The Bible Unmasked

anart

A Disturbance in the Force
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...
 

H-KQGE

Dagobah Resident
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.

_http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2013/12/jewish-god-psychopath.html

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.
 

judaswasjames

The Force is Strong With This One
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.
 

caballero reyes

The Living Force
«Reply # 16 of Laura on: December 31, 2006, 1:16:34 PM»

Chapter XVI The Bible Unmasked

The Birth of Jesus Christ
ACCORDING TO
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?
 

Keit

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
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.
 

Laura

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
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.
 

Approaching Infinity

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
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.
 
Top Bottom