Hi Micheal, my main point was religion no longer played a significant role in the late Republican society. I assume the decline of ancient religion started from the end of pre-hellenistic Greece. In terms of zealiousness, I think the Roman religion was dead as imperators’ temples were built. Roman citizens’ conscious was occupied by their own wealfare which depended on the results of political struggles and wars with foreign tribes. It was clear to them that man was the decisive factor in all things, not god. God was transformed from the role of the absolute ruler to the lesser of a powerful influencier, eventually reduced to an object of pure ideal. Giving divinity to powerful men was an act of honouring, it was a political cliche that showed the death of innocent and pure belief - now people believed only in man. The advancement and development of civilisation decides the fate of religion: a religious idea prospers when society is undergoing fast changes; a religious zeal cools down when society is peaceful and plenty. This is what I really meant by “no longer have the ego to accept divinity”, in fact it should be “no longer have the need to accept divinity”. Who would worship gods for nothing? Whose ego is so fragile and weak? Nietzsche asks: “do you think that I would preferably recognise some high being in heaven above me, knowing perfectly my inferiority?” God is dead, killed by us as it was created by us - it’s a meta-physcial ideal that we ditch when it losts its apeal. The Romans sure did - all they needed was winning wars and exciting gladitorial combads. To remark Octavian as “worshiped like a living god” was superfical - correct but misleading.
Hi Dr. Krankenkopf, really there is no need to mention Octavian as Divi Augustus, and I’ve spend the whole post above on that. You said that he was out done, I curiously read on thinking you were crediting Antonius or Pompeius… but what the… his wife? She managed the Julian house surely and she did a good job for her sons. But that’s family business, what about the impire’s, do you also believe that she managed the political affars for him? I don’t know how Octavian got in her way, what event are you refering to? You also claimed that she mudered him, which I’m not sure is representitive for the majority accounts. Bottom line though, if Octavian wanted to take charge, Drusilla wouldn’t stand a chance - her power derived from convencing and representing him, not manipulating him, unless you can show that she had personal command of senators, but even so, Octavian’s imperial power should be strong enough to at least fight back.
Dear Nick,
I will be out of the country for an extended period starting tomorrow, but I wanted to address your thoughts. I use the word “belief†with the meaning that “as you believe, so it is done†I use the term “words†to mean “conceptsâ€. I do not see belief solely as an intellectual understanding. If one believes something then it influences every aspect of their existence.
I assume by “being†you mean manifestation, not essence.
There is also a school of thought that sees the oak tree already present in the acorn. It will materially manifest in the appropriate time and in the right way – neither of which is known to us.
I agree totally. I enjoy hunting through the words of Moses and the words of Jesus to demonstrate that they both had this understanding as well. That is why you will often see me paraphrase things.
I think this is a word usage issue for me. I understand the concept (I think) and totally agree. However it feels like there is an underlying belief in your words that this is work. We can learn from one another. If I am carrying boulders down the hill to build the foundation of my house and I see my neighbor rolling the boulders down the hill, I can can learn from my neighbor to accomplish the same thing without all the work. Lao-tse says, “The sage accomplishes without doingâ€. Jesus says, “Look at the birds of the sky, they don’t do shit and they’re fine, what’s your problem that you think you have to work for it?†That is a paraphrasing of his words.
I see your love for the psychological aspects and find them illuminating. One of the great seminal thinkers in psychology (for me) is Otto Rank. I find his work in this area to challenge me all the time as well. I
f the Mosaic concept of God is “all creation†as the HAYAH HAYAH spoken by the burning bush implies, then we are in and of God. He is the ocean, we are the wave. “I and the Father are one’, as Jesus said.
Jesus said this both to individuals and groups. The idea that we lack force is only valid if you believe that you should have the power of God and be able to change whatever you want. “Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s and unto God that which is God’sâ€. The tone of your words feels more like that of a victim than anything else.
Ernst Becker wrote a brilliant book called the “Denial of Deathâ€. He is so on the mark with much of his thinking, and very much in line with what I know of yours. I loved the book. If you have not read it, I think you might really enjoy it. I may be wrong, but I also think that he clearly delineates many things you put out.
I believe that once we understand (and by that I mean viscerally know) that we are. That we exist. We are alive. There is so much joy and wonder that we don’t have time or energy for fear. We did not bring ourselves into existence and we are not in charge of when we cease to be here. It is like a child brought to a playground and spending his time being anxious about when he would have to go home. Some have been raised in an environment that would lead them to see things that way. That is their training, by abuse or neglect, or trauma of some kind. That is not their natural state, because if it were, then all children would be anxious in the same way.
I think that if I believe I need help then I believe that I am lacking in some way. Personlaly, I believe that “The Father knows what you need before you even ask.†That kingdom of god is here now, inside of us, and like the birds of the sky we don’t have to do anything to earn it. This is how understand, “as you believe so it is done.†Belief manifests in its own time and in its own way. The oak tree is already present in the acorn.
