How Matriarchy and Patriarchy Reversed In The World

Yes! Your interpretation of the various Bible references you used is almost identical to my own. And when I look a little deeper into the information available about all the different religions that existed in the Middle East and North Africa from the time of Abraham to the time of Jesus, the type of patriarchal religion now embraced by Judaism, Christianity and Islam is clearly revealed as a fairly recent invention. For example, the Hebrews were Pagans before they invented Judaism, Jehovah had a wife named Asherah, and blood sacrifice of both animals and humans was common. A lot of the Hebrew mythology in the Old Testament is closely based on the Babylonian Gilgamesh epic, and so on.

Realityrebel wrote:

Yes! Your interpretation of the various Bible references you used is almost identical to my own. And when I look a little deeper into the information available about all the different religions that existed in the Middle East and North Africa from the time of Abraham to the time of Jesus, the type of  patriarchal religion now embraced by Judaism, Christianity and Islam is clearly revealed as a fairly recent invention. For example, the Hebrews were Pagans before they invented Judaism, Jehovah had a wife named Asherah, and blood sacrifice of both animals and humans was common. A lot of the Hebrew mythology in the Old Testament is closely based on the Babylonian Gilgamesh epic, and so on.  

What else  have noticed as you may after I say this, is that all the newer versions or stories of the old stories are automatically considered evil...Such is the fate of Babylon.  Well when you look at the maps where Babylon was set in the whole of Persia is was the main port to everywhere.  Jealousy run rampant in those who believe in the ONE HOLY GOD.  The peoples that wwere before Rome came along and battered people to death (sic and haha) stole from the Pagans (who were the country folk) and then calim they are Satanist or worship that deity.  It's all ownership and it is dispicable, IMHO.

Yes, these myths are not only irrational but they are distorted within the realm of the irrational and mythological, and they should be looked upon with a critical view on where they come from and what they result.
I applaud your summary - I finally had a chance to read it.
The great Swiss psychologist C. G. Jung also wrote on how the Christian religion became asymmetrical. He pointed out that the Father, the Son need a fourth element.
If you take these myths seriously (and I am not talking about the obvious deep humanity and selflessness of the Jesus personality reflected in many sayings) there should be symmetry or some type of inner order like in Greek myths which also do not make sense in the everyday sense of the word. Lilith is no doubt the symbol of a shadow-projection on women.
Obviously all myths are like dreams but as you point out, there may be an allowance of reincarnation in this passage, which is not mythical, the early Church Fathers missed (although they tried hard).
Similarly, the days of the week coincide with the seven planets of traditional astrology both in India and in Europe. (There is also the 28-cycle of the Moon which has four quarters). Sunday was adopted formally as the sacred day so as to be different from Judaism but that choice superimposed the solar over the lunar. Now in these ancient myths they have an equal significance even though astronomy looks at it from a different POV. From the Earth, the Sun and the Moon have roughly the same size in the sky, about one degree out of 360.
I see more recognition of equal roles of solar and lunar qualities in Judaism in practice (though theoretically it is strictly patriarchal) than in most Christianity, because the archetypes are warped and less equality in Islam.
Carry on, wise old woman!

One more piece of data... Saturday, the former sacred day before Christianity is associated with Saturn both in India (Shanivara) and in Europe. Saturn in India is the child of the Sun. The Sun's radiance was so excessive that his wife Sanjna escaped him time to time - or at least they had unresolved marital disagreements. (Perhaps they should have tried group therapy...)
While Sanjna turned to a mare for while, she and the servant woman (called Ch'haya or Shadow) agreed that the latter would adopt the former's appearance as long as Sanjna was absent. However, Ch'haya had a son and by the time the Sun realized it was too late.

Other versions do not stress that Sanjna and Chhaya are different women.
The Sun's other child didn't turn out to be a very cheerful enterprise either - Yama the God of Death.

