Zeus and Adam.

[wizanda]

is to assume that the savior of humanity plays religious, racial, ethnic, sexual, favoritism

I believe that the assumption is that Yeshua acted as a saviour of humanity, instead of setting most up for being hypocritical, and not paying attention to his words, yet instead following the man-made ideas about him.

There are only the elect that are brought through into the Age to Come; to then taste of the waters of life, the rest get deleted from reality at Judgement Day.

In my opinion.

 

[John D. Brey]

I'm confused. If the thigh is a euphemism for penis, and in Genesis we're told something is taken from Adam's thigh/(penis), then wouldn't it be correct to conclude that Adam is male? Thus there would be a father?

This topic was directly discussed two years ago in the thread on The Primordial Phallus (become an essay). In the essay it was pointed out that half-way between female and male the developing body reaches a genital stage known, scientifically, as the "primordial phallus."

At this midway stage between male and female, the human genital organ is androgynous. It's neither male nor female. And yet the fact that it's technically able to perform the act most related to female, birth, probably makes it appropriate to call the original human a female rather than a male. Furthermore, at this midway stage of development, the testes that testify to toxic masculinity haven't yet developed. Ironically, it's the testimony found in Genesis 2:21 that closes up the primordial/androgynous phallus in order to make the first fake man.

For the sake of this thread, the fact that the mythology of Zeus, Semele, and Dionysus, speak of an androgynous phallus on Zeus, is significant in that it appears to be revealing elements of the genesis and origin of humanity that are, dare I say, redacted in the text of the Torah.




John

 

[John D. Brey]

This topic was directly discussed two years ago in the thread on The Primordial Phallus (become an essay). In the essay it was pointed out that half-way between female and male the developing body reaches a genital stage known, scientifically, as the "primordial phallus."

At this midway stage between male and female, the human genital organ is androgynous. It's neither male nor female. And yet the fact that it's technically able to perform the act most related to female, birth, probably makes it appropriate to call the original human a female rather than a male. Furthermore, at this midway stage of development, the testes that testify to toxic masculinity haven't yet developed. Ironically, it's the testimony found in Genesis 2:21 that closes up the primordial/androgynous phallus in order to make the first fake man.

For the sake of this thread, the fact that the mythology of Zeus, Semele, and Dionysus, speak of an androgynous phallus on Zeus, is significant in that it appears to be revealing elements of the genesis and origin of humanity that are, dare I say, redacted in the text of the Torah.

Although the pagan mythology reveals something redacted in the Torah-text, the Torah-text has its own gem, its own pearl of great value, not found in the pagan myths, since although the pagan myth of Dionysus' birth from Zeus' androgynous phallus makes Dionysus a type of Jesus of Nazareth, the firstborn of the gods, or God, the Torah-text reveals that the son born after the first interchange between gods and men (Zeus and Semele, the serpent and Eve) is the ******* Cain who, though, perhaps, a type, of Jesus of Nazareth, is nevertheless a ******* type of Jesus, an anti-Christ.

In the Torah, the "foreskin" (uncircumcision) is a metaphor for the phallus being closed-up סגר after Genesis 2:21. The ritual Abraham uses to initiate the renewed covenant with mankind (the covenant phalluciously redacted after Genesis 2:21) is literally to take a knife, cut the "uncircumcised" phallus (milah), after which the birth canal closed up in Genesis 2:21 (סגר) is re-opened by tearing the membrane of virginity (periah) that veils the virgin temple like a hermetic seal designed to signify that the birth that tears this seal with the finger nails of the hand, from the inside out, rather than it being torn by the faux-male flesh, the serpentine organ, is the true firstborn of humanity.



John

 

[Colt]

There is a collation of common themes in Genesis because the Israelite authors appropriated Mesopotamian lore in the construction of an authoritative story of origins for the Jewish people while in Babylon. The destruction of the 1rst Temple, the ding to a nationalist/religious ego of the Israelites pressured the elite priest class into vastly exaggerating the history of the Israelites. Some of the secular history books mentioned in the Torah vanished from history. All that remained after the return to Jerusalem was their new spectacular record of history and destiny.

The "sons of God" coming down to earth and mating with the daughters of men gave rise to the pantheon of Greek Gods.
All cultures have stories of floods becuse there have been floods for eons, great and small. BUT no other culture seems to remember being descended from a great, great, great....grandpa Noah except the people who invented the story!

