Posts by Chemosh

21

3 Books - Bible Unearthed, 101 Myths of the Bible, and Early History of God

by VM44 in

three books that i hope to read soon.

the bible unearthed: archaeology's new vision of ancient israel and the origin of its sacred texts (paperback).

by neil asher silberman (author), israel finkelstein ($11.20).

Chemosh

Has anyone (beside me) ever heard of Lloyd Barre?

I discovered him on B-hebrews.

A Brilliant Deceit and Other Essays

Paperback: 154 pages

Publisher: Writers Club Press (May, 2001)

Language: English

ISBN: 059517518X

Description:

In the first part of A Brilliant Deceit and Other Essays, the author offers fresh evidence to support a thesis put forward by the famous New Testament scholar Hermann Samuel Reimarus (1694-1768) that the disciples of Jesus perpetrated a resurrection hoax. That evidence is presented in a series of short essays that contain references to overlapping observations made by Reimarus. The second part of the book isolates socio-religious trajectories in ancient Israelite religion. The author's fundamental findings challenge the widespread notion that ancient Israel was a homogeneous culture united under the worship of the high god Yahweh Sabaoth. Instead, he argues that the Old Testament traditions are not the product of one people but two, originally and distinctly worshipping the high gods El and Yahweh.

What ever happened to this guy?

He wrote this book and then dropped off the face of the earth.

I think the “second part” is great. I bet he died or went insane. (Or both.)

Here's an example of his work - but I don’t think he is associated with this site

79

The final and correct interpretation of John 1.1

by Hellrider in

yup, i finally did it.

i solved the problem.

this is the final and correct interpretation of john 1.1. it came to me after reading a quote by origen: "if anyone would say that the word of god or the wisdom of god had a beginning, let him beware lest he direct his impiety rather against the unbegotten father, since he denies that he was always father, and that he has always begotten the word.

Chemosh

Hey Narkissos and Leolaia,

I guess I’m all confused again.

Have you ever wondered if (in some circles) Yahweh may have been considered a “messenger of El?”

Have you ever wondered if (in some circles) Yahweh may have been considered the “word of El?”

What do you think of all those places that read, “messenger of the LORD?”

Can’t they be translated as, “the messenger that is Yahweh?”

Doesn’t the Hebrew “malek” go with the Greek “logos?”

Don’t messengers deliver words?

Isn’t this basically the same in idea?

Isn’t the word “logos” used thousands of times in the LXX as a translation for the original Hebrew word "dabar?"

Do you like my goofy translation for Genesis 15:1?

After these things the logos Yahweh came to Abram in a vision …

Of course this is all sheer speculation, but do you ever wonder if GJohn 1:1 meant this?

In the beginning was the messenger Yahweh, and the messenger Yahweh was with El, and the messenger Yahweh was a son of El.

..

79

The final and correct interpretation of John 1.1

by Hellrider in

yup, i finally did it.

i solved the problem.

this is the final and correct interpretation of john 1.1. it came to me after reading a quote by origen: "if anyone would say that the word of god or the wisdom of god had a beginning, let him beware lest he direct his impiety rather against the unbegotten father, since he denies that he was always father, and that he has always begotten the word.

Chemosh

Hey Narkissos and Leolaia,

Thanks for your posts. Your words were not in vein. I have come to agree that the author of GJohn was probably unaware of the Deut 32:8 paradigm.

The deathblow to my hypothesis comes in verses like John 5:43…

I have come in my Father’s name …

Yahweh (saves) says he has his dad’s name.

Ditto 10:25.

I guess I am just frustrated hearing time after time about how the “son of God” stuff originates from “pagan sources” or from “Philo” or from “Hellenized Jews.” I would like to know more about this “Hellenization” process. In light of verses like Deut 32:8-9 what exactly is Helen bringing new to the table?

Doesn’t it seem absurd to think that all this “son of God” stuff faded away and was completely forgotten, and then one day (just out of shear coincidence) a similar idea popped into Philo’s little creative imagination?

