Re: Reflections on scripture

[Guest guest]

Dear Francis,

I too have a problem, but different than fa's.

According to all the recent discoveries, it has become obvious to scholars that

the New Testament writers chose those themes from Jewish Scripture which might

be made to sound as a link, in order to bring continuity to the Bible. This was

done on purpose, and quite openly, since many Jewish Christians thought they

could be both.,Jews and Christians, early on.

The Jews have developed, not too early on that there might be a Messiah, but no

where do they ever, ever consider him to be G-d. A prophet, yes, but no Jew

would stand still for " a son of G-d " Their idea of monotheism shudders at that

thought.

The prophecies were about a mighty ruler, an earthly ruler and then even a

broken man( Isaiah) who would save the people then alive from outsiders, and

protect them and Torah..

The " virgin " Isaiah spoke about, for example) was a mistranslation to or the

wrong connotation given.. The word used meant " young woman " All the

associations made later by the writers of the Gospels and letters were to bring

legitimacy to the new religion. And what better than to find a supposedly

forewarning that a virgin would conceive in Isaiah

What Christians call the " old " testament was about the covenant made by their

G-d to the people of Israel.That is what sets them apart, that covenant which

makes them in their eyes, the chosen people. It includes all the lapses made by

man against the Law, all the lapses into idolatry,and the continued faith and

history of the people. It affirms their love and faith in the G-d of their

fathers.It is not according to any reputable Scripture scholar a foreshadowing

of the Christ as understood by the Christians.

That doesn't mean of course the person reading the Bible cannot find whatever

meaning they wish. People of all religions read the Bible and feel it is somehow

" special " Any level of meaning given to it is a private devotion.( that there

are countless erroneous sermons preached by those who never kept up with

scholarship, is sad. I have hear hundreds.)

It would be totally wrong to draft the Jewish idea of the Messiah onto the

mystery religions prevalent at the time Jesus lived or thereafter. That is where

Scripture scholars are today. What the future unearths in unknown.

I personally learned ,as you learned about the actual reality of all those

actual words in the New Testament. But all that is way out of date and was never

correct. It is not a noble endeavor to make the Jews complicit in the beginnings

of the Christianity, whatever some Jews thought who became followers of Jesus

..Most initially followed a rabbi who was full of charisma, but who never claimed

to be anything but a humble Jew.

Yes, Jesus was a Jew. He never said, what was attributed to him by others that

he was or thought he was the Messiah, the Jews were waiting for. Modern

scholarship has turned a lot of pious imaginings on their head. We really must

learn about the actual times and location which became the stage for what would

someday be considered a different religion from the root of the same tree.And

even the actual words Jesus used.( remember there were no stenographers present,

no tape recorders, no paper, just the later, much later memories of people.)

As for " Revelation " , those who finally won in prescribing the cannon also were

very hesitant about including it. And , of course ,it was not written by anyone

who actually knew Jesus, but the writer did know the myths of ancient peoples

surrounding him.The author is thought to have been giving the later believers in

trouble with Rome some consolation.It never was written to foretell the future,

but to embellish a myth.

Now of course that is fact. But when one reads alone, one can imagine all sorts

of things and. I like you, consider the whole Scripture as full of the spirit.I

think the spirit guides everyone who reads Scripture individually. The only

horror would be to take all of it literally,make it concrete and worship it as

absolute Truth,. because it was never written from that point of view, and it

would in my opinion be subversion of the spirit.(.Fundamentalists, This is my

opinion on the subject)

Please think, what the result of finding backwards what others imagine to be

foretelling Jesus goes against the teachings of Judaism. At least that is what

many Jews find objectionable. It is a reinterpretation and came from looking

back.

None of this should in anyway threaten the hope and trust and faith one gleans

from the actual pages of Scripture. There are many levels of interpretation, and

we can pick whichever speaks to us. I only refer to the actual reality as far as

we know it today. There is much still to be discovered, and more unveilings of

original sources, I am sure.But there is also much playing with the actual facts

by the Roman Church to fit its needs.

Toni

( who desparately wishes she had learned ancient Hebrew and Greek)

Re: Reflections on Rumi/Sufism

Dear Frances, you wrote:

>

> We read the entire OT and NT from Genesis to Revelation as one would a

poem

> seeking out images, metaphors and parodies that weave in and out of both

the

> OT and NT and lead to an apotheosis in Revelation. There is so much

more

> to see and say with this approach. The entire life story of Christ is

> foreshadowed in the OT,in the imagery trees, animals, hilltops, valleys,

> fire, rocks, sacrifice, blood, etc.... It was a marvelous romp and good

to

> throw authorial intention out the window and I think Rumi would be

delighted

> too.

