Acharya S and the real Christ Conspiracy

[Roger Pearse]

IE Mihragan involves a blood sacrifice to Mitra which represents the cosmic bull but not usually the sacrifice ot a literal bull.

Ok, Andrew, I am buying your explanation. I don't know how we can deduce whether or not, in ancient times, an actual, physical bull was wasted.
...
So, did the ancient Zoroastrian texts, extant today, also get "cleaned up"? Perhaps our difficulty understanding whether or not the sacrifice of the bull was literal versus cosmic, is related to millenia of editorial revision?

As I understand it, the Zoroastrian texts, in Avestan, were transmitted orally until Sassanid times, when they were written down in the 4th century. A "Great Avesta" was compiled and a copy placed in the fire temples. I believe that there are Christian-like ideas in some of these texts; and that perhaps they may have been introduced at this point.

The Great Avesta is lost. The moslem invasions of the 7th century involved large-scale destruction of the Zoroastrian religion. Such Avestan texts as survive did so in India, among the Parsees. But these also survive only in copies of the 13th century and later. Andrew's article above, by Mary Boyce, indicates Hindu influence on the Parsees, causing them to abandon bull sacrifice. So ... there are genuine questions about what sort of material we are dealing with.

But I am in no sense an expert. It seems very hard to get past modern scholarly prosing to primary sources, and I get the impression that the latter may be rather deficient.

[andrewcriddle]

My question relates to Mark 14:24-25, which deals with this same subject of sacrifice, blood, and cosmic versus literal interpretation.
http://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/manus ... omSlider=0

a. Jesus first drinks from the cup, (verse 23), then explains that the substance, just consumed, represents the blood of the covenant. ("new" covenant in Paul, and in later editions of Mark). Seems like they just drank blood, but then, in verse 25, we shift to the cosmic domain, with Jesus stating that he would no longer drink wine until he reached heaven, but, ?
b. why would he be drinking anything in heaven?
c. Which came first, the notion of the blood sacrifice, or the drinking of whatever, blood or wine. Does this tradition go back to Zoroastrianism, or something even earlier http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minoan_civilization ?

Mark 14:25 reads

Truly, I say to you, I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.”

The kingdom of God here is not heaven. It is the establishment of God's righteous reign upon earth.

Andrew Criddle

[bcedaifu]

Codex Sinaiticus Mark 14:25
αμην λεγω ϋμιν οτι ου μη πι ω εκ του γενημα τοϲ τηϲ αμπελου · εωϲ τηϲ ημεραϲ ε κεινηϲ οταν αυτο πινω καινον εν τη βαϲιλεια του θυ
Wesley's notes on the Bible http://www.ccel.org/browse/bookInfo?id=wesley/notes
That is, I shall drink no more before I die: the next wine I drink will not be earthly, but heavenly.

The question here is a bit far adrift from the issue of the zodiac and Acharya, but the context is similar: main criticism seems to be focused on her scholarship, or reputed lack thereof. I personally am unfamiliar with her writings, other than her comments, as reported by Robert Tulip, (whose work and opinion I very much respect), but it seems to me, that criticism of her had been leveled rather unfairly.

For this particular subordinate issue, one needs to ask a Greek scholar (in my view, Andrew Criddle falls into that category!), for an accurate translation of ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τοῦ θεοῦ
"en te basileia tou theo" English: in the kingdom of God.

This phrase, also found in Matthew, would seem to represent something unique to Christianity, for the same words are found neither in the Hebrew texts, nor in the Arabic Quran.

The idea that "kingdom of God" is synonymous with "heaven" is explicitly identified in several verses in Matthew. Andrew's interpretation, that "kingdom of God" is located here, on earth, and not in heaven, seems to me, idiosyncratic, for in simple English, "in the kingdom of God", implies, without Christian interpretation, as some locale other than planet earth, (God is supernatural). To suggest that Mark is referring here, not to heaven, but rather to good old "terra firma", as the location of God's kingdom, is to imply, that God is limited in his domain, as are we, by the laws of physics. But, since God is supernatural, he has no such restriction, therefore, Mark is writing, not about earth, where people die, and vineyards are destroyed by Roman soldiers, but about heaven, where God reigns, and people live forever, surrounded by angels and good wine.