LadyG, #3l re: "What else [you] have noticed as you may after I say this, is that all the newer versions or stories of the old stories are automatically considered evil..."

It looks to me from my reading of the Old and New Testaments that both Judaism and Christianity tend to accept the new versions and reject the old ones, but often in complex ways that make it difficult to see through the deceptions and perceive the truth. The Jews tend to reject the idea that supernatural beings can be truly evil, and claim that all the really bad deeds described in their mythology were committed by mortal men acting on their own. For example, they see Satan as an angel whose original rebellion was simply part of a political struggle, whom Jehovah forgave and appointed as a messenger and enorcer, even though he retained a name that means "opponent or adversary". And Jews have never described Satan as tempting people to do evil, though even the earliest Chritian myths describe him as doing so


re: "Such is the fate of Babylon Well when you look at the maps where Babylon was set in the whole of Persia it was the main port to everywhere. Jealousy run rampant in those who believe in the ONE HOLY GOD. The peoples that were before Rome came along and battered people to death (sic and haha) stole from the Pagans (who were the country folk) and then claim they are Satanist or worship that deity. It's all ownership and it is dispicable, IMHO."

IMO, it's important to remember that much of the Talmud was written by a large colony of Jews who lived peacefully in Babylon and seemed to be respected by the Pagans there. It was the early Christians who demonized Babylon the same way they did Satan.

reg, #4, re: "Yes, these myths are not only irrational but they are distorted within the realm of the irrational and mythological, and they should be looked upon with a critical view on where they come from and what they result. I applaud your summary - I finally had a chance to read it. The great Swiss psychologist C. G. Jung also wrote on how the Christian religion became asymmetrical. He pointed out that the Father, the Son need a fourth element."

I don't recall exactly what Jung wrote about this, because it blurs in my mind into similar speculations by many other religious historians, but IMO, the important thing is comparing the elements of religious myth to the physical environment where they developed: which tends to contain four elements, not three. There are four elements (earth, water, air, and fire) and four seasons. And many mythologies throughout history have added a daughter to the triad of father, mother, and son to produce a four element family. So a trinity of father, son, and holy spirit makes less sense than one of father, mother, and children. And the four elements can be father, mother, children and intelligence or self-awareness: equivalent to earth, water, air, and fire.

re: "If you take these myths seriously (and I am not talking about the obvious deep humanity and selflessness of the Jesus personality reflected in many sayings) there should be symmetry or some type of inner order like in Greek myths which also do not make sense in the everyday sense of the word. Lilith is no doubt the symbol of a shadow-projection on women. Obviously all myths are like dreams but as you point out, there may be an allowance of reincarnation in this passage, which is not mythical, the early Church Fathers missed (although they tried hard)."

I tend to believe that the Jews who wrote the Old Testament put little emphasis on the aterlife, but were more concerned with religion as the guiding force behind individual, family, and community behavior. So I suspect that the ancient Jews were similar to modern Jews: some don't concern themselves with the concept of an afterlife at all, and those that do to accept the universal spiritualistic conception based on people's past-life and pre-live memories: namely that after death, the soul spends some time in the disembodied state, where it may undergo judgment and learning experiences until it eventually reincarnates. Plus, the ancient Greeks and other European Pagans had a similar conception of the afterlife, as did a number of the ancient Middle
Eastern civilizations.

re: "Similarly, the days of the week coincide with the seven planets of traditional astrology both in India and in Europe. (There is also the 28-cycle of the Moon which has four quarters). Sunday was adopted formally as the sacred day so as to be different from Judaism but that choice superimposed the solar over the lunar. Now in these ancient myths they have an equal significance even though astronomy looks at it from a different POV. From the Earth, the Sun and the Moon have roughly the same size in the sky, about one degree out of 360. I see more recognition of equal roles of solar and lunar qualities in Judaism in practice (though theoretically it is strictly patriarchal) than in most Christianity, because the archetypes are warped and less equality in Islam."

