Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
crystal sage

Goddess... Mari... Mary... Maria... Isis..

38 posts in this topic

Virgin Mary?

I always thought Mary was a Latin vesrion of the Hebrew Miriam (sister of Moses).

Anyway, what about those figures of Isis holding child Horus and painted to represent Mary mother of Jesus.

What about Jesus, not long born, carried into Egypt, seemed to have stayed a long time. 'Out of Egypt have I called my son' etc.

The big question is this: Jesus in Temple. Woman accused of adultery about to be stoned. Jesus writes on the ground.

Says 'cast the first stone' etc... then writes again on the ground.

What was Jesus writing? If it was of no importance, or if we are not meant to question those acts, then why mention them?

Regards all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Virgin Mary?

I always thought Mary was a Latin vesrion of the Hebrew Miriam (sister of Moses).

Anyway, what about those figures of Isis holding child Horus and painted to represent Mary mother of Jesus.

What about Jesus, not long born, carried into Egypt, seemed to have stayed a long time. 'Out of Egypt have I called my son' etc.

The big question is this: Jesus in Temple. Woman accused of adultery about to be stoned. Jesus writes on the ground.

Says 'cast the first stone' etc... then writes again on the ground.

What was Jesus writing? If it was of no importance, or if we are not meant to question those acts, then why mention them?

Regards all.

huh? :blink:^_^

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nothing panned out you say... very well Shaun, give me the actual interpretation of said prophecy and its intended recipient as per the writings of Isaiah

I already have--Isaiah 7-9 was a prophecy intended for King Ahaz [sp]. Of course, I don't believe that anyone can tell the future. Prophecy is total nonsense IMHO.

And who said that the giant heirarchy we know today as the RCC was authored by God?

It was the first Church. Today it remains the largest Christian institution with the largest membership. Through their hands came the NT and various traditions we still observe today. So, I assume, that was by God's hand. If not, why? Why did God wait several centuries before starting the true Church--Protestantism?

It is common knowledge that God never liked institutions like the one we see today

Then why the success of the RCC?

... Jesus reviled them...

He did? Did he not say to Peter that he would build his [Jesus] Church ...?

The big question is this: Jesus in Temple. Woman accused of adultery about to be stoned. Jesus writes on the ground.

Says 'cast the first stone' etc... then writes again on the ground.

This story never happened. It is not found in the earliest, most reliable Greek mss. It was a later scribal insert.

Kindly,

Sean

Edited by seanph

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jesus writes on the ground...

that's really interesting...

http://www.biblegateway.com/resources/comm...mp;seq=i.50.7.7

The third stage, Jesus' response to the opponents (vv. 6-9), is very memorable. While remaining seated he bends over and writes with his finger on the ground. This act of writing on the ground is itself very significant. Kenneth E. Bailey has pointed out (in unpublished form) that it was unlawful to write even two letters on the sabbath but that writing with dust was permissible (m. shabbat 7:2; 12:5). If this were the eighth day of the feast, which was to be kept as a day of rest, then Jesus' writing on the ground would show that he knows well not only the law but also the oral interpretations.

Furthermore, his writing echoes an Old Testament passage, thereby turning it into a symbolic action (Jeremias 1972:228): "O Lord, the hope of Israel, all who forsake you will be put to shame. Those who turn away from you will be written in the dust because they have forsaken the Lord, the spring of living water" (Jer 17:13). Here "written in the dust" probably means the opposite of being written in the book of life (Ex 32:32; Dan 12:1); those who have turned away are consigned to death because they have rejected the one who is the source of the water of life. Thus it appears that Jesus is associating his opponents with those whom God condemns for forsaking himself and whom he consigns to death. The judgment that they suggest Jesus execute on this adulterous woman is in fact the judgment that he visits upon them for their rejection of him--the one who has offered them God's living water (7:38-39). In rejecting Jesus, they are forsaking God, and thereby committing a most shameful act. Adultery is shameful, certainly, but they themselves are acting in a shameful way worthy of death.

