneself endlessly.” To Bergson, we needed to manage our activities, freedom and life to the fullest so we may live to the fullest.

On a larger scale, organized religion and the mores that have grown from it have forced us in to a state of bondage when it comes to the activities we believe will help us best deal with Life and the challenges we face. Many of us believe that abstaining from experiences will not only please god and society, but will also help us to best manage our relationships and prevent “bad things from happening to good people”. We all know people who abstain from certain activities (fill in the blank), others who don’t go out at night, some others who refuse to use cuss words. Some people shun the LGBT community, which is done to show they are adhering to the primary common societal values. This kind of behavior can easily be seen within various high school clicks and how certain people fit in to certain peer groups. These shackles need to be broken.

Nietzsche, Kierkegaard and Henri Bergson would all, in their own words; encourage us to stay engaged and not to let a single breath of our lives be wasted. We shouldn’t park one activity in effort to make another one “better”, because it will not do so. Parking an activity while another one is accomplished lessens our freedom of expression, but that is not what Nietzsche addressed. The freedom we have is surrendered, if we put one section of our live on hold while we ‘commit’ to another. An example would be giving up sweets for Lent. Doing so doesn’t effect god . . . it doesn’t deepen our spiritual life . . . it only gives us a false sense of worth from making the sacrifice. In our relationships, we need to be aware we cannot control another person. They do what they will do because they want to do it. They want to freely express their desires and free will; not because we’ve threatened them or given them gifts trying to buy their loyalty or love. Otherwise, they would be surrendering their free will to us and no one ever surrenders their free will.

All of our relationships fall in to one of several categories: a bonded pair, friends with benefits, friends, associates and acquaintances. Not all relationships or friendships are equal and not 'just anyone' can achieve inclusion in to every level. However, those individuals who have managed to make it to 'membership' within our three innermost levels are very special to us indeed for they comprise our core group.

We are best prepared for Life when within our core group we stay engaged with each other, are aware we are operating among equals who will not surrender their freedom or free will to us, and neither should we. We need to utilize our network of close friends (those that would fall into the classification of either a bonded pair, friends with benefits or good friends) to help us accept the challenges that come our way and overcome their impact upon our lives as best we can. We need to remain 'intimate' with each other in so far as we are seeking support, feeling close, forming strong emotional bonds and expressing feelings for each other, for these items are the ones that are essential and core to what it means to be human. Like Nietzsche stresses we need to be willing to share power with each other, because it is only through shared power that any relationship will flourish and last. Otherwise, we open ourselves up to coercion and manipulation, which ultimately will kill any relationship.

Being a male I often struggle to stay engaged when life hurts. I tend to ‘cave’ for a while by myself and heal, think and question before I re-engage. Yet I always try to be attentive in my relationships, respectful, accommodating, vulnerable, fair and nurturing without surrendering my sense of self. In my efforts to survive Life’s challenges, I find I constantly need to reaffirm these values, stay engaged “in the game” and remain committed to those who mean the most to me.

Life is a precious gift; however, life is also, at best, a challenge.

0 notes

truthveracity · 10 years

Text

Why Do We Believe In Our Current Moral Values?

So much of our moral belief system, especially when we consider our values, is derived from our religious beliefs, yet those same beliefs have not been handed own from a divine creator; rather, they have evolved as the desirable traits of mankind have changed. To state it simply we worship what we value and what we value has changed drastically over the history of humanity. Consider the following facts:

Polygamy was prevalent within in Old Testament, especially among the patriarchs.

Some pre-Christian Celtic pagans were known to practice polygamy depending on the time period and area.

On February 14, 1650, the parliament at Nürnberg decreed that, because so many men were killed during the Thirty Years’ War, the churches for the following ten years could not admit any man under the age of 60 into a monastery. Priests and ministers not bound by any monastery were allowed to marry. Lastly, the decree stated that every man was allowed to marry up to ten women. The men were admonished to behave honorably, provide for their wives properly, and prevent animosity among them.

Mormon polygamy (specifically polygyny) began with Joseph Smith, Jr., who stated he received a revelation on July 17, 1831 that "plural marriage" should be practiced by some Mormon men who were specifically commanded to do so.

In Islam, polygyny is allowed, with the specific limitation that a man can have four wives at any one time.

We experience historical and cultural differences not because of competing deities, but because of varying cultural norms.

In the Old Testament there are several references to the ‘holiness’ of a man’s seed; so much so that it should not be spilt on the ground (as in wasted) and even if “any man’s seed of copulation go out from him, then he shall bathe all his flesh in water . . . “ (Lev 15:16). Now days we no longer have such a treasured reverence for sperm.