I agree. For me that addresses where I am. I have found, again, for me, that if I focus on who I am, then, because of that change of focus, I have moved from where I thought I was. Moses, Moses, Moses. His understanding of God, his understanding of man and man’s creative process as outlined in the seven days of creation, his understanding of why we live lives of quiet desperation (the Fall from the Garden). Not literal renderings, but poetic illustrations of our internal psychological and spiritual essence. YOU ARE. You exist. Heaven is within you. It is here now. You did not nor do have to earn it. It is given to you every moning. Someimes that is a most difficult concept for us to understand (in the biblical sense of know and experience the essence of).
Anyway, I hope to get online again before I go, but I don’t think so.
If not, I wish you all the best.
Dunamis,
The usefulness of the discussion is deteriorating. Tomorrow I have to go out of the country and will not have regular internet access (and what access I will have will be archaic.)
I will leave you with no answers, but perhaps some food for thought.
We cannot on the one hand interpret Paul “in the entirety of the context†and on the other insist that Jesus cannot be interpreted in context at all. If anything, there is a stronger argument to interpret Jesus in the entirety of the context because, unlike Paul, Jesus did not write his words down, they were translated decades later and written down. We must be consistent in our criteria. That said, I think it is disingenuous to not at least look at what Jesus said in the immediate context. By that I mean you cannot take a verse out of a metaphoric statement and attempt to address it out of that context. You have to first address the metaphor and then address specific verse within it.
If Jesus existed, and he did speak in Aramaic and Hebrew – two contestable assumptions – then it is a legitimate scholarly endeavor to question whether in the transition from his spoken Aramaic and Hebrew words to the written Greek words – which happened decades later and the renditions that we have are from centuries later– there were inaccuracies.
I asserted that Paul altered Jesus’ message in a specific way, not by altering Jesus’ specific words (though that is also a legitimate area of scholarly endeavor) but by promulgating a belief in Jesus as a higher being.
You would be correct if that were my reasoning. I was attempting to mirror back your position to you. Lao-tse said, “He who knows does not know, he who does not know knows.†Daniel J. Boorstin puts it, “The problem was not ignorance, the problem was the illusion of knowledge.â€
I had written to you earlier that I am not interested in winning some war about right or wrong. I am very open to the fact that this conjecture may miss the mark, but I also know that there is invaluable understanding to be reached by exploring what happened to Jesus’ words in the transition from his original spoken words to the written Greek we have from centuries later. Obviously that exploration is unimportant to you, but I don’t believe it merits disparagement. I think that says more about your thinking than it does anything else. That is why I wrote that paragraph part of which you quote above.
As far as John 15:5 – In John 15:1 Jesus says “I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman.†He does not say, “I am the true vine and you cannot be, and my Father is the husbandman and your father is not.†That is an interpretation you may put on those words.
I do not think that you interpret this to mean that Jesus really thought he was a grape vine. I think he knew he was human. If we can agree on that, then we can agree that he was talking metaphorically. The word translated as “the true†(alethinosâ€) is a single word meaning “true†with the connotation of â€genuineâ€. The “the†was inferred by the translator who could just as easily translated it “a true vineâ€. It behooves us to question whether the translator had a preconception that was influencing his translations. Also, if one knows anything about gardening, one knows that the branch of a vine can be stuck in soil and become a new vine. (“All these things I do, you too can do and more†when you become a vine.)
There are other interpretations that require one to reconcile Jesus concept of “Fatherâ€. I have brought this to your attention before. I am tired of taking you back to the original texts. This is something you are able to do yourself if you have the interest. I just note for your edification that the phrase “He that abideth†is extrapolated by the translator from the single Greek word “meno†which also means “to remain as one in reference to state or conditionâ€. Go back to the original Greek texts word by word and you will see that a completely different translation may be more accurate.
Any archeologist or anthropologist knows that there is major difference between studying the original artifacts or fossils and studying a cast, picture or replica. The same is true of any Biblical scholar. We need to examine the oldest extant version of the scriptures. Even the smallest fragments bring us new understandings.
If you bother to look at the original Greek that we have, you will find that Jesus is saying something like this in John 5:
Look at it this way, if you understand what I am saying, then it is like I am a vine and you are the branches and our father is the gardener. A branch can’t bring forth grapes by itself, it needs the vine. But the vine can’t bring forth grapes by itself either, it need the branches. We can’t do anything unless we understand that we are one. You are one with me and I with you like vine with branch and branch with vine.
