Dave31

I've already responded to your crap. Why on earth are you expecting Robert Tulip to know anything? <snip>

Jeffrey Gibson

You are aware, aren't you, that this is a dodge of Spin's question? I cut and paste answers I have given. Does that mean I am -- as you imply you are -- someone different from myself?

That you cut a paste F's material does not mean you are not F.

So please answer this simple question: Do you write and post under the name freethinkaluvva?

Jeffrey

Dave31

ISIS IS A VIRGIN MOTHER!!!

For images of hieroglyphs and other images go here

Jeffrey Gibson

Yes, and the horse is wise not to if the water is full of shit.

I wonder if you'd do me the kindness, after you tell me what Egyptian word or words is/are being translated as "virgin" in the texts cited in the link above, of posting your claim about Isis and the texts that you cite as supporting it to the ANE-2 list.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ANE-2/

I'd like to see what the Egyptologists there make of your claim and the "evidence" you cite as proving it.

Jeffrey

Jeffrey Gibson

Publisher: Longmans, Green, and co. 1899

Selective quotation and misrepresentation of what Hornung believes. This is a report of a claim made by those Hornung calls "occultist egyptianizers". It is not one he himself accepts as true, let alone as prevalent in the first century CE. Note that his book is intent to show that the idea, prevalent since ancient times, that Egypt has been associated with esoteric practices and beliefs and regarded as the source of all secret knowledge is only loosely connected with historical reality.

For a sense of what Hornung is up to, see

http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2002/2002-04-18.html

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.108...21102031687197

and http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/...spalinger.html

A quotation that does not show an historical connection between Isis and Mary. He is here speaking here of an areatological tradition and he immediately goes on to warn his readers that "historians generally, and specifically those who trace the development of religious ideas, need to avoid the trap of confusing chronological order with cause and effect , post hoc propter hoc" as those who see a direct and historical influence of Isis on Mary are wont to do. Moreover, he notes that the Isis epithets are not applied to Mary until the 5th century and only in Byzantine Egypt and doesn't flourish until at least the 15th century.


Curl -- whose book is primarily about the influence of Egyptian style on Western architecture, art, design -- does not say that this influence occurs in the 1st century or had anything to do with the Gospel texts, does he? To adduce him as saying so is very poor scholarship, not to mention agenda driven selective misreading of his claims.

Jeffrey

outhouse

<snip>

Your making these mistakes following a blogger instead of a historian.

The real mythology is below.

<snip>

RavenSky

~~Raven

RavenSky

~~ Raven

Robert Tulip

Assessing what the Bible “actually” means is a highly complex question, beset by all sorts of cultural traditions, assumptions, lacunae, myths, conflicts, errors, ambiguities and levels of meaning. Augustine’s view, despite the manifest errors of his orthodox theology, is relevant in this case because spin asserted that we should only consider biblical texts as allegorical where they are explicitly labelled as such, as in the Ezekiel and Paul examples discussed above.

Augustine, as primarily a literal believer in Jesus, nonetheless suggests there is a lot more allegory in the Bible than meets the eye, and is dismissive of those who cannot see the obvious symbolism in Genesis. Spin is saying there is even less allegory in the Bible than Augustine saw. Despite his general standards of unrivalled brilliant genius, spin thereby looks to line himself up on this question of intent with the literal creationists whom Augustine called idiots. That is not what I imagine spin really meant, even though it flows from what he said.
Yes I do. My opinion is that astrotheology is intimately woven into the Bible throughout, because of the organising principle that religion involves seeing how life on earth reflects what is visible in the heavens, 'on earth as it is in heaven', as the Lord's Prayer puts it.

For example, the myth of the seven days of creation in Genesis exhibits a perfect allegory for the actual structure of time that was observable in the ancient world through precession of the equinoxes, against the imagined 7000 years of planetary history from creation to fall.

The Tree of Life in Paradise, Yggdrasil, does not make a repeat appearance after the banishment of Adam and Eve until its presence at the centre of the holy city at the end of the Apocalypse, where it is strangely described as growing on both sides of the river of life, and as having twelve fruit, one for each month. This allegorical description of the tree of life matches precisely to the zodiac, which appears on both sides of the milky way galaxy, the celestial river of life.

My view is that the tree of life refers to a powerful and accurate secret myth, as an archetype of the actual observation of the natural rhythm of time, handed down through oral tradition. An esoteric astral tradition understood the tree of life as symbolising the natural connection between humanity and the observable heavens, but this esoteric tradition was suppressed because of the politics of monotheism.
It is more likely that Augustine was aware of disputed oral traditions. A basic stumbling block here, clearly explained by Freke and Gandy in The Jesus Mysteries, is the hypothesis by scholars such as Pagels that Christianity emerged from a secret mystery cult. The idea is that the texts routinely speak at multiple levels of meaning, with an overt literal level for the ignorant and illiterate general public, and then at symbolic levels for those ‘within the school’.

This goes back to Aristotle’s distinction between the exoteric, the teachings for the general public, and the esoteric, or the teachings for the initiates. Jesus Christ makes the same distinction at Luke 8:10, Matthew 13:11 and Mark 4:11, saying “The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of God has been given to you, but to others I speak in parables, so that, "'though seeing, they may not see; though hearing, they may not understand.'" The presence of this teaching of Jesus in all the synoptics illustrates the centrality of the early division between the initiates and the ignorant, a distinction that became politically unhelpful for the orthodox and was suppressed by the purge of the Gnostics.

We have to recognise that there was an insistence among the ancient mystery schools that their important teachings were conveyed by word of mouth rather than by written text. This practice made these teachings immensely vulnerable to extinction, since killing, dispersing and proscribing the teachers could readily break an oral tradition. Against such hostility, it seems plausible that the written versions we have conceal their real original intent in order to evade censorship. The task now becomes reconstructing what makes sense from the fragments.

Chili

The bible is not all allegory because in John 6:66 it says my body is real food and my blood is real drink to designate this line as material, and so every time the word real is use it is not allegory.

If the above is not true theology itself would be reduced to a look-alike of history as star gazers would.