Aantares    Aantares BB  Hop To Forum Categories  Amazon Ex-Pats  Hop To Forums  General Discussions    Amazon Mob's Pub & Coffee Shop Part II
      Page: 1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ... 50

Locked Topic Locked
Go To
Post
Search BB
Notify Me
TOS/Tools/Smilies
Amazon Mob's Pub & Coffee Shop Part II
 Login/Register 
Devoted...
Picture of That JR Thang
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by bryan:
Even when I used to use my household AC and not a room AC my bill was only up to around $120/130, running 24/7.

My room AC was maybe upwards of $50/60 iirc.

Window units are notoriously more expensive to operate than whole house units. That said, the heat and humidity in TX is stifling, even more so than here. People who can afford it double the BTU to reduce the temp in a Corpus Christi home as compared to those in San Diego.

That's one of the reasons my niece wanted to live in San Diego. But...she and her husband are still looking to move farther north and more inland - maybe CO or thereabouts.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Fence straddlers get a crotch full of splinters -- Granny
 
Posts: 6590 | Location: Atlanta | Mbr Since: 05-01-2017Report This Post
Devoted...
Picture of That JR Thang
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Reed N D Dark:
quote:
Originally posted by That JR Thang:
Shot Steve an email last night and received a reply today. He says he's alright but that the high heat and humidity is "killing us here."

He has invited me to run away with him to Colorado Mountains or to Oregon to visit Mary Jean. I'm all for visiting Mary Jean. Still haven't heard a word from her...


Yep, I'd be interested in visiting Mary Jean too, and that flight isn't much fun!

Don't even know if her daughters have already moved her to Oregon while she is in rehab. She did say that she was expecting to move in June...but she has almost a month left in rehab at this point.

Don't think my poor old back could make it to TX, never mind OR!


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Fence straddlers get a crotch full of splinters -- Granny
 
Posts: 6590 | Location: Atlanta | Mbr Since: 05-01-2017Report This Post
Chronic...
posted Hide Post
quote:
Window units are notoriously more expensive to operate than whole house units.

Well that's Microsoft for ya! What? Oh.
 
Posts: 9933 | Location: Colorado | Mbr Since: 10-17-2003Report This Post
Devoted...
Picture of That JR Thang
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Henry J:
quote:
Window units are notoriously more expensive to operate than whole house units.

Well that's Microsoft for ya! What? Oh.

LOL!   :lol:


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Fence straddlers get a crotch full of splinters -- Granny
 
Posts: 6590 | Location: Atlanta | Mbr Since: 05-01-2017Report This Post
Never goes away...
Picture of Reed N D Dark
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by That JR Thang:
quote:
Originally posted by Reed N D Dark:
quote:
Originally posted by That JR Thang:
Shot Steve an email last night and received a reply today. He says he's alright but that the high heat and humidity is "killing us here."

He has invited me to run away with him to Colorado Mountains or to Oregon to visit Mary Jean. I'm all for visiting Mary Jean. Still haven't heard a word from her...


Yep, I'd be interested in visiting Mary Jean too, and that flight isn't much fun!

Don't even know if her daughters have already moved her to Oregon while she is in rehab. She did say that she was expecting to move in June...but she has almost a month left in rehab at this point.

Don't think my poor old back could make it to TX, never mind OR!


Nope, even First class isn’t enough to give wiggle room for a back problem!
 
Posts: 12607 | Location: Central PA | Mbr Since: 05-14-2017Report This Post
Never goes away...
Picture of Reed N D Dark
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Henry J:
quote:
Window units are notoriously more expensive to operate than whole house units.

Well that's Microsoft for ya! What? Oh.


Love it as I’m cussing Window the last 3 days over an install. Got some underlying problems solved but an install still doesn’t work.
 
Posts: 12607 | Location: Central PA | Mbr Since: 05-14-2017Report This Post
Devoted...
Picture of That JR Thang
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Reed N D Dark:
Nope, even First class isn’t enough to give wiggle room for a back problem!

It probably wouldn't be so bad if I weren't short...

Today Steve said he has a daughter in Molalla, OR who wants him to come out there. She is looking for a place for him and his puppies.

Of course, he can't be satisfied with that, he also wants all us girls and Allan to come out too! Gotta love him.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Fence straddlers get a crotch full of splinters -- Granny
 
Posts: 6590 | Location: Atlanta | Mbr Since: 05-01-2017Report This Post
Settling in...
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by That JR Thang:
quote:
Originally posted by bryan:
Even when I used to use my household AC and not a room AC my bill was only up to around $120/130, running 24/7.

My room AC was maybe upwards of $50/60 iirc.

Window units are notoriously more expensive to operate than whole house units. That said, the heat and humidity in TX is stifling, even more so than here. People who can afford it double the BTU to reduce the temp in a Corpus Christi home as compared to those in San Diego.

