From Egypt to Israel in symbols

a reply to: Logarock

Oh yes, very much so. For instance, the Pesh1tta AKA the Syriac or Aramaic NT only counts 22 books, originally omitting the whole Antilegomena (disputed books, in particular2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, and the Apocalypse) AND the whole corpus of Catholic epistles, but the latter ones were later translated into Syriac Aramaic and included. Most likely the letters of John are pseudepigrapha and possibly written (by someone else) as subtle additions to the Apocalypse, using similar concepts and wording for concepts central in the Apocalypse. Someone jumping on the bandwagon.

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

Just to clarify I was referring to the likenesses between the Gospel of John and the Revelation.

originally posted by: Logarock
a reply to: Utnapisjtim

Just to clarify I was referring to the likenesses between the Gospel of John and the Revelation.

Sorry for mixing it up. The 'Gospel of John' was not written by John or anyone carrying that name, it was named so since John is the only one of the trad. male disciples who is not mentioned by name in the book. The Apocalypse is so far away from the writing style and grammar of the gospel carrying his name, that it can't possibly have been penned by the same person. The ending lines of the Gospel of John shows it is a pseudepigraphal work (like most of the other books of the Bible), based on the accounts of an unnamed disciple and lover of Jesus. To say this Beloved Disciple is John (or even Lazarus) involves a bit of man-love, mind you. The Gospel of John, or so called, were the accounts of Jesus' lover or wife, his beloved disciple, most likely Mary Magdalene. It was recorded and written down by unnamed scribes.

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

The love between Jesus and his disciple is about the heart of the Father being revealed. When John rests his head on Jesus breast that is speaking of his ear to the beating heart of Jesus. Its not man love or man-woman love. This is agape, and the fire that burns inside, Christ in you the hope of glory. The Gospel of John is entirely written from the Sod level, along with Revelation btw. Its all symbolic of the divine life being born and revealed in you, me and all of creation.

a reply to: zardust

Now a certain man was ill, Lazarus of Bethany, the village of Mary and her sister Martha. It was Mary who anointed the Lord with ointment and wiped his feet with her hair, whose brother Lazarus was ill. So the sisters sent to him, saying, “Lord, he whom you love is ill.” But when Jesus heard it he said, “This illness does not lead to death. It is for the glory of God, so that the Son of God may be glorified through it.” Now Jesus loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus. So, when he heard that Lazarusa was ill, he stayed two days longer in the place where he was. [ESV] John 11:1ff

Agape, indeed, it is the kind of love you devout to your family, or as in this case, his wife's family. The above quote probably lead Leonardo to include a woman among the twelve, sitting next to him. I believe Mary of Bethany is the same as Mary Magdalene.

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

Mary Magdalene was his aunt. She was married to Joseph of arimathea the brother of Mary Jesus' mother. Nicodemus was magdalenes father.

originally posted by: zardust
a reply to: Utnapisjtim

Mary Magdalene was his aunt. She was married to Joseph of arimathea the brother of Mary Jesus' mother. Nicodemus was magdalenes father.

That sounds rather strange, but OK. If true, it means Jesus' family was the wealthiest in the whole Roman Empire. Joseph of Arimathea was one of, or probably THE richest guy in the world back then (not counting emperors and kings). Nicodemus was known as one of the best physicians alive, also a wealthy man and like Joseph, he was also very influential. Not only that but it would make both parents of Jesus descendants of king David, atleast likely. Anyway, it doesn't fit very well with tradition which says Jesus was a poor carpenter's son.

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim

originally posted by: Logarock
a reply to: Utnapisjtim

Just to clarify I was referring to the likenesses between the Gospel of John and the Revelation.

Sorry for mixing it up. The 'Gospel of John' was not written by John or anyone carrying that name, it was named so since John is the only one of the trad. male disciples who is not mentioned by name in the book. The Apocalypse is so far away from the writing style and grammar of the gospel carrying his name, that it can't possibly have been penned by the same person. The ending lines of the Gospel of John shows it is a pseudepigraphal work (like most of the other books of the Bible), based on the accounts of an unnamed disciple and lover of Jesus. To say this Beloved Disciple is John (or even Lazarus) involves a bit of man-love, mind you. The Gospel of John, or so called, were the accounts of Jesus' lover or wife, his beloved disciple, most likely Mary Magdalene. It was recorded and written down by unnamed scribes.

BUT it clearly says that this "is the disciple which testified of these things and wrote these things and we know his testimony is true". So even if a third party is copying it down from some writing at Johns own hand, John is still given credit. So no it really shows nothing suggesting pseudepigraphia as in a faked document with forged authorship.

