The Bible Unmasked

JAFaura said:
I can only offer what I own, which is the body of experience and understanding that my life has afforded me thus far and I can only ask for what you are willing to give. I would never be so presumptuous to offer up anyone else's experiences or understanding nor to assume what others might want or need. It is not that I think what I want or I understand or I feel is any more important or significant than what others want, understand, need or feel, it is simply that those are the only things I fully own and which I can fully offer.

I think you're missing the point, again.

j said:
The fact that I do not reference Gurdjieff or Castañeda or others does not mean I am not familiar with their work or its importance.

Well, that's rather odd since up until now you've acted as if you were completely unaware of their work.

j said:
Referencing them isn't er My understanding of Beelzebub's Tales is still quite murky as is my essential understanding of All and Everything and even Meetings with Remarkable Men has failed to bring a clear understanding of their practical applications nor only in the context to the Work, but in a much broader more expansive and ever-changing search for the meaning of objective truth.

Just to be clear, since you seem to be misunderstanding the point (which is that this forum serves a very specific purpose and to take part here, one must understand and at least theoretically agree with that idea enough to empty ones cup a little) it is not about referencing their work in what you write - it's about attitude, an understanding of basic premises and line of force. I find it very hard to believe that you've read Gurdjieff and understand the importance of that work when you so strongly disagreed with the idea that man's nature is wholly mechanical, as you stated in another post of yours. So, that doesn't add up.

j said:
Yours, Laura's and others' perspectives on those and other works are of great value, but only if they are freely given.

Could you clarify what that means? It sounds rather paramoralistic to me, not to mention that it is suggesting that anything we do is not freely given.

j said:
I regret that my lack of reference to these and other works have served to convey that I am unaware or unfamiliar with them, it was not my intent.

What is your intent?

j said:
We will simply have to disagree as to whether that lack of reference is inconsiderate.

Not really, it is what it is, as they say.

j said:
As I have made clear in every post and comment I have offered, I thank you and anyone else who affords me the consideration and time to comment or share, but I would never presume to impose on anyone to do so. That would indeed be inconsiderate.

That's a bit nonsensical considering your other posts on this forum, since words do not match actions. When words do not match actions, something is always afoot...
I came across this yesterday, it isn't saying anything new, just another voice pointing out what should be obvious & it gave me my first smile of the day.


I used this link as it has glossy pictures (I'm sure the first one is a Monty python version of "God") adding to the captions. Clicking the writer's name at the top goes to his blog which is without the glossy pics & writings on Zionism etc.
Looks like something I'll have to read. A glance yields this, Laura: "he shall save MY people from their sins" is the Hebrew Matthew for 1:21.
«Reply # 16 of Laura on: December 31, 2006, 1:16:34 PM»

Chapter XVI The Bible Unmasked

The Birth of Jesus Christ
The Gospel of St. Luke

The significant thing in the above quotation is Both Zacharias and Elisabeth That HAD Their marriage vows kept inviolate. Never had either of them broken faith With the other. Their love for each other and companionableness THROUGHOUT Their Lives and prevailed as "they Were Both now well stricken in years," would it not a glorious thing Have Been Had the Bible revealed to us the secret code or by Which They lived Their Lives, so That we poor mortals Could fashion ours upon it? If Zacharias and Elisabeth Knew the secret of a perfect Union, why did not the Bible reveal it to us? Oh! how precious That knowledge would be to the human race!

------------------------------ ------------------------------ --------------------------

Do You think judaswasjames, this paragraph has to do with the true Gnostic doctrine?
I stumbled upon the following two recent archaeological discoveries. In both cases the findings were published on an Israeli news site. Albeit Haaretz, which is more left leaning, but still. Very curious how they basically admit that all the kosher regulations that constitute a significant part of Jewish religion were instituted "centuries after the Bible was written".

A study of fish bones unearthed at archaeological sites across Israel shows that ancient Judeans commonly ate non-kosher seafood, seemingly ignoring the biblical ban on such fare for centuries.

The ancient Israelites apparently feasted on catfish, sharks and other taboo catch during the entire First Temple period, including the days of the mythical kingdom of David and Solomon, and well into the Second Temple era.