That's one of the reasons my niece wanted to live in San Diego. But...she and her husband are still looking to move farther north and more inland - maybe CO or thereabouts.


My apt. unit, was just a larger window unit installed in the wall, using a regular 120 plug.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
bryan j borich
 
Posts: 486 | Location: CA | Mbr Since: 05-02-2017Report This Post
Settling in...
posted Hide Post
On sale today,

Giving Birth to Thunder, Sleeping with His Daughter: Coyote Builds North America 0th Edition, Kindle Edition]

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00D...bdaily-20&src=ebb-nl


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
bryan j borich
 
Posts: 486 | Location: CA | Mbr Since: 05-02-2017Report This Post
Devoted...
Picture of That JR Thang
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by bryan:
On sale today,

Giving Birth to Thunder, Sleeping with His Daughter: Coyote Builds North America 0th Edition, Kindle Edition]

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00D...bdaily-20&src=ebb-nl

You saying you want it?


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Fence straddlers get a crotch full of splinters -- Granny
 
Posts: 6590 | Location: Atlanta | Mbr Since: 05-01-2017Report This Post
Never goes away...
Picture of Reed N D Dark
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by That JR Thang:
quote:
Originally posted by Reed N D Dark:
Nope, even First class isn’t enough to give wiggle room for a back problem!

It probably wouldn't be so bad if I weren't short...

Today Steve said he has a daughter in Molalla, OR who wants him to come out there. She is looking for a place for him and his puppies.

Of course, he can't be satisfied with that, he also wants all us girls and Allan to come out too! Gotta love him.


Mrs exp would love the company and perhaps the lower rent?
 
Posts: 12607 | Location: Central PA | Mbr Since: 05-14-2017Report This Post
Devoted...
Picture of That JR Thang
posted Hide Post
Copied from How long will I be allowed to remain a Christian thread:
quote:
Originally posted by Allan:
quote:
Originally posted by Reed N D Dark:
As for reading the Bible with Jewish understanding of the times, I’ve found a course that looks interesting, if I had the time. I truly enjoy the dialogue that talk about what was really being talked about and even the parallels to other stories and myths. I miss the churches where there are solid discussions. The course I think looks interesting talks about Jesus’ answer to an I’ll phrased ill-phrased?) question about divorce. Could you divorce for any reason has two ways to read it. Basically, you need a valid reason other than I found someone else, or they aren’t fun any more. If I can find the blog I’ll try to post the link.


In reality, modern divorce is a consequence of Churchianity. Increasing numbers of Christians are turning their backs on this religion because of all the shenanigans which began, at least, with Josiah and Hezekiah.

As always, my personal problem is I am unable to express my views in a way that can be understood here.
:idea:
Maybe it is an effect of our cultural differences? As GB Shaw or Oscar Wilde said, England and the US are two countries separated by a common language. I've been a life-long fan of both authors, understood them both perfectly WooHoo!    :woohoo:

Whatever good does indeed lie in the Bible, and I do not doubt for a moment there is some good, I simply am unable to trust any of it.

As JR's Margaret Barker pointed out so clearly, we can have no real idea of what the Tanakh originally said.

When I was posting with my Ultra-Orthodox sparring partner, he insisted the Jewish ha-satan had somehow managed to extend his powers and seemed closer to the much-later invention, the Christian Devil. He refused to elaborate, but I think I am on track.

I feel he was talking about Samael who, for me, originated when Zarathustrianism impacted on the Jews. The original Jewish ha-satan was a loyal angel, possibly an initiated member of Adonai's High Council (which, for me, is straight polytheism, angels being the new concept for the lesser deities). Ha-satan could not possibly have rebelled against Adonai, which is why there is no mention of any such rebellion in the Tanakh.

Clearly, the change in Judaism originated by Hezekiah and Josiah continued through the period between the last accepted book in the Tanakh and the first book of the NT.

Harpur, too, confirmed my bias that the original Paul was never a Christian in the accepted orthodox form. He was originally a Gnostic, and saw Jesus as nothing more than yet another symbol of the eternal saviour who first may have appeared as Osiris/Horus or Krishna. Paul was never a Christian in any accepted form.

Where I am coming unstuck here is both you and JR seem to me to be saying Jesus was exceptional, someone more than all the previous mythological saviour metaphors?

But other posts seem to accept that Jesus was indeed the latest symbol for the eternal saviour.

Which is it?