[neilgodfrey]

The idea that "kingdom of God" is synonymous with "heaven" is explicitly identified in several verses in Matthew. Andrew's interpretation, that "kingdom of God" is located here, on earth, and not in heaven, seems to me, idiosyncratic, for in simple English, "in the kingdom of God", implies, without Christian interpretation, as some locale other than planet earth, (God is supernatural). To suggest that Mark is referring here, not to heaven, but rather to good old "terra firma", as the location of God's kingdom, is to imply, that God is limited in his domain, as are we, by the laws of physics. But, since God is supernatural, he has no such restriction, therefore, Mark is writing, not about earth, where people die, and vineyards are destroyed by Roman soldiers, but about heaven, where God reigns, and people live forever, surrounded by angels and good wine.[/font]

The idea of an earthly kingdom should not be ruled out. Don't forget Matthew 5:5 and how the losers in this life will inherit the earth.

Even Paul at the time he wrote Romans appears to have understood that God's kingdom would be on earth. This is from Roger Parvus's latest in his series on the Simonian origins of Christianity:

There is, for instance, Romans 8:18-21, about which Heikki Räisänen writes:

Rom. 8:18-21 confuses the picture. Here the old expectation of a transformed earth makes itself felt: a cosmic change will lead to paradisal harmony within the creation so that, in the vein of Isaiah 65, the wolf and the sheep will share the pasture, and the lion will convert to a vegetarian. At present the creation is ‘groaning’ in its ‘bondage to decay’, but it will ‘obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God’ (no doubt in connection with the parousia which, however, is not mentioned). The commentators on this passage tend to be remarkably vague. They hesitate to state in so many words that eternal life is, according to this text, to be lived on the earth, though this is what the expressions used by them must imply. (“Did Paul Expect an Earthly Kingdom?” in Paul, Luke and the Graeco-Roman World, Essays in Honour of Alexander J.M. Wedderburn, p. 17).

Given Matthew's anti-Jewish agenda ("let his blood be upon us and our children") and theme that the Jews and Judaism have been superseded by Christ/Christianity, I wonder if the use of "heaven" for God partly serves to further these interests. Heaven is a definite removal from any word that might be associated with the Jewish cult and possibly stresses the universality of the Christian deity.

[andrewcriddle]

Codex Sinaiticus Mark 14:25
αμην λεγω ϋμιν οτι ου μη πι ω εκ του γενημα τοϲ τηϲ αμπελου · εωϲ τηϲ ημεραϲ ε κεινηϲ οταν αυτο πινω καινον εν τη βαϲιλεια του θυ
Wesley's notes on the Bible http://www.ccel.org/browse/bookInfo?id=wesley/notes
That is, I shall drink no more before I die: the next wine I drink will not be earthly, but heavenly.

The question here is a bit far adrift from the issue of the zodiac and Acharya, but the context is similar: main criticism seems to be focused on her scholarship, or reputed lack thereof. I personally am unfamiliar with her writings, other than her comments, as reported by Robert Tulip, (whose work and opinion I very much respect), but it seems to me, that criticism of her had been leveled rather unfairly.

For this particular subordinate issue, one needs to ask a Greek scholar (in my view, Andrew Criddle falls into that category!), for an accurate translation of ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τοῦ θεοῦ
"en te basileia tou theo" English: in the kingdom of God.

This phrase, also found in Matthew, would seem to represent something unique to Christianity, for the same words are found neither in the Hebrew texts, nor in the Arabic Quran.

The idea that "kingdom of God" is synonymous with "heaven" is explicitly identified in several verses in Matthew. Andrew's interpretation, that "kingdom of God" is located here, on earth, and not in heaven, seems to me, idiosyncratic, for in simple English, "in the kingdom of God", implies, without Christian interpretation, as some locale other than planet earth, (God is supernatural). To suggest that Mark is referring here, not to heaven, but rather to good old "terra firma", as the location of God's kingdom, is to imply, that God is limited in his domain, as are we, by the laws of physics. But, since God is supernatural, he has no such restriction, therefore, Mark is writing, not about earth, where people die, and vineyards are destroyed by Roman soldiers, but about heaven, where God reigns, and people live forever, surrounded by angels and good wine.