Doesn’t this seem more like an evolutionary type of thing?

Does any non-Christian religion have an agenda do blame all this stuff on Philo?

Are Christians the only ones who believe Yahweh is a real g_d?

79

The final and correct interpretation of John 1.1

by Hellrider in

yup, i finally did it.

i solved the problem.

this is the final and correct interpretation of john 1.1. it came to me after reading a quote by origen: "if anyone would say that the word of god or the wisdom of god had a beginning, let him beware lest he direct his impiety rather against the unbegotten father, since he denies that he was always father, and that he has always begotten the word.

Chemosh

Here the subject, the "character," is the logos (not really a dionysian keyword btw), and the "son" image works as a comparison...

Why are you arguing that this is a “comparison” and not a “description,” when a “description” seems simpler and answers more questions than it asks?

79

The final and correct interpretation of John 1.1

by Hellrider in

yup, i finally did it.

i solved the problem.

this is the final and correct interpretation of john 1.1. it came to me after reading a quote by origen: "if anyone would say that the word of god or the wisdom of god had a beginning, let him beware lest he direct his impiety rather against the unbegotten father, since he denies that he was always father, and that he has always begotten the word.

Chemosh

Nobody "rewinds": this is a mistake (anachronism) we are prone to do because we look back (or imagine we can do so). We can put the Ugaritic texts in front of the Gospels and find interesting correspondences, but the question is: what was available to the author?

It looks like the Bacchantes was available to GJohn.

That story is about a god (who is also the son of another god) who becomes human.

Are you asking us to believe that GJohn kept the “wine” part but discarded the “son of god becomes human” part?

79

The final and correct interpretation of John 1.1

by Hellrider in

yup, i finally did it.

i solved the problem.

this is the final and correct interpretation of john 1.1. it came to me after reading a quote by origen: "if anyone would say that the word of god or the wisdom of god had a beginning, let him beware lest he direct his impiety rather against the unbegotten father, since he denies that he was always father, and that he has always begotten the word.

Chemosh

First, show me the "son of god incarnate" in GJohn.

John 1:14

Now the Word became flesh and took up residence among us. We saw his glory—the glory of the unique one, full of grace and truth, who came from the Father.

The “Word” exhibited Yahweh’s “glory”. Yahweh does not share his glory with anyone else.

Isaiah 42:8

I am Yahweh! That is my name!

I will not share my glory with anyone else …

GJohn is telling us that a prophecy has been fulfilled.

Isaiah 40:5

And the glory of Yahweh will be revealed, and all mankind together will see it. For the mouth of the Yahweh has spoken.

There are of course billions of explanations for this. We can make up stuff all day. But the good explanations are the ones that answer more questions than they ask.

79

The final and correct interpretation of John 1.1

by Hellrider in

yup, i finally did it.

i solved the problem.

this is the final and correct interpretation of john 1.1. it came to me after reading a quote by origen: "if anyone would say that the word of god or the wisdom of god had a beginning, let him beware lest he direct his impiety rather against the unbegotten father, since he denies that he was always father, and that he has always begotten the word.

Chemosh

Is Yhwh in Deutero-Isaiah still a son of El? I don't think so. The most obvious characteristic of Deutero-Isaiah is that Yhwh is the only god (actually, "God," probably for the very first time) and that other gods do not exist.

This type of thinking seems very narrow minded. I think you’re overlooking something big.

Here in late 2005 there are Jehovah’s Witnesses, Catholics, Jews, Muslims, and Mormons (who btw, believe that Yahweh was a son of El), and all kinds of religions who hold an opinion about Yahweh.

Why do you think things were any different back in GJohn’s day or Deutero-Isaiah’s day?

Deutero-Isaiah wrote polemics against El and emphasized that other gods do not exist.

Why was this necessary?

Why did he write this stuff?

Who were these El-worshippers he was talking about?