I sometimes wonder how many understand that Persians and north-west Indians were not only the same Indo-Europeans, they traded intensively. One thing I accepted long ago was that trade then was far greater than most now realise, and one major impact of that was an exchange of religions.
Except for the post-Josiah Jews, those people had a far different view from the modern approach to religion. Until Christianity then Islam appeared on the scene, religion was hardly if ever a cause of wars. They accepted, as we saw with El Elyon appointing Adonai as patron deity for the Jews, everyone had to worship, pay full respect to, the deity allocated to them. Adonai ranked on the same level as Marduk et al.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Fence straddlers get a crotch full of splinters -- Granny
 
Posts: 6590 | Location: Atlanta | Mbr Since: 05-01-2017Report This Post
Devoted...
Picture of That JR Thang
posted Hide Post
Copied from the
How long will I be allowed to remain a Christian thread:
quote:
Originally posted by Reed N D Dark:

For me Jesus is exceptional as compared to those who were not not able to be heard. He is a manifestation of Christ, and probably not the last one. To me the question is what differentiates him from what we consider cult leaders? One difference is no ssolation. Second he wasn’t really rejecting the present understanding of God just trying to move people farther along in their experiences of God, without destroying the local religion. Admittedly he did run contrary to the literal and sometimes excessive legalism,but without totally breaking most of the rules.

I prefer to see many of the characters, of the Bible, as recording their experiences of how they perceived and understood God, at the time. There references often reference being reprimanded or punished for some of their actions. But, is that what happened or a way of telling the story about being pulled back from “the edge, whatever that means?

As I understand the crusades, they were moreabout getting land for the nation. The leadership framed it in religious terms, but were the conflict really totally about religion? Or was that a ruse? From what we now know about tribal unity, why couldn’t the wars really been about preserving “ones tribe”?

As for not being understood in the way you present ideas, you very well know that written arguments are the most difficult and must find a common understanding of the concepts are to be sure you’ve been heard. Currently both JR and I seem to hear you being caught up in literalism when you continue to challenge the Bible or religious understandings based on what the words mean in modern times, and seemingly literally. The fact that too many of the ideas in religion are abstract doesn’t make it any easier to not hear literalism.

Ultimately I know you literalism doesn’t work, but it isn’t clear whether you are asking how what you read as contradictory can be ignore? It almost sounds like you are looking for a way back without literalism. And, that isn’t something that can be described. Perhaps an altered state is the only place where the contradictions aren’t as important and other pieces can come back together.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Fence straddlers get a crotch full of splinters -- Granny
 
Posts: 6590 | Location: Atlanta | Mbr Since: 05-01-2017Report This Post
Devoted...
Picture of That JR Thang
posted Hide Post
Copied from the How long will I be allowed to remain Christian thread:

quote:
Originally posted by That JR Thang:
quote:
Originally posted by Allan:
Where I am coming unstuck here is both you and JR seem to me to be saying Jesus was exceptional, someone more than all the previous mythological saviour metaphors?

But other posts seem to accept that Jesus was indeed the latest symbol for the eternal saviour.

Which is it?

Ah Ha! Now we get to it!

Jesus is the one we learned of FIRST. He is the one who brought the old savior myth to us. He is the one that got us on the right track. There will never be another first of that for us. So he is the one we begin and end with.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Fence straddlers get a crotch full of splinters -- Granny
 
Posts: 6590 | Location: Atlanta | Mbr Since: 05-01-2017Report This Post
Devoted...
Picture of That JR Thang
posted Hide Post
Copied from the How long will I be allowed to remain a Christian thread:
quote:
Originally posted by bluelamp:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Allan:
I feel he was talking about Samael who, for me, originated when Zarathustrianism impacted on the Jews...

Harpur, too, confirmed my bias that the original Paul was never a Christian in the accepted orthodox form. He was originally a Gnostic, and saw Jesus as nothing more than yet another symbol of the eternal saviour who first may have appeared as Osiris/Horus or Krishna. Paul was never a Christian in any accepted form...


My Gnostic/Paleochristian Church who are very into Paul but not Polycarp, etc. think of there being much of Zoroaster in Paul. Zoroaster had the savior idea too.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saoshyant

quote:
Saoshyant (Avestan: Saoš́iiaṇt̰) is the Avestan language expression that literally means "one who brings benefit", and which is used in several different ways in Zoroastrian scripture and tradition. In particular, the expression is the proper name of the Saoshyant, an eschatological saviour figure who bring about Frashokereti, the final renovation of the world in which evil is finally destroyed. The term was contracted to 'Soshans' in Zoroastrian tradition, and came to apply to three saviour figures that progressively bring about the final renovation.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Fence straddlers get a crotch full of splinters -- Granny
 
Posts: 6590 | Location: Atlanta | Mbr Since: 05-01-2017Report This Post
Devoted...
Picture of That JR Thang
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Allan:
When I was posting with my Ultra-Orthodox sparring partner, he insisted the Jewish ha-satan had somehow managed to extend his powers and seemed closer to the much-later invention, the Christian Devil. He refused to elaborate, but I think I am on track.

I feel he was talking about Samael who, for me, originated when Zarathustrianism impacted on the Jews. The original Jewish ha-satan was a loyal angel, possibly an initiated member of Adonai's High Council (which, for me, is straight polytheism, angels being the new concept for the lesser deities). Ha-satan could not possibly have rebelled against Adonai, which is why there is no mention of any such rebellion in the Tanakh.