I pity folks that don't have enough education in the bible and read your diatribes.

originally posted by: Logarock

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim

originally posted by: Logarock
a reply to: Utnapisjtim

Just to clarify I was referring to the likenesses between the Gospel of John and the Revelation.

Sorry for mixing it up. The 'Gospel of John' was not written by John or anyone carrying that name, it was named so since John is the only one of the trad. male disciples who is not mentioned by name in the book. The Apocalypse is so far away from the writing style and grammar of the gospel carrying his name, that it can't possibly have been penned by the same person. The ending lines of the Gospel of John shows it is a pseudepigraphal work (like most of the other books of the Bible), based on the accounts of an unnamed disciple and lover of Jesus. To say this Beloved Disciple is John (or even Lazarus) involves a bit of man-love, mind you. The Gospel of John, or so called, were the accounts of Jesus' lover or wife, his beloved disciple, most likely Mary Magdalene. It was recorded and written down by unnamed scribes.

BUT it clearly says that this "is the disciple which testified of these things and wrote these things and we know his testimony is true". So even if a third party is copying it down from some writing at Johns own hand, John is still given credit. So no it really shows nothing suggesting pseudepigraphia as in a faked document with forged authorship.

I pity folks that don't have enough education in the bible and read your diatribes.

The Book was first called the Gospel of John several hundred years later, it wasn't originally named as such. The mysterious "disciple who testified of these things" is unnamed. It was thus named since some church father figured out that Jesus had exactly 12 disciples and that John was missing in the gnostic gospel now carrying his name. Like most of the other books in the Bible, John is a pseudepigraphal work. However, we know he had a bunch more disciples, at times there were so many that he had to run away and hide. The 12 thing is Babylon trying to make sense, not Jesus. He had plenty more than 12 disciples, and several of them were often wealthy women of the upper classes, together with the richest man in the world and one of the best physicians around in the ancient world. Much like with the gurus today. He was a busy cultist, he even had his accountant (Iscariot) with him at all times and ran charity operations like feeding thousands in the desert and mass healing sessions. He gathered thousands at his meetings at Mt. Olives and attended Temple debates with the best minds of his time.

a reply to: zardust

So. Hyksos = Moses aye? Lived in the Nile Delta, Goshen. The people who lived there was a mixed one and apparently at «p5. 'The Encyclopedia of Military History' (4th edition 1993), Dupuy & Dupuy.» (though referenced at en.wikipedia.org... I haven't read it apparently) they are said to have introduced war chariots to Egypt. Kinda gives the opportunity to paraphrase the old song;

«Pharaoh’s chariots [i.e. Goshen] and his host [lit. Fortresses]
he cast into the sea [i.e. the flooding Nile],
and his chosen officers [lit. «three measures» i.e. the Gizeh pyramids]
were sunk in the red sea [i.e. red, flooding nile; lit. «sea of reeds»].
The floods covered them; they went down into the depths like a stone.»
~ Exodus 15:4

It's the flooding Nile I tell you, during the time when the Nile turned red, that's close to flood maximum.

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

Hmm. Interesting. I'm not so sure that they were the Hyksos though I've read a lot on them and the theories that the Israelites are the Hyksos.

At this point my theory is that the exodus was a later addition to cover the fact that the Israelites were actually priests of Horus. The deuteronomists wanted all evidence of their true past deleted and while in Babylon awaiting an exodus they wrote the one they wished for. One that also covered over the sordid past of "idolatry" and the fact that they were Egyptians or at least a part of the society (not necessarily slaves as told).

a reply to: zardust

I am also unsure whether the Hyksos are the Israelites, and to be honest the whole Hyksos thing seems too good to be true, they seem to fill all the blanks somehow, but if they are real and could be credited for «Pharaoh's chariots» then the Genesis narrators may have used the expression as an idiomatic reference to «the Nile delta», which were where both the Israelites and the Hyksos lived, and thus Moses diverted the flooding Nile river, he did not part the Red Sea. Adjusting for axial precession Passover happened exactly when the annual Nile floods occurred.

Hi-

In regards to the Taanach cult stand, I appreciate that you like my illustration, but it would have been nice to have been asked before you decided to use it. You could at least credit the copyrighted illustration and give a link to where you stole it from: matrifocus.com...

Thanks!

a reply to: zardust

Hi-

In regards to the Taanach cult stand, I appreciate that you like my illustration, but it would have been nice to have been asked before you decided to use it. You could at least credit the copyrighted illustration and give a link to where you stole it from: matrifocus.com...

Thanks!

a reply to: Aharan

I'm very sorry. I didn't realize that it was copywrited, I just pulled it from an image search after reading about the stand in a journal article. Please forgive me.