All of this is conveyed simply by Jesus' action of writing on the ground, which alludes to this passage from Jeremiah. This action could have this meaning whatever it was he wrote. Not surprisingly, many people have proposed theories of what he actually wrote on the ground. Perhaps the most common suggestion is still the most likely--that he wrote out some form of condemnation addressed toward them. This interpretation has been strengthened in recent years by the publication of a papyrus fragment from 256 B.C. (Zenon Papyrus 59) that uses the verb found here (katagrapho) in the sense of writing out an accusation against someone (Bauer, Gingrich and Danker 1979:410). So perhaps Jesus cited commands he knew them to be guilty of breaking, or it could be he cited Jeremiah 17:13 putting, as it were, a caption under his symbolic act. Or maybe he enacted Jeremiah 17:13 by actually writing out the names of the accusers. Since they did not get his point right away, perhaps first he cited Jeremiah and then, as they persisted, he began to write their names. Such suggestions are obviously speculative, but they indicate possible explanations of what is happening.

When Jesus calls for the one without sin to cast the first stone he accomplishes several things: it relieves him from the charge of having instigated a stoning; it ensures there will not be a stoning, since none of the accusers will want to take responsibility for it; and it causes them to reflect on their own sinfulness before God. It has often been suggested that the eldest accusers were the first to leave (v. 9) because they recognized their own sinfulness more readily. However, leaving in this order may simply reflect the custom of deferring to the elders. In any case, their withdrawal was in fact a confession of sin. Those who came to condemn ended up condemning themselves by not casting a stone.

Jesus is left alone, sitting on the ground, bent over and writing, with the woman standing before him. As Augustine says, "The two were left alone, misera et misericordia" ("a wretched woman and Mercy"; In John 33.5). This prepares for the fourth and final stage of this story--Jesus' response to the woman (vv. 10-11). He straightens up and asks for a report of what happened, as if he had been totally oblivious to what took place as he concentrated on his writing. He does not ask her about the charges but rather about that aspect of the situation most heartening to the woman: Where are they? Has no one condemned you? (v. 10). They had of course condemned her in their accusations, but by not following through on the charge they had thrown out her case.

http://www.mountainretreatorg.net/faq/ground.html

XREF: Deuteronomy 17:7 "The hand of the witnesses shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterward the hand of all the people. So you shall purge the evil from your midst.

Matthew 7:1 "Do not judge so that you will not be judged.

John 8:10 Straightening up, Jesus said to her, "Woman, where are they? Did no one condemn you?"

Romans 2:1 Therefore you have no excuse, everyone of you who passes judgment, for in that which you judge another, you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things. (NASB ©1995)

Some traditions hold that Jesus writes the sins of the religious leaders on the ground, but this is only speculation.

http://bible.cc/john/8-7.htm

;) Ground Rules????

Edited by crystal sage

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I already have--Isaiah 7-9 was a prophecy intended for King Ahaz [sp]. Of course, I don't believe that anyone can tell the future. Prophecy is total nonsense IMHO.

Very well, then please tell me how the specific wording that occurs from verse 10to verse 25 has any bearing whatsoever on the prophecy concerning Ahaz which occurs from verses 1 to 9? I mean how does a child fit into the whole context, especially with the name given to the child in verse 14.

You will notice though that when the childs name is actually given it is referred to as Maher-shalal-hash-baz (The spoil speeds, the prey hastens). I wonder what that has to do with Immanuel (God is with us)?

And how does the context continue when in the following chapter (chapter 9), we get the following:

For to us a child is born,

to us a son is given,

and the government will be on his shoulders.

And he will be called

Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,

Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

Of the increase of his government and peace

there will be no end.

He will reign on David's throne

and over his kingdom,

establishing and upholding it

with justice and righteousness

from that time on and forever.

The zeal of the LORD Almighty

will accomplish this.

You see, there is no clear indication especially in terms of context, that what you are saying can be correct. There actually seems to be two prophecies that are related and the 2nd of which has to do with the Messiah.

Of the increase of his government and peace there will be no end. He will reign on David's throne and over his kingdom, establishing and upholding it with justice and righteousness from that time on and forever.

These are messianic verses if I've ever seen any!!! No matter how much Jewish interpretation tries to deny it.