Clearly, the change in Judaism originated by Hezekiah and Josiah continued through the period between the last accepted book in the Tanakh and the first book of the NT.

Hmmm, in the Book of Enoch, written around 300 BC and also found at Qumran, the name Azâzêl is used. That would mean that there WAS a concept of a disobedient angel saved by some who didn't exactly adhere to Hezekiah's and Josiah's changes:

"And again the Lord said to Raphael: 'Bind Azâzêl hand and foot, and cast him into the darkness: and make an opening in the desert, which is in Dûdâêl, and cast him therein. 5. And place upon him rough and jagged rocks, and cover him with darkness, and let him abide there for ever, and cover his face that he may not see light. ” (1 Enoch 10:4-5)

So it is only in the MT version that there is no mention of of a rebel angel. Yet there is mention of Azâzêl in Leviticus regarding the Day of Atonement. Prom, Gershom, and I had a long discussion regarding this subject in which I brought Barker's OT work into the fray, some of which I saved. A clip from Barker:

"The two goats are frequently represented as 'for the LORD' and 'for Azazel' (Lev 16.8), translations that raise the question,'Why was an offering made to Azazel, the leader of the fallen angels who had brought the knowledge that corrupted the earth?' Origen, writing early in the third century and in contact with Jewish scholars that said that the goat sent into the desert WAS Azazel, that is, represented Azazel. This is one possible meaning of the Hebrew le, so la'az'zel could mean 'as Azazel'. Because it is described in the same way, the sacrificed goat would then be 'as the LORD', representing the LORD. The blood/life that came from heaven [explained elsewhere as when the priests brought the blood out from the holy of holies (which represented eternity/heaven), prior to sprinkling the 'creation' which the 'holy' portion of the Temple represented] to renew the earth represented the life of the LORD. This is implied by the contrast in Hebrews: 'Neither by the blood of goats and calves but by his OWN blood he entered in once in the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption...' (Heb 9.12 AV). The crucifixion fulfilled what the temple rites had foreshadowed. Hence Athanasius's introduction to his treatise on the Incarnation: 'The renewal of the creation has been the work of the self same Word [Logos] that made it in the beginning.'"

"Another key text for Christians was Deuteronomy 32.43, which describes the LORD coming in judgement to AVENGE THE BLOOD of his servants and ATONE THE LAND of his people. The current Hebrew text here is only half the length of the Qumran text and the Old Greek text; half of it has disappeared, including the line that identifies it as important for Christians. 'Let all God's angels worship him' is one of the texts used in Hebrews to set out who Jesus was: the Son through whom God created the world, who upholds 'all things', who made purification for sins and has been exalted above the angels. 'When he brings the Firstborn into the world, he says, "Let all God's angels worship him" (Heb 1.6). Jesus here was identified as the LORD, the Firstborn of the sons of God who came into the world to bring the judgement and atonement described in Deuteronomy 32.43, BUT 'the identifying link line is not in the CURRENT Hebrew text. This suggests two things: that Jesus, the LORD, bringing atonement for the land was an important element in early Christian teaching; and that this was so important and contentious an issue that the proof text did not survive in the Hebrew Bible as defined by the rabbis after the fall of Jerusalem in 70 CE, the Hebrew text from which the Old Testament of the Western churches is translated. He would be a divine being, gathering his own and bringing the final Day of Atonement. Since Jesus was identified as Melchizedek (Heb 7.1-28), this is another indication that renewing the creation by atonement was central to Christian belief."


quote:
Harpur, too, confirmed my bias that the original Paul was never a Christian in the accepted orthodox form. He was originally a Gnostic, and saw Jesus as nothing more than yet another symbol of the eternal saviour who first may have appeared as Osiris/Horus or Krishna. Paul was never a Christian in any accepted form.

John was also a Gnostic/Mystic and well aware of the Egyptian concepts, some of which can also be found in Philo, i.e., Logos.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Fence straddlers get a crotch full of splinters -- Granny
 
Posts: 6590 | Location: Atlanta | Mbr Since: 05-01-2017Report This Post
Devoted...
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by That JR Thang:

Hmmm, in the Book of Enoch, written around 300 BC and also found at Qumran, the name Azâzêl is used. That would mean that there WAS a concept of a disobedient angel saved by some who didn't exactly adhere to Hezekiah's and Josiah's changes:

"And again the Lord said to Raphael: 'Bind Azâzêl hand and foot, and cast him into the darkness: and make an opening in the desert, which is in Dûdâêl, and cast him therein. 5. And place upon him rough and jagged rocks, and cover him with darkness, and let him abide there for ever, and cover his face that he may not see light. ” (1 Enoch 10:4-5)