IMOP

 

[paarsurrey]

John D. Brey said: ↑
In a sentence, this thread is about the relationship between Zeus and the first human in the Bible, Adam; and more specifically about Adam's, and Zeus', firstborn sons.
For those willing to read more than a sentence, we can say that until the original sin, Adam appears not to have been strictly mortal himself. It's only after the sin that God kills a mortal creature and gives its flesh to cover up Adam's nakedness after his, Adam's, spiritual covering is removed because of the sin. There's a sense in which the story of Zeus' firstborn son, and the story of Adam's firstborn son, are not just parallel, but where you can't fully understand the nature of Adam's firstborn son, until you're willing to do the hard work of exegeting pagan and Jewish mythology as though they're discussing the same thing.
John

paarsurrey said: ↑
" original sin "

Did (Jesus) Yeshua talk about the "original sin ", please?
If yes, then kindly quote from him for the claim in this issue and the gist of reason given by him in this connection, please. Right?

What if I don't, and I don't, own a red-letter edition of the Gospels? Then, from what I gather, I can't convince you I'm quoting Jesus. Dylan said it's all in the song. You've implied its all in the red ink. I have no red ink edition and thus find myself in the outer regions and the limbo of the lost both of which result in fear and trembling and gnashing of teeth.
John

Paarsurrey writes.

The Post one is answering does not mention of the Red Letter Bibles, does it, please? Right?
Even a child would know what has been said by Yeshua while reading a Bible, they have simply made it convenient for everybody, haven't they, please? Right?
One has enough of common sense, hasn't one, please? Right?
One couldn't quote and one can never quote from (Jesus) Yeshua as he never believed in the " original sin" which is a creed imported from Hellenism by the Pauline-Christianity, one gathers, please. Right?
Am I therefore right to say, it is an accusation on Yeshua that he believed in the " Original Sin", please? Right?

Regards

 

[John D. Brey]

There is a collation of common themes in Genesis because the Israelite authors appropriated Mesopotamian lore in the construction of an authoritative story of origins for the Jewish people while in Babylon.

Moses gave Israel the Torah long before the Babylonian captivity. So your account requires us to assume Israel dispensed with the original narrative and adopted a new one during the captivity.

The destruction of the 1rst Temple, the ding to a nationalist/religious ego of the Israelites pressured the elite priest class into vastly exaggerating the history of the Israelites. Some of the secular history books mentioned in the Torah vanished from history. All that remained after the return to Jerusalem was their new spectacular record of history and destiny.

You seem to be rewriting history and then assuming since its so easy to do Israel did it as well.

The "sons of God" coming down to earth and mating with the daughters of men gave rise to the pantheon of Greek Gods.

Perhaps the Greek mythologies are based on a historical reality described in Genesis chapter six.

All cultures have stories of floods becuse there have been floods for eons, great and small. BUT no other culture seems to remember being descended from a great, great, great....grandpa Noah except the people who invented the story!

Perhaps the stories we read in Genesis six are true, and only the names have been changed to protect the innocent indigenous tribal sensibilities by giving Noah a more familiar tribal name.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

John D. Brey said: ↑
In a sentence, this thread is about the relationship between Zeus and the first human in the Bible, Adam; and more specifically about Adam's, and Zeus', firstborn sons.
For those willing to read more than a sentence, we can say that until the original sin, Adam appears not to have been strictly mortal himself. It's only after the sin that God kills a mortal creature and gives its flesh to cover up Adam's nakedness after his, Adam's, spiritual covering is removed because of the sin. There's a sense in which the story of Zeus' firstborn son, and the story of Adam's firstborn son, are not just parallel, but where you can't fully understand the nature of Adam's firstborn son, until you're willing to do the hard work of exegeting pagan and Jewish mythology as though they're discussing the same thing.
John

paarsurrey said: ↑
" original sin "

Did (Jesus) Yeshua talk about the "original sin ", please?
If yes, then kindly quote from him for the claim in this issue and the gist of reason given by him in this connection, please. Right?

Paarsurrey writes.

The Post one is answering does not mention of the Red Letter Bibles, does it, please? Right?
Even a child would know what has been said by Yeshua while reading a Bible, they have simply made it convenient for everybody, haven't they, please? Right?
One has enough of common sense, hasn't one, please? Right?
One couldn't quote and one can never quote from (Jesus) Yeshua as he never believed in the " original sin" which is a creed imported from Hellenism by the Pauline-Christianity, one gathers, please. Right?
Am I therefore right to say, it is an accusation on Yeshua that he believed in the " Original Sin", please? Right?

Regards

None of Jesus' words comes to us in a communal manner except through the writing of those who wrote down the oral tradition concerning what Jesus actually spoke. But once ideas are consigned to signs, letters, words, sentences, and such, they're up for grabs since the written word is even more subject to differences of opinion than the spoken word.

Linguists today state that something like 80% of spoken communication is related to non-verbal cues. Was the speaker smiling, or grimacing when he spoke? Was he excited or bored? Was he looking someone in the eye, or speaking generally to a crowd? We don't get to see Jesus' body language. And most people don't have a deep grasp of the historical nuances that affect what he said.

Which is all to say that our opinions about what Jesus says, and means, from the writings come down attributed to him, are personal, contextual, and extremely dependent on our educational background, our religious background, and our personal spiritual development.