“The surprising conclusion is that there is no evidence that the masses knew about the bulk of these rules before the second century B.C.E,” he says. “For the Persian period, which is when most scholars believe Judaism begins, we have clear evidence that non-kosher fish was being eaten, figurative art was regularly used on coins, and so on. I think we need to seriously reconsider the idea that Judaism as a way of life begins as early as the Persian period.”
Israeli archaeologists have unearthed the complete skeleton of a piglet in a place and time where you wouldn’t expect to find pork remains: a Jerusalem home dating to the First Temple period....

The research showed that catfish, sharks and other non-kosher fish were commonly consumed in Jerusalem and Judah during the First Temple period, and only for the late Second Temple period is there clear evidence that Jews were eschewing such banned seafood.

In other words, biblical prohibitions that are considered signposts of the Jewish faith today were unknown, unheeded or non-existent back in the First Temple period. And it seems that, from time to time, the ancient Israelites were not averse to literally bringing home the bacon.
I stumbled upon the following two recent archaeological discoveries. In both cases the findings were published on an Israeli news site. Albeit Haaretz, which is more left leaning, but still. Very curious how they basically admit that all the kosher regulations that constitute a significant part of Jewish religion were instituted "centuries after the Bible was written".

Based on clues that I picked up in reading the books of Maccabees, I think the whole thing was finalized and imposed in that period. Not very successfully either; that took a rather longer time.
Very curious how they basically admit that all the kosher regulations that constitute a significant part of Jewish religion were instituted "centuries after the Bible was written".
Cool finding. And it makes sense, since the Bible was actually written around 270 BC! So these regulations would have been instituted mere "decades", or generations (maybe 100 years), after the Bible was first composed. I'm guessing it was probably always the province of a select elite during that early period. And then, like Laura wrote, the Maccabees tried to implement it on a wider scale, with mixed results.
Chapter I.

Abram And Sarai.[4]

The most sacred relation of life is the devotion, the integrity, and the loyalty of a man and a woman. Without this relationship, without the mutual pledge and keeping of a sacred faith with each other, there would be nothing in life to warrant its puny existence. Anything that tends to strengthen this tie of love, that makes for a more happy union and sacred trust, is a force of uplift, of advancement, of progress, and of happiness. Anything that undermines this relationship, that tends to break its bonds, that puts a commercial price upon its devotion is not only harmful, but belongs to the baser things of life which civilization abhors as a plague. For after all, when the sum total of life has been thoroughly analyzed, it is as Robert Burns would say:
"To build a happy fire-side clime for weans and wife,
Is the true pathos and sublime of human life."

For a man to betray a woman in the marital relationship is a deed of grave injustice and for a woman to betray a man in this same relationship is one of the basest of acts. And yet, we sanction the separation of a pair when their union is incompatible and makes their lives a burden instead of a source of happiness in this world of so much pain and sorrow. But if this sacred relationship is used by either party for personal gain and personal safety, or, to secure special favor or special dispensation, our condemnation for such an act is only too well known.

Still, in the Bible, there are related acts of such a character; that are not only not condemned, but the parties thereto receive the blessing and bountifulness of God.

We will proceed to relate a story of such a despicable nature. I quote Genesis, Chapter 12, Verses 11-20.
11. And it came to pass, when he was come near to enter into Egypt, that he said unto Sarai his wife, Behold now, I know that thou art a fair woman to look upon:

12. Therefore it shall come to pass, when the Egyptians shall see thee, that they shall say, This is his wife: and they will kill me, but they will save thee alive.

13. Say, I pray thee, thou art my sister: that it may be well with me for thy sake; and my soul shall live because of thee.

14. And it came to pass, that, when Abram was come into Egypt, the Egyptians beheld the woman that she was very fair.

15. The princes also of Pharaoh saw her, and commended her before Pharaoh: and the woman was taken into Pharaoh's house.

16. And he entreated Abram well for her sake: and he had sheep, and oxen, and he asses, and menservants and maidservants, and she asses, and camels.

17. And the Lord plagued Pharaoh and his house with great plagues, because of Sarai, Abram's wife.

18. And Pharaoh called Abram, and said, What is this that thou hast done unto me? why didst thou not tell me that she was thy wife?