As far as the last part of John 15:5, “without me you can do nothingâ€. The word translated as “without†also translates as “alone†or “separate†the next word (translated as “you canâ€) is the word “dunamaiâ€. It can also be translated as “I canâ€. So a valid translation is:
“I am the vine, ye are the branches. Remain one with me, and I with you, together we bring forth much fruit: because alone we can do nothing.â€
Jesus clarifies in John 5:9-10. You can only follow the translation if you look at the ancient Greek. The two verses would legitimately translate as: “In the same manner the Father loves me, so he loves. Likewise he loves you. Stay as one with me in this love of mine. Keep my principles, remain one with my love, seeing that I remain one with my father’s principles and one with his love.â€
One needs to keep in mind as one reads English translations that they are, for the most part, translated from the Latin which was translated for the traditional Greek which was translated from the Ancient Greek which was translated from the Aramaic, which was possibly taken down but more likely remembered and then written down by listeners of the Hebrew ancient Hebrew and Galilean dialect of Aramaic that Jesus spoke, not written by Jesus himself. If you have any concept of Plato, this can’t help but raise thoughts.
Before you reject without the needed research and information, keep an open mind. Refer to the oldest extant texts and see if the translations as I have rendered them are at least worthy of consideration.
As I will be away for an extended time, I wish you all the best.
Water,
“The problem was not ignorance, the problem was the illusion of knowledge.â€
Of course you imagine that you have “knowledge†of Jesus’ true message which Paul has distorted, and which the gospels themselves do not reveal. This is essential to your point.
As far as the last part of John 15:5, “without me you can do nothingâ€. The word translated as “without†also translates as “alone†or “separate†the next word (translated as “you canâ€) is the word “dunamaiâ€. It can also be translated as “I canâ€. So a valid translation is:
“I am the vine, ye are the branches. Remain one with me, and I with you, together we bring forth much fruit: because alone we can do nothing.â€
In reading the Greek it would help if you actually conjugated the verbs. “Dunasthe†is in the present indicative mid/pass. 2nd person plural. “You can do nothingâ€, not “we can do nothingâ€. Choris [alone] is followed by the genitive “from me” [emou], so it specifically means “cut off from me”.
You simply are inventing translations that defy the very meaning of the words. It literally says, “apart from me [emou] you can do nothing.†There is no ambiguity.
Loxos
p.s. I wish you the best on your travels.
Hi Waterlover
Sheesh! I’ve had women tell me they were visiting their mother or their boyfriend in Indiana who just happens to be a jealous professional wrestler but to have you leave the country to avoid talking to me??? Nah, just kidding. 
Anyhow I do wish you the best in health and purpose on your journey.
Actually I mean essence. Probably all our misunderstanding would be based on this difference in conception. I agree with the expression: “A person’s being attracts their life.” The life of an acorn is different from the life of an oak because of the change of its “essence”, its “being.”
Dunamis,
No, actually I have that posted on my wall to remind me of my own tendencies. I sent it as words to see by.
I could conjugate all I wanted if I were the writer. I am not. I have to use the words that were written to understand the intent of the writer, not the words I would have used. The oldest texts show the word “dunamai†as the word translated into “you canâ€, not “dunastheâ€. You are using a later rendition. “dunamai†is translated in Matthew 20:22 as “we are ableâ€, it is also translated as past and future tenses as well as singular and plural (“I can†in Mat 9:28 and “They could†(Mat 17:16) in other verses. Why don’t you research that simple issue: Which is the oldest text, “dunamai†or ‘dunastheâ€? That will go far to resolving our other issues. I am not saying that mine is the ONLY viable translation. I am simply stating that it is A viable translation. You need to have the earliest texts to participate in answering that question. Before you object, find the source material.
I love where you say
I truly got a big kick out of that. I wonder what it feels like to be so certain.
There is no sense in discussing further until we can agree on what the oldest extant Greek texts read. Maybe by the time I return you will have solved the issue for us and we can use the same texts.
Anyway, all the best, always.
Hey Nick!
The essence of me salutes the essence of you and wishes all the joy and abundance you can grasp!
All the best.
Water,
“The oldest texts show the word “dunamai†as the word translated into “you canâ€, not “dunastheâ€.”
You are quoting material I have no access to, and whose analysis of I have no access to. Not only that, the Bezae codex (5th cent) you referred to earlier is not the oldest surviving copy, but rather are the (I believe) Papyri Bodmer II (early 3rd cent). In fact I suspect that you, nor I, possess the grasp of Greek to break down the use of terms in these texts. If you would like to quote in its entirety the full text in the Greek, say from John 15:1-15 and the exact source name of the material I’d be glad to look at it. But until then I will work from the academic texts as scholars (theistic and atheistic alike) have rendered them.
[I did a quick check, and it seems that the Bodmer Papyri 66 and 75, circa 200 C.E. read “dunasthe” and not “dunamai”, matching the NA-27 text]. Where exactly, I mean what “book(s)” or “url(s)”, are you getting your information from? I am curious.
Dunamis