So it is only in the MT version that there is no mention of of a rebel angel. Yet there is mention of Azâzêl in Leviticus regarding the Day of Atonement. Prom, Gershom, and I had a long discussion regarding this subject in which I brought Barker's OT work into the fray, some of which I saved. A clip from Barker:

"The two goats are frequently represented as 'for the LORD' and 'for Azazel' (Lev 16.8), translations that raise the question,'Why was an offering made to Azazel, the leader of the fallen angels who had brought the knowledge that corrupted the earth?' Origen, writing early in the third century and in contact with Jewish scholars that said that the goat sent into the desert WAS Azazel, that is, represented Azazel. This is one possible meaning of the Hebrew le, so la'az'zel could mean 'as Azazel'. Because it is described in the same way, the sacrificed goat would then be 'as the LORD', representing the LORD. The blood/life that came from heaven [explained elsewhere as when the priests brought the blood out from the holy of holies (which represented eternity/heaven), prior to sprinkling the 'creation' which the 'holy' portion of the Temple represented] to renew the earth represented the life of the LORD. This is implied by the contrast in Hebrews: 'Neither by the blood of goats and calves but by his OWN blood he entered in once in the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption...' (Heb 9.12 AV). The crucifixion fulfilled what the temple rites had foreshadowed. Hence Athanasius's introduction to his treatise on the Incarnation: 'The renewal of the creation has been the work of the self same Word [Logos] that made it in the beginning.'"

"Another key text for Christians was Deuteronomy 32.43, which describes the LORD coming in judgement to AVENGE THE BLOOD of his servants and ATONE THE LAND of his people. The current Hebrew text here is only half the length of the Qumran text and the Old Greek text; half of it has disappeared, including the line that identifies it as important for Christians. 'Let all God's angels worship him' is one of the texts used in Hebrews to set out who Jesus was: the Son through whom God created the world, who upholds 'all things', who made purification for sins and has been exalted above the angels. 'When he brings the Firstborn into the world, he says, "Let all God's angels worship him" (Heb 1.6). Jesus here was identified as the LORD, the Firstborn of the sons of God who came into the world to bring the judgement and atonement described in Deuteronomy 32.43, BUT 'the identifying link line is not in the CURRENT Hebrew text. This suggests two things: that Jesus, the LORD, bringing atonement for the land was an important element in early Christian teaching; and that this was so important and contentious an issue that the proof text did not survive in the Hebrew Bible as defined by the rabbis after the fall of Jerusalem in 70 CE, the Hebrew text from which the Old Testament of the Western churches is translated. He would be a divine being, gathering his own and bringing the final Day of Atonement. Since Jesus was identified as Melchizedek (Heb 7.1-28), this is another indication that renewing the creation by atonement was central to Christian belief."


Ah, m'sweet, you are really hitting your straps now. Yew liddle beaudy!!!

First, I have to congratulate you on belting the nail well and truly on the head when you said Jesus was your first Saviour. That, for me, makes all the difference, and I will get back to that.

I am aware of Enoch and Azazel, however I was sticking only to the canonised books.

Where, exactly, did Enoch come from, where did he find all this new information?

As with so much else, I see Enoch as a product of the exile. You will remember that, for me, the Zarathustrian Cyrus* did politico-religious deals with all the exiles, not just the Jews. He offered to return them to their respective homelands with the money to restore their temples and get their lives back to normal.

With one qualification.

An astute politician, Cyrus wanted to protect his borders with vassal States.

Seems not only logical but mandatory that those deals included the adoption of certain Zarathustrian concepts. These included a reference -- what's in a name, remember? -- to the opposing evil force Angra Mainyu/Ahriman. Zarathustra himself, of course, was another new concept which had to be accepted as part of the deal. Zarathustra would return as nothing less than the Christ/Mashiach/Messiah. Be no big deal for the liberal-minded** and pragmatic Cyrus to compromise by permitting the Jews to say Zarathustra was really a descendant of the legendary (and false) King David, even, like Zarathustra, a resurrected David himself (there's Shakespeare's rose yet again). (In passing, was it Harpur who said those Jews did indeed believe in reincarnation?)

Naturally enough, IMO those Jews also accepted some of the Babylonian teachings on Marduk. A minor Babylonian patron deity for the Sumerians, Marduk was promoted to head honcho when the Babylonians achieved military and economic dominance in the region. According to the Babylonians, the Dragon Lady Tiamat rebelled against the gods when they killed her husband. Marduk defeated the Dragon Lady and banished her from their version of Heaven and was rewarded by his promotion.

Why else do you think there was such deep opposition and resentment among those Jews who had stayed home and continued the earlier Judaism? Not only had they lost the First Temple teaching, they now had to accept Armageddon, a real opponent to Adonai, and a new Saviour.

Synchronicity Rules OK

I note you and Reed were wondering about my spiritual nature, another post series I need to return to.

You have no need to worry. Over the past few months, aided greatly by our ASC, ICB knows we are one with the One.

