The Messiah — Theosophy’s view

Discussion in 'Alternative' started by Nick the Pilot, Nov 20, 2011.

  1. seattlegal

    seattlegal Why do cows say mu?

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2005
    Messages:
    6,549
    Likes Received:
    26
    Re: More on Logos

    Koine Greek was the language spoken by the Hellenistic culture, where Christianity spread to. Judea went under seige on and off by the Romans during the Jewish-Roman wars beginning in 66 AD and lasting quite a while. (The Temple was destroyed in 70 AD, and Masada took place in 73 AD.) Many of the Jews and the Christians from the area were scattered throughout the Hellenistic culture and into Koine Greek speaking areas as a result. Jesus even warned his followers about it in advance.
     
  2. Lunitik

    Lunitik Interfaith Forums

    Joined:
    May 1, 2011
    Messages:
    2,611
    Likes Received:
    0
    Re: More on Logos

    Ok, but do you see that Jesus has already died before this? What relevance does this have on what language Jesus would have spoken? It is still that these people would not have been proficient in Koine Greek, because they were the simpletons of Judea and small villages around the place.

    You yourself have shown a translation from the Aramaic book of John - albeit translated to English from that language. We can see it clearly differs a great deal from what has happened in the Greek version - we can see clearly that they have applied Hellenistic principles to the work. Logos for instance has been discussed by the Hellenistic peoples for at least 500 years before Jesus, and now Jesus is the Logos? It is bizarre to say the least, and certainly rather suspect...

    Christianity is not the religion of Jesus - Jesus was a Jew - it is more the morphing of Socrates into alignment with the Jews. If we want to discuss Socrates, I am happy to do so, but lets not pretend this is relevant to Jesus... I will certainly say Socrates was another Enlightened master - no less important, but completely unrelated to Jesus.
     
  3. luecy7

    luecy7 New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2011
    Messages:
    892
    Likes Received:
    0
    Classic.

    If the soul were merely the eye behind the eyes, or in the absence of the eyes, then you would be correct. There is also a do-er behind the do, and a spectrum of do-ings, of which you know very little about.
     
  4. radarmark

    radarmark Quaker-in-the-Making

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2011
    Messages:
    3,212
    Likes Received:
    2
    Okay, another factual error. Jesus and all but Judas of his apostles were Galileans, not Judeans. Huge difference. The Galilee was not part of the Hasmonean Kingdom. In fact they were part of Seleucid Syria until Rome came along. So the natives of Galilee were Koine speakers (they were part of the Seleucid area of control). We cannot prove if Jesus spoke Aramaic, Kione or both. See Mack’s work out of Claremont School of Theology and the (if rather dated) Azimov Guide or just do a little research on Galilean history at the time of Jesus.
     
  5. Lunitik

    Lunitik Interfaith Forums

    Joined:
    May 1, 2011
    Messages:
    2,611
    Likes Received:
    0
    There is no such thing as a soul, the soul is essentially the ego. There is only the Holy Spirit: if you insist you have a soul, you insist you are apart from the whole. Holy means whole, to bring in the whole you must drop identification with the part.

    In other words, the soul is as a drop, the spirit as the ocean - if the drop falls into the ocean, can you find it again and take it back out? It is akin to a wave, it consists of the ocean, it is an activity of the ocean, but it is simply a temporary occurrence in the ocean - an expression of the ocean, if you will. We can pin point that "this is a wave", but it simply arises and then falls back - the ocean is the constant. This is quite similar to the nature of the soul or indeed the human being - birth, peak, and death as it dissolves back from whence it came.

    This is why many guru's will say enlightenment is a type of death, it is a dissolution of the consciousness back to its source.

    Christians will understand this in another way: you must drop your own will and accept the will of God. This is the acceptance of the Holy Spirit, but they do not understand what is intended.
     
  6. Lunitik

    Lunitik Interfaith Forums

    Joined:
    May 1, 2011
    Messages:
    2,611
    Likes Received:
    0
    Galileans spoke a particular dialect of Aramaic.
     
  7. radarmark

    radarmark Quaker-in-the-Making

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2011
    Messages:
    3,212
    Likes Received:
    2
    Gee, I can tell where you get your facts. Try using Google Scholar at least.

    Wiki is a good place to start your research, but not particularly useable as proof. Like I said, look up Burton Mack in (at least) Scholoar. Preferably use an on-line library search and get one or two of his books on loan. Or, better yet (again this takes time and some academic skill) look up his references and their proofs. Capice?