As we consider our social mores it is difficult to separate ‘church doctrine’ from societal norms because they are so closely intertwined. However, from a retrospective approach such ingressive behavior becomes apparent. Take for example denominations that frown upon dancing or drinking alcohol. Those are clearly mores that were developed in order to please, in the denomination’s opinion, a god who can be manipulated if certain behaviors can be controlled or, better yet, eliminated from society. It is very similar to the rationale behind the prohibition.

Beginning in the 1800s philosophers began to delve in to this phenomenon in an effort to determine, among other things, how much freedom are we surrendering to inconsequential church doctrines that control and manipulate us. After all, all organized religious entities need our money as well as our respect in order for them to thrive and be found relevant in our lives.

One of the earliest thinkers along these lines was Friedrich Nietzsche. Nietzsche (1844–1900) was a German philosopher of the late 19th century who challenged the foundations of Christianity and traditional morality. He was interested in the enhancement of individual and cultural health, and believed in life, creativity, power, and the realities of the world we live in, rather than those situated in a world beyond. Central to his philosophy is the idea of “life-affirmation,” which involves an honest questioning of all doctrines that drain life's expansive energies, however socially prevalent those views might be.

Nietzsche’s work is often divided in to three main periods of work. In his middle period (1878-1882) Nietzsche developed the idea of power (for which he would later become known) sporadically appears as an explanatory principle, but Nietzsche tends at this time to invoke hedonistic considerations of pleasure and pain in his explanations of cultural and psychological phenomena. In a more well-known work, The Gay Science, whose title was inspired by the troubadour songs of southern-French Provence, Nietzsche sets forth some of the existential ideas for which he became famous, namely, the proclamation that “God is dead” and the doctrine of eternal recurrence — a doctrine that attends to how people of different levels of health are likely to react to the prospect of being reborn, over and over again, to replay life's experience exactly as before in every pleasurable and painful sequence of detail.

In his later period (1883 – 1887), Nietzsche alternatively philosophizes from the perspective of life located beyond good and evil, and challenges the entrenched moral idea that exploitation, domination, injury to the weak, destruction and appropriation are universally objectionable behaviors. Nietzsche further denies that there is a universal morality applicable indiscriminately to all human beings, and instead designates a series of moralities in an order of rank that ascends from the plebeian to the noble: some moralities are more suitable for subordinate roles; some are more appropriate for dominating and leading social roles. What counts as a preferable and legitimate action depends upon the kind of person one is. The deciding factor is whether one is weaker, sicker and on the decline, or whether one is healthier, more powerful and overflowing with life.

In Beyond Good and Evil, the first essay continues the discussion of master morality versus servant morality, and maintains that the traditional ideals set forth as holy and morally good within Christian morality are products of self-deception, since they were forged in the bad air of revenge, resentment, hatred, impotence, and cowardice. In this essay, as well as the next, Nietzsche's controversial references to the “blond beast” in connection with master morality also appear. In the second essay, Nietzsche continues with an account of how feelings of guilt, or the “bad conscience,” arise merely as a consequence of an unhealthy Christian morality that turns an evil eye towards our natural inclinations. He also discusses how punishment, conceived as the infliction of pain upon someone in proportion to their offense, is likely to have been grounded in the contractual economic relationship between creditor and debtor, i.e., in business relationships. In the third essay, Nietzsche focuses upon the truth-oriented ascetic ideals that underlie and inform prevailing styles of art, religion and philosophy, and he offers a particularly scathing critique of the priesthood: the priests are allegedly a group of weak people who shepherd even weaker people as a way to experience power for themselves. The third essay also contains one of Nietzsche's clearest expressions of “perspectivism” (section 12) — the idea that there is no absolute, “God's eye” standpoint from which one can survey everything that is.

Nietzsche is well known for several quotes that provide a keen insight in to his thought process:

We love life, not because we are used to living but because we are used to loving.

The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometime frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself.

To live is to suffer; to survive is to find some meaning in the suffering.

And his best-known quote: “That which does not kill us makes us stronger”.

Because of the entire religious incursion in to our mores and societal values, it is hard to determine where humankind would naturally fall without such influences. It is clearly evident we all have strong hormonal urges that ebb and flow throughout our lives. Some of these hormones make us lovers while others make us fighters. Similarly, it is true we tend to be a loving creature as long as we are not threatened, coerced, sick or have an ego that is unsubstantiated by our true capabilities. As Nietzsche says, we all struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by our ‘tribe’; consider the strength of the recent LGBT movement . . . if that is not a struggle in an effort to not be overwhelmed by a tribe, I don’t know what is.

