The mother of Jesus

[sooda]

The Bible doesn't say anywhere that Mary was a saint o that people should pray to her. On the contrary, it says very clearly that all prayers should be addressed to God.
Praying to Mary instead of God is something that the church came up with and has no scriptural base.

You seem to have a petty problem.

 

[sealchan]

How do you know of a "creative addition" from John. Are you saying he was a liar
and that you have some wonderful insight?

There is a great big space between the truth and a lie...it is called myth. A myth comes from the deep human need to understand the possibilities in life rather than just the often disappointing truth of the reality of life. Although people often experience truth as what IS and what is practical and real, they also experience it as what CAN BE. And what is possible or should be is sometimes more real and important than what is.

So there are those who speak or write out of this awareness and we call them prophets or preachers, authors or artists.

 

[sealchan]

I underlined the parts that show that Jesus was referring to his mother, not anyone else's. However, as you say above, it may also have a symbolic meaning as well, but I'm less certain that this was the original intent.

My understanding of John is that he was a very symbolic-y writer. He seems to hint to as much when he has Jesus say to his disciples...

John 16:25
“Though I have been speaking figuratively, a time is coming when I will no longer use this kind of language but will tell you plainly about my Father."

 

[metis]

My understanding of John is that he was a very symbolic-y writer. He seems to hint to as much when he has Jesus say to his disciples...

John 16:25
“Though I have been speaking figuratively, a time is coming when I will no longer use this kind of language but will tell you plainly about my Father."

Again, that's quite possible. However, the verse still makes it clear that Jesus wants John to take Mary, Jesus' mother, in either literally or figuratively.

 

[PruePhillip]

There is a great big space between the truth and a lie...it is called myth. A myth comes from the deep human need to understand the possibilities in life rather than just the often disappointing truth of the reality of life. Although people often experience truth as what IS and what is practical and real, they also experience it as what CAN BE. And what is possible or should be is sometimes more real and important than what is.

So there are those who speak or write out of this awareness and we call them prophets or preachers, authors or artists.

You know that account of the African General Hannibal, his army and elephants, crossing the Alps
to invade Rome, the superpower of the age? I wonder if it's not just a myth. Just two people wrote
of this supposed event. There's no proof and I find the whole story mythic.

 

[PruePhillip]

I am postulating one based on the difference between John's gospel and that of the other gospels and of the relative time in which it was written.

We have no idea of when these accounts were written. Forget Wikipedia.
I suggest John's Gospel was written pretty much as it happened. Luke's
book of Acts was written prior to his going to Rome with Paul, ca 66 AD
if I recall. Matthew was a tax collector and he employs a kind of shorthand
common to officials of that time - that suggests an early account too.
Just thinking last week - the Gospels had the most detail at the end of
Jesus' ministry. If things were written decades later that wouldn't be the
case.

 

[sooda]

You know that account of the African General Hannibal, his army and elephants, crossing the Alps
to invade Rome, the superpower of the age? I wonder if it's not just a myth. Just two people wrote
of this supposed event. There's no proof and I find the whole story mythic.

Some historians believe that the elephants came from a small forest subspecies of elephants located in the Atlas Mountains of Morocco and Algeria.

How Many Types Of Elephants Are There?

 

[PruePhillip]

The Bible has a grounding in the idea that Gods Will and our desire to persist against the amoral backdrop of Gods creation is one and the same. Human values such as birthright, tradition, rules and regulations are a tool but not an end according to the Bible. By paying attention and not falling into the illusion of political power, materialism or egotism we can survive and thrive. It is at its heart an idea as elegant as any which does not need to carry any baggage . But those who believe the Bible literally have mistaken the Word for the baggage IMO.

The story, the rules they point to God, but they do not define God except in contradictory ways which the authors often cleverly incorporate through their method of using story. This raises our understanding of God to the highest level...that of capturing in words that which is ultimately a mystery.

To this biblical account there is a kind of parallel support. In the Old Testament
the support for the text was in LAND. That is, the Jewish people measured their
relationship with God by gaining or losing land. Jacob said the Jews would lose
that land when the Messiah came - and Jesus himself said the same.
Thus you could argue with the bible, but you couldn't argue with the historic
account of Israel.
And for the New Testament I suggest that parallel confirmation is the account of
the Jews - driven out and persecuted, but by amazing events they were able to
return to their ancient land when the Gentiles faith was gone.
Thus you can say the bible is myth, but it was quite prescient about those once
considered God's people, and their rise and fall in relationship to the Gentiles.