I tend to agree with everything you just said, and here's an idea that may clarify the gender ambiguity that seems to be embedded in both ancient and modern Judaism: It's not hard to put more emphasis on the astronomical aspects of the 28 day month made up of 4 weeks of 7 days each than it is on the monthly estral cycle of the human female, simply because humans of both genders default to being sexually virtually active all the time.

#5, re: "One more piece of data... Saturday, the former sacred day before Christianity is associated with Saturn both in India (Shanivara) and in Europe. Saturn in India is the child of the Sun. The Sun's radiance was so excessive that his wife Sanjna escaped him time to time - or at least they had unresolved marital disagreements. (Perhaps they should have tried group therapy...)
While Sanjna turned to a mare for while, she and the servant woman (called Ch'haya or Shadow) agreed that the latter would adopt the former's appearance as long as Sanjna was absent. However, Ch'haya had a son and by the time the Sun realized it was too late. Other versions do not stress that Sanjna and Chhaya are different women. The Sun's other child didn't turn out to be a very cheerful enterprise either - Yama the God of Death."

Yes! I've been doing research on Sani/Saturn lately, and here's a quotation that supports what you just said wrote: "Shani is a Deva and son of [the Sun god] Surya and his wife Chhaya, hence also known as Chayyaputra. He is the elder brother of Yama, the Hindu god of death..." IMO it's also important to realize that Hindu mythology portrays both Sani and Yama as judges over both humans and the other deities.
‎

I was pretty sure that this was in Robert Svoboda's The Greatness of Saturn book, but at first glance I didn't find it. I read so much on Hindu astrological lore (though I emphatically say that I was not attracted to astrology in general because of the sabe lo todo attitude of many astrologers - with welcome exceptions). So the myth is based on the roughly seven-year.long period while Saturn transits the Moon of any person's natal chart - a whole sign before, during the sign where the Moon s found plus the following sign. It is generally looked upon as a terrible period, symbolized in Svoboda's retelling book by King Vikrama being led to exile, hardships, being accused unjustly and finally losing his limbs on the order of the local king, then working on an oil press while singing ragas beautifully - which arouses the King's Daughter's attention who falls in love with the invalid. King Vikrama shows remarkable restraint and when Saturn appears before him, and says you managed to live through my tribulations so you can choose what to desire, and his only desire is that others would not have to go through the horrors he had experienced. Saturn rewards his altruistic spirit by growing back his limbs and restoring him to his kingdom where he is still miraculously awaited.
Saturn's gaze is said to be bringing on these cruelties, and the whole myth is started by how King Vikrama invites pandits of planets to his palace, each to present that his planet is the greatest. He is not very impressed by Saturn, who hears is flying around and says "just wait, I must do Sade Sati for you too (the seven years' transit). As a matter of fact, I am just in the last phase of that period starting in 2009 September...

As Saturn is obligated to deliver bad karma like a corporate auditor, he is obliged to do all the gods as well. When it is his turn to visit Shiva, he extends his warnings and respect and signals to Shiva that "even though you are an eternal god, I have to do my duty." Whereupon Shiva jumps into the River Ganga where he spends the next seven years in breathless samadhi. This seems to be like a good compromise for both. (Actually, a lot of meditation and turning inwards is usually advised during this period though a person with worldly duties cannot withdraw from them.)

I must note that Saturn was the outermost planet visible to Hindus, and it appears in a bluish light sometimes, so the color blue is associated with Saturn who is the god of cemeteries, refuse, old age, death, servants, sickness and sorrow, and - surprise, Kala or Time itself. Hence Saturn is all but a protector of Hindu astrology (jyotish, said to be one of the eyes of Knowledge, the Veda)

This is slightly parallel to the Greek myth where Chronos (Time) is a god born by Gaia (the Earth) whose father Ouranos closed her children into her womb which Gaia didn't agree with. Chronos rebels and cuts off Ouranos's manhood which falls into the sea and in a later myth it is related to the birth of Aphrodite (Venus). Gaia shows a more manipulative side when she asks Zeus (God of Lightning, similar to the Hindu god Indra in the early Vedas, another later child) to help her control Chronos and thus Zeus becomes the Chief of Gods. But perhaps you know this better...