It was the first Church. Today it remains the largest Christian institution with the largest membership. Through their hands came the NT and various traditions we still observe today. So, I assume, that was by God's hand. If not, why? Why did God wait several centuries before starting the true Church--Protestantism?

We both know that they inherited the biblical texts, but that they actually rarely use them in their services. Any Roman catholic knows that perfectly well. Tradition on the other hand is what the church is all about, and it really doesn't matter if many of those same traditions were inherited from pagan religious practices and ideas. You keep on harping about so many similarities then you say this?

His true church never ended Sean, they are simply disseminated throughout the whole of the institution we call the RCC. We can say though that it was the revolution of Protestantism that started bringing out the faithful from within that Neolithic institution.

Then why the success of the RCC?

You could ask the same question of successful politicians. The more general appeal you have, the more popular you will be. In the case of the RCC (and affiliates) that meant incorporating pagan practices and beliefs into the church to facilitate the cultivation of christianizing the world. Conversion of these people thus became unnecessary, the church converted to paganism.

He did? Did he not say to Peter that he would build his [Jesus] Church ...?

Kindly,

Sean

The rock wasn't Peter my friend, rather what Peter had just said to Jesus, in answer to Jesus' question.

Matthew 16:15-20

15"But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?"

16Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."

17Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." 20Then he warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jesus writes on the ground...

that's really interesting...

http://www.mountainretreatorg.net/faq/ground.html

XREF: Deuteronomy 17:7 "The hand of the witnesses shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterward the hand of all the people. So you shall purge the evil from your midst.

Matthew 7:1 "Do not judge so that you will not be judged.

John 8:10 Straightening up, Jesus said to her, "Woman, where are they? Did no one condemn you?"

Romans 2:1 Therefore you have no excuse, everyone of you who passes judgment, for in that which you judge another, you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things. (NASB ©1995)

Some traditions hold that Jesus writes the sins of the religious leaders on the ground, but this is only speculation.

http://bible.cc/john/8-7.htm

;) Ground Rules????

Thanks for the thought crystal sage.

Good response, but the question remains: what was written on the floor?

This is the only place in the NT where Jesus writes anything. We are told he performs the act twice, and in some respects one could argue that it reflects Moses and the second set of tablets.

But the thing which intrigues me in all this is what might have been written. It shows us that Jesus, although a simple carpenter could write as well as debate in temples. So either this learning came from Eygpt or it was inspired by divinity.

Could there perhaps be some relationship between the act of writing symbols and the act of adultery?

I feel there might be a relationship here somehow. And there is also the stoning: stone: - petros - Peter - keys to the Kingdom?

If Peter had the keys, perhaps he was meant to pass them around, or unlock stuff which cannot be seen in the NT.

Am I drifting into oblivian?

all the best

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Very well, then please tell me how the specific wording that occurs from verse 10to verse 25 has any bearing whatsoever on the prophecy concerning Ahaz which occurs from verses 1 to 9? I mean how does a child fit into the whole context, especially with the name given to the child in verse 14.

You will notice though that when the childs name is actually given it is referred to as Maher-shalal-hash-baz (The spoil speeds, the prey hastens). I wonder what that has to do with Immanuel (God is with us)?

And how does the context continue when in the following chapter (chapter 9), we get the following:

For to us a child is born,

to us a son is given,

and the government will be on his shoulders.

And he will be called

Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,

Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

Of the increase of his government and peace

there will be no end.

He will reign on David's throne

and over his kingdom,

establishing and upholding it

with justice and righteousness

from that time on and forever.

The zeal of the LORD Almighty

will accomplish this.

You see, there is no clear indication especially in terms of context, that what you are saying can be correct. There actually seems to be two prophecies that are related and the 2nd of which has to do with the Messiah.

Of the increase of his government and peace there will be no end. He will reign on David's throne and over his kingdom, establishing and upholding it with justice and righteousness from that time on and forever.

These are messianic verses if I've ever seen any!!! No matter how much Jewish interpretation tries to deny it.

I have answered this question in spades. You keep ignoring it. I will, yet again, let the Jews speak for themselves regarding their Messiah.

