End Of Days?

[cloudy]

Thanks, Lauren, for reminding me of that.

I find it somewhat amusing while at the same time totally frightening that the rantings of a pissed off paranoid cleric 1800 years ago are believed by some to be the most important writings of the Judeo-Christian era.

What a country!

Interesting, that you credit this country with Christianity.....you might want to rethink that.

 

[mismused]

delete

 

[thebullet]

What a country!

I guess I was just referring to the fact that to the best of my knowledge, most of the religious sects and denominations that buy the rapture and all its trappings are centered in the United States. Worse, apparently there are quite a few people in high government positions that believe in the rapture and the coming apocolypse.

 

[thebullet]

mismused said:
or is it that you said that last tongue in cheek?

There is a bumper sticker I've seen a lot:

God said it, I believe it, and that settles it!


I was jokingly paraphrasing that sticker, I guess. No, I don't buy the 'pyramid builders from outer space' theory. But it is good for a laugh.

 

[Dar~]

See, a lot of interesting new information to ponder has come into this thread. Thats exactly what I was hoping for. I have often wondered if the Reveltaion was mere symbolism. I have a leaning towards that conclusion, but I refuse to believe it is all false. I am more of the pursuasion that good lives mean heaven, nirvana, enlightenment, what have you. I refuse to believe that a person who lives a good life and is by all standards moral won't go to heaven or have something good beyond simply because they don't know of Christ.

The End times is fascinating to me, b/c of the symbolism. I enjoy this thread immensely, please keep it going.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Anyway, Revelations was a public relations exercise, to show how Christianity was going to destroy all the other religions extant at the time.

So much of the Bible was written as PR, especially the Old Testament.

Scholars have wondered for a long time why the Pentateuch seems to be a compilation of two (more, actually) different versions. For instance, there are two accounts of the Creation, in which the order of creation is different. There are two versions of the Flood--in one Noah's told to take 2 of each clean (i.e. kosher, although the concept of "kosher" didn't exist until Moses) beasts, in the other he takes 7; in one version he sends out a raven, in the other he sends out a dove; in one version it rains for 40 days and nights, in the other it rains for a year.

Modern scholarship ascribes these versions to two different authors, one writing from the Kingdom of Israel, the other writing from the Kingdom of Judah. Both authors wrote after Judah broke away from Israel after Solomon's reign, and the two versions are slanted to make their own kingdoms look like the true heir of Moses and make the other kingdom look bad and sinful. At some later date, probably in the time of Ezra, the two versions were "redacted," or combined to make one book.

Then there are the Priestly insertions into the pentateuch--the parts that have to do with ritual and bloodlines (all the "begats") and all the different kinds of sacrifices and offerings. These appear to have been written by a Levite priest who was trying to maintain priestly power and prestige after the first Temple had been destroyed by showing how important priests were (Priests in ancient Israel got ten per cent of all sacrifices, at least up until the first Temple was destroyed. Then they were out of a job.) He's the one who inserted all this praise for Aaron, Moses' brother, who was also the first priest. If you read Exodus, you see all these stories where Aaron screwed up in one version, but was a hero in the next. The author didn't dare change the holy texts, but he had no compunction about adding to them to make Aaron look good.

Fascinating stuff. It's from a book by a prof from USC called, "Who Wrote the Bible?"

 

[mismused]

delete

 

[thebullet]

mismused said:
Jews, Jesus, and his disciples, apparently all believed in reincarnation. Now here's an interesting kicker: modern scientific knowledge tends to support it.

Have fun.

mismused: could you give me some references? I'm not aware of any scientific support for reincarnation but would surely like to read it. My wife is a firm believer in reincarnation, but I don't have much of anything in the way of religious beliefs.

 

[thebullet]

Re: Dr. M's discussion of the first five books of the Old Testament

It is my recollection from a biblical history course I took in college that sometime in Jewish history (don't know when but maybe 300-200 BC may be an approximate time) there was a conference of Hebrew scholars whose intent was to sift through all of the 'sacred' texts and come up with a final version of 'the word'. There were many texts floating around at the time and they needed to be edited and reconciled with each other.

It is my understanding that at the end of the day there were certain stories that couldn't be agreed on so they left several versions in there. Dr M talks of 2 stories of genesis, but my college professor told us that there are actually 4 genesis stories in the 5 books of Moses. (At least that's the number I remember.)

His story was, they argued and argued and then agreed to disagree.