With my natural proofreader's caution I Googled "Zarathustrian Cyrus" to make sure I was correct.

Found this instead:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/...story/persia_1.shtml
Cyrus the Great was relatively *liberal. While he himself ruled according to Zoroastrian beliefs, he made no attempt to impose Zoroastrianism on the people of his subject territories. The Jews most famously benefited from this; Cyrus permitted them to return to Jerusalem from exile in Babylon, and rebuild their temple. This act of kindness made a huge impact on Judaism. Zoroastrian philosophy powerfully influenced post-Exilic Judaism.

and this:

https://www.britannica.com/topic/First-Book-of-Enoch
Enoch, the seventh patriarch in the book of Genesis, was the subject of abundant apocryphal literature, especially during the Hellenistic period of Judaism (3rd century bc to 3rd century ad). At first revered only for his piety, he was later believed to be the recipient of secret knowledge from God. This portrait of Enoch as visionary was influenced by the Babylonian tradition of the 7th antediluvian king, Enmenduranna, who was linked to the sun god and received divine revelations. The story of Enoch reflects many such features of the Babylonian myth.

AND this:

http://www.abarim-publications.../Meaning/Azazel.html
It's not unusual in the Bible to name spirit-beings (think for instance of the angels Michael and Gabriel) but that Azazel was probably not a recognized demon/angel is argued by Leviticus 16:8, where two lots are cast over two goats; one goat is for YHWH and the other is either "to be" the scapegoat or is "for" Azazel. If the second goat is "for" Azazel, Leviticus 16:8 would violate an enormous volley of laws and ordinances, including the First Commandment (Exodus 20:3-6, also see Exodus 22:20, 2 Chronicles 34:25, 1 Corinthians 10:20, and for a similar ritual that certainly doesn't involve a secondary personage, see the law of the scapebird in Leviticus 14:1-7).
So no, Azazel is not a Biblical name.

While Jung created the neologism synchronicity, I am deeply indebted to Robert Graves for my discovery of it. No one will ever be able to convince me I am not in tune with the One; a minor pupil at this stage, but on the right track to immortality. Why else does synchronicity lead me to all those confirmations?
Synchronicity - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchronicity Synchronicity (German: Synchronizität) is a concept, first introduced by analytical psychologist Carl Jung, which holds that events are "meaningful coincidences" if they occur with no causal relationship yet seem to be meaningfully related.

Just have to add this: As you know, I'm waiting to rejoin my soulmate in Ynys Affalon. If I've got Marion Zimmer Bradley's Avalon novels right, it aids me in thinking there are indeed some -- the priests of her Atlantis -- who are immortal; helps me to accept those who have no interest in the spiritual concept and will finish when they die.

I need a beer or three after that little lot. My mind is like someone just let off smoke bombs under a dozen or so bee hives.
 
Posts: 5046 | Location: Queensland, Australia | Mbr Since: 05-05-2017Report This Post
Never goes away...
Picture of Reed N D Dark
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Allan:
quote:
Originally posted by That JR Thang:

Hmmm, in the Book of Enoch, written around 300 BC and also found at Qumran, the name Azâzêl is used. That would mean that there WAS a concept of a disobedient angel saved by some who didn't exactly adhere to Hezekiah's and Josiah's changes:

"And again the Lord said to Raphael: 'Bind Azâzêl hand and foot, and cast him into the darkness: and make an opening in the desert, which is in Dûdâêl, and cast him therein. 5. And place upon him rough and jagged rocks, and cover him with darkness, and let him abide there for ever, and cover his face that he may not see light. ” (1 Enoch 10:4-5)

So it is only in the MT version that there is no mention of of a rebel angel. Yet there is mention of Azâzêl in Leviticus regarding the Day of Atonement. Prom, Gershom, and I had a long discussion regarding this subject in which I brought Barker's OT work into the fray, some of which I saved. A clip from Barker:

"The two goats are frequently represented as 'for the LORD' and 'for Azazel' (Lev 16.8), translations that raise the question,'Why was an offering made to Azazel, the leader of the fallen angels who had brought the knowledge that corrupted the earth?' Origen, writing early in the third century and in contact with Jewish scholars that said that the goat sent into the desert WAS Azazel, that is, represented Azazel. This is one possible meaning of the Hebrew le, so la'az'zel could mean 'as Azazel'. Because it is described in the same way, the sacrificed goat would then be 'as the LORD', representing the LORD. The blood/life that came from heaven [explained elsewhere as when the priests brought the blood out from the holy of holies (which represented eternity/heaven), prior to sprinkling the 'creation' which the 'holy' portion of the Temple represented] to renew the earth represented the life of the LORD. This is implied by the contrast in Hebrews: 'Neither by the blood of goats and calves but by his OWN blood he entered in once in the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption...' (Heb 9.12 AV). The crucifixion fulfilled what the temple rites had foreshadowed. Hence Athanasius's introduction to his treatise on the Incarnation: 'The renewal of the creation has been the work of the self same Word [Logos] that made it in the beginning.'"