There is clearly a movement underway within society for all of us to be freer, more expressive individuals. However, throwing off the shackles of millennia of constrictive religious beliefs is not a feat easily accomplished. The reality is none of us may ever truly be free. All we can do is be willing to join the journey and seek what is real and true and best for each and every one of us.

Most of the items listed above that dealt with Nietzsche came from Wicks, Robert, "Friedrich Nietzsche", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2013 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2013/entries/nietzsche/>.

1 note · View note

truthveracity · 10 years

Text

So you thought only one person claimed to be born of a virgin?

Probably one of the most dangerous groups of individuals roaming around in American society today is an uninformed Christian. They tend to be very opinionated, demand adherence to their interpreted belief system and always seem to strike an air of moral superiority. Yet these same individuals, many of whom are college educated, see value in religious ignorance and hold up their "simple faith" as their gold standard. If something within their religious system makes absolutely no sense, they hold to it because of their "simple faith". If they become aware of scientific facts that contradict their belief, no problem . . . it's "simple faith" to the rescue.

Often they will elaborate on Jesus' miraculous powers, insight and divine birth that proves who he is. If we just consider the last point, Jesus' divine birth, we can illustrate their lack of historical understanding of such claims.

Throughout history many 'special' individuals have had it said about them that they were born or a virgin:

Gautama Buddha - Born of the virgin Maya around 600BC

Dionysus - Greek God, born of a virgin in a stable, turned water into wine

Quirrnus - An early Roman saviour, born of a virgin

Attis - Born of the virgin Nama in Phyrgia around 200BC

Indra - Born of a virgin in Tibet around 700BC

Adonis - Babylonian God, born of the virgin Ishtar

Krishna - Hindu deity, born of the virgin Devaki around 1200BC

Zoroaster - Born of a virgin sometime between 1500BC and 1200BC

Mithra - Born of a virgin on December 25 around 600BC.

And this is just a partial list.

Of all of these individuals listed, Mithra is the most interesting and there are many similarities between Mithraism and Christianity such as:

Virgin birth

Twelve followers

Killing and resurrection

Miracles

Birthdate on December 25

Morality

Mankind's savior

Known as the Light of the world

These elements of Jesus' story are either coincidental to Mithras' or directly borrowed from this earlier pagan religion, which was heavily embraced by the Roman army as well as the members of marginal groups such as freedmen, slaves and merchants; however, woman were not allowed within this religious sect. Roman Mithraism was a mystery religion with sacrifice and initiation rites.

For over three hundred years the rulers of the Roman Empire worshipped the god Mithras. Known throughout Europe and Asia by the names Mithra, Mitra, Meitros, Mihr, Mehr, and Meher, the veneration of this god began around 2600 years ago in Persia, where it was soon imbedded with Babylonian doctrines. In Rome, more than a hundred inscriptions dedicated to Mithra have been found, in addition to 75 sculpture fragments, and a series of Mithraic temples situated in all parts of the city. One of the largest Mithraic temples built in Italy now lies under the present site of the Church of St. Clemente, near the Colosseum in Rome. The faithful referred to Mithra as "the Light of the World", symbol of truth, justice, and loyalty. He was mediator between heaven and earth and was a member of a Holy Trinity. According to Persian mythology, Mithras was born of a virgin given the title 'Mother of God'. The god remained celibate throughout his life, and valued self-control, renunciation and resistance to sensuality among his worshippers. Mithras represented a system of ethics in which brotherhood was encouraged in order to unify against the forces of evil. The worshippers of Mithras held strong beliefs in a celestial heaven and an infernal hell. They believed that the benevolent powers of the god would sympathize with their suffering and grant them the final justice of immortality and eternal salvation in the world to come. They looked forward to a final day of Judgment in which the dead would resurrect, and to a final conflict that would destroy the existing order of all things to bring about the triumph of light over darkness.

Ahura-Mazda was said to have created Mithras to be as great and worthy as himself. He would fight the spirits of evil to protect the creations of Ahura-Mazda and cause even Ahriman to tremble. Mithras was seen as the protector of just souls from demons seeking to drag them down to Hell, and the guide of these souls to Paradise.

The popular Cult of Mithra (or Mithras) was an embarrassment to the early Christian church. Its roots probably in Syria and it is believed to be an offshoot of the Persian cult of Zoroaster. It seems to have been introduced into the Roman Empire around 67 BC. Born in a stable to a virgin, Mithra' birthday was celebrated on December 25th and he was, reportedly, dead and yet was reborn, A Passover was associated with Mithras which was celebrated around Easter. The worship rites of Mithras involved the ingestion of food and drink that were symbolic of eating the flesh of Mithra, and all this occurred around 600 years before the birth of Christ. Also included were rites of baptism, the belief in immortality, resurrection, a judgement at the end between Heaven and Hell, and a savior who died and was resurrected to act as a mediator between man and God.

