mountainman

Seneca has often received attribution for the authorship of the following:

"“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.".


Gibbon coined his own version as follows:


"The various modes of worship, which prevailed in the Roman world, were all considered by the people,
as equally true; by the philosopher, as equally false; and by the magistrate, as equally useful.".

sotto voce

Wise observations (that the perceptive scholar could know were true before he read these quotes); but nothing to do with Matthew's Gospel, as it is called. 'Matthew' shoved in his oar, in a manner most inconvenient for 'the wise', and, by extension, for magistrates. Because confounded Matty wrote on this wise:

'You have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children.'

'Children' referred to the meek, who were to inherit the earth; not to those 'wise in their own eyes', who would come to nothing.

So this was wisdom unwonted; wisdom unwanted, by 'the great and good' at any rate. Quite upsetting, in fact. Not at all the religion that Seneca's indolent Rome haughtily dispensed to the laborious plebeians. Not at all the religion of vested interests, who by one means and another attempted to suppress 'Matthew' and others like him. But, these interests finally had to admit, "Galilaean, you have conquered." Though, in true 'cunning' Roman fashion, all they did about it was change the sign boards, and adopted a minatory mien to any who even looked puzzled at their transparent duplicity. They carried on with their old, comfy wisdom— now known as Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, a right pair of misnomers if there were ever any misnomers. So the vested interests, from at the latest Trajan onwards, knew only too well that that darned Matt wrote truth (as did Seneca, imv).

Matthew and friends have never been on the side of vested interests, have they. How can they ever be, when they 'turn the world upside down' with this sort of outrageous talk?

'"Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. Because where your treasure is, there your heart will be, also."' Mt 6:19-21

So many people without vested interests suspect that 'gMatthew' is a big truth, if only because people with vested interests do not like it one little bit— yet are forced to acknowledge it.

la70119

Which is EXACTLY what the author of gJohn must have thought. The "we" who "slept" gJohn refers to are NOT the soldiers but the MALE and FEMALE DISCIPLES.

la70119

It the "Rabbouni" passage was AFTER she went back to the disciples, woke them up, scramed "They have taken the Lord, etc.," THEN returned to the sepulcher WITH them.

James Brown

What's the going interest rate on 'treasures in heaven'? How liquid are they? What precautions are taken to prevent theft of heavenly treasures? Can I examine the last five years' worth of balance sheets and income statements of the First Bank of Heaven? What is my legal recourse in the incidence of fraud or malfeasance? Are there early withdrawal penalties I should be aware of? What are the tax ramifications for various types of financial vehicles offered in Heaven? What are the annual expense ratios? Can I get a heavenly margin account? What's the interest rate on borrowed funds used for long-term investments? If you don't have the answers to these questions, who does? If you don't know, then why have you invested your limited resources in Treasures In Heaven?

Matthew had Jesus tell his followers a lot of things about what Heaven will be like. Too bad no one has ever been able to verify a single claim. It's like selling ocean-front property in Atlantis.

Tell you what, you give me ten percent of your Earthly income for the rest of your life, and I'll guarantee you'll be living in inordinate comfort and security after you die. If you're not fully delighted, I'll double your money back.

aa5874

There is ZERO reference to "Sleeping Male and Female disciples" in gJohn 20.1-2.

In fact, in gJohn the visitors were running to and from the burial site.

Peter came FIRST in one of the "RUNS".

Chili

No sleeper there but faith in action and Peter as faith must enter to confirm the 'end of religion' that prefigured the fruitless fishing trip to follow where he was naked and so validate John as "the Man" in the image of God and presents the function of Magdalene in the new reign of God here on earth.

Remember that Magdalene represents 'lower existence' functional in the conscious mind only as made know in the Mary and Martha parable, but with curious eyes as the woman at the well where Jesus bewildered her function with the livng water that here now is leading her to recognize Jesus without seeing, because his death functionally knocked her lights out as temple tramp in the conscious mind and lesser serpent between man and 'the human condition' as delineated in Gen.3:15.

Iow, Magdalene is not privy to thinking or she would have been crucified too, but is the negative stand in the activity that we call objective thought.

mountainman

We must not forget that we dont know who Matthew was, or when he wrote, or what wonderful wisdom literature (in Greek) was available to his (or her) conceptual framework for inclusion into his narrative. We must not forget that Matthew did not work alone. It is not the case that its half past eight and we cant be late for Matthew & Son. Matthew worked inside a tetrarchy of Gospel writers who are related to one another because we dont know who Mark and Luke and John are, or even in which century of the common era they authored their tetrarchy of gospels.


But when were the tetrarchy of Christian Gospels suppressed, and what is our source for the "Great Suppression"?


John knew differently what Jesus meant about the kingdom of the Christians in THIS WORLD, and not the OTHER WORLD:

if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight.

By Jesus Christ himself, did the Christians fight in the 4th century !!
Bullneck lead them to a sudden and unexpected victory.



But Emperor Julian never said that, it is just another example of the insidious nested truckload of lies invented by 4th century Christians who were busy fighting for Jesus, and the Jesus Trade in Holy Relics, bones of the Saints, fragments of the cross and holy foreskins.

Chili

Circumcision is not Catholic, as that 'ideal' was replaced with the communion of Saints after baptism that set the stage for water and wine, and hence the Cana event wherein 'old water' is transformed into 'new wine' with currency and favor throughout the ages to follow. Ie, self propelled in parousia instead of prophetic mesmerism.

sotto voce

We want it both ways, eh? What we must not forget is that it was those people with vested interests, so amazingly mistaken for Christians, of all things, who damn well insisted that the text under discussion was a gospel, was written by one Matthew by name. A holy saint, moreover. Sorry, a Saint. And they had the most glorious pictures to prove it!

But, after the non-vested interests (risking and sometimes losing their lives) had translated this Matthew guy into English, it turned out he had written the death sentences of those vomit-inducing villains we are here persuaded were (and are?) the church. The latter were with loud, up-lifted voice declared 'Antichrist' by every Reformer. Though it mattered not a monkey's cuss who had written this gospel (and good news it certainly was). It was content that mattered, not authorship, then as it does now. So this objection is doubly irrelevant, even if it holds even a grain of truth.

Trajan, Pontifex Maximus, made Christianity illegal. Constantine, Pontifex Maximus, didn't change anything at all. Ratzinger, Pontifex Maximus, would make it illegal, if he could.

And the moon is made of cheese.

:strawman:

But everyone knew it, nevertheless. They still do.