Isn't it odd that a book that was the result of a committee is the acknowledged Word of God? (Heinlein: An elephant is a mouse designed by a committee... okay, he also said, an elephant is a mouse according to government specifications, but I digress.)

As I understand it - and I'm not claiming to be a biblical scholar, just relating what I recall from my college days - the New Testament had a similar origin. Some North African Bishop decided which of the many texts that were floating around were sacred and which were heretical. Mostly he made those decisions as a means of consolidating his own power in the church.

But the result was the Holy Scripture.

 

[cloudy]

Re: Dr. M's discussion of the first five books of the Old Testament

It is my recollection from a biblical history course I took in college that sometime in Jewish history (don't know when but maybe 300-200 BC may be an approximate time) there was a conference of Hebrew scholars whose intent was to sift through all of the 'sacred' texts and come up with a final version of 'the word'. There were many texts floating around at the time and they needed to be edited and reconciled with each other.

It is my understanding that at the end of the day there were certain stories that couldn't be agreed on so they left several versions in there. Dr M talks of 2 stories of genesis, but my college professor told us that there are actually 4 genesis stories in the 5 books of Moses. (At least that's the number I remember.)

His story was, they argued and argued and then agreed to disagree.

Isn't it odd that a book that was the result of a committee is the acknowledged Word of God? (Heinlein: An elephant is a mouse designed by a committee... okay, he also said, an elephant is a mouse according to government specifications, but I digress.)

As I understand it - and I'm not claiming to be a biblical scholar, just relating what I recall from my college days - the New Testament had a similar origin. Some North African Bishop decided which of the many texts that were floating around were sacred and which were heretical. Mostly he made those decisions as a means of consolidating his own power in the church.

But the result was the Holy Scripture.

Off the top of my head:

The new testament was mostly a result of the Nicean (sp?) conference held by Constantine, I believe.

(Google the "council of Nicea" and you'll get tons of info on it)

 

[mismused]

delete

 

[thebullet]

Mismused: As per the first part of your post:

Carl Sagan used to say something like: we are made of stardust. We are the stuff of stars.

Matter can neither be created nor destroyed (isn't that some law of thermodynamics - something like that) - it can only be passed back and forth between states of existence - energy or matter, matter or energy. I vaguely remember that from h.s. physics so I'm probably wrong.

Still, I certainly understand that the stuff of which we are made has been recycled millions upon millions of times (I love Sagan). But does that recyling include the soul? Is there a soul?

I will most assuredly take a gander at your literary refrences. Just hope they aren't over my head. Everytime I pick up Einstein or Hawking my eyes start to cross.

 

[ABSTRUSE]

I predict this is a load of crap. The planet is always in flux, when natural occurences become disasters we look it up in the bible. It's interpretation.

I predict GWB will eventually swallow his own head.

 

[mismused]

delete

 

[Stella_Omega]

Dar, it's amazing you started this thread today.

I thought the same this morning.

We've been living in the Last Days since Jesus walked on the Earth, but I definitely feel like this is some serious End of Days Stuff and I am a Christian.

English Lady, if you don't mind me asking, are you C of E? Or something else... Do C of E believe in the Rapture and all of that?

 

[thebullet]

mismused:
Thanks for the thorough evaluation of my post and the additional information. I will most definately be reading at least one of your recommendations. My wife reads a lot of Budhism books so perhaps she is familiar with The Quantom and the Lotus

Parenthetically, my wife has a very unusual fetish - she MUST read at least 500 pages a week. It's some kind of compulsion that she only recently admitted to me - and would be really pissed if she thought I was passing it around. But no one knows who the heck I am so what's the harm?

But it does answer the question why she reads so very much. I am one of the major profit centers for the Book of the Month club and the library considers us charter members.

 

[mismused]

delete

 

[sweetnpetite]

I don't think it's especially surprising that people everywhere think there'll be storms and disasters before the world ends. What would you expect? Picnic weather?

The fact is, we've been waiting for the end of the world for 2005 years (if you're a Christian, longer if you're some other religions) and it hasn't happened yet, and it's not going to happen.

I've read Nostradamus too, and they only way he makes sense is in hindsight, when "The Prince will visit the Golden City" can mean anything you want it to mean: Bush in Jerusalem or Will Smith in Beverly Hills.

Thank you doc.

Personally, I think they were describing there own time for there own personaly and political reasons. It just so happens that things don't change that much. It's always going to seem like end times.