    For what it is worth, a good many scholars in the area bet Jesus spoke both and was influenced by Hellenistic thought (in kinda the same way as Israelites were influenced during the Captivity). His sayings in Matthew can be read in a very straight-forward cynical manner. I do not know, but believe the Cynics did influence him (good prelimanry listing in "Who wrote the new testiment" about 50 pages in) and that he drew some Gentiles (presumably Greeks), so additionally believe he probably was proficient in both.

    Hint, the original comment was not about the language, but about you mistaking Jesus for a Judean.
     
  8. seattlegal

    seattlegal Why do cows say mu?

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2005
    Messages:
    6,549
    Likes Received:
    26
    Re: More on Logos

    This translation came from documents from The Ancient Church of The East, part of the Eastern Rite branch of Syriac Christianity.

    Syriac Christianity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


    Syriac Christian heritage is transmitted through various Neo Aramaic dialects (particularly the Syriac dialect of Mesopotamia) of old Aramaic. Unlike the Greek Christian culture, Assyrian culture borrowed much from early Rabbinic Judaism and Mesopotamian culture. Whereas Latin and Greek Christian cultures became protected by the Roman and Byzantine empires respectively, Syriac Christianity often found itself marginalised and persecuted. Antioch was the political capital of this culture, and was the seat of the Patriarchs of the church. However, Antioch was heavily Hellenized, and the Mesopotamian cities of Edessa, Nisibis and Ctesiphon became Syriac cultural centres.
    The early literature of Syriac Christianity includes the Diatessaron of Tatian; the Curetonian Gospels and the Syriac Sinaiticus; the Peshitta Bible; the Doctrine of Addai and the writings of Aphrahat; and the hymns of Ephrem the Syrian.
    The first division between Syriac Christians and Western Christianity occurred in the 5th century, following the First Council of Ephesus in 431, when the Assyrian Christians of the Sassanid Persian Empire were separated from those in the west over the Nestorian Schism. This split owed just as much to the politics of the day as it did to theological orthodoxy. Ctesiphon, which was at the time the Sassanid capital, became the capital of the Church of the East.​


    Here is the wiki article on the Peshitta.



    The Peshitta version of the New Testament is thought to show a continuation of the tradition of the Diatessaron and Old Syriac versions, displaying some lively 'Western' renderings (particularly clear in the Acts of the Apostles). It combines with this some of the more complex 'Byzantine' readings of the 5th century. One unusual feature of the Peshitta is the absence of 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, Jude and Revelation. Modern Syriac Bibles add 6th or 7th century translations of these five books to a revised Peshitta text.
    Almost all Syriac scholars agree that the Peshitta gospels are translations of the Greek originals. A minority viewpoint (see Aramaic primacy) is that the Peshitta represent the original New Testament and the Greek is a translation of it. The type of text represented by Peshitta is the Byzantine. In a detailed examination of Matthew 1-14, Gwilliam found that the Peshitta agrees with the Textus Receptus only 108 times and with Codex Vaticanus 65 times, while in 137 instances it differs from both, usually with the support of the Old Syriac and the Old Latin, in 31 instances is stands alone.[10]
    In reference to the originality of the Peshitta, the words of Patriarch Mar Eshai Shimun XXIII are summarized as follows:
    "With reference to....the originality of the Peshitta text, as the Patriarch and Head of the Holy Apostolic and Catholic Church of the East, we wish to state, that the Church of the East received the scriptures from the hands of the blessed Apostles themselves in the Aramaic original, the language spoken by our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, and that the Peshitta is the text of the Church of the East which has come down from the Biblical times without any change or revision."[11] For more information, see Peshitta primacy.


    I do like to look at different translations of scriptures for comparative purposes. As you can see there is controversy surrounding the Peshitta, which you are free to investigate for yourself. :)


    Actually, I see Jesus as introducing dharma teachings to the Jews, but that's really going far from the Theosophical view of the Messiah. :)
     
  9. radarmark

    radarmark Quaker-in-the-Making

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2011
    Messages:
    3,212
    Likes Received:
    2

    Lots of different theories here. Seems a very subtile idea. Let me quote my bride's take on this... "they are all the same soul". Gautama, Maitreya, Vairocana, Jesus (add the many more from Zarathustra to Bahá’u’lláh). Does it work? Is it true? Consider it an extension of the Guénon-Shuoun ideas of the XXth Century.
     