It sounds absolutely wonderful, but I have a problem with the OT (which

American Jews in Israel claim stands for ONLY Testament - needless to say I

disagree!) - being studied as *only* a foreshadow of Christ. Is Inanna

*only* a foreshadow of Judaism? Of course not. I would love to hear more

about your understanding of Revelations, though - I don't know if it is

purely a cultural prejudice but I can never manage to finish reading it. It

makes no sense whatsoever to me.

When we went for our recent long weekend in Paris Graham found a second-hand

copy of Edinger's _Encounter With the Self_, based on Blake's paintings. I

read it from cover to cover in our beautiful central hotel, washed down with

excellent wine.

I am so confused about your Jungian studies, Frances - are you an IAAP

member? Will you be coming to Barcelona this summer? I hope to go to the

pre-conference workshop with n Woodman.

still dancing,

fa

[Guest guest]

Hi,

I agree about memories being repeated, however the synoptic gospels are so

different, even Q or the early letters of . Every one was trying to prove

his particular bias, and that is normal for individuals. I am really surprised

that with all the scribes around, this wasn't primitive times, ( I don't

consider that " ancient " ), why someone didn't write a Gospel sooner. No need just

to rely on memories.

The early communities didn't think they were a " church " they were local

gatherings of those who believed in Jesus as messiah or as prophet.Everything

developed very slowly.

There was a lot of infighting and it affected each small community differently.

I hesitate to give too much weight to oral repetition at a time it was possible

for an illiterate to find someone to write his memories for him.

I think it took a long time for each person involved to figure out exactly what

had happened in his/her life. s conversion at Pentecost is available, but I

imagine everyone close after they came out of hiding had much soul searching to

do.

There was no problem with the resurrection. it was not even a thought in the

early days and was a later insert. No one then believed what theologians and

others have made of it. that is fact, gleaned from the history and writings of

the time. never mentions it, non of the early sources do. All those parts

were added on later.

The miracles were not a big concern until much later when Jesus was actually

considered to be a " god " , because there were many magicians wandering around,

and people probably were content to believe what others said they saw

..It is interesting to note the geographical problems Luke had because he did not

know Jerusalem or its environments and makes some factual mistakes about

location.

But still something had happened to these observers and they had small groups

come together to figure out just what.

There is much we still do not know, but there is also a lot of new material

available. The birth of a new religion taken from past as well as present events

is fascinating to me.

You are right about the :

" Secondly, many of the teachings ascribed to Jesus are versions of, or have

their roots in, forumulaic utterances, prayers, promptings, of the faith

traditions of the time

That is why it is so hard to differentiate between what Jesus actually said, and

what was added to the story.

Now, in the Old Testament I am sure much of it was transmitted by memory. Very

few would have been literate

and those didn't write anything down until much later.

Either way we will still learn much from all the new discoveries and

translations. Theology has set everything in concrete however, and will not want

to admit changes, I am afraid.

Anyway thanks for the quote and the ideas about ancient memories. I think those

things were particularly true of the Old Testament.

We really do have a lot to learn, I do, anyway, and I hope I am around long

enough to take it all in. I just love these studies.

Toni

Reflections on scripture

In a message dated 3/30/04 4:49:45 AM, Toni writes:

<< We really must learn about the actual times and location which became the

stage for what would someday be considered a different religion from the root

of the same tree.And even the actual words Jesus used.( remember there were

no stenographers present, no tape recorders, no paper, just the later, much

later memories of people.) >>

Interesting post, Toni.

Two small footnotes. Ancient people were apparently better at listening than

we are, partly because of the oral traditions of the culture(s). In theatre

history, for instance, there are allusions to audiences at a plays (in both

Athens and Rome) knowing the scripts just from having heard them, and being

upset

with actors who bobbled lines. They relied on memory out of necessity.

In Plato's Phaedrus, he gives us a dialogue between two Egyptian deities,

Amon Ra and Thoth. (Ra a great first deity, a sun god; Thoth, the Scribe, the

Greeks likened to Prometheus and also Hermes.) In Plato's story, Thoth told

Ra

that he had invented writing and that it would be a wonderful tool for humans.

Ra was not very pleased. Plato says Ra said:

*This discovery of yours will create forgetfulness in the learners' souls,

because they will not use their memories; they will trust to the external

written characters and not remember of themselves. The specific which you have

disovered is an aid not to memory but to reminiscence, and you give your

disciples

not truth, bu only the semblance of truth; they will be hearers of many things

and will have learned nothing: they will appear to be omniscient and will

generally know nothing; they will be tiresome company, having the show of

wisdom

without its reality.*

Secondly, many of the teachings ascribed to Jesus are versions of, or have

their roots in, forumulaic utterances, prayers, promptings, of the faith

traditions of the time.