Isaiah 7

http://www.googlesyndicatedsearch.com/u/Je...sforjudaism.org

Isaiah 9

http://www.googlesyndicatedsearch.com/u/Je...sforjudaism.org

Even The Oxford Companion to the Bible recognizes this to be a reference to Ahaz:

... The author of Matthew often attempts to prove that Jesus is the Messiah by showing how the details of his life fulfill the Hebrew scriptures. In this case, Matthew presents a passage from Isaiah 7 in which the prophet is speaking to Ahaz, king of Judah. Ahaz faces attack from the forces of Syria and Israel (734 BCE), and so he is contemplating an alliance with the king of Assyria. God makes it clear to Ahaz that such an alliance should not take place. Isaiah declares that the Lord will provide a sign that will make known the Lord’s will in spite of Ahaz’s recalcitrance. A young woman who is pregnant will bear a son, and before that child is old enough to tell the difference between good and evil, the powers that threaten Judah will be defeated. Ahaz refuses to believe the sign and sends tribute to the Assyrian king who destroys Damascus and kills the king of Syria (2 Kings 16.9). The other threatening force, Israel, is conquered by Assyria twelve years after the occasion of this sign at about the time that the child mentioned in the sign would have reached the age of maturity.

Isaiah’s intent in discussing this child is clearly to set a time frame for the destruction of Israel. There is nothing miraculous about the mother or the conception process...--Daniel N. Schowalter, Professor of Religion and Classics at Carthage College

We both know that they inherited the biblical texts, but that they actually rarely use them in their services. Any Roman catholic knows that perfectly well. Tradition on the other hand is what the church is all about, and it really doesn't matter if many of those same traditions were inherited from pagan religious practices and ideas. You keep on harping about so many similarities then you say this?

Huh?! I said nothing to contradict myself here regarding the RCC and pagan influence. I stated:

"It was the first Church. Today it remains the largest Christian institution with the largest membership. Through their hands came the NT and various traditions we still observe today. So, I assume, that was by God's hand. If not, why? Why did God wait several centuries before starting the true Church--Protestantism?"

So what's the problem?!

His true church never ended Sean, they are simply disseminated throughout the whole of the institution we call the RCC. We can say though that it was the revolution of Protestantism that started bringing out the faithful from within that Neolithic institution.

How could you possibly know this, J?

The rock wasn't Peter my friend, rather what Peter had just said to Jesus, in answer to Jesus' question.

Not what I meant. Jesus supposedly said he will build his Church and Peter will head the Church. This is what the RCC believes. And supposedly Peter was the first Pope--which is complete hogwash--but there ya go. So, again, the RCC is God's Church--the Church universal.

... Jesus uses the term church in a much more expansive sense. Matthew’s Jesus responds to Peter’s confession by saying “on this rock I will build my church” (Matthew 16.18). Whether the “rock” refers to Peter or to his confession is strongly debated, but either way, the verse conveys a sense of the church as a universal institution...--Ibid

Sean

Edited by seanph

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have answered this question in spades. You keep ignoring it. I will, yet again, let the Jews speak for themselves regarding their Messiah.

Isaiah 7

http://www.googlesyndicatedsearch.com/u/Je...sforjudaism.org

Isaiah 9

http://www.googlesyndicatedsearch.com/u/Je...sforjudaism.org

Even The Oxford Companion to the Bible recognizes this to be a reference to Ahaz:

... The author of Matthew often attempts to prove that Jesus is the Messiah by showing how the details of his life fulfill the Hebrew scriptures. In this case, Matthew presents a passage from Isaiah 7 in which the prophet is speaking to Ahaz, king of Judah. Ahaz faces attack from the forces of Syria and Israel (734 BCE), and so he is contemplating an alliance with the king of Assyria. God makes it clear to Ahaz that such an alliance should not take place. Isaiah declares that the Lord will provide a sign that will make known the Lord’s will in spite of Ahaz’s recalcitrance. A young woman who is pregnant will bear a son, and before that child is old enough to tell the difference between good and evil, the powers that threaten Judah will be defeated. Ahaz refuses to believe the sign and sends tribute to the Assyrian king who destroys Damascus and kills the king of Syria (2 Kings 16.9). The other threatening force, Israel, is conquered by Assyria twelve years after the occasion of this sign at about the time that the child mentioned in the sign would have reached the age of maturity.