Interesting stuff. Makes you wonder how the "simple faith" folks deal with this? they ignore it.

0 notes

truthveracity · 10 years

Text

Do We Worship Ourselves?

Many ancient religions were based upon the concept of Animism - the belief that animals, plants, places and people have similar souls or spirits. This "soul" is physical, not metaphysical, and It is often equated with the breath, blood, name, or shadow of the object or creature, The term animism was coined by the nineteenth-century anthropologist Edward Tylor to denote the first stage of the evolution of religion. Culturally, animism was linked to what Taylor called "savagery" -i.e." hunter-gatherer societies, Tylor claimed that as a culture rose to "barbarism" (chiefdoms) and then "civilization," its religions leaned toward polytheism and then to monotheism.

Tylor saw the origin of animism as an attempt to account for fainting, dreams, and death. He proposed that early humans rationally explained these conditions as products of the activity of the "sour' and that early humans extended this "sour' to animals, plants, and other objects (totem). Many anthropologists believe that primitive cultures share a common belief in the fact that: 1) a soul animates the body, 2) the soul can be attacked or protected by magic (witchcraft), 3) the soul is strengthened by passage through the proper life cycle rites, 4) with proper rituals, the souls of nature and the dead will protect the living, and 5) if the rituals are neglected, the spirits will do harm to the soul.

Like most ancient religions, Animism (and/or Totemism) was and is an attempt by man to control his environment. Man, innately, does not like to be out of control in a situation, and being able to have a soul which is linked to "others" and to the "cosmic soul" lends some form of control. With strict adherence to "the proper rituals" some measure of control over the weather, adversaries, or "the gods" is possible.

Emil Dirkhiem, a noted anthropologist, studied primitive cultures in the Outback of Australia, and he determined that totemism was really the religion of a group of people worshipping their own desirable traits. The "wisdom of the owl' and the "craftiness of the fox" are examples of certain human traits which have been ascribed to an animal. The animal, in turn, can be worshipped, sacrificed, eaten, or whatever, to have the "desired trait" instilled in the soul of the person desiring the attribute. It is a way of "improving upon what' god' has given us."

In today's Christian society have we done any different? Have we not made Jesus into a "success vehicle" that enables us to worship our own desirable traits and thereby come to worship ourselves?

If there is a 'true religion', I believe it would be based upon characteristics such as love, compassion and forgiveness. Those are the items we value when we are in need, are hurt, have wronged another (either by intention or unintentionally) or are blessed with a life partner that captures our imagination and takes our breath away. It would not need "seed faith money" nor would it have to take a roll call on a regular basis, require pledges to support it or require compliance with a doctrine of idiosyncratic statements.

0 notes

truthveracity · 10 years

Photo

0 notes

truthveracity · 10 years

Photo

0 notes

truthveracity · 10 years

Text

The Creation of the Bible: Many Hands, Many Interpretations

As illustrated in the picture above, Greco-Roman society was based upon the idea of dominance and the only thing higher than men were the gods. Masters had complete control over slaves, parents complete dominance over children, and men could, and should, assert their power over women, the weaker sex. Furthermore, having sex with your slaves, whether male or female, was completely acceptable.

Same sex relationships were frowned upon not because of the act, but because of a ‘stronger sex’ acting like the ‘weaker sex’ -- it was unnatural to be submissive in such a relationship (Julius Caesar being the submissive partner in his relationship with the king of Galatia).

As Christian communities became established, they sometimes faced opposition from Jews and pagans, which lead to persecutions by Rome based upon suspicions and supposedly immoral acts. Christian intellectuals during this time began writing apologies (from the Greek word “defense” [apologia]) in an effort to show this new faith was not a social threat to the empire. These apologies were important for early Christian readers for they provided arguments they needed when they themselves faced persecution.

Early Christianity also faced threats from within its own ranks and they were aware of a variety of interpretations of “the truth” existed. Paul often railed against “false teachers”; for example, in his letter to the Galatians.

To deal with the problem, Christian leaders began to write tractates that opposed “heretics” (those who chose the wrong way to understand the faith). Eventually some of these Christian writings came to be seen as not worth even reading, which helped lead to the formation of the Christian canon.

We know that at one time or another, in one place or another, all of the non-canonical books and many others were revered as sacred, inspired, and scriptural. Only 27 of these early Christian books were finally included in the canon. Other books came to be rejected, scorned, maligned, burned and all but forgotten.