 

[sooda]

To this biblical account there is a kind of parallel support. In the Old Testament
the support for the text was in LAND. That is, the Jewish people measured their
relationship with God by gaining or losing land. Jacob said the Jews would lose
that land when the Messiah came - and Jesus himself said the same.
Thus you could argue with the bible, but you couldn't argue with the historic
account of Israel.
And for the New Testament I suggest that parallel confirmation is the account of
the Jews - driven out and persecuted, but by amazing events they were able to
return to their ancient land when the Gentiles faith was gone.
Thus you can say the bible is myth, but it was quite prescient about those once
considered God's people, and their rise and fall in relationship to the Gentiles.

Yep.. they measured their favor in land.

 

[exchemist]

How did Jesus "venerate" Mary?
How did the foundational Christians "venerate" Mary?
I thought she was just a little ol' Jewish lady. If Jesus wasn't attractive,
maybe she wasn't attractive either.
People who "venerate" Mary have less focus upon venerating Jesus.
Let's quote Jesus again, "But RATHER, blessed are they who hear the
word of God and obey it." Obeying means just that - doing what you are
told. And you aren't told there's another beside Jesus, let alone a queen
of heaven.

"Honour thy father and thy mother"? Though one could I suppose quibble that venerate and honour are not exact synonyms.

 

[Ajarn]

She is the Mother of the son of Man, not of God.

God who appeared as a man.

Therefore she is still just a person, not a God to be worshipped, as Jesus said himself only one is worthy of worship.

 

[JJ50]

She is the Mother of the son of Man, not of God.

God who appeared as a man.

Therefore she is still just a person, not a God to be worshipped, as Jesus said himself only one is worthy of worship.

No one or thing is worthy of worship.

 

[Ajarn]

No one or thing is worthy of worship.

Thats your opinion but God is worthy of worship for Chistians.

Perhaps you may have heard Christians worship the one, God.

They have a book called the Bible look it up.

 

[sooda]

She is the Mother of the son of Man, not of God.

God who appeared as a man.

Therefore she is still just a person, not a God to be worshipped, as Jesus said himself only one is worthy of worship.

When you pray to Jesus tell him you think his mother was just an incubator.

 

[Ajarn]

I

When you pray to Jesus tell him you think his mother was just an incubator.

I dont pray to Jesus but if i did i would take his advise and only worship God.

 

[exchemist]

I


I dont pray to Jesus but if i did i would take his advise and only worship God.

And that's fine as that is what everybody does, Catholics included. If you read the thread you will see this explained.

 

[sealchan]

We have no idea of when these accounts were written. Forget Wikipedia.
I suggest John's Gospel was written pretty much as it happened. Luke's
book of Acts was written prior to his going to Rome with Paul, ca 66 AD
if I recall. Matthew was a tax collector and he employs a kind of shorthand
common to officials of that time - that suggests an early account too.
Just thinking last week - the Gospels had the most detail at the end of
Jesus' ministry. If things were written decades later that wouldn't be the
case.

From what I have studied from those who have dedicated themselves to the archeology and the cultural studies and the literary analysis and from what I have observed in reading the Gospels, the authors appear to be working with written sources which lead to there being very similar content in some cases that speaks to a written source and not their own personal memories. But also there are distinct differences which speak not to personal experience for they would be glaring differences which would indicate one or the other author was lying or making things up that didn't actually happen. I think that rather there was a desire to creatively flesh out additional material to serve the interest of their own understanding and perhaps their own community for which they wrote.

Luke indicates that he has to research in order to provide the most accurate account to his audience in the opening of his Gospel.

There is plenty of evidence in the different gospels themselves that they are not eyewitness accounts. Particularly those passages that speak to events which occur for which there are no witnesses. This is a clear sign of the creative author's perspective on a scene which was never "seen".

 

[sealchan]

To this biblical account there is a kind of parallel support. In the Old Testament
the support for the text was in LAND. That is, the Jewish people measured their
relationship with God by gaining or losing land. Jacob said the Jews would lose
that land when the Messiah came - and Jesus himself said the same.
Thus you could argue with the bible, but you couldn't argue with the historic
account of Israel.
And for the New Testament I suggest that parallel confirmation is the account of
the Jews - driven out and persecuted, but by amazing events they were able to
return to their ancient land when the Gentiles faith was gone.
Thus you can say the bible is myth, but it was quite prescient about those once
considered God's people, and their rise and fall in relationship to the Gentiles.