Why did he single out El?

Why not criticize other gods?

These polemics indicate the presence of different opinions about Yahweh.

Your arguments appear to be based on the premise that at any single instance in time there can only be ONE unified way of looking at Yahweh.

How did you arrive at your conclusion?

79

The final and correct interpretation of John 1.1

by Hellrider in

yup, i finally did it.

i solved the problem.

this is the final and correct interpretation of john 1.1. it came to me after reading a quote by origen: "if anyone would say that the word of god or the wisdom of god had a beginning, let him beware lest he direct his impiety rather against the unbegotten father, since he denies that he was always father, and that he has always begotten the word.

Chemosh

Hey Narkissos and Leolaia,
I think you guys are smart. I’d like to solicit your comments on the following verses:

The Bacchantes Lo! I am come to this land of Thebes, Dionysus the son of Zeus … I have put off the god and taken human shape ...

Psalm 89:6 Who among the sons of El is like Yahweh?
John 1:14 Now the Word became flesh and took up residence among us. We saw his glory—the glory of the unique one, full of grace and truth, who came from the Father. Isaiah 42:8 I am Yahweh! That is my name! I will not share my glory with anyone else …

Matthew 1:21

She will give birth to a son and you will name him Yahweh (saves), because he will save his people from their sins.

Matthew 27:46 At about three o’clock Yahweh (saves) shouted with a loud voice, “El, El, why have you forsaken me? … Why is it reasonable to think GJohn borrowed the “wine” stuff from Dionysus, but not the “son of god incarnate” stuff?
Who told you GJohn needs Philo?
How come GJohn is allowed to rewind 400 years to borrow from a Greek Son of God, but not allowed to rewind 400 years to borrow from a Hebrew Son of God?
Are Christians the only religious group whose god(s) are in question?
And just where did Philo and the Hellenistic Jews get THEIR material?

79

The final and correct interpretation of John 1.1

by Hellrider in

yup, i finally did it.

i solved the problem.

this is the final and correct interpretation of john 1.1. it came to me after reading a quote by origen: "if anyone would say that the word of god or the wisdom of god had a beginning, let him beware lest he direct his impiety rather against the unbegotten father, since he denies that he was always father, and that he has always begotten the word.

Chemosh

Okay. Thanks to both of you.

I did some googling. Now I see that "2nd Isaiah" is "Deutero-Isaiah". My mistake was that I assumed "Deutero-Isaiah" was the “non-2nd Isaiah” part.

79

The final and correct interpretation of John 1.1

by Hellrider in

yup, i finally did it.

i solved the problem.

this is the final and correct interpretation of john 1.1. it came to me after reading a quote by origen: "if anyone would say that the word of god or the wisdom of god had a beginning, let him beware lest he direct his impiety rather against the unbegotten father, since he denies that he was always father, and that he has always begotten the word.

Chemosh

Hey Narkissos.

I guess I am all confused over here. I always thought Deutero-Isaiah was the author of verses 1-39, and that 2nd-Isaiah was the author of 40-66 (or perhaps just 40-55).

It looks to me like Deutero-Isaiah knew who Shachar and El were.

Isaiah 14:12-13

Look how you have fallen from the sky,

O shining one, son of Shachar!

You have been cut down to the ground,

O conqueror of the nations!

You said to yourself,

“I will climb up to the sky.

Above the stars of El

I will set up my throne.

I will rule on the mountain of assembly

on the remote slopes of Zaphon.

I will climb up to the tops of the clouds;

I will make myself like the Most High!”

Shachar was the god of the dawn and twin brother of Shalim, Right?

El was their dad. Right?

Does this sound monotheistic to you?

It looks to me like 2nd-Isaiah was the ‘poster child for modern monotheism’ that you are thinking of.

Isaiah 43:10

… El was not formed before me, and after me, there will not be.

In any case, thanks again for your comments. I am still looking for a verse where GJohn equates Jesus with El.