Over time, and with some effort, one form of Christianity emerged victorious in the conflict, and they decided what was the “correct” Christian perspective, who could exercise authority, and what would be termed “heretical”. As a coup de grace, the victorious party rewrote the history of the controversy to make it appear that there had not been much conflict at all, claiming their own views had always been the majority view back to the time of Jesus and his apostles, that their perspective had always been “orthodox” and that their opponents had always been small splinter groups.

It was the great diversity of view-points and religious practices that caused the ‘battles’ between competing 'Christianities'. Probably the most well known and significant was the ‘battle’ between Ebionites and Marcionites. These two groups are representative of the two polar ends of the spectrum of religious viewpoints at the time.

Ebionites can, in a simplified fashion, be described as “Christians who would be Jews”. They are second-century ‘adoptionists’ who maintained Jewish practices and Jewish forms of worship. They thought of themselves to be Jewish followers of Jesus. Ebionites believed that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah sent from the Jewish God to the Jewish people in fulfillment of the Jewish Scriptures. They also believed that to belong to the people of God, one needed to be Jewish.

Ebionites did not believe in the notion of Jesus’ preexistence or his virgin birth. They believed Jesus was the Son of God because of his “adoption” by God to be his son. Ebionites believed Jesus was a real flesh-and-blood human like the rest of us, born as the eldest son of the sexual union of his parents, Joseph and Mary. What set Jesus apart from all other people was that he kept God’s law perfectly and so was the most righteous man on earth.

Ebionites believed Jesus’ mission, upon adoption, was to be sent to the cross for the sins of the world. Since Jesus paid the perfect, ultimate and final sacrifice for our sins, Ebionites believed there was no longer any need for the ritual sacrifice of animals. Ebionites were Jews, or converts to Judaism, who understood that the ancient Jewish traditions revealed God’s ongoing interaction with his people and his Law for their lives. Furthermore, Ebionites totally rejected the writings and beliefs of Paul.

Marcionites, on the other hand, can be described as Christians who spurn all things Jewish. Marcion was one of the most infamous “heretics” of the 2nd century. Tradition indicates that he was born and raised in Sinope, on the southern shore of the Black Sea, where as a young man, he acquired considerable wealth as a shipping merchant. His father was allegedly the bishop of the Christian church there, who excommunicated his son for his false teachings.

In 139 A.D., Marcion went to Rome, where he spent five years developing his theological views, before presenting them to a specially called council of the church leaders. Rather than accepting Marcion’s understanding of the Gospel, however, the church expelled him for false teaching. Marcion then journeyed into Asia Minor, where he proved remarkably successful in converting others to his understanding of the Christian message. “Marcionite” churches were in existence for centuries after his death, around 160 A.D. Marcionites were followers of the second-century evangelist/theologian Marcion, who was one of the most significant Christian thinkers and writers of the early centuries.

The Marcionites had a highly attractive religion to many pagan converts in that it was definitely Christian with nothing Jewish about it. Not only were Jewish customs rejected, so too were the Jewish Scriptures and the Jewish God. Marcion, as we might suspect, was enthralled with the writings of Paul. Paul claimed that a person was made right with God by faith in Christ, not by doing the works of the Law.

To Marcion, the gospel was the good news of deliverance; it involved love, mercy, grace, forgiveness, reconciliation, redemption and life. On the other-hand the Law was the bad news that made the gospel necessary in the first place; it involved harsh commandments, guilt, judgment, enmity, punishment and death. The Law is given to the Jews. The gospel is given by Christ.

Marcion asked how could the wrathful, vengeful God of the jews be the loving, merciful God of Jesus. His answer was they were not the same. Marcion actually believed in two Gods: the harsh legalistic God of the Jews and the merciful loving God of Jesus. However, once Marcion reached this understanding, everything else fell in to place. The God of the Old Testament was the God who created the world, called the Jews to be His people and gave the Law. The God of Jesus was not involved in the world until Jesus came to save the world from the God of the Jews.

Marcion was a docetist (a person who believed that Jesus did not have a human body and that his death on the cross was only apparent rather than real) who taught that Jesus only “seemed” to have a body -- he was not actually born -- he only appeared to be human. His followers believed that a person could escape the throes of the wrathful Jewish God and have eternal life with the God of love and mercy -- the God of Jesus. To Marcion there were two Gods -- each competing for our souls -- and we had the responsibility to choose which one ruled our lives.

Yet as strange as these two competing perceptions of Christianity were, there were even more competing factions with concepts that were held as “truths” at the time, but which strike today’s Christians as unbelievable interpretations of the religion we know. One such group vying for influence was Valentinian Christianity, lead by a charismatic gnostic teacher named Valentinus, whom many scholars believe wrote the “Gospel of Truth” found in the Nag Hammadi documents.