It is not really a question of Greek scholarship it is a question about how the phrase kingdom of God and the related kingdom of heaven are used in other places.

In Mark the kingdom of God is proclaimed as something that is going to be manifested on Earth see for example Mark 1:14-15

Now after John had been taken into custody, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of God, and saying, "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel."

Andrew Criddle

[bcedaifu]

It is not really a question of Greek scholarship it is a question about how the phrase kingdom of God and the related kingdom of heaven are used in other places.

In Mark the kingdom of God is proclaimed as something that is going to be manifested on Earth see for example Mark 1:14-15

Thanks, Andrew.

I don't claim expertise in Biblical interpretation. I haven't read the book of Revelation. I don't know about those passages predicting ultimate destruction of planet earth.

In my opinion, Mark was exhorting believers to part with their wealth, and prepare for the day of judgement, a day which would be celebrated in Heaven, not on earth.

Here's a couple of recent (only a hundred years old, or so!!) phrases, which have different meanings, from the literal interpretation:

"to coin a phrase"--no one mints a phrase.
"elementary my dear Watson"--Doyle invariably elaborated a complex plot not at all facile to grasp.

When I wrote, "Greek scholar", what I should have written is: an interpretation of the Greek text, in the context of the method of writing Koine Greek, in that era. Was this a phrase, "kingdom of god", that had a meaning understood, two thousand years ago, to be distinct from, and different than, the literal one? If literal, then planet earth cannot represent the limit of God's exercise, and Heaven, as elaborated by Matthew, represents that territory beyond earth's boundaries, where God rules. The issue is especially confused if one considers the threats of destruction of the planet itself, by heat, as found in certain passages.

The question ultimately boils down to this: Mark's audience for his text expected what? If life everlasting, surrounded by angels, and drinking the best wine, then that is not a planet earth locus. Our vines wither, rot, decay, become infected, and are destroyed by marauding troops of enemy combatants. In a supernatural paradise, located, not on earth, with its disease, death, and suffering, but in heaven with the angels hovering, however, Mark can promise wine by the barrel, forever, without fear that the tap will run dry.

What did the folks of that era, reading this Koine Greek text, imagine Mark had been describing?

[Andrew]

I believe the the understanding would be that this would happen on a "new earth"; possibly the same planet, but not the earth we know. The kingdom of God seems to be a unification of heaven and earth rather than one or the other.

[Robert Tulip]

’the next wine I drink will not be earthly, but heavenly.’
The question here is a bit far adrift from the issue of the zodiac and Acharya, but the context is similar: main criticism seems to be focused on her scholarship, or reputed lack thereof. I personally am unfamiliar with her writings, other than her comments, as reported by Robert Tulip, (whose work and opinion I very much respect), but it seems to me, that criticism of her had been leveled rather unfairly.

Hello again bcedaifu, and thank you for raising this interesting theme of the meaning of heaven as it relates to astral allegory within the Bible. Although I am not quite sure how you intended to relate ‘the next wine’ with the discussion on the zodiac, it seems to me that in Acharya’s theology they are intimately linked.

Key texts relating earth and heaven include The Lord’s Prayer ‘thy will be done on earth as in heaven’, and the new heaven and new earth of Revelation, in which the Holy City of New Jerusalem comes down from heaven to earth to effect a liberating transformation. As I have explained previously in this thread, the Holy City is the zodiac. This is abundantly clear from the attestation of Philo and Josephus that the twelve jewels, described as the foundation stones of the holy city, represent the zodiac. Here we have a coherent scientific religion – a recognition that understanding of the natural cosmos will provide the basis for an atoning and liberating faith. But there is also a sense of fall into corruption, a corruption whose main quality is belief in delusional literal myths. Salvation requires recognition that the truth will set us free. Truth is one, and is primarily scientific. The great fantasy of the literal Christ was a response to the fall – to the failure of an expected Messianic transformation and the resulting need for an imaginative fictional comforter.