Another point to this OP thread: I agree with my mother the feminist artist who says that these recent developments on Earth I usually worry about - the fanaticism of the Islamic State, Putin's reinstated post-Soviet maffia state, Boko Haram, the recent New Right in Eastern Europe etc. are all expressions of the returning repression of women or feminine powers from the point of view of spirituality. This relates to the "proliferate" command of the Old Testament, birth control in many "great" world religions and by implication to War in Heaven themes - many immature souls suffering a lot and preparing a mass sacrifice instead of the quality-focused education of humanism.

reg, #8, re: "I was pretty sure that this was in Robert Svoboda's The Greatness of Saturn book, but at first glance I didn't find it. I read so much on Hindu astrological lore (though I emphatically say that I was not attracted to astrology in general because of the sabe lo todo attitude of many astrologers - with welcome exceptions). So the myth is based on the roughly seven-year.long period while Saturn transits the Moon of any person's natal chart - a whole sign before, during the sign where the Moon s found plus the following sign. It is generally looked upon as a terrible period, symbolized in Svoboda's retelling book by King Vikrama being led to exile, hardships, being accused unjustly and finally losing his limbs on the order of the local king, then working on an oil press while singing ragas beautifully - which arouses the King's Daughter's attention who falls in love with the invalid. King Vikrama shows remarkable restraint and when Saturn appears before him, and says you managed to live through my tribulations so you can choose what to desire, and his only desire is that others would not have to go through the horrors he had experienced. Saturn rewards his altruistic spirit by growing back his limbs and restoring him to his kingdom where he is still miraculously awaited. Saturn's gaze is said to be bringing on these cruelties, and the whole myth is started by how King Vikrama invites pandits of planets to his palace, each to present that his planet is the greatest. He is not very impressed by Saturn, who hears is flying around and says "just wait, I must do Sade Sati for you too (the seven years' transit). As a matter of fact, I am just in the last phase of that period starting in 2009 September..."

Here's link to the Wiki article on this, which IMO is reasonably complete and easy to understand: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sade_Sati

re: "As Saturn is obligated to deliver bad karma like a corporate auditor, he is obliged to do all the gods as well. When it is his turn to visit Shiva, he extends his warnings and respect and signals to Shiva that "even though you are an eternal god, I have to do my duty." Whereupon Shiva jumps into the River Ganga where he spends the next seven years in breathless samadhi. This seems to be like a good compromise for both. (Actually, a lot of meditation and turning inwards is usually advised during this period though a person with worldly duties cannot withdraw from them.)"

As I recall, this myth is older than the myth about the goddess Ganga becoming Shiva's second wife, and may have been instrumental in the writing of the later account.

re: "I must note that Saturn was the outermost planet visible to Hindus, and it appears in a bluish light sometimes, so the color blue is associated with Saturn who is the god of cemeteries, refuse, old age, death, servants, sickness and sorrow, and - surprise, Kala or Time itself. Hence Saturn is all but a protector of Hindu astrology (jyotish, said to be one of the eyes of Knowledge, the Veda)"

This also ties in with various parts of the Shiva myth: the blue color, the association with cemeteries and cremation grounds and being the consort of Kali (which is the feminine form of kala).

re: "This is slightly parallel to the Greek myth where Chronos (Time) is a god born by Gaia (the Earth) whose father Ouranos closed her children into her womb which Gaia didn't agree with. Chronos rebels and cuts off Ouranos's manhood which falls into the sea and in a later myth it is related to the birth of Aphrodite (Venus). Gaia shows a more manipulative side when she asks Zeus (God of Lightning, similar to the Hindu god Indra in the early Vedas, another later child) to help her control Chronos and thus Zeus becomes the Chief of Gods. But perhaps you know this better..."