  10. Lunitik

    Lunitik Interfaith Forums

    Joined:
    May 1, 2011
    Messages:
    2,611
    Likes Received:
    0
    I would dig deeper if I was even slightly interested in the topic...

    You cannot just pick a particular source as your proof though, it is widely accepted that Jesus' primary language was Aramaic. It isn't even relevant to the topic though, I am saying Logos isn't part of Jewish thinking, it is completely Hellenistic - its use in the translation is clearly to appeal to this group, and it worked since many of the Church fathers were of Hellenistic backgrounds.
     
  11. Lunitik

    Lunitik Interfaith Forums

    Joined:
    May 1, 2011
    Messages:
    2,611
    Likes Received:
    0
    Re: More on Logos

    This really isn't in disagreement with what I said, the Hellenistic concepts were heavily influenced by the East. I would go further and say that Dharma and Logos describe the same thing...

    Dharma in the East is the natural balance of opposites, the oneness of all things. Logos for the Greeks was the Unity of opposites, so they are not different concepts at all... certainly there is much evidence that the Greek philosophers were heavily influenced by both Egyptian and Indian thinking...

    Coincidentally, this is all I talk about too, methods for realizing oneness for yourself. I certainly take a more Eastern approach, my whole motivation is to create an environment where others can find it themselves where the Greeks just kept talking ad nauseum about it but delivered few to a direct realization. I am not for Philosophy at all, trying to understand it logically is not going to help because logic itself is a part of duality - it is the opposite of poetry, it is the focus of the left hemisphere where poetry is of the right.
     
  12. radarmark

    radarmark Quaker-in-the-Making

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2011
    Messages:
    3,212
    Likes Received:
    2
    Ah, lunitik, you misread yet again. The point is not the language, which is your hang up. I stated I believe he was proficient in both Aramaic and Koine. The point is that you assume he was a Judean, a simple Jew. All I pointed out is that this is a very shallow view. Galileans, like Samaritans, were "a breed apart" at the historical time of Jesus. They had not been part of the whole Maqabim scene except as a people controlled by the Seleucids with very little contact (and no direct ruling by) with the Pharisees and Sadducees.

    "I would dig deeper if I was even slightly interested in the topic..." humm, yet you expect us to accept your statement "What relevance does this have on what language Jesus would have spoken? It is still that these people would not have been proficient in Koine Greek, because they were the simpletons of Judea and small villages around the place." If you are not interest in the topic (did Jesus speak Kione, was he a simpleton, was he a Judean) why did you bring it up?
     
  13. Thomas

    Thomas Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2003
    Messages:
    10,452
    Likes Received:
    1,474
    I think you'll find that it is widely accepted that Jesus, and such 'primitive' cultures, were probably multi-lingual.

    Oh good grief ... as a general rule, I would advise anybody reading these posts to assume the exact opposite of what is being said to be closer to the truth.

    The assumption that Scripture's use of the term Logos derives from Greek thinking used to be the case, but more recent and more insightful scholarship has now completely scotched that and other notions, such as the one claiming John's Gospel is a 'gnostic gospel'.

    John was steeped in speculative Jewish mysticism and the mythopoeic method of Hebrew exegesis. Logos, which was a widely-understood term, can be taken as a synonym of the term Memra (and indeed the word Dabar).

    In the Targums, the Aramaic translations of the Hebrew Scriptures, as God's Holy Name was unspeakable, they chose to replace the Tetragrammaton, the term Adonai, and other apellations with Memra ('word').

    Of course, the term Memra carries theological implications surpassing the face-value reading of the term 'word', as does Logos, as does Verbum.

    Lunitik — you'd do yourself a better service if you stuck to whatever spring you sup from, and avoid passing comment on other traditions into which it is apparent you have not the slightest insight — those traditions being, as is widely agreed by wiser heads that yours — 'the winnowed wisdom of the human race' (Prof. Huston Smith).