Isaiah’s intent in discussing this child is clearly to set a time frame for the destruction of Israel. There is nothing miraculous about the mother or the conception process...--Daniel N. Schowalter, Professor of Religion and Classics at Carthage College

Well the problem with what you are quoting is simply that we have two differnt names given to a supposed child. The 1st is Immanuel and the 2nd is Maher-shalal-hash-baz (The spoil speeds, the prey hastens). Two completely different names, two completely different contexts. If you read that passage for yourself instead of relying on what some say you will see what I mean. (but I know you will prefer your experts, so I give up)

Huh?! I said nothing to contradict myself here regarding the RCC and pagan influence. I stated:

"It was the first Church. Today it remains the largest Christian institution with the largest membership. Through their hands came the NT and various traditions we still observe today. So, I assume, that was by God's hand. If not, why? Why did God wait several centuries before starting the true Church--Protestantism?"

So what's the problem?!

The problem is that the RCC is not the true church and never was. People within the RCC might be (and many are) true christians because of their individual faith, but as an institution, the RCC was and is, nothing more than a centralized political entity. If christianity lost the truth it was because of the institution. An institution that still defends paganism as if it were christianity.

The RCC as you well know only came into exustence in the 3rd or 4th century. Up untile that time, churches were autodeterminating and independant of each other. They only had the common message that held them together. It is also the main reason why there was such a large number of differing viwpoints before the council of Nicea. Thus they took over what was christian tradition and the scriptures. It is from this time onward that pagan influence became a focal point in the christian church.

The true church was never the RCC.

How could you possibly know this, J?

Because the true church is not an organization, much less a political one. It is a spiritual union of people that can be called the "body of christ". The body of christ, doesn't belong to a single church Sean, you should at least know that.

Not what I meant. Jesus supposedly said he will build his Church and Peter will head the Church. This is what the RCC believes. And supposedly Peter was the first Pope--which is complete hogwash--but there ya go. So, again, the RCC is God's Church--the Church universal.

... Jesus uses the term church in a much more expansive sense. Matthew’s Jesus responds to Peter’s confession by saying “on this rock I will build my church” (Matthew 16.18). Whether the “rock” refers to Peter or to his confession is strongly debated, but either way, the verse conveys a sense of the church as a universal institution...--Ibid

If you don't accept the position and neither do I then why bring the point up? Peter was not the 1st pope. He was simply the leader of the Roman church, not the church as a whole. We can say, using modern terminology, that he was the pastor /priest of the local christian church that existed in Rome, he wasn't even its founder.

This doesn't make him the founder of anything, much less the founder of the christian church. Just because the RCC artificially extends its authority to other churches because of this convenient explanation of these verses, does not actually give them the spiritual or scriptural right to do so.

Edited by Jor-el

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
f you read that passage for yourself instead of relying on what some say you will see what I mean. (but I know you will prefer your experts, so I give up)

And you think I left the faith after fifteen long years without evaluating all sides of the equation first, J? I did not come to the conclusions I did without serious personal, hermeneutic, and exegetical study.

The problem is that the RCC is not the true church and never was. People within the RCC might be (and many are) true christians because of their individual faith, but as an institution, the RCC was and is, nothing more than a centralized political entity. If christianity lost the truth it was because of the institution. An institution that still defends paganism as if it were christianity.

The RCC as you well know only came into exustence in the 3rd or 4th century. Up untile that time, churches were autodeterminating and independant of each other. They only had the common message that held them together. It is also the main reason why there was such a large number of differing viwpoints before the council of Nicea. Thus they took over what was christian tradition and the scriptures. It is from this time onward that pagan influence became a focal point in the christian church.

Of course, history records, and still recognizes, the RCC as the first Church. That said, I couldn't agree more. A pagan/quasi-Christian Constantine needed something to hold together his fragmented empire ... and Christianity was it.

Because the true church is not an organization, much less a political one. It is a spiritual union of people that can be called the "body of christ". The body of christ, doesn't belong to a single church Sean, you should at least know that.

Yes, I do know that. My question was if you did.

If you don't accept the position and neither do I then why bring the point up?

