Jump to content


Photo

Archeology in Abner's Philadelphia


  • Please log in to reply
70 replies to this topic

#41 Guest_EEB aka AASB-AWSW_*

Guest_EEB aka AASB-AWSW_*
  • Guests

Posted 31 January 2013 - 06:06 PM

I do find it very interesting that Paul, a man who riled against long hair for men (1 Cor 11:14), would grow his hair for the Nazarite vow. In Galatians 1:15, Paul admits that he was a Nazarite, (set apart from birth), and that he went to Arabia, which could have been the Nazarite colony in Engedi . . . not sure. After which, he went to Jerusalem to meet with James and Peter and stayed 15 days before leaving for Antioch, Syria. In Acts 24:5 Paul is called the ringleader of the Nazarene sect. At the time there were political activists who were both Nazarites and Essenes (sicarii). One has to wonder if Nazarite and Nazarene did get confused in translation.


I agree, however in the definition of "Nazarene" below, especially the "Encyclopedia Britannica" definition they hinged their difference on the Greek translation, specifically “the peculiar form, Nazoraios”, which is a stretch to make their assessment based on the appearance of this peculiar Greek word but it does not mention on the frequency of its use nor the context it is used in. But having looked up “Nazoraious”, also posted below, might coo berate their definition?


Nazarene
http://dictionary.re...se/Nazarene?s=t

Nazarene definition — Easton’s Bible Dictionary 1897


This epithet (Gr. Nazaraios) is applied to Christ only once (Matt. 2:23). In all other cases the word is rendered "of Nazareth" (Mark 1:24; 10:47; 14:67, etc.). When this Greek designation was at first applied to our Lord, it was meant simply to denote the place of his residence. In course of time the word became a term of reproach. Thus the word "Nazarene" carries with it an allusion to those prophecies which speak of Christ as "despised of men" (Isa. 53:3). Some, however, think that in this name there is an allusion to the Hebrew _netser_, which signifies a branch or sprout. It is so applied to the Messiah (Isa. 11:1), i.e., he whom the prophets called the _Netse_, the "Branch." The followers of Christ were called "the sect of Nazarenes" (Acts 24:5). All over Palestine and Syria this name is still given to Christians. (See NAZARETH.)


Encyclopedia Britannica

nazarene
in the New Testament, a title applied to Jesus and, later, to those who followed his teachings (Acts 24:5). In the Greek text there appear two forms of the word: the simple form, Nazarenos, meaning "of Nazareth," and the peculiar form, Nazoraios. Before its association with the locality, this latter term may have referred to a Jewish sect of "observants," or "devotees," and was later transferred to the Christians


Nazoraious
http://www.reference...rowse/Nazoraios

Nazarene (sect)

Not to be confused with Nasoraeans
The Nazarene sect ( Ναζωραίων from Hebrew נזרים ) were an early Jewish Christian sect similar to the Ebionites, in that they maintained their adherence to the Torah, but unlike the Ebionites, they accepted the virgin birth and divinity of Jesus.
Derivation of Nazarene

According to the standard reference for Koine Greek, the Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Ναζωραῖος / Nazoraios (plural: Nazoraioi) is translated into English as:

" Nazoraean, Nazarene , quite predominantly a designation of Jesus, in Mt, J, Ac and Lk 18:37, while Mk has Ναζαρηνός ("coming from Nazareth"). Of the two places where the later form occurs in Lk, the one, Lk 4:34, apparently comes from Mk (1:24), the other, 24:19, perhaps from a special source. Where the author of Lk-Ac writes without influence from another source he uses Ναζωραῖος. Mt says expressly 2:23 that Jesus was so called because he grew up in Nazareth. In addition, the other NT writers who call Jesus Ναζωραῖος know Nazareth as his home. But linguistically the transition from Ναζαρέτ (Nazareth) to Ναζωραῖος is difficult ... and it is to be borne in mind that Ναζωραῖος meant something different before it was connected with Nazareth ... According to Ac 24:5 the Christians were so called;"