19. Why saidst thou, She is my sister? so I might have taken her to me to wife: now therefore behold thy wife, take her, and go thy way.

20. And Pharaoh commanded his men concerning him: and they sent him away, and his wife, and all that he had.

Now in the character of Abram we have a man who has been extolled for centuries throughout the world as the product of the finest and best in life. Particularly one whose services in behalf of the Lord should be followed by every one. It was Abram, remember, who received the Covenant from God. And his fame is similar to that of our own George Washington, because he is considered the "Father of the Jewish People." But let me ask: Would you under the pretext of saving yourself, force your wife whom you love, to commit an act of prostitution in order that you might secure safe passage in your travels from one country to another?

Sarai's desires and rights in the matter were of no concern, as long as Abram was sure of protection and free of molestation. We cannot take into consideration, in this narrative, the childish element of God in this transaction, unless we also make him a party to the deal; a deal in which a man's wife is of so little value that he readily consented to have her submit to the embraces of other men in order that he himself might escape harm.

There is no doubt that Sarai performed her part of the bargain with full value, as Pharaoh "entreated Abram well for her sake." It seems in this pretty piece of business sagacity that our sympathies should be with Pharaoh, and our condemnation and contempt for Abram, the Lord notwithstanding to the contrary. Pharaoh distinctly tells Abram, after he has learned the truth, that if he had known that Sarai was Abram's wife, he would not have committed his adulterous act.

Pharaoh should be our model in this story instead of this gentleman whom we are pleased to call the "Father of the Jewish People." Is it from stories like this that our daughters are to receive their impressions and examples of virtue?

Is this the story that the prospective wife is to have before her as an example when she marries the man of her choice; especially, if she is a devout believer in the holiness and sacredness of every word that the Bible contains? Must she picture to herself, when in such a circumstance as related above, that her husband will surrender her to the lust of a stranger so that he may remain unharmed and unhurt? Or, rather, should she select a man as her mate, who follows the example of one who will at all times and under all circumstances protect her first and defend himself afterwards -- one who will lay down his life for her safety?

Further comment upon this story, is, I believe, unnecessary as it speaks its own foul lesson better than anything else could. But we are not finished with this model pair of the Bible, and I must give you another glimpse of their code of morals. One would think that the above story would be sufficient to make any one couple notorious, but the Bible-makers thought additional information of their intimate life would be elevating. And so I quote, Genesis, Chapter 16, Verses 1-2.
Now Sarai, Abram's wife, bare him no children: and she had a handmaid, an Egyptian, whose name was Hagar.

2. And Sarai said unto Abram, Behold now, the Lord hath restrained me from bearing: I pray thee, go in unto my maid; it may be that I may obtain children by her. And Abram hearkened to the voice of Sarai.

Rather a nice compromising situation; a particularly desirable one for a profligate husband; also a particularly liberal and obliging wife. Can you picture the situation as related above? Sarai tells Abram, "I pray thee, go in unto my maid," and the Bible assures us there was no hesitation on the part of Abram as he "hearkened to the voice of Sarai."

To-day the conditions seem to be the reverse. When a wife discovers that her husband is getting a bit too familiar with the maid, she generally consults her lawyer regarding a divorce, and quite a number of divorces have been granted where the maid has been mentioned as the corespondent. But there is more to follow and so we continue.

Genesis, Chapter 16 Verses 3-5.
3. And Sarai, Abram's wife, took Hagar her maid the Egyptian, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife.

4. And he went in unto Hagar, and she conceived: and when she saw that she had conceived, her mistress was despised in her eyes.

5. And Sarai said unto Abram, My wrong be upon thee: I have given my maid into thy bosom; and when she saw that she had conceived, I was despised in her eyes: the Lord judge between me and thee.

Certainly here is a situation where an appeal to the law seems the only solution. What jealousy arises in a woman's breast under such circumstances I do not know; yet it does seem but natural that when a mistress forces her servant to co-habit with her husband, and when this cohabitation results in a pregnancy, surely the servant is justified in demanding that her mistress's husband give her all the protection that a woman in her condition deserves.