"Another key text for Christians was Deuteronomy 32.43, which describes the LORD coming in judgement to AVENGE THE BLOOD of his servants and ATONE THE LAND of his people. The current Hebrew text here is only half the length of the Qumran text and the Old Greek text; half of it has disappeared, including the line that identifies it as important for Christians. 'Let all God's angels worship him' is one of the texts used in Hebrews to set out who Jesus was: the Son through whom God created the world, who upholds 'all things', who made purification for sins and has been exalted above the angels. 'When he brings the Firstborn into the world, he says, "Let all God's angels worship him" (Heb 1.6). Jesus here was identified as the LORD, the Firstborn of the sons of God who came into the world to bring the judgement and atonement described in Deuteronomy 32.43, BUT 'the identifying link line is not in the CURRENT Hebrew text. This suggests two things: that Jesus, the LORD, bringing atonement for the land was an important element in early Christian teaching; and that this was so important and contentious an issue that the proof text did not survive in the Hebrew Bible as defined by the rabbis after the fall of Jerusalem in 70 CE, the Hebrew text from which the Old Testament of the Western churches is translated. He would be a divine being, gathering his own and bringing the final Day of Atonement. Since Jesus was identified as Melchizedek (Heb 7.1-28), this is another indication that renewing the creation by atonement was central to Christian belief."


Ah, m'sweet, you are really hitting your straps now. Yew liddle beaudy!!!

First, I have to congratulate you on belting the nail well and truly on the head when you said Jesus was your first Saviour. That, for me, makes all the difference, and I will get back to that.

I am aware of Enoch and Azazel, however I was sticking only to the canonised books.

Where, exactly, did Enoch come from, where did he find all this new information?

As with so much else, I see Enoch as a product of the exile. You will remember that, for me, the Zarathustrian Cyrus* did politico-religious deals with all the exiles, not just the Jews. He offered to return them to their respective homelands with the money to restore their temples and get their lives back to normal.

With one qualification.

An astute politician, Cyrus wanted to protect his borders with vassal States.

Seems not only logical but mandatory that those deals included the adoption of certain Zarathustrian concepts. These included a reference -- what's in a name, remember? -- to the opposing evil force Angra Mainyu/Ahriman. Zarathustra himself, of course, was another new concept which had to be accepted as part of the deal. Zarathustra would return as nothing less than the Christ/Mashiach/Messiah. Be no big deal for the liberal-minded** and pragmatic Cyrus to compromise by permitting the Jews to say Zarathustra was really a descendant of the legendary (and false) King David, even, like Zarathustra, a resurrected David himself (there's Shakespeare's rose yet again). (In passing, was it Harpur who said those Jews did indeed believe in reincarnation?)

Naturally enough, IMO those Jews also accepted some of the Babylonian teachings on Marduk. A minor Babylonian patron deity for the Sumerians, Marduk was promoted to head honcho when the Babylonians achieved military and economic dominance in the region. According to the Babylonians, the Dragon Lady Tiamat rebelled against the gods when they killed her husband. Marduk defeated the Dragon Lady and banished her from their version of Heaven and was rewarded by his promotion.

Why else do you think there was such deep opposition and resentment among those Jews who had stayed home and continued the earlier Judaism? Not only had they lost the First Temple teaching, they now had to accept Armageddon, a real opponent to Adonai, and a new Saviour.

Synchronicity Rules OK

I note you and Reed were wondering about my spiritual nature, another post series I need to return to.

You have no need to worry. Over the past few months, aided greatly by our ASC, ICB knows we are one with the One.

With my natural proofreader's caution I Googled "Zarathustrian Cyrus" to make sure I was correct.

Found this instead:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/...story/persia_1.shtml
Cyrus the Great was relatively *liberal. While he himself ruled according to Zoroastrian beliefs, he made no attempt to impose Zoroastrianism on the people of his subject territories. The Jews most famously benefited from this; Cyrus permitted them to return to Jerusalem from exile in Babylon, and rebuild their temple. This act of kindness made a huge impact on Judaism. Zoroastrian philosophy powerfully influenced post-Exilic Judaism.

and this:

https://www.britannica.com/topic/First-Book-of-Enoch
Enoch, the seventh patriarch in the book of Genesis, was the subject of abundant apocryphal literature, especially during the Hellenistic period of Judaism (3rd century bc to 3rd century ad). At first revered only for his piety, he was later believed to be the recipient of secret knowledge from God. This portrait of Enoch as visionary was influenced by the Babylonian tradition of the 7th antediluvian king, Enmenduranna, who was linked to the sun god and received divine revelations. The story of Enoch reflects many such features of the Babylonian myth.