There are lots of parallels between the most ancient forms of the Greek Pagan myths and Hindu mythology, just as there are a lot of linguistic parallels between Homeric and pre-Homeric Greek and vedic Sanskrit.

#9, re: "Another point to this OP thread: I agree with my mother the feminist artist who says that these recent developments on Earth I usually worry about - the fanaticism of the Islamic State, Putin's reinstated post-Soviet maffia state, Boko Haram, the recent New Right in Eastern Europe etc. are all expressions of the returning repression of women or feminine powers from the point of view of spirituality. This relates to the "proliferate" command of the Old Testament, birth control in many "great" world religions and by implication to War in Heaven themes - many immature souls suffering a lot and preparing a mass sacrifice instead of the quality-focused education of humanism."

I completely agree, and when I think about it, modern Islamic extremism as examplified by DAESH does indeed resemble the Second Stage of theocratic religion described in WiH.

Lady Guinevere wrote:

RR, you stated: "I tend to believe that the Jews who wrote the Old Testament put little emphasis on the aterlife, but were more concerned with religion as the guiding force behind individual, family, and community behavior. So I suspect that the ancient Jews were similar "


Jews did not put any of the Bible together and there is a large amount of writing and gospels omitted from that book.

Yeah, the Bible as we know it was put together by Catholics during the Middle Ages, and not only was a lot of material left out of both the Old and New Testaments, there were substantial changes made in the wording quite a few passages made as the original Hebrew and Greek was translated into Latin. And the Jews have donethe opposite: they have preserved a massive amount of literature that's a mixture of holy writ, the history of various Jewish communities, and debates about many different subject involving rabbis and members of their congregations.

There seem to be a number of legends about the First Council of Nicaea (325AD) in circulation on the internet, presented as fact.  Some people seem to think that the council, which was the first council of all the Bishops of the Christian Church, either invented the New Testament, or edited it to remove references to reincarnation (or whatever) or burned large numbers of heretical works, or whatever.  These are in error.  This page documents the problem and provides links to all the ancient source material in order to allow everyone to check the truth for themselves.

The Early Church Fathers CDROM Buy New: $29 Please support this site.

Here's my first example, from usenet: Quote : > In tracing the origin of the Bible, one is led to AD 325, when > Constantine the Great called the First Council of Nicaea, composed of > 300 religious leaders. Three centuries after Jesus lived, this council > was given the task of separating divinely inspired writings from those > of questionable origin. > The actual compilation of the Bible was an incredibly complicated > project that involved churchmen of many varying beliefs, in an > atmosphere of dissension, jealousy, intolerance, persecution and > bigotry. > At this time, the question of the divinity of Jesus had split the > church into two factions. Constantine offered to make the little-known > Christian sect the official state religion if the Christians would > settle their differences. Apparently, he didn't particularly care what > they believed in as long as they agreed upon a belief. By compiling a > book of sacred writings, Constantine thought that the book would give > authority to the new church. Here's a second version of the same idea: Quote : > The references in the Christian religion of reincarnation, I am told, > were removed by the Council of Nicea. (See [url=http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/nicaea.html#Note A]Note A[/url]) Here's a third version of this idea: Quote : > Also, we do know that there were many books of supposed prophets > floating around up until 312 CE when the Council of Nicea decided > which books were scripture and which ones were burned. Thanks to > the notorious habit of early Christian leaders of destroying > books/scrolls, we may never know what doctrine existed before the > Council of Nicea. And another even more extreme example: Quote : Author: Laulak Siddique Date: 2000/12/06 Forum: alt.religion.islam In article , "Laulak Siddique" wrote: > Christianity consisted of many sects. By converting Constantine > (The Great) the Paul heresy triumphed as the concept of trinity and the ending of the > Mosaic law (which made swine flesh permissible) brought this version of > Christianity very close to the Hellenic paganism that was practiced in Rome > and Greece. At Nicea Constantine had 300 versions of the Bible burnt, thus > legitimising and patronizing only the Paulic heresy. And another (I'm not making any of these up): Quote : Subject: Re: Snipper continues trying to shift the burden of proof to the atheists From: "St. Clarence" Date: 2001/01/07 Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.agnosticism,alt.christnet.atheism,alt.christnet.calvinist ... >Actually, legend has it that at the Council of Nicea, Constantine was >unsure of what else to include as a holy scripture (which later the batch >became the Bible). He threw the batch that he was to choose from onto a >table. Those that remained on the table were in, those that fell off were >out. [url=http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/nicaea.html#Note B](See Note B)[/url]