    God bless,

    Thomas
     
  14. Lunitik

    Lunitik Interfaith Forums

    Joined:
    May 1, 2011
    Messages:
    2,611
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have brought it up to show Jesus would not have used Logos to describe himself. He was born during a time when Hellenistic and Jewish views were being interwoven, but why would he accept them if he is the Jewish Messiah? Almost all of his statements which differ from Judaism can be found in Greek or Egyptian thought, yet this is the Jewish Messiah? For me, this must be the way it has been translated, not what Jesus actually said. I can certainly see him saying he is the Manifestation, but I do not believe he will have tried to bring in Greek terms on purpose. The two trains of thought are simply utterly different... not to mention that it makes him look utterly ordinary now, he has simply synchronized other thought systems, much as Paul says he has made himself all things to all people. By aligning him with Greek thought, he simply brings absolutely nothing new.

    As for whether Jesus was a simpleton, there is far too much similarities between how he lived and the Essenes to draw any other conclusion. Certainly we cannot say he was formally educated, nor was he part of the noble class - in fact, he speaks much against anything related to wealth, most famously his statement that it is harder for a camel to pass through the head of a needle than a rich man to enter heaven.
     
  15. Lunitik

    Lunitik Interfaith Forums

    Joined:
    May 1, 2011
    Messages:
    2,611
    Likes Received:
    0
    You are the one who has brought Logos into the discussion, this term was coined more than 500 years prior to Jesus. If you wish to move forward using 'Memra', that is perfectly fine. This term means "the manifestation of the divine power", which certainly fits more closely to Jewish thought. You will see no disagreement from me there, and my interest becomes lost when you withdraw to proper Abrahamic terms.
     
  16. Thomas

    Thomas Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2003
    Messages:
    10,452
    Likes Received:
    1,474
    Hi Radarmark —

    Can you give me a steer as to where to look?

    Interesting ... but as you know, it's a bit of a problem.

    No, we haven't.

    I come at it differently ... but then I'm not a scholar.

    The Church was Liturgical before it was Scriptural, and Paul was writing to the churches probably contemporary with the earliest texts (proto-Mark), and definitely before Luke and John ...

    We know a 'gospel' was being promulgated then, because Paul mentions them, we know that disciples had gone out preaching before the Passion, and thus before Pentecost, which the Jerusalem community regarded is deficient — everything turns on the Cross —

    My point is that even before a word of Scripture was written, there would be a public and a private teaching, the latter an introduction and initiation into the Mysteries (Baptism and Eucharist).

    The tragedy is that we fell out with the Jews (and Paul, in his bull-in-a-china-shop way, was probably trying to build bridges). A sound Jewish teaching would have moderated the more Hellenic excesses of Platonism, although I do think it necessary for the Jews to lift up their heads and realise that God was not their sole property, nor they His.

    Schuon thought Christianity should have remained an esoterism within orthodox Judaism, but then he didn't get it, either ... !

    But if you can give me a tad more info, I'll take a look at the sources you mention.

    God bless,

    Thomas
     
  17. Etu Malku

    Etu Malku Mercuræn

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2011
    Messages:
    1,439
    Likes Received:
    1
    Interesting how certain concepts get repeated over and over again.
    The Egyptian language was one without vowels, because they were considered names of gods. To know the true name of a god or anyone for that matter, meant you had Power (Heka) over them.
    The Egyptian god Set's true name was considered IAO (ass-headed god) which later turns into the Tetragrammaton.
     
  18. seattlegal

    seattlegal Why do cows say mu?

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2005
    Messages:
    6,549
    Likes Received:
    26
    Well, Set was considered to be the god of foreigners, and was adopted by the Hyksos of the delta area of of Nile in lower Egypt... ;)
     
  19. Etu Malku

    Etu Malku Mercuræn

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2011
    Messages:
    1,439
    Likes Received:
    1
    Set is the god of Isolate Intelligence, the only Egyptian Deity that is separate from the other Deities. Set is a Lucifer in that respect.
     
  20. radarmark

    radarmark Quaker-in-the-Making

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2011
    Messages:
    3,212
    Likes Received:
    2
    "B L Mack" and "claremont" (fat and old finger syndrome). "BD Ehrman" at "chapel hill". Both are "historical Jesus" theologians and both in Jesus Seminar (I think). Mack focuses on pre Irenaeus era and drawing forth sub-currents on the NT. Primarily a Marcian scholar and originator of "Jesus the cynic" thesis. Ehrman works on making sense of very early NT texts. Primarily things like "Lost Scriptures".

    I do not totally agree with either, but worth a trip to the library (the Spanish and Scandinavians seem to write about them both a lot).
     

Share This Page