The Gospel of Truth is not an account of Jesus’ life, rather it is a celebration of the salvation brought by Jesus in to the world of the truth that can free the soul from its bondage to material things. “Orthodox” Christianity maintained that this world was the intentional creation of the one true God, and as such was made good -- even if sin later came into the world and corrupted it. The Gospel of Truth claimed that the material world came about, instead, by conflict in the divine realm, resulting in ignorance, terror, anguish and error.

Orthodox Christianity claims that Jesus died for the sins of the world and that his death and resurrection are what brings salvation. Valentinus believed that Jesus brought salvation by delivering the truth that could set a soul free. Orthodox Christianity said people were made right with God by faith in Jesus’ death and resurrection. The Gospel of Truth maintains that people are saved by receiving the correct knowledge of who they really are.

Gnostics also raised issues regarding the character of the afterlife:

If salvation comes by escaping the body rather than while in the body, what kind of existence awaits us after death?

How can a bodiless existence be imagined?

If Christianity is based on the notion that Christ was “raised from the dead”, what exactly could that mean for someone who did not think that Christ had a fleshly body to begin with?

Of all the literature that was generated against what ultimately became orthodox Christianity, we are best informed by gnostic writings, many of which came from the discovery of the Nag Hammadi library. Gnostics, on the whole, did not maintain that the orthodox view was utterly wrong -- just that it was inadequate and superficial. Gnostics could confess the ‘orthodox’ creeds, read the orthodox scriptures and accept orthodox sacraments.

Gnostic understood all of these things differently than ‘orthodox’ Christians because of their “fuller” insight into their real meaning. Gnostic were the enemy within for what became orthodox Christianity, and they understood themselves to be the spiritually elite. Many gnostics believed that only Jesus’ physical likeness was put to death.

One of the strangest ‘Christianities’ were the Phibionites. They would indulge in sumptuous feasts that began with a special greeting: the men would shake hands with the women, secretly tickling or stroking their palms underneath. After everyone had eaten their full, the real festivities began. Married couples would separate to engage in a liturgy of sexual intercourse, each with another member of the community. The leaders of the group who have already attained perfection no longer require women for these festive occasions -- they indulged in homosexual relations with one another.

Phibionites subscribed to the notion, found among other Gnostic groups that this world is separated from the divine realm by 365 heavens, each with its own ruling archon (a greek word meaning "ruler"). Just as the divine redeemer who brought the secret knowledge of salvation descended through all 365 heavens and then re-ascended, so too the redeemed must pass by all the archons, twice. During the course of the sex liturgy, a member would call out the secret name of one of the ruling archons, effecting a kind of identification with him that allows for safe passage through his realm. Since each archon must be passed by twice, each Phibionite man was expected to seduce the various female devotees on at least 730 occasions.

Another similar group were the Carpocrations, which we learned about from the writings of Clement of Alexandria. They were a gnostic sect founded by Carpocrates. Carpocrations participated in licentious, promiscuous rituals out of their belief that since God created all things, all things should be held in common . . . including ones sexual partners. Naturally, this led to sexual orgies being incorporated in to their religious services.

Imagine the choices facing Christians of the second century:

Which is better: the Ebionite church of the Marcionite?

Gnostic or orthodox?

A church that believed in one god, 12, 30 or 365?

A church that accepts the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke or the Gospels of Thomas, Philip and Mary?

Out of the confusion the one, true religion, what we now term orthodox Christianity, rose victorious. Yet, even with victory, the journey has been fraught with errors, missteps, manipulations and alterations that have become incorporated in to our belief systems today.

One truly complicating factor for the orthodox church was how to maintain reliable written records? The only way to copy a book in the ancient world was to do it by hand, letter by letter, one word at a time. Those few books that were produced in multiple copies were not all alike, for the scribes who copied texts inevitably made alterations in those texts -- changing the words they copied either by accident or by design. We have testimonies from ancient writers themselves that illustrate this point.

One of the problems with ancient Greek texts, which would include all the earliest Christian writings, is that when they were copied no marks of punctuation were used, no distinction made between lower case and upper case, even more important no spaces were used to separate words. This kind of continuous writing is called scriptuo continua. As an example consider “godisnowhere”. This phrase could easily mean two different things: “god is now here” or “god is nowhere”.

Scholars realize that only educated people could be literate, and since getting an education meant having the leisure and money need to do so (unless you were a trained slave), which means the early Christian scribes were the wealthier, more highly educated member of the Christian communities. This also meant that, unlike the Roman world at large, the people copying the texts wanted the texts and they were, mostly likely, not professional scribes.