In the NASB translation, Jesus is called the Nazarene in ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; . According to, Paul of Tarsus was apprehended and accused by the attorney of the Jerusalem High Priest Ananias and Pharisaic Jews of being "a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes" after having been advised in Acts 21:23 to accompany four men having taken a Nazarite vow into the temple. Since the word was apparently used by the earliest Jewish sect of followers of Jesus of Nazareth, adoption of the label today typically rejects modern Christianity as having been led astray from "normative" Judaism by Paul of Tarsus. The mainstream Jewish community holds that acceptance of Jesus (or at least, the Pauline view) is antithetical to the principles of Judaism, and because it involves the abolition of the Jewish law and customs.
In all, the following derivations have been suggested:
  • The place-name Nazara (which later became Nazareth), as in the Greek form Iesous Nazarenos . This is the traditional interpretation within mainstream Christianity, and it still seems the obvious interpretation to many modern Christians. reads that "and he went and lived in a town called Nazareth. So was fulfilled what was said through the prophets: "He will be called a Nazarene"" (NIV) (Greek is Ναζωραῖος/Nazoraios).
  • The word nazur means separate in Aramaic. The word is related to Nazir. There are a number of references to Nazirites/Nazarites in the Old Testament and New Testament. A Nazarite (נְזִיר) was a Jew who had taken special vows of dedication to the Lord whereby he abstained for a specified period of time from using alcohol and grape products, cutting his hair, and approaching corpses. At the end of the period he was required to immerse himself in water. Thus the baptism of Jesus by his relative John the Baptist could have been done "to fulfil all righteousness" at the ending of a nazirite vow. However, following his baptism, the gospels give no reason to suppose Jesus took another Nazirite vow until The Last Supper, (see ). says of Yeshua` (Jesus), "And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene." But had the prophets said 'Nazarene' or 'Nazarite'? It appears that they said ‘He shall be called a Nazarite’ because reference bibles state that the prophecy cited in Matt. 2:23 is in reference to concerning Samson the Nazarite, and there is no word translated ‘Nazarene’ or any reference to a city of 'Nazareth' in the Hebrew Scriptures. describes John the Baptist as a Nazarite from birth. James the Just was described as a Nazarite in Epiphanius' Panarion 29.4. In Paul of Tarsus is advised to accompany four men having "a vow on them" (a Nazarite vow) to Herod's Temple and to purify himself in order that it might appear that he "walkest orderly". This event was the reason why in Paul was accused of being a "ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes" (and further verifies that the term Nazarene was connected to the term Nazarite).
  • The word nazara, "truth", another gnostic concept popularized through the Gospel of Philip: "The apostles that came before us called him Jesus Nazarene the Christ ..."Nazara" is the "Truth". Therefore 'Nazarenos' is "The One of the Truth" ..." ( Gospel of Philip, 47)
Alongside the three traditional explanations above, two more recent explanations have been suggested:
  • The word nosri which means "one who keeps (guard over)" or "one who observes" the same name used by spiritual leaders (see for example Yeshu Ha-Notzri) of a pre-Christian gnostic sect which evolved into the Mandaean religion (as in Jeremiah 31:5-6 נֹצְרִים). This explanation had become popular among Protestants towards the end of the 20th century. However, the Greek letter ζ (zeta) is always used in Koine transliterations of ז (zayin) but never צ (tsade) which is always represented by a σ (sigma) instead.
  • The Greek transliteration Ναζαρηνος (Nazareinos, from which the English "Nazarene" derived) of Neitzër ( נצר ), which is the Hebrew term meaning "offshoot(s)", especially from the branches of an olive tree (instead referring to a wicker in Modern Hebrew). which appears in Isaiah chapters 11.1 and 60.21. This derivation is popular among some of the late 20th century's Messianic Jewish groups.
"Nazarene" in multiple languages

The Hebrew word "Nazarene" (or more properly pronounced "Notzer" (נוצר)) is used to refer to any believer in Jesus, whether Jew or Gentile, in modern Hebrew. In Arabic this same term is used for any believer in Jesus, whether Jew or Gentile. Patristic references suggest that this was also the case in Greek and Latin in earliest times, but that the term "Nazarene" later evolved to referring to a Jewish believer in Jesus in later European times.