The doctrine of original sin claims that Adam's sin-nature is a biological disease that's passed down in copulation so that everyone born in Adam's line requires a savior since they're all born sinners.

Jesus was, almost too perfectly, born of a virgin such that Adam's sin did not get passed down to him since he wasn't conceived through phallic-copulation. And for this reason, he, and he alone, is able to die as a substitute for the rest of us since he is not himself subject to God's wrath from birth.



John

 

[Colt]

Moses gave Israel the Torah long before the Babylonian captivity. So your account requires us to assume Israel dispensed with the original narrative and adopted a new one during the captivity.



You seem to be rewriting history and then assuming since its so easy to do Israel did it as well.



Perhaps the Greek mythologies are based on a historical reality described in Genesis chapter six.



Perhaps the stories we read in Genesis six are true, and only the names have been changed to protect the innocent indigenous tribal sensibilities by giving Noah a more familiar name.


John

Moses predates the finalization of the Torah by 1000 years. Its unlikely that Moses spoke the earliest form of Hebrew. It’s a nice made for Hollywood story, God writing in stone with his finger and all, and then Moses smashing the tablets 5 minutes after coming down the mountain, but it’s at odds with basic common sense in so many areas.

Moses was a reformer of previous beliefs from 400 years under Egyptian bondage. He wisely used the smoke and fire of Sini to revamp beliefs for his followers. Went way up on the mountain for a while and came back down as said "this is what God told me". It worked!

 

[John D. Brey]

Moses predates the finalization of the Torah by 1000 years. Its unlikely that Moses spoke the earliest form of Hebrew. It’s a nice made for Hollywood story, God writing in stone with his finger and all, and then Moses smashing the tablets 5 minutes after coming down the mountain, but it’s at odds with basic common sense in so many areas.

Moses was a reformer of previous beliefs from 400 years under Egyptian bondage. He wisely used the smoke and fire of Sini to revamp beliefs for his followers. Went way up on the mountain for a while and came back down as said "this is what God told me". It worked!

You show how easy it is to rewrite even ancient history with the flip of a wrist. And then you assume that if it's that easy for you, surely Moses was like you.

What your statement seems to bring to the fore is the need for a criterion for determining facts from fantasy. It's important that two people involved in a serious discussion share, to some degree, a criterion for determining facts from fantasy.



John

 

[Colt]

You show how easy it is to rewrite even ancient history with the flip of a wrist. And then you assume that if it's that easy for you, surely Moses was like you.

What your statement seems to bring to the fore is the need for a criterion for determining facts from fantasy. It's important that two people involved in a serious discussion share, to some degree, a criterion for determining facts from fantasy.



John

Fair enough.

 

[Muffled]

A study of anthropology, mythology, and Freudian psychology, suggest the narrative come down to modern man as the Torah-text is a particular reading of a subtext, or oral tradition, much older than the Torah-text itself. Throughout ancient mythologies come from all over the world we see concepts of, say, the universal flood, the fall of man, original sin, the birth of a salvific-messianic man/god, born, no less, of virgin credentials. As Freud noted, the passing down of these oral traditions, stories, myths, both inform, and are informed by, the deepest constitution of the human psyche even to include what Jung termed a "collective unconsciousness" structured specifically by ancestral memory and accessed through journeys into the depth of the psych ala depth-psychology (or as the case may be, depth-theology).



John

I believe the Bible is not oral tradition.

 

[Muffled]

In a sentence, this thread is about the relationship between Zeus and the first human in the Bible, Adam; and more specifically about Adam's, and Zeus', firstborn sons.

For those willing to read more than a sentence, we can say that until the original sin, Adam appears not to have been strictly mortal himself. It's only after the sin that God kills a mortal creature and gives its flesh to cover up Adam's nakedness after his, Adam's, spiritual covering is removed because of the sin. There's a sense in which the story of Zeus' firstborn son, and the story of Adam's firstborn son, are not just parallel, but where you can't fully understand the nature of Adam's firstborn son, until you're willing to do the hard work of exegeting pagan and Jewish mythology as though they're discussing the same thing.



John

I believe Adam was a creation not a son.

 

[Muffled]

I'm confused. If the thigh is a euphemism for penis, and in Genesis we're told something is taken from Adam's thigh/(penis), then wouldn't it be correct to conclude that Adam is male? Thus there would be a father?

I believe one must stretch to believe a sperm without an egg can produce a person. I will stick with clone theory.

 

[John D. Brey]

I believe Adam was a creation not a son.

How does that belief relate to anything said in the thread?



John

 

[John D. Brey]

I believe the Bible is not oral tradition.