The most  common source  of the misinformation  at the moment is the Da Vinci code:

A new version of the story (June 2001), which also includes a very confused version of the 'Secret Mark' theory of Morton Smith (not 480, obviously):

Quote :

Dave Crisp <...> wrote in message news:...

> There are one or two places where there is evidence of which is 'right',
> the most famous example perhaps being the account of the raising of Lazarus
> which was removed from Mark on the instructions of the Council of Nicea as
> it hat overtones of a 'mystery cult'.

[source queried - answer:]
> If you could give me a couple of days, I could probably dig out the entire
> text, which was contained in a letter sent in 480 by the Bishop of
> Alexandria to one of his underlings; who was involved it trying to stamp
> out a group of 'Heretics' who were still using the original version.

And another:

Quote :

Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish, (etc)
Date: 1996/05/08
> The Roman Catholic Church created the canon of Christian
> scripture at the Council of Nicea, at the same time that they determined
> the doctrine of Trinity (through the assasination of a few of the voting
> bishops, by one vote). [url=http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/nicaea.html#Note D](See Note D)

http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/nicaea.html
[/url]

Here is more:

"
What are the lost books of the Bible? They were texts and letters suppressed by early "Church Fathers". There was an important historical event, back in the 4th century. It is called the Council of Laodicea. It changed history two significant ways. At this council they determined what would and would not be considered canon. They decided what would and would not be included in the Bible or read at church. (Canon #60.)
It gets interesting when you consider the second implication of what was published. They published, in total, 60 cannons at this council, thus codifying church doctrine. During the 2nd and 3rd centuries, Christians were in the habit of keeping both Saturday and Sunday. In fact Ethiopian Christians still do today. During that time, Christians rested on the Sabbath (in the Lord) and had communion or fellowship on Sundays. The Church fathers at the Council of Laodicea were not opposed to Sunday services but were opposed to Christians Judaizing the Sabbath (see 29th Canon), Judaizing is what they labled Christians resting on the Sabbath day. At the Coucil of Laodicea, they published as doctrine that the practice of staying at home and resting on the Sabbath was sinful and anathema to Christ.
Satan managed to deceive well intentioned men to ignore the most important day of all. The day of having God dwell in the hearts of men! The true meaning of the Sabbath! If you read The Epistle of Barnabus, Chapter 13, you will see why in light of the 29th Canon they had to ban the text from the New Testament. There are sources today that quote the Epistle of Barnabus to justify going to Church on Sunday, but they completely miss the fact the text explains why one shouldn't trust going to a building made of hands as part of Sabbath worship. That is not how to obey God and keep the Sabbath. (Lev 23:3, Sabbath is to be kept in one's dwelling) The Church Fathers couldn't ban Sabbath keeping and then allow a text to become canon that admonishes Christians on the proper way to keep the Sabbath!"