Patristic references to "Nazarenes"

Patristic references to "Nazarenes" suggest that the European use of the term "Nazarene" evolved from including all believers in Jesus to only Jewish believers in Jesus.
Epiphanius (published 370), gave this description of the Nazarenes:
"For this group did not name themselves after Christ or with Jesus' own name, but "Nazoraeans." However, at that time all Christians were called Nazoraeans in the same way. " (Epiphanius, Panarion 29)

And the "Canons of the Church of Alexandria" (2nd-3rd century AD) also uses the term "Nazarene" to refer to non-Jewish believers. However, by the time we get to the period of Epiphanius in the later 4th century, he talks as if the term was only applied to Jewish believers in Jesus, as show in the rest of his comments:

"But these sectarians... did not call themselves Christians--but "Nazarenes," ... However they are simply complete Jews. They use not o­nly the New Testament but the Old Testament as well, as the Jews do... They have no different ideas, but confess everything exactly as the Law proclaims it and in the Jewish fashion - except for their belief in Messiah, if you please! For they acknowledge both the resurrection of the dead and the divine creation of all things, and declare that God is o­ne, and that his son is Jesus the Christ. They are trained to a nicety in Hebrew. For among them the entire Law, the Prophets, and the... Writings... are read in Hebrew, as they surely are by the Jews. They are different from the Jews, and different from Christians, o­nly in the following. They disagree with Jews because they have come to faith in Christ; but since they are still fettered by the Law - circumcision, the Sabbath, and the rest - they are not in accord with Christians.... they are nothing but Jews.... They have the Good News according to Matthew in its entirety in Hebrew. For it is clear that they still preserve this, in the Hebrew alphabet, as it was originally written. (Epiphanius; Panarion 29)"

From Epiphanius' description, given in the Fourth Century CE when Nazarenes had already existed for several hundred years, it can be determined that the Nazarenes were very dependent upon the Jewish world and its traditions.
In the 4th century Jerome also refers to Nazarenes as those "...who accept Messiah in such a way that they do not cease to observe the old Law." In his Epistle 79, to Augustine, he said:
"What shall I say of the Ebionites who pretend to be Christians? To-day there still exists among the Jews in all the synagogues of the East a heresy which is called that of the Minæans, and which is still condemned by the Pharisees; [its followers] are ordinarily called 'Nazarenes'; they believe that Christ, the son of God, was born of the Virgin Mary, and they hold him to be the one who suffered under Pontius Pilate and ascended to heaven, and in whom we also believe. But while they pretend to be both Jews and Christians, they are neither."

Jerome viewed a distinction between Nazarenes and Ebionites, a different Jewish sect, but does not comment on whether Nazarene Jews considered themselves to be "Christian" or not or how they viewed themselves as fitting into the descriptions he uses. His criticism of the Nazarenes is noticeably more direct and critical than that of Epiphanius.
The following creed is that of a church at Constantinople at the same period:
"I renounce all customs, rites, legalisms, unleavened breads & sacrifices of lambs of the Hebrews, and all other feasts of the Hebrews, sacrifices, prayers, aspersions, purifications, sanctifications and propitiations and fasts, and new moons, and Sabbaths, and superstitions, and hymns and chants and observances and Synagogues, and the food and drink of the Hebrews; in one word, I renounce everything Jewish, every law, rite and custom and if afterwards I shall wish to deny and return to Jewish superstition, or shall be found eating with The Jews, or feasting with them, or secretly conversing and condemning the Christian religion instead of openly confuting them and condemning their vain faith, then let the trembling of Gehazi cleave to me, as well as the legal punishments to which I acknowledge myself liable. And may I be anathema in the world to come, and may my soul be set down with Satan and the devils."

"Nazarenes" are referenced past the fourth century AD as well. Jacobus de Voragine (1230-1298) described James as a "Nazarene" in The Golden Legend, vol 7. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) referred to A "Hebrew of the Nazarene Sect" in Catena Aurea - Gospel of Matthew, chapter 27. So this terminology seems to have remained at least through the 13th century in European discussions, although the term "Nazarene" has continued to refer to both Jewish and Gentile believers in Jesus in Hebrew and Arabic.