The persistence of the Jews speaks to what you say but also the historical facts seem to indicate that the Jews were a Canaanite people who through various factors found themselves evolving a monotheistic religion out of a native polytheistic one. At some point a pre-history was crafted out of existing myths in order to establish the longevity of God's presence and relationship. Much of Genesis is seen as being written in the 6th and 5th Centuries BC and this is born out in my view by the literary qualities of the writing which differ greatly from the forms of mythic tales originally propagated orally. My studies of Genesis reveal the depth of how various literary motifs and themes can be worked into epic and mythic content and used to create an even greater epic narrative. This is the power of the literary artist working in the medium of myth.

There are other such works of course that help for comparison and contrast. I am currently focusing on a study of the Mahabharata from a high level perspective (another very long work). Both the Bible and the Mahabharata are amazingly complex tapestries of story featuring psychological and spiritual truths in a profound way. They both rightly deserve to be honored as some of the greatest literature ever made and both are rich source material for later works in each culture.

I believe that the Judeo-Christian tradition can take a lot of credit for enabling the modern mind which has come to dominate human culture the world over. To think of one's self as standing equally before a single divine intelligence and who directly holds one accountable as one person to another for one's actions is, as I have said, a deeply spiritual and succinct understanding. it gives us a sense that each of us could become a rock of moral integrity and give rise to a society of unbreakable moral quality. It is as if the Universe itself is wanting us to choose to do so and in this idea I think we find the whole of Democracy and Freedom established.

But many of the sins of historical Christianity may also be the sins of a patriarchal culture prone to misogyny and today I think we need to consider how to restore the revelations of the Goddess to our understanding of God. God had a wife but he seems to have lost track of her. She still exists and has been, perhaps, patiently waiting for the full due that is Her equal right. The idea of a special people with a special land is a meaningful one but it also can be a dangerous one that leads to much evil. Better to have a balanced approach to one's sense of identity as well as responsibility towards others of other identities.

 

[sooda]

The persistence of the Jews speaks to what you say but also the historical facts seem to indicate that the Jews were a Canaanite people who through various factors found themselves evolving a monotheistic religion out of a native polytheistic one.

At some point a pre-history was crafted out of existing myths in order to establish the longevity of God's presence and relationship. Much of Genesis is seen as being written in the 6th and 5th Centuries BC and this is born out in my view by the literary qualities of the writing which differ greatly from the forms of mythic tales originally propagated orally. My studies of Genesis reveal the depth of how various literary motifs and themes can be worked into epic and mythic content and used to create an even greater epic narrative. This is the power of the literary artist working in the medium of myth.

There are other such works of course that help for comparison and contrast. I am currently focusing on a study of the Mahabharata from a high level perspective (another very long work). Both the Bible and the Mahabharata are amazingly complex tapestries of story featuring psychological and spiritual truths in a profound way. They both rightly deserve to be honored as some of the greatest literature ever made and both are rich source material for later works in each culture.

Not sure this fit in with what you are saying but Bedouin were always affiliated with some town or village or oasis of extended family.. It was a symbiotic relationship that allowed them to survive. The Jews were UNaffiliated.. landless and lawless. They were Fringe Canaanites.. the lowest of the low. They carried their "god" with them from place to place in a box on a litter.

 

[sealchan]

Not sure this fit in with what you are saying but Bedouin were always affiliated with some town or village or oasis of extended family.. It was a symbiotic relationship that allowed them to survive. The Jews were UNaffiliated.. landless and lawless. They were Fringe Canaanites.. the lowest of the low. They carried their "god" with them from place to place in a box on a litter.

Yes I recall hearing about this as well. I think in that region between Mesopotamia and Egypt there were peoples who experienced a lot of variability with respect to who controlled them and the extent to which they were controlled. Perhaps a agricultural community and a nomadic community were in long contact with each other and a sort of ideal mixture of attitudes resulted which produced a more refined idea of individual and social identity, one more adaptable to both migratory AND rooted existence. The narrative of Genesis seems to describe this sort of mixture rather clearly once you become aware of it.