Curiosity.

Peter was not the 1st pope.

Without question.

He was simply the leader of the Roman church, not the church as a whole. We can say, using modern terminology, that he was the pastor /priest of the local christian church that existed in Rome, he wasn't even its founder.

Agreed--though I would say he was more of a mouthpiece for the Jesus movement headed by James. What he accomplished in Rome is little known.

This doesn't make him the founder of anything, much less the founder of the christian church. Just because the RCC artificially extends its authority to other churches because of this convenient explanation of these verses, does not actually give them the spiritual or scriptural right to do so.

Completely agree.

Wow, we actually agree on a few things, J! :)

Sean

Edited by seanph

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And you think I left the faith after fifteen long years without evaluating all sides of the equation first, J? I did not come to the conclusions I did without serious personal, hermeneutic, and exegetical study.

Well then it seems the question has more than one answer becasue I did the same and I didn't leave the faith, it doesn't mean I haven't had some trouble swallowing some things, but that is for another day and another topic. As for this particular context of these verses in Isaiah, it is my opinion that this was a dual prophecy or at least a prophecy with dual elements in it. One reffering to Ahaz, the other to the Messiah. Note, I didn't say Jesus, these verses are Messianic in content and context. It is amazing how Judaism has rejected this even though it stands out to high heaven.

Wow, we actually agree on a few things, J! :)

Sean

I'm glad of that, I thought, when I logged on just now, that I would be here defending this position for some reason. ^_^ . I'm happy I was wrong...

yours sincerely,

Jor-el

Edited by Jor-el

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Selam

***Thus, the Qur’an categorically denies the story of the crucifixion of Jesus. There exist, among Muslims, many fanciful legends telling us that at the last moment God substituted for Jesus a person closely resembling him (according to some accounts, that person was Judas), who was subsequently crucified in his place. However, none of these legends finds the slightest support in the Qur’an or in authentic Traditions, and the stories produced in this connection by the classical commentators must be summarily rejected. They represent no more than confused attempts at "harmonizing" the Qur’anic statement that Jesus was not crucified with the graphic description, in the Gospels, of his crucifixion.

The story of the crucifixion as such has been succinctly explained in the Qur’anic phrase wa-lakin shubbiha lahum, which I render as "but it only appeared to them as if it had been so" - implying that in the course of time, long after the time of Jesus, a legend had somehow grown up (possibly under the then-powerful influence of Mithraistic beliefs) to the effect that he had died on the cross in order to atone for the "original sin" with which mankind is allegedly burdened; and this legend became so firmly established among the latter-day followers of Jesus that even his enemies, the Jews, began to believe it - albeit in a derogatory sense (for crucifixion was, in those times, a heinous form of death-penalty reserved for the lowest of criminals). This, to my mind, is the only satisfactory explanation of the phrase wa-lakin shubbiha lahum, the more so as the expression shubbiha li is idiomatically synonymous with khuyyila 1i, "[a thing] became a fancied image to me", i.e., "in my mind" - in other words, "[it] seemed to me" (see Qamus, art. khayala, as well as Lane II, 833, and IV, 1500).

This idea is quite interesting.... Could that make the " book of Judas"

Jesus'????

linked-image

in honour of Judas giving his life... so that he could safely escape with Mary and their child???

http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/tomb/tomb.html

;) Saw that latest doco, drama on the finding of Jesus' tomb..that also contained his extended family and his child....

http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/tomb/tomb.html

Edited by crystal sage

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks for the thought crystal sage.

Good response, but the question remains: what was written on the floor?

This is the only place in the NT where Jesus writes anything. We are told he performs the act twice, and in some respects one could argue that it reflects Moses and the second set of tablets.

But the thing which intrigues me in all this is what might have been written. It shows us that Jesus, although a simple carpenter could write as well as debate in temples. So either this learning came from Eygpt or it was inspired by divinity.

Could there perhaps be some relationship between the act of writing symbols and the act of adultery?

I feel there might be a relationship here somehow. And there is also the stoning: stone: - petros - Peter - keys to the Kingdom?

If Peter had the keys, perhaps he was meant to pass them around, or unlock stuff which cannot be seen in the NT.