Modern movements

Starting in the nineteenth century, a number of modern movements have revived the term "Nazarene" among English speaking communities, usually for one of two reasons:
  • Since they suppose the word was used of very early followers of Jesus, adopting it lays claim to, or stresses the importance of, a more primitive or authentic structure of belief.
  • Since the word was apparently used by the earliest Jewish sect of followers of Jesus of Nazareth, some religious groups view the adopting of the use of the term "Nazarene" lays claim to an authentically Torah-based and Jewish structure of belief. Some of these groups consider themselves in unity with the Christian faith and use the term "Nazarene" because they view it as a term that was used to describe both Jewish and Gentile believers in Jesus in earliest times, and is still used this way in modern Hebrew and Arabic. Other similar groups use the term "Nazarene" to distance themselves from Christianity, seeing the term as exclusively Jewish, despite its earlier usage for both Jewish and Gentile believers.
An exception to this is the Church of the Nazarene, which emphasizes Christian activism in the Arminian tradition of John Wesley, and which is accepted as normative by other mainstream Christian denominations. The Church of the Nazarene took their name in order to associate itself with the humbleness of Christ's town of origin, as they seek to reach the 'humble' in society. Various branches of the Apostolic Christian Church also use the term "Nazarene" or "Nazarean" in their name.

Edited by EEB aka AASB-AWSW, 31 January 2013 - 06:16 PM.


#42 Bonita

Bonita

    Poster

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,523 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:USA

Posted 01 February 2013 - 02:08 PM

The Nazoraeans, or Nazorites, were a Jewish messianic sect, as were the Essenes and some scholars think that memebers of both the Nazoraeans and Essenes were likely the Ebionites ("the Poor"). I think there is a huge amount of confusion concerning the difference between the Nazarites and the Essenes, especially given the close proximity of Engedi to Qumran and the similarity of some of their beliefs. But TUB tells us that these were two entirely separate groups.

137:7.12 All of these parties and sects, including the smaller Nazarite brotherhood, believed in the sometime coming of the Messiah. They all looked for a national deliverer. But Jesus was very positive in making it clear that he and his disciples would not become allied to any of these schools of thought or practice. The Son of Man was to be neither a Nazarite nor an Essene.

#43 Bradly aka/fanofVan

Bradly aka/fanofVan

    Poster

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 793 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Midwest USA
  • Interests:Gardening, sustainable agriculture/micro-farming, history, philosophy, behavioral psych, economics (quit laughing), the blues, learning from children.

Posted 01 February 2013 - 04:38 PM

I hope you will excuse this inquiry and interjection in such a scholarly and enjoyable thread. It is my understanding that Jesus actually was or was to be the promised one or messiah that Machiventa spoke and taught of but that the Jewish nation had so distorted their mortal expectations and religious requirements for Him-to-come, away from a spiritual leader to come for the world and into this tribal, nationalistic "deliverer" from their bondage, suffering, and political enemies of the Jewish peoples. Is this your understanding(s) as well? And further that Jesus could very well have become the "world's" messiah within Judaism concentrically outwards IF the religious leaders had not been so jealous and the militants so stiff-necked as to reject any prophet or teacher who challenged their expectations and "needs" for the false messiah they had invented for themselves in lieu of that whom was promised (who was Jesus in potential and could have been in actuality).

Jesus knew He could not change the attitudes and rejection without some display of power and authority to overwhelm opposition and He rejected this option while in the Perean Hills in consultation and full consideration of how He would demonstrate the Father of all and His faith in the Father of all to attract the minds on earth and bear witness to all the creatures of Nebadon of the power of love and faith to overcome all. Thank you.
Peace be upon you."

#44 Bonita

Bonita

    Poster

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,523 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:USA

Posted 01 February 2013 - 05:45 PM

I covered this in the thread Historical Palestine if you're interested. http://urantia.invis...ical-palestine/

Most of the ideas concerning the messiah were rooted in Zoroastrianism which the Jews were exposed to during the Babylonian captivity. Of course, they had their own spin on it but for the most part the messiah was supposed to erase original sin, which is why Jesus is often referred to the new Adam. How could Jesus be the messiah meant to erase original sin if there is no such thing as original sin? It was also the reason why the Baptist came first in order to provide a mind-set among the people that freed them of the burden of supposed sin.

The bottom line is that Jesus can be conceived as a messiah only if you think a messiah is a revelation of a loving God to all peoples.

Anyway, I'm not sure if I answered your question because I'm not really sure what your question is . . . sorry.

#45 Bradly aka/fanofVan

Bradly aka/fanofVan

    Poster

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 793 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Midwest USA
  • Interests:Gardening, sustainable agriculture/micro-farming, history, philosophy, behavioral psych, economics (quit laughing), the blues, learning from children.