That Hagar should feel contempt for Sarai in the transaction I think is but natural. Well might any one feel contempt for such a woman, especially after she appeals to the Lord to judge between her and her husband. At first thought you might suppose that Sarai was laying a trap for Abram in order that she might secure a divorce from him, assuming that the same laws concerning divorce prevailed at that time as they now do in the State of New York, but that was not her purpose, as the following indicates:

Genesis, Chapter 16, Verse 6.
6. But Abram said unto Sarai, Behold, thy maid is in thy hand; do to her as it pleaseth thee. And when Sarai dealt hardly with her, she fled from her face.

Of all the relationships between a man and a woman the most contemptible is that when the man refuses to protect the woman who will soon be the mother of a child of which he is the father. Sickening beyond expression is the character of a man, who, after performing the act that he did, and under the circumstances, should put the blame and the responsibility upon his wife. True, we hold neither of them in high estimation, but under all such circumstances let us at least favor the weaker of the two. We have seen the character of Abram manifested in his relation with Pharaoh and quite naturally expect him to shirk his responsibility whenever he can. That he was an adept in "hiding behind a woman's skirt" no one can deny. It has just occurred to me to inquire how many men to-day would stoop to the degradation that has so far been related about this leading Patriarch of early Biblical times. Poor Hagar is banished from the house and her only refuge is the wilderness. The Lord steps in at this point, and let us see what his intercession brings to the poor woman.

Genesis, Chapter 16, Verses 7-12.
7. And the angel of the Lord found her by a fountain of water in the wilderness, by the fountain in the way to Shur.

8. And he said, Hagar, Sarai's maid, whence camest thou? and whither wilt thou go? And she said, I flee from the face of my mistress Sarai.

9. And the angel of the Lord said unto her, Return to thy mistress, and submit thyself under her hands.

10. And the angel of the Lord said unto her, I will multiply thy seed exceedingly, that it shall not be numbered for multitude.

11. And the angel of the Lord said unto her, Behold, thou art with child, and shalt bear a son, and shalt call his name Ishmael; because the Lord hath heard thy affliction.

12. And he will be a wild man; his hand will be against every man, and every man's hand against him: and he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren.

Enough from this chapter concerning the duplicity of Sarai and the culpability of Abram. What would we say to-day were such an example as theirs to be given to the world by our leading men and women? To-day we admire the very opposite of that which makes up the married life of this infamous couple.

Once more in the life of Abram and Sarai does Abram permit Sarai to submit to the embrace of other men for compensation and to save his miserable self. It appears that he made a business of the scheme, and from reports, shared very profitably after each transaction. One quotation of such a degrading act, I think, is sufficient for us at this time, but for the benefit of those who would like to become more fully acquainted with the life of this "Holy" pair, I advise them to read Genesis, Chapter 20. We all know what happened to Hagar for taking the "good advice" of the Lord and returning to her mistress. Both Sarai and Abram cast her out of the house and again into the wilderness with her child. Judging from this instance, the Lord's advice is not a very good thing to follow.

The blessing the Lord gave Hagar when his angel finds her in "her affliction" and "with child" was not very comforting to her either, for verse 12 says her son "will be a wild man; and his hand will be against every man, and every man's hand against him."

But on to the next story that bears a close relationship and resemblance to this one.


* 1. Quoted from Upton Sinclair's "Profits of Religion," page 119.

* 2. Buckle, "History of Civilization in England," vol. III, pages 265 to 276.

* 3. In using the word "filth" in reference to the Biblical narratives, I wish it understood that its use is intended to reflect the same thought that would be expressed by the religious-minded in judging the literature of sex as found in books other than the Bible.

* 4. The Bible used as reference in this work is the King James version, published by the American Bible Society. "Its sole object," says the printed statement of the society, "is to encourage the wider circulation of the Holy Scriptures without note or comment." It also boasts of having issued over 158,000,000 volumes during its existence.
I am very grateful to you for the opportunity to read this worthy book . Its price is much too high at Amazon and I cannot seem to find it cheaper anywhere else. Greetings.
@heinrich In case you missed it, the extract mantle provided is from page one of this thread. Laura virtually dropped the bulk of it in over a dozen posts made on a single day. It runs several pages, and then goes into Theoxeny and the gods, Gilgamesh, Odysseus. I spent the entire day reading the whole thread yesterday. I highly recommend it.
Top Bottom