Books banned by the Council of Laodicea

Barnabas I Clement II Clement Christ and Abgarus The Apostles' Creed I Hermas-Visions II Hermas-Commands III Hermas-Similitudes Ephesians I Infancy II Infancy Mary Magnesians Nicodemus Paul and Seneca Paul and Thecla Philippians Philadelphians Polycarp Romans Trallians Letters of Herod and Pilate

The First Book of Adam and Eve The Second Book of Adam and Eve The Secrets of Enoch The Psalms of Solomon The Odes of Solomon The Fourth Book of Maccabees The Story of Ahikar The Testament of Reuben Asher Joseph Simeon Levi Judah Issachar Zebulum Dan Naphtali Gad Benjamin

Source:The Lost Books of the Bible and the Forgotten Books of Eden. 
Published by World Bible Publishers, Inc 1926

http://reluctant-messenger.com/council-of-laodicea.htm

Over the past couple of centuries, religious historians have been making a major effort to find ancient manuscripts of writings pertaining to early Christianity in hopes of learning exactly who wrote what when. The so-called "Dead Sea Scrolls" and similar documents found all over the Middle East and North Africa during the Twentieth and Twentyfirst centuries have actually made this effort harder, not easier, because the new information makes it appear that most of the teachings attributed to Jesus were not original, but had been written and published centuries before. Nor do any of these genuinely ancient writings contain biographical information about a historical Jesus or any of his followers.

Try looking up the Works of Josephus.  They can say anything they want just like those people who don't belive in today's world.  The news media screws things up quite a bit in the last century.
I will read anything that I want especially those books that have been banned and make a conclusion based on all the material, not just some of the material.  I just don't like to be lead by the nose or be biased by a few people who were and are power hungry.

Lady Guinevere wrote:

Try looking up the Works of Josephus.  They can say anything they want just like those people who don't belive in today's world.  The news media screws things up quite a bit in the last century.
I will read anything that I want especially those books that have been banned and make a conclusion based on all the material, not just some of the material.  I just don't like to be lead by the nose or be biased by a few people who were and are power hungry.

There is still no evidence to support a historical Jesus with twelve apostles, and lots of evidence that both the Old and New testaments contain significant amounts of material plagiarized from Pagan sources and rewritten to fit Jewish or Christian historical models. And this is just plain fraud on the part of the people who did, even though insiders call them prophets and saints.

Realityrebel wrote:

Lady Guinevere wrote:

Try looking up the Works of Josephus.  They can say anything they want just like those people who don't belive in today's world.  The news media screws things up quite a bit in the last century.
I will read anything that I want especially those books that have been banned and make a conclusion based on all the material, not just some of the material.  I just don't like to be lead by the nose or be biased by a few people who were and are power hungry.

There is still no evidence to support a historical Jesus with twelve apostles, and lots of evidence that both the Old and New testaments contain significant amounts of material plagiarized from Pagan sources and rewritten to fit Jewish or Christian historical models. And this is just plain fraud on the part of the people who did, even though insiders call them prophets and saints.

I didn't say that it was.
I am not trying to convert you or make you believe in Jesus or God or the flying spaghetti monster.  I am trying to get you to open your mind past what your guides are telling you NOT to do.  When you stop learning, you stop living.  You have mentioned that you are near the end of your time here on this Earth....Man WAKE UP you con't know when your time is up until that very moment.  15 years is still a long time to keep learning and living.

IMHO of your attitude that I have seen so far...you are no better than the fundies around the internet in all the other groups that we have been banned from.....Both you and those Fundies stick their heads in teh mud with what they have been told and both you and the others exhibit the same disdain from any other information there is out there for you to learn.....no different.

Yes, the more I look at the writings that are published over the course of my life the more it seems that the personality of Jesus is a construction. With that said, I think it makes sense to hold important what you deeply feel is important and see the truth of it in your life.

It seems language is at fault too - it is an odd expression to "believe in Jesus," and it is even odder to say "I don't believe in astrology." Red flags go up in me whenever I read the word believe.
I like a lot of the stuff that is quoted by honest Christian people as the essence of the teachings of Jesus. Some of it can be compiled as a true milestone of humanity, including his supposed non-resistance towards the aggressors who arrested and tortured him.