Posted 01 February 2013 - 05:54 PM

(1017.1) 93:3.7 Melchizedek taught that at some future time another Son of God would come in the flesh as he had come, but that he would be born of a woman; and that is why numerous later teachers held that Jesus was a priest, or minister, “forever after the order of Melchizedek.”

(1017.2) 93:3.8 And thus did Melchizedek prepare the way and set the monotheistic stage of world tendency for the bestowal of an actual Paradise Son of the one God, whom he so vividly portrayed as the Father of all, and whom he represented to Abraham as a God who would accept man on the simple terms of personal faith. And Michael, when he appeared on earth, confirmed all that Melchizedek had taught concerning the Paradise Father.

I would presume that this is the origination and not Zoroastranrism.
Peace be upon you."

#46 Bonita

Bonita

    Poster

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,523 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:USA

Posted 01 February 2013 - 06:24 PM

No, the Jewish messiah concept was most definitely Zoroastrian (Persian) in origin.

170:1.1-12 In connection with the recital of Jesus’ sermon it should be noted that throughout the Hebrew scriptures there was a dual concept of the kingdom of heaven. The prophets presented the kingdom of God as:


1. A present reality; and as
2. A future hope—when the kingdom would be realized in fullness upon the appearance of the Messiah. This is the kingdom concept which John the Baptist taught.


From the very first Jesus and the apostles taught both of these concepts. There were two other ideas of the kingdom which should be borne in mind:



3. The later Jewish concept of a world-wide and transcendental kingdom of supernatural origin and miraculous inauguration.
4. The Persian teachings portraying the establishment of a divine kingdom as the achievement of the triumph of good over evil at the end of the world.


Just before the advent of Jesus on earth, the Jews combined and confused all of these ideas of the kingdom into their apocalyptic concept of the Messiah’s coming to establish the age of the Jewish triumph, the eternal age of God’s supreme rule on earth, the new world, the era in which all mankind would worship Yahweh. In choosing to utilize this concept of the kingdom of heaven, Jesus elected to appropriate the most vital and culminating heritage of both the Jewish and Persian religions.
The kingdom of heaven, as it has been understood and misunderstood down through the centuries of the Christian era, embraced four distinct groups of ideas:


1. The concept of the Jews.
2. The concept of the Persians.
3. The personal-experience concept of Jesus— “the kingdom of heaven within you.”
4. The composite and confused concepts which the founders and promulgators of Christianity have sought to impress upon the world.


The Melchizedek teaching was about the Son of God and the Son of Man, something completely different from the Jewish apocalyptic version they learned from the Persians.

136:1.6 There was one feature of the bestowal of Michael which was utterly foreign to the Jewish conception of the Messiah, and that was the union of the two natures, the human and the divine. The Jews had variously conceived of the Messiah as perfected human, superhuman, and even as divine, but they never entertained the concept of the union of the human and the divine. And this was the great stumbling block of Jesus' early disciples. They grasped the human concept of the Messiah as the son of David, as presented by the earlier prophets; as the Son of Man, the superhuman idea of Daniel and some of the later prophets; and even as the Son of God, as depicted by the author of the Book of Enoch and by certain of his contemporaries; but never had they for a single moment entertained the true concept of the union in one earth personality of the two natures, the human and the divine. The incarnation of the Creator in the form of the creature had not been revealed beforehand. It was revealed only in Jesus; the world knew nothing of such things until the Creator Son was made flesh and dwelt among the mortals of the realm.

Edited by Bonita, 02 February 2013 - 11:18 AM.


#47 Bonita

Bonita

    Poster

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,523 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:USA

Posted 02 February 2013 - 01:14 PM

Here's another quote that states that Melchizedek did not originate the concept of the Messiah. It says that the world knew nothing of these things prior to Jesus and that would indicate that Melchizedek did not reveal it.


136:1.6 The incarnation of the Creator in the form of the creature had not been revealed beforehand. It was revealed only in Jesus; the world knew nothing of such things until the Creator Son was made flesh and dwelt among the mortals of the realm.

Aslo, Jesus was not the Messiah as understood at the time. He was, however, the Savior, which is just a little different.