John's Gospel was written decades after Jesus' death. Does your belief suppose Jesus spoke everything John wrote in his name after his (Jesus') resurrection and ascension? Otherwise John's Gospel is the written version of an oral tradition passed down about what Jesus did or didn't say.


John

 

[paarsurrey]

None of Jesus' words comes to us in a communal manner except through the writing of those who wrote down the oral tradition concerning what Jesus actually spoke. But once ideas are consigned to signs, letters, words, sentences, and such, they're up for grabs since the written word is even more subject to differences of opinion than the spoken word.

Linguists today state that something like 80% of spoken communication is related to non-verbal cues. Was the speaker smiling, or grimacing when he spoke? Was he excited or bored? Was he looking someone in the eye, or speaking generally to a crowd? We don't get to see Jesus' body language. And most people don't have a deep grasp of the historical nuances that affect what he said.

Which is all to say that our opinions about what Jesus says, and means, from the writings come down attributed to him, are personal, contextual, and extremely dependent on our educational background, our religious background, and our personal spiritual development.

The doctrine of original sin claims that Adam's sin-nature is a biological disease that's passed down in copulation so that everyone born in Adam's line requires a savior since they're all born sinners.

Jesus was, almost too perfectly, born of a virgin such that Adam's sin did not get passed down to him since he wasn't conceived through phallic-copulation. And for this reason, he, and he alone, is able to die as a substitute for the rest of us since he is not himself subject to God's wrath from birth.

John

" The doctrine of original sin "

(Jesus) Yeshua- the Israelite Messiah neither made this "doctrine" nor believed in it nor ever mentioned it, please. It is made in Rome by the Hellenist Paul, his associates and the Church, it transpires, please. Right?
If one cannot quote from Jesus in a straightforward manner then it is most certainly an accusation on Yeshua, please.
It also affords an opportunity to reflect that one is deviated from the path Yeshua followed, one mustn't mind to realize now , please. Right?

Regards

 

[John D. Brey]

" The doctrine of original sin "

(Jesus) Yeshua- the Israelite Messiah neither made this "doctrine" nor believed in it nor ever mentioned it, please. It is made in Rome by the Hellenist Paul, his associates and the Church, it transpires, please. Right?
If one cannot quote from Jesus in a straightforward manner then it is most certainly an accusation on Yeshua, please.
It also affords an opportunity to reflect that one is deviated from the path Yeshua followed, one mustn't mind to realize now , please. Right?

17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

John 3:17-18.​

To believe on the Son (Yeshua) requires him to come. So the Father sends him. But Jesus says that he that believeth not on the son is already condemned, condemned already, such that by not believing on the son, he remains in his "already" condemned state.

The Greek adverb ἤδη means "already" or previously. And Jesus says he came not into the world to condemn, but that those already condemned might be saved.

So why is everyone already condemned such that they require salvation through belief in Yeshua? Where did their "already" ἤδη condemned state come from?

Is there anyone who doesn't require salvation? Or are all men guilty before the Lord? If the latter, why, and when, at what point do they become guilty before the Lord? Is a child guilty before the Lord? Who needs salvation and who doesn't? Who needs Yeshua and who doesn't?



John

 

[paarsurrey]

17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

John 3:17-18.​

To believe on the Son (Yeshua) requires him to come. So the Father sends him. But Jesus says that he that believeth not on the son is already condemned, condemned already, such that by not believing on the son, he remains in his "already" condemned state.

The Greek adverb ἤδη means "already" or previously. And Jesus says he came not into the world to condemn, but that those already condemned might be saved.

So why is everyone already condemned such that they require salvation through belief in Yeshua? Where did their "already" ἤδη condemned state come from?

Is there anyone who doesn't require salvation? Or are all men guilty before the Lord? If the latter, why, and when, at what point do they become guilty before the Lord? Is a child guilty before the Lord? Who needs salvation and who doesn't? Who needs Yeshua and who doesn't?

John

" The Greek adverb ἤδη means "already" or previously. "

Why reference to Greek, didn't Yeshua - Son of Mary (never a wife unto him) speak in Aramaic, please?? Right??

Regards

 

[John D. Brey]

" The Greek adverb ἤδη means "already" or previously. "

Why reference to Greek, didn't Yeshua - Son of Mary (never a wife unto him) speak in Aramaic, please?? Right??

Jesus didn't write the red letter edition Gospels. And the original texts were written in Koine Greek. This is to say that the Gospel of John wasn't translated from Aramaic into Greek; it was written, the first time, in Greek. Greek is the signature text.

You keep appearing to suggest that you either have a tape-recording of Jesus' actual speech (which would naturally carry more weight than a Greek text red letter or no), or that you have a text written by Jesus, perhaps to you personally, in his native tongue?

Those of us with neither a tape-recording of Jesus' actual speech, nor a text written in his own hand, are forced to go to the Greek text of the Gospels, or a translation from the Greek Gospels to our own language.



John