Yet as soon as I understood the sacrifice myth that many people believe (here we go again, that word) that God became a human being (what a sad misplacement of human categories) who was then murdered (if the person crucified was God it was clearly no problem) and this is somehow good for the rest of the people (a third questionable statement) in other ages (then in the Middle Ages when all the crazy stuff is regarded as literal reality, they somehow explained that this is even good for those people who lived long before)... Somehow it seems to me a reincarnation of the myths of Pharaohs.

Yes, there is a lot of good psychology in turning the other cheek as a different type of reaction to aggression which has an emotional appeal goading one towards self-improvement.

reg, #19, re: "Yes, the more I look at the writings that are published over the course of my life the more it seems that the personality of Jesus is a construction. With that said, I think it makes sense to hold important what you deeply feel is important and see the truth of it in your life."

My own belief is that while there's evidence there was no historical model for the Jesus worshipped by Christians and honored as a great spiritual teacher by many non-Christians, this should NOT serve as a reason to downplay the impact of the mythical Jesus on human history. And the same goes for pointing out the contradictions in the multitude of variations of this myth now in circulation. In fact, the serious, on-going controversy over the myth is actually evidence of its importance.

re: "It seems language is at fault too - it is an odd expression to 'believe in Jesus,' and it is even odder to say 'I don't believe in astrology.' Red flags go up in me whenever I read the word believe."

Yes! The English word 'believe' means "accept as true", but the expression "believe in" has two very different meanings in common use: "accept the existence or validity of" and "consider worthy of being honored or obeyed". So "I believe in Jesus" can mean either "I believe Jesus was a historical figure" or "I believe the teachings of Jesus are worth following." And "I don't believe in astrology" can mean, "I don't accept the premise the position of the stars at a given time can be used to predict future events" or "I don't believe that people should use astrology as means of divination." I personally accept the first premise, but reject the second.

re: "I like a lot of the stuff that is quoted by honest Christian people as the essence of the teachings of Jesus. Some of it can be compiled as a true milestone of humanity, including his supposed non-resistance towards the aggressors who arrested and tortured him. Yet as soon as I understood the sacrifice myth that many people believe (here we go again, that word) that God became a human being (what a sad misplacement of human categories) who was then murdered (if the person crucified was God it was clearly no problem) and this is somehow good for the rest of the people (a third questionable statement) in other ages (then in the Middle Ages when all the crazy stuff is regarded as literal reality, they somehow explained that this is even good for those people who lived long before)... Somehow it seems to me a reincarnation of the myths of Pharaohs. Yes, there is a lot of good psychology in turning the other cheek as a different type of reaction to aggression which has an emotional appeal goading one towards self-improvement."

I hold beliefs on this very similar to yours, and to me, the most important premise to be extracted from all this is that it's OK to accept some parts of any given myth and reject other parts.

Spiritrebel........ I actually feel that I was given a couple of clues over these past two decades as to who I might
have been in at least one of my past lives........

http://www.politicalforum.com/religion-philosophy/390023-message-adam-all-mankind-rick-joyner-3.html

....(post #28)..... then some more on page 4 of that discussion..........

I am curious what your guides give you when you get a chance to read this............????

DennisTate, #21, re: "Spiritrebel... I actually feel that I was given a couple of clues over these past two decades as to who I might have been in at least one of my past lives... I am curious what your guides give you when you get a chance to read this????"

I read all the messages you referenced and then asked my Guides for their comments. What I got was:

"Tate's speculations that he and his wife might be reincarnations of Adam and Eve probably represent an attempt by his Guides to steer him away from belief in the supernatural cosmology presented in the Judeo-Christian scriptures and towards the idea that human beings are the creators, not the creations, of the whole mythology concerning gods, devils, angels, etc."