#48 Howard509

Howard509

    Poster

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 352 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 02 February 2013 - 05:09 PM

I hope we're all agreed that the distinction between the religion of Jesus and the religion about Jesus isn't new to the Urantia Book. It started with the Enlightment when scholars began to assess the New Testament with historical methods and is today taken for granted by most Jesus scholars in conducting their work. This is why I find the writings of Marcus Borg so valuable, since they are so much in agreement with the Urantia Book's version of the life and teachings of Jesus.

We are not human beings having a spiritual experience; we are spiritual beings having a human experience. -
Teilhard de Chardin


#49 Bradly aka/fanofVan

Bradly aka/fanofVan

    Poster

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 793 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Midwest USA
  • Interests:Gardening, sustainable agriculture/micro-farming, history, philosophy, behavioral psych, economics (quit laughing), the blues, learning from children.

Posted 02 February 2013 - 06:37 PM

Bonita - I wanted to acknowledge your answers to my question for I am deeply imbedded in your recommended thread....and I recommend it to all!! Also, my question was a garbled mess as was my hasty rebuttal. A more straightforward question would be: Do you think the Melchizedek missionaries are the original source of messianic expectations of later times? Or are there historical records of this expectation prior to that period too? I understand how twisted such things can become over time, especially with only oral teachings and priesthoods and kings to "personalize" such for further distortions to come. Anyway, thank you for sharing and for your patience with me. :)
Peace be upon you."

#50 Bonita

Bonita

    Poster

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,523 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:USA

Posted 02 February 2013 - 08:16 PM

A more straightforward question would be: Do you think the Melchizedek missionaries are the original source of messianic expectations of later times? Or are there historical records of this expectation prior to that period too?


Just off the top of my head, and as I pointed out in the Zoroastrianism thread, Zoroaster was in contact with the Salem missionaries in the 6th century BC. Melchizedek lived in the 19th century BC, and we know that much of his teachings got watered down, forgotten and were pretty much a failure in Mesopotamia by then. Zoroaster did attempt to teach what he learned from the Salem missionaries, which would have been derived from Melchizedek's teachings, but he was also influenced by the established pagan religions of the region. The pagan beliefs at the time had been deeply dualistic long before Zoroaster arrived on the scene.

93:7.3 But the task was so great and the tribes were so backward that the results were vague and indefinite. From one generation to another the Salem gospel found lodgment here and there, but except in Palestine, never was the idea of one God able to claim the continued allegiance of a whole tribe or race. Long before the coming of Jesus the teachings of the early Salem missionaries had become generally submerged in the older and more universal superstitions and beliefs. The original Melchizedek gospel had been almost wholly absorbed in the beliefs in the Great Mother, the Sun, and other ancient cults.

93:9.5 It was hard for the next generation to comprehend the story of Melchizedek; within five hundred years many regarded the whole narrative as a myth.

95:1.3 Although the Salem teachers did much to refine and uplift the religions of Mesopotamia, they did not succeed in bringing the various peoples to the permanent recognition of one God. Such teaching gained the ascendancy for more than one hundred and fifty years and then gradually gave way to the older belief in a multiplicity of deities.

It is from dualism that messianic expectations arise because it is the only way to solve the problem that dualism presents. Zoroaster worked to incorporate Melchizedek teachings into the prevalent dualistic religion by introducing the idea that the one and only God will be the eventual victor or savior in a dualistic existence. I guess what I'm trying to say is that the dualism and its cure, the end-time messiah, pre-dated Zoroaster but I'm not sure if it pre-dated Melchizedek. It probably did because the Sumerians had a dualistic religion which predates Melchizedek.

92:5.12 Zoroaster, while much affected by the prevalent concept of dual spiritism, the good and the bad, at the same time definitely exalted the idea of one eternal Deity and of the ultimate victory of light over darkness.

#51 Guest_EEB aka AASB-AWSW_*

Guest_EEB aka AASB-AWSW_*
  • Guests

Posted 02 February 2013 - 08:59 PM

. . . .
It is from dualism that messianic expectations arise because it is the only way to solve the problem that dualism presents. Zoroaster worked to incorporate Melchizedek teachings into the prevalent dualistic religion by introducing the idea that the one and only God will be the eventual victor or savior in a dualistic existence. I guess what I'm trying to say is that the dualism and its cure, the end-time messiah, pre-dated Zoroaster but I'm not sure if it pre-dated Melchizedek. It probably did because the Sumerians had a dualistic religion which predates Melchizedek.
. . . .