Since there were not professional scribes, at least in the first two or three centuries of the church, copying errors abounded. Errors were so prominent that the third-century author and church father, Origen, once registered the following complaint about the copies of the Gospels at his disposal:

“The differences among the manuscripts have become great, either through the negligence of some copyists or through the perverse audacity of others; they either neglect to check over what they have transcribed, or; in the process of checking, they make additions or deletions as they please”.

How did the proto-orthodox church come to dominate its rivals? The traditional answer is derived from Eusebius, a 4th century “father of church history”.

Eusebius is one of the most important authors of Christian antiquity, and he figured prominently in the theological disputes of his own day. Most significantly, he wrote the first history of Christianity in which he discussed the course of the Christian religion from the days of Jesus until his own time. Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History was written in 10 volumes and is still available today. It is one of the most important writings of antiquity and is a source of much of our information about early Christianity. The book discusses numerous topics such as the spread of Christianity, the rise of important churches, opposition by Jewish authorities, persecution by government official and significant early Christian leaders and writers.

The canon was started early in the Christian tradition, but it was ‘not standard’: there were Ebionite, Marcionite, Gnostic and proto-orthodox versions all competing for supremacy.

Justin Martyr (c. 150 CE), who experienced martyrdom in 165, was a popular teacher and speaker in the church of Rome. He wrote many books and we have three of his books remaining today. He talks about the ‘memoirs’ of the apostles and gives them precedence. He mentions Mathew, Mark and Luke and never mentions Paul, but it was evident Justin did not have a set canon.

After Justin wrote, Marcion began converting many Christians to his way of thinking, and in response the proto-orthodox church began specifying a canon.

The earliest canonical list we have is the Muratorian Canon, named after L.A. Muratori, who discovered the list in the mid 18th century. Muratori discovered the document in a library in Milan in 1740. The canon itself seems to have been produced near the end of the second century. The Muratorian Canon accepts 22 of the 27 books we have in today’s canon:

It does not have Hebrews, James, 1 and 2 Peter and 3 John.

But it does include the Wisdom of Solomon and the Apocalypse of Peter

It was not until 367 CE that anyone put forward a canon with our 27 books and only these 27 books - some 300 years after most of the books had been written. The first person to propose this canon was Athanasius, a powerful bishop of Alexandria, in a letter he had written to the churches under his jurisdiction.

The Roman Catholic Church did not officially specify the orthodox canon until the Council of Trent, which was held between December 13, 1545 and December 4, 1563 (was considered one of the RC’s most important councils). The Council of Trent was convened to address Protestant heresies regarding scripture and tradition as well as original sin, justification, sacraments, the eucharist and veneration of the saints. The Council of Trent was held in 25 sessions for three periods while they considered these topics and issued condemnations.

Contrary to what was written against the ‘heretics’, recent studies have shown that the evidence of our surviving manuscripts actually demonstrate that orthodox scribes frequently changed texts; sometimes in order to eliminate the possibility of their “misuse” and sometimes to make them more amenable to the doctrines being espoused by orthodox Christians. Most of the alterations, though, are the result of mistakes - pure and simple - accidental omissions, inadvertent additions, misspelled words and blunders of one sort or another.

An interesting example of an intentional change is evident in one of our best known, high quality old manuscripts called the Codex Vaticanus, because it was found in the Vatican, which was written in the fourth century. In the opening of the book of Hebrews there is a passage in which, according to most manuscripts, says “Christbears [Greek: PHERON] all things by the word of his power” (Heb. 1:3). Another scribe marked through the verb and changed it to “Christmanifests(Greek: PHANERON] all things by the word of his power”. Later, another scribe erased ‘manifests’ and reinserted ‘bears’. Later still, another scribe changed the word back to ‘manifests’, and in the margin he wrote, “Fool and knave! Leave the old reading, don’t change it!”.

Alterations in our scripture matter because we can only understand the original intent if we know what the author’s actual words really were. In the previous example, it is far different to say Christ reveals all things by his word of power rather than Christ keeps the universe together by his word.

Once a scribe changed a text, those changes became permanent, unless another scribe came along and ‘corrected’ the mistake. Going back to our oldest and best manuscripts it becomes apparent that today’s Bible is quite different from these historical documents . . . some of the variations may cause a few surprises.

The Woman Taken in Adultery (John 7:53-8:12)

This passage is found only in John and it demonstrates Jesus’ wits to get himself and the woman “off the hook”. The passage also raises questions about 1) where was the man, 2) why weren’t both of them stoned according to Lev 20:10, 3) what was Jesus writing, and 4) did Jesus really think the law of love superseded the Law of God? This story is not found in our oldest and best manuscripts of the Gospel of John, its writing style is very different and it includes a large number of words and phrases that are alien to the Gospel.