The idea that "kingdom of God" is synonymous with "heaven" is explicitly identified in several verses in Matthew. Andrew's interpretation, that "kingdom of God" is located here, on earth, and not in heaven, seems to me, idiosyncratic, for in simple English, "in the kingdom of God", implies, without Christian interpretation, as some locale other than planet earth, (God is supernatural). To suggest that Mark is referring here, not to heaven, but rather to good old "terra firma", as the location of God's kingdom, is to imply, that God is limited in his domain, as are we, by the laws of physics. But, since God is supernatural, he has no such restriction, therefore, Mark is writing, not about earth, where people die, and vineyards are destroyed by Roman soldiers, but about heaven, where God reigns, and people live forever, surrounded by angels and good wine.

It is deeply impious towards nature to allege that the all-powerful laws of physics could be broken by some imaginary deity. That is just fantastic arrogant delusion aimed at defending an imperial stability. There is no constructive conversation to be had with the old paradigm of a supernatural God. That model is obsolete and evil. What we need is to put our new wine into new wineskins, with a resolutely natural interpretation of the allegory in the Bible. Heaven is the sky, and eternal life is about living our material lives under the eye of eternal values, on an earth transformed by knowledge of divine truth. These things were well understood by the original Gnostic authors of the Christ Myth, but were suppressed, forgotten, ignored and denied by the political schemers who inverted the natural enlightenment vision of a connection between earth and the cosmos into a justification for the imperial stability of Rome and Christendom.

[neilgodfrey]

It is deeply impious towards nature to allege that the all-powerful laws of physics could be broken by some imaginary deity. That is just fantastic arrogant delusion aimed at defending an imperial stability. There is no constructive conversation to be had with the old paradigm of a supernatural God. That model is obsolete and evil. What we need is to put our new wine into new wineskins, with a resolutely natural interpretation of the allegory in the Bible. Heaven is the sky, and eternal life is about living our material lives under the eye of eternal values, on an earth transformed by knowledge of divine truth. These things were well understood by the original Gnostic authors of the Christ Myth, but were suppressed, forgotten, ignored and denied by the political schemers who inverted the natural enlightenment vision of a connection between earth and the cosmos into a justification for the imperial stability of Rome and Christendom.

Impious towards nature? Are you saying that the natural world is divine or in some sense worthy of religious worship?

Are you suggesting that the ancient Gnostic interpretations of the world were objectively true and should be believed by us today?

If you are not saying either of those things then please don't jump to the conclusion that I am accusing you falsely etc. I will be happy to be reassured you do not mean to suggest either of those things.

[Robert Tulip]

Are you saying that the natural world is divine or in some sense worthy of religious worship?

Yes, that is how I view the world. The beauty and elegance of natural complexity, evolving over billions of years, is the only thing we should consider as divine. So a key text in the Bible is Revelation 11:18, that the wrath of God is against those who destroy the earth. It is a basic moral teaching that our economy rests upon our ecology, so we should treat nature with reverence and awe, as the basis of our existence and flourishing. This is a theme raised by Richard Dawkins in his recent book The Magic of Reality, where he calls for an ethic of reverence towards nature.

Are you suggesting that the ancient Gnostic interpretations of the world were objectively true and should be believed by us today?

My view is that the Gnostic movement contained an enlightened rational ethic, and this was the inspiration for the Christ myth. However, due to the secrecy practiced by the mystery religions and the savage censorship by the empire, their key views are lost, and we only have fragmentary remains. I suspect the Nag Hammadi texts are also fragmentary late interpretations of older Gnostic ideas. I am interested in reconstructing a possible Gnostic philosophical framework against the extant evidence and within the horizons of modern scientific knowledge.

The core of Gnostic ideas are in the Bible. The Hermetic 'as above so below' heuristic of The Lord's Prayer produces a systematic rational understanding of Christ as the imagined connection between earth and cosmos. Due to their need to operate within an orthodox supernatural setting, the Gnostic's ideas in the Bible are lightly concealed. Even this light covering has been enough to render Gnostic ideas largely invisible before the onslaught of ignorant dominant historicist dogma.

If you are not saying either of those things then please don't jump to the conclusion that I am accusing you falsely etc. I will be happy to be reassured you do not mean to suggest either of those things.

Like Acharya, I have a pantheist view towards religion, seeing divinity within nature, and seeing the great moral battle of the world as between good naturalism, based on evidence and reason as its highest values, and evil supernaturalism, based in ignorant traditions of political authority. My view is that Christianity was built upon a good natural Gnostic foundation, and taken over by an evil supernaturalist orthodox institution.