Yes it did. But what has been manifested through Zoroaster is a slight corruption of the original dualistic religion of the ancients. Zoroaster's original concept followed along the lines of white magic which counters black magic, so to speak on a metaphysical basis. Basically first mentioned with Lilith, in the Babylonian Talmud. Therefore puts the time frame back to Genesis.

#52 Bonita

Bonita

    Poster

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,523 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:USA

Posted 02 February 2013 - 10:25 PM

Scholars are in disagreement as to when Genesis was written. They claim that if it was written by Moses, it would have been written between 1440 and 1400 B.C. Currently we are told that Genesis had four different authors from 850-450 BC; either way, long after Melchizedek.

74:8.7 The Old Testament account of creation dates from long after the time of Moses; he never taught the Hebrews such a distorted story. But he did present a simple and condensed narrative of creation to the Israelites, hoping thereby to augment his appeal to worship the Creator, the Universal Father, whom he called the Lord God of Israel.

TUB tells us that the creation story in Genesis was rewritten sometime around the Babylonian captivity in the 5th century BC and that it was revised and heavily influenced by Babylonian myths.

74:8.9 The Hebrews did little writing until about 900 B.C., and having no written language until such a late date, they had several different stories of creation in circulation, but after the Babylonian captivity they inclined more toward accepting a modified Mesopotamian version.

Also, the Mithraic religion is extremely ancient messianic religion which predates Zoroastrianism.

#53 Guest_EEB aka AASB-AWSW_*

Guest_EEB aka AASB-AWSW_*
  • Guests

Posted 03 February 2013 - 09:37 AM

My use of the word Genesis was not necessarily meant to point to the Biblical but the Creation, or to be more specific, the reason for creation, which is not written in books but in the ancestral self. Yes there are many stories regarding creation and there is no one that is complete but the truth of creation lays in the mind of the heart who possesses the knowledge of the ancient of days. The UB tends to show that most actions must be approved by them in order to proceed. In many ways it is a reverse architecture or blue-print of the Universe, not always meant to be found or understood by those who do not have the capacity to think freely.

P.S.: The story about the creation that Jesus told Andrew and Phillip, in private, was not complete but did set in their mind a truth which they could understand with the knowledge they had at that time for understanding, yet was only a partial truth.

Edited by EEB aka AASB-AWSW, 03 February 2013 - 09:49 AM.


#54 Bonita

Bonita

    Poster

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,523 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:USA

Posted 03 February 2013 - 11:31 AM

My use of the word Genesis was not necessarily meant to point to the Biblical but the Creation, or to be more specific, the reason for creation, which is not written in books but in the ancestral self.


Huh? What? Written in the ancestral self . . . what the heck is that?

P.S.: The story about the creation that Jesus told Andrew and Phillip, in private, was not complete but did set in their mind a truth which they could understand with the knowledge they had at that time for understanding, yet was only a partial truth.


What private conversation are you talking about? I don't recall such a thing, but perhaps I've forgotten. Can you give me the specific quote? And all truth outside of Paradise is relative and therefore partial.

#55 Guest_EEB aka AASB-AWSW_*

Guest_EEB aka AASB-AWSW_*
  • Guests

Posted 03 February 2013 - 11:54 AM

Huh? What? Written in the ancestral self . . . what the heck is that?
. . . .
What private conversation are you talking about? I don't recall such a thing, but perhaps I've forgotten. Can you give me the specific quote? And all truth outside of Paradise is relative and therefore partial.
. . . .


As for the first, "germ plasm", more specifically " immortal germ":

(1459.6) 132:3.6 Faith acts to release the superhuman activities of the divine spark, the immortal germ, that lives within the mind of man, and which is the potential of eternal survival. Plants and animals survive in time by the technique of passing on from one generation to another identical particles of themselves. The human soul (personality) of man survives mortal death by identity association with this indwelling spark of divinity, which is immortal, and which functions to perpetuate the human personality upon a continuing and higher level of progressive universe existence. The concealed seed of the human soul is an immortal spirit. The second generation of the soul is the first of a succession of personality manifestations of spiritual and progressing existences, terminating only when this divine entity attains the source of its existence, the personal source of all existence, God, the Universal Father.


As I mentioned, "private, teaching", so you would need to ask Andrew or Phillip, besides as the old saying goes, "so shall it be written, so shall it be done." Time and space can be a bummer.