As I said, footnotes.

lightly, lightly,

phoebe

[Guest guest]

> As for " Revelation " , those who finally won in prescribing the cannon

> also were very hesitant about including it. And , of course ,it was

> not written by anyone who actually knew Jesus, but the writer did know

> the myths of ancient peoples surrounding him.The author is thought to

> have been giving the later believers in trouble with Rome some

> consolation.It never was written to foretell the future, but to

> embellish a myth.

Not quite my understanding. It looks to be a rather revolutionary (and

angry) document, with a lot of intentionally coded imagery referring to

Rome and its hoped for/planned for downfall. Read it with the

geography of Rome in mind, and some things leap out. It was not

intended that the average person -- and certainly not the Roman

authorities -- would know what it really meant. A modern parallel might

be to speak of " the glittering and girdled road " in referring to D.C. or

the " tall entrance of finest gold " for San Francisco.

It's also very difficult to read. It's an odd dialect of Greek that has

many Hebrew language patterns. It was initially thought to be a sort of

" gutter Greek, " but it looks instead (based on the discovery of other

documents) to be a rather sophisticated dialect of its own.

Revelations, perhaps deliberately and perhaps not, also has almost no

word order and no punctuation, so making out what belongs to what

sentence and which adjective modifies which noun is a challenge -- and

not one that can always be resolved. It reads sort of like " dog man

path down ran and with large rough flowers brown red small. " I

exaggerate not much!

Marilyn

--

" Everything that irritates us about others can lead us to an

understanding of ourselves. "

~ Carl Jung

[Guest guest]

>

> There was no problem with the resurrection. it was not even a thought

> in the early days and was a later insert. No one then believed what

> theologians and others have made of it. that is fact, gleaned from the

> history and writings of the time. never mentions it, non of the

> early sources do. All those parts were added on later.

actually talks a lot about the risen Christ (with whom he had a

rather dramatic encounter), but I don't think his understanding is the

same as that of later theologians. The gospel of Mark -- a rather

early document -- also refers to the resurrection, but in quite a

different way than the other gospels. It sounds the same, because all

the stories have become conflated in our minds, but it really isn't, if

you pay attention to the specific words the writer uses and the

structure of the whole book. You have to read it in Greek to get the

very deliberate choice of words and phrases, some of which are quite

awkward (intentionally), and have been smoothed out in translation. And

think about why it was that those who reported interactions with the

risen Christ, including people who knew Jesus well, didn't recognize

him. I am deliberately making a distinction between Christ and Jesus

here. And note that doesn't speak of the risen Jesus.

Marilyn

--

" Everything that irritates us about others can lead us to an

understanding of ourselves. "

~ Carl Jung

[Guest guest]

Dear Marilyn,

Thanks a lot for your input. I guess we all learned from different sources.By

the way, I am only one-fourth the way through Edingers ' Archetype of the

Apocalypse " ,which sounds great so far.

I envy you your knowledge of Hebrew and Greek...I so wished I had learned both

when my brain was still agile enough to learn it.

I have to depend on translators, and commentaries from scholars...and I am sure

there are a lot of unanswered questions still.But you have added to my

understanding.

Toni

Re: Reflections on Scripture

> As for " Revelation " , those who finally won in prescribing the cannon

> also were very hesitant about including it. And , of course ,it was

> not written by anyone who actually knew Jesus, but the writer did know

> the myths of ancient peoples surrounding him.The author is thought to

> have been giving the later believers in trouble with Rome some

> consolation.It never was written to foretell the future, but to

> embellish a myth.

Not quite my understanding. It looks to be a rather revolutionary (and

angry) document, with a lot of intentionally coded imagery referring to

Rome and its hoped for/planned for downfall. Read it with the

geography of Rome in mind, and some things leap out. It was not

intended that the average person -- and certainly not the Roman

authorities -- would know what it really meant. A modern parallel might

be to speak of " the glittering and girdled road " in referring to D.C. or

the " tall entrance of finest gold " for San Francisco.

It's also very difficult to read. It's an odd dialect of Greek that has

many Hebrew language patterns. It was initially thought to be a sort of

" gutter Greek, " but it looks instead (based on the discovery of other

documents) to be a rather sophisticated dialect of its own.

Revelations, perhaps deliberately and perhaps not, also has almost no

word order and no punctuation, so making out what belongs to what

sentence and which adjective modifies which noun is a challenge -- and

not one that can always be resolved. It reads sort of like " dog man

path down ran and with large rough flowers brown red small. " I

exaggerate not much!

Marilyn