The Last Twelve Verses of Mark

According to Mark, Jesus was crucified and buried on the day before the Sabbath. The day after the Sabbath Mary Magdalene and two other women went to his tomb to anoint his body (16:1-2). When they arrived they found the stone rolled away and a young man in a white robe told them, “do not be startled! You are seeking Jesus the Nazarene, who has been crucified. He has been raised and is not here -- see the place where they laid him?” and he told them to tell the disciples. But the women fled the tomb and say nothing to anyone, “for they were afraid” (16:4-8).

Scholars believe this is where Mark originally ended, because the last twelve verses are missing from our two oldest and ‘best’ manuscripts along with the fact that the style of writing varies from what we find in the rest of Mark. Without the expanded ending Mark has a very different, hard to understand ending. Notice that the story ends with the women being afraid and saying nothing to anyone. What if at some point, like scholars think, a scribe who did not like Mark’s original ending added the last twelve verses? Does it change anything for us?

Eventually a kind of professional scribal class came to be part of the Christian intellectual landscape. With the advent of professional scribes came a more controlled copying process in which mistakes were made much less frequently.

During the early centuries of the church, Christian texts were copied in whatever location they were written or taken to. Since the texts were copied locally, it is no surprise that different localities developed different kinds of textual traditions. Starting in the fourth century copies of scripture began to be made by professionals. The great mass of our surviving Greek manuscripts come from medieval Christian scribes who lived and worked in the East, which is why from the seventh century onward they were labeled “Byzantine” manuscripts.

Over the years Christians in non-Greek speaking regions wanted the Christian sacred texts in their own, local languages -- primarily Latin. Problems began soon thereafter because there were so many translations that differed greatly from each other. Near the end of the fourth century, Pope Damacus had Jerome produce an “official” Latin translation. Jerome noted the plethora of available transactions and developed a new edition of the Gospels in Latin, which came to be known as the Latin Vulgate (= common).

The invention of the printing press in the fifteenth century by Johannes Gutenberg (1400-1468) that changed everything for the reproduction of the Bible. The first major work to be printed on Gutenberg’s press was a magnificent edition of the Latin Vulgate Bible, which took all of 1450-1456 to produce. An enterprising Dutch scholar, Desiderius Erasmus, was able to publish the first Greek New Testament just prior to the ‘Complutium’, which was an excellent Greek translation of the New Testament. This allowed him to publish the editio princeps (first published edition) in 1522. Erasmus relied heavily on just one twelfth century manuscript, which was of poor quality, and a twelfth century book of Acts and the Epistles. The manuscript he used for the book of Revelation was so poor that he had to use lines from the Latin Vulgate for text that was missing from his version of Revelation. Erasmus’ edition became the standard form of the Greek text to be published by Western European printers for more than 300 years.

Erasmus’ source material did not contain the Johannine Comma (1 John 5:7-8), which is the only passage in the entire Bible that explicitly delineates the doctrine of the Trinity.

7There are three that testify: 8the Spirit and the water and the blood, and these three agree.

Erasmus agreed to insert the text from the Latin Vulgate to silence his critics and to increase the acceptability of his manuscript. Erasmus’ “version” of the Bible ultimately became the foundation for the earliest English translations of the Bible including the King James version.

After many centuries scholars began to realize there were vast discrepancies between Erasmus’ translation and the actual Greek text. We now have over 5,700 Greek manuscripts to compare to just the one 12th century manuscript that Erasmus used and we have found he made many, many errors. Today, scholars know there are a vast number of variants in our text . . . in fact there are over 300,000 such variants.

For example, in 1 Corinthians 5:8, Paul tells his readers that they should partake of Christ, the Passover Lamb, and should not eat the “old leaven, the leaven of wickedness and evil.” The final word, evil, is spelled PONERAS in Greek, which, it turns out, looks a lot like the word for “sexual immorality”, PORNEIAS. The difference in meaning may not be overwhelming, but it is striking that in a couple of surviving manuscripts, Paul explicitly warns not against evil in general, but against sexual vice in particular.

The bottom line is we do not know what we think we know. There is not a single complete original copy and what we do have is so corrupted as to almost be indecipherable, if you are trying to understand "the mind of god."

Almost all of this material comes from several works by Bart Ehrman, the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. In particular "Lost Christianities: Christian Scriptures and the Battles over Authentication", "The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings" and "Misquoting Jesus: the Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and why".

0 notes