#56 Bonita

Bonita

    Poster

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,523 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:USA

Posted 03 February 2013 - 01:27 PM

Yes it did. But what has been manifested through Zoroaster is a slight corruption of the original dualistic religion of the ancients. Zoroaster's original concept followed along the lines of white magic which counters black magic, so to speak on a metaphysical basis. Basically first mentioned with Lilith, in the Babylonian Talmud. Therefore puts the time frame back to Genesis.



As for the first, "germ plasm", more specifically " immortal germ":

(1459.6) 132:3.6 Faith acts to release the superhuman activities of the divine spark, the immortal germ, that lives within the mind of man, and which is the potential of eternal survival. . . . .



So you're saying that the dualism, of which Zoroastrianism is an example, goes back to Genesis which is the germ plasm of the ancestral self which is the Thought Adjuster?

As I mentioned, "private, teaching", so you would need to ask Andrew or Phillip, besides as the old saying goes, "so shall it be written, so shall it be done." Time and space can be a bummer.



And also, how do you know about these private conversations between Jesus, Andrew and Philip if they are truly private? Do they have something to do with the germ plasm too?

#57 Guest_EEB aka AASB-AWSW_*

Guest_EEB aka AASB-AWSW_*
  • Guests

Posted 03 February 2013 - 02:39 PM


. . . .
So you're saying that the dualism, of which Zoroastrianism is an example, goes back to Genesis which is the germ plasm of the ancestral self which is the Thought Adjuster?
. . . .
And also, how do you know about these private conversations between Jesus, Andrew and Philip if they are truly private? Do they have something to do with the germ plasm too?


I order to truly answer your questions I would have to re-write the UB but in an effort to simplify my responce I will use the following quote:

(451.2) 40:9.6 When a Spirit-fused mortal is told about the events of the unremembered past experience, there is an immediate response of experiential recognition within the soul (identity) of such a survivor which instantly invests the narrated event with the emotional tinge of reality and with the intellectual quality of fact; and this dual response constitutes the reconstruction, recognition, and validation of an unremembered facet of mortal experience.



#58 Bonita

Bonita

    Poster

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,523 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:USA

Posted 03 February 2013 - 02:43 PM

I order to truly answer your questions I would have to re-write the UB but in an effort to simplify my responce I will use the following quote:

(451.2) 40:9.6 When a Spirit-fused mortal is told about the events of the unremembered past experience, there is an immediate response of experiential recognition within the soul (identity) of such a survivor which instantly invests the narrated event with the emotional tinge of reality and with the intellectual quality of fact; and this dual response constitutes the reconstruction, recognition, and validation of an unremembered facet of mortal experience.


So, are you claiming to be a Spirit-fused mortal?

#59 Guest_EEB aka AASB-AWSW_*

Guest_EEB aka AASB-AWSW_*
  • Guests

Posted 03 February 2013 - 02:59 PM

Does not the Spirit of Truth reside in all of us?

#60 Bonita

Bonita

    Poster

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,523 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:USA

Posted 03 February 2013 - 05:20 PM

Does not the Spirit of Truth reside in all of us?


What does the Spirit of Truth have to do with Spirit-fused mortals? They're not at all the same thing.

The Spirit of Truth is the Spirit of the Universal Father and the Creator Son.

194:2.3 In a certain sense, this Spirit of Truth is the spirit of both the Universal Father and the Creator Son.

194:2.16 4. The spirit of the Universal Father and the Creator Son — the Spirit of Truth, generally regarded as the spirit of the Universe Son.

A Spirit-fused mortal are creatures who fuse with a fragment of the premind spirit of the Third Source and Center.

30:1.101 The fragmentations of the premind spirit of the Third Source and Center, though hardly comparable to the Father fragments, should be here recorded. Such entities differ very greatly from Adjusters; they do not as such dwell on Spiritington, nor do they as such traverse the mind-gravity circuits; neither do they indwell mortal creatures during the life in the flesh. They are not prepersonal in the sense that the Adjusters are, but such fragments of premind spirit are bestowed upon certain of the surviving mortals, and fusion therewith constitutes them Spirit-fused mortals in contradistinction to Adjuster-fused mortals.

Edited by Bonita, 03 February 2013 - 05:20 PM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users