Am I drifting into oblivian?

all the best

Interesting thoughts, Theminde. Words written in sand don't last long, you know. But youre doing some good thinking anyway, so just keep it up.

Welcome to U-M, TM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks for the thought crystal sage.

Good response, but the question remains: what was written on the floor?

This is the only place in the NT where Jesus writes anything. We are told he performs the act twice, and in some respects one could argue that it reflects Moses and the second set of tablets.

But the thing which intrigues me in all this is what might have been written. It shows us that Jesus, although a simple carpenter could write as well as debate in temples. So either this learning came from Eygpt or it was inspired by divinity.

Could there perhaps be some relationship between the act of writing symbols and the act of adultery?

I feel there might be a relationship here somehow. And there is also the stoning: stone: - petros - Peter - keys to the Kingdom?

If Peter had the keys, perhaps he was meant to pass them around, or unlock stuff which cannot be seen in the NT.

Am I drifting into oblivian?

all the best

Then I begin thinking of spells... mystical symbols... rituals... calling on God and the spirit......Jesus reputedly traveled all over during his youth... learning... sharing about spiritual matters... there are Eastern links.. those with the Essenes.. those with Egypt...

I have in the past studied various healing modalities... and they are all initiated with symbols to channel energies... and they work!!!

I actually at first privately snickered at the idea... but then I could feel the energy released by them.. and was humbled.. and a little frightened at first... until I learnt that it was all operated by intent....

I gather that is why these teachings of powerful symbols are sacred.. why it preferably taught to those who chose to use this energy purely.... to protect them from random uses...

I do believe that Jesus was a very powerful channeler of energies...and had learned to use his gift wisely and responsibly during his many adventures and studies of and with mystics... spirituality in his youth.......

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/DP5/mead.htm

[O]ne of the most persistent charges of the Jews against Jesus was that he had learned magic in Egypt. . . .

Thus in the Palestinian Gemara we read:

"He who scratches on the skin in the fashion of writing is guilty, but he who makes marks on the skin in the fashion of writing, is exempt from punishment. Rabbi Eliezer said to them: But has not Ben Stada brought (magic) spells out of Egypt just in this way? They answered him: On account of one fool we do not ruin a multitude of reasonable men." ["Pal. Shabbath," 13d.]

The same story is also handed on in the Baylonian Gemara, but with a very striking variant:

"There is a tradition: Rabbi Eliezer said to the wise men, Has not Ben Stada brought magic spells from Egypt in an incision in his body? They answered him, He was a fool, and we do not take proofs from fools." ["Bab. Shabbath," 104b.] . . .

[T]he Palestinian Gemara seems plainly to have preserved the earlier account, namely the inscribing of some figures, or more probably hieroglyphs, on the skin. The idea in the mind of the Palestinian Rabbis was presumably that the Egyptians were known to be very jealous of their magic lore and did all they could to prevent books of magic being taken out of the country; Jeschu, then, according to the oldest Rabbinic tradition, was said to have circumvented their vigilance by some such subterfuge as that which has been handed on in the story in the Palestinian Gemara. . .

Now the main burden of Christian tradition is that Jesus went and taught the people publicly -- the poor, the outcast, the oppressed, the sinners, to all of whom, according to Rabbinical law, the mysteries of the Torah were not to be expounded unless they had first of all purified themselves.

http://www.worldviewz.net/mathemagics_day2.html

Magic Squares have appeared in old Essene Bibles, where Jesus apparently referred to the Divine Kingdom in terms of the Magic Square of 7 x 7, where The Above is the same as The Below, where The Left is the same as The Right, where everyone is equal, for if you were to take out only one number, the magic square would become disharmonic.

http://books.google.com/books?id=IR08_JXH4...RbLzLx0yvClz2R4

http://books.google.com/books?id=GmlRvdon8...xpIIlu76ra5WaoY

"Jesus The Egyptian" is a revolutionary attempt to examine the origins of Christianity as historical artifacts and not theological ones. The author offers the theory that Christianity is historically rooted in the ancient...

Moses and the Egyptian Priesthood

http://www.mystae.com/restricted/streams/scripts/moses.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.