AND this:

http://www.abarim-publications.../Meaning/Azazel.html
It's not unusual in the Bible to name spirit-beings (think for instance of the angels Michael and Gabriel) but that Azazel was probably not a recognized demon/angel is argued by Leviticus 16:8, where two lots are cast over two goats; one goat is for YHWH and the other is either "to be" the scapegoat or is "for" Azazel. If the second goat is "for" Azazel, Leviticus 16:8 would violate an enormous volley of laws and ordinances, including the First Commandment (Exodus 20:3-6, also see Exodus 22:20, 2 Chronicles 34:25, 1 Corinthians 10:20, and for a similar ritual that certainly doesn't involve a secondary personage, see the law of the scapebird in Leviticus 14:1-7).
So no, Azazel is not a Biblical name.

While Jung created the neologism synchronicity, I am deeply indebted to Robert Graves for my discovery of it. No one will ever be able to convince me I am not in tune with the One; a minor pupil at this stage, but on the right track to immortality. Why else does synchronicity lead me to all those confirmations?
Synchronicity - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchronicity Synchronicity (German: Synchronizität) is a concept, first introduced by analytical psychologist Carl Jung, which holds that events are "meaningful coincidences" if they occur with no causal relationship yet seem to be meaningfully related.

Just have to add this: As you know, I'm waiting to rejoin my soulmate in Ynys Affalon. If I've got Marion Zimmer Bradley's Avalon novels right, it aids me in thinking there are indeed some -- the priests of her Atlantis -- who are immortal; helps me to accept those who have no interest in the spiritual concept and will finish when they die.

I need a beer or three after that little lot. My mind is like someone just let off smoke bombs under a dozen or so bee hives.


Can’t sayas I was worried about your Spirituality, more musing that you don’t often acknowledge it.
 
Posts: 12607 | Location: Central PA | Mbr Since: 05-14-2017Report This Post
Devoted...
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by That JR Thang:
Ah Ha! Now we get to it!
Jesus is the one we learned of FIRST. He is the one who brought the old savior myth to us. He is the one that got us on the right track. There will never be another first of that for us. So he is the one we begin and end with.


As I said, congratulations on coming up with this key concept.

My experience with Christianity was as a boy. Dad played a big part in our Congregational and (old-style, pre-fundie) Presbyterian churches, we gave thanks to God when we ate, attended church regularly, and I do not remember ever doubting Him. Except, and I think this was where I began to move on, when I came from that sermon thinking the Adam and Eve story was grossly unfair, and had an argument with an Elder who simply had no answer to my boyhood questions.

I moved on to the earlier Cosmic Saviours Buddha, Vishnu, Krishna, and to Marcus Aurelius (Meditations on Stoic philosophy), Confucius Analects, Robert Graves, Mircea Eliade, Joseph Campbell, and a great many others.

Remember watching decades ago a 6-hour Mahābhārata which had a big impact and now will have to see if I can find a DVD of this. Ye gods and little fishes -- somewhere between $80 and $300.

Hinduism for me is far more real than any of the Abrahamic religions, which, as you know, I see as edited, political, copies of earlier and different mythologies. No big deal, everyone did that. No such thing as copyright. I need to get back to bluelamp to explore the concepts he sees as identical to the way I see the Brahman.

You might remember my saying we lost the plot at some time after we began farming, adopting the alien concept of private property.

Even Gilgamesh was seen as the Shepherd of the Flock of Uruk, so what happened?

Seems to me far too many religious/political leaders failed to control their yetzer ha ra, taking us all to Hell in a handbasket.

I like (my interpretation??) of the Brahman -- the Unknown and Unknowable.

We have to know that as-yet Unknowable.

Problem is, we create letter-sounds to help us do that, then make the mistake of believing those letter-sounds are the real thing.

The Rainbow Serpent, Brighid, Cernunnos, Cerridwen, The Dagda, Herne, The Morrighan, Lugh, Rhiannon, Odin, Thor, Quetzalcoatl, God, Adonai, Allah, all ultimately mean exactly the same concepts.

Much prefer the Celtic Otherworld, Tír Tairngire ("land of promise/promised land"),[1] Tír na nÓg ("land of the young/land of youth"), Annwfn. to the Christian Hell.
 
Posts: 5046 | Location: Queensland, Australia | Mbr Since: 05-05-2017Report This Post
Devoted...
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Reed N D Dark:
Can’t say as I was worried about your Spirituality, more musing that you don’t often acknowledge it.


Do now Wink   ;)

Our ASC made all the difference.

Birds are whingeing, so must go.
 
Posts: 5046 | Location: Queensland, Australia | Mbr Since: 05-05-2017Report This Post
  Powered by Social Strata       Page: 1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ... 50 

Locked Topic Locked

    Aantares    Aantares BB  Hop To Forum Categories  Amazon Ex-Pats  Hop To Forums  General Discussions    Amazon Mob's Pub & Coffee Shop Part II

© 2003-2020 Aantares Online LLC. All Rights Reserved.