AS FOR JESUS (assuming he existed as he did in the bible) my belief was that he really meant to say, "Look, it won't be any different than it is now. You want signs- it's going to be just like it is now. Only God knows the day and the time. You don't get a warning. But since you keep asking, here. Now go chase your tail"

I also believe that "The kindom of Heaven is at Hand" means that it's *here* *now* Let him who has eyes see, let him who has ears here. The kingdom of heaven is not on it's way, it's right here, right now. this is it folks. wake up.

that's my belief for ya.

I also think 'end times' is mistranslated or misunderstood and should be 'end of the age' or end of the era. same with "IN the begining"- time has no begining and no end. there is always something before and after. There is the begining of one era and an end to it. Even fundamentalist christians think they know what will happen *after* the end times. So they know, it's only the end of one thing- the begining of another. On a spiritual/metaphysical level, the end times exist because things are always ending and begining. But that doesn't mean that to have meaning the concept has to be taken literally.

I read somewhere that some mythology used the phrase "In the begining of the present order of things" or something like that rather than claiming "the begining of everything which is just absurd.

 

[sweetnpetite]

I don't necessarily believe it, but isn't it fascinating that a book written hundreds of years ago calls for storms and natural disasters in clusters as one of the signs? I wanted to gauge the various responses and beliefs.

Buddhism, hinduism, Islam, and christianity have very simmilar and almost symmetric characters, beliefs, and events. That Native's have simmilar views is no surprise.

Thanks for your response. That is incredibly fascinating. I used to read Nostradamus. I find it amazing that wisdom is passed from one to another this way and yet people can still doubt foretelling.

The bible says, "there were be wars and rumours of wars" storms, plagues, sickness, ect. ect. on and on.

these are things that have been going on and on for as long as the world has been spinning.

I think that Jesus was saying in a round about way, "look, it's going to be just like it is now" after all he did say many times that no one would know, be prepared becuase no one knows the hour and that it would come like a theif in the night.

He never actually said, "when you see these things the end will come in x amount of days or years" or "these things can only mean the end of time."

example: I say I'll give you money sometime in the future and it will be on a day where the sun comes up. It will also be on a day that ends in Y. Now tomorrow qualifies, but so do all the days after that. If that makes sence.

The bible also says "there is nothing new under the sun"- there will always be war and famine and disease. So there will always be people saying that it's the end of times. Just as there always have been. But I think those people miss the real point. They aren't 'signs' of the end times. They are signs of all times. If and when the world ends, times will be no different that they always have been.

 

[sweetnpetite]

Yeah, it is cool stuff. I just notice that, whenever these apocalyptics quote scripture about there being false prophets in the end times, they never consider that they may be the ones. It's always the other guy.

It's like the con man who gains your trust by warning you about other con men. (usually there partner)

Or the sleezy guy at the bar who comes over to 'protect you from the sleezy guys at this joint' lol.

I guess there really is nothing new under the sun.

 

[sweetnpetite]

Jung wrote a popularization of his theories in a book called "Man And His Symbols".

Campbell has a book called "The Hero With A Thousand Faces" that's pretty good. His magnum opus is a 4-volume set called "The Masks Of God."

Campbell also had a series of very popular shows on PBS some years ago, and you can probably find those on videotape at the library. I forget the name of the series though.

Another great author who wrote about religious symbols was Vardis Fisher. His "Jesus Came Again" and "My Holy Satan" have a lot about the pagan roots of Christian thought and symbolism. I stumbled across him in high school and he changed my life. He lived alone in the woods of Idaho and wrote in the nude. You know a guy like that has to be good.

cool.


For those who don't know, Campbell's books are big and expensive.

I recomend the library. Less ya got the dough, then by all means.

Any decent library will have Campbell. If not, you can usually get it on an interlibrary loan or something.

 

[mismused]

delete

 

[dr_mabeuse]

=======================================================

Dar, sorry I didn't see this before. I'm not sure what you mean by "all having very similar and almost symmetric characters, beliefs, and event."

However, if I read it as stated, then I'd have to say that isn't the case, especially with Buddhism. Actual Buddhism, the monks you see parading around notwithstanding, is quite different from Christianity and Judaism, and so is Hinduism, I think.

In the case of Buddhism, we often think of Nirvana as the ultimate, but it is illusory in Buddhism, "a temporary refuge." To understand Buddhism's ultimate goal, think in the realm of "non graspable." IOW, all is illusion.

There is a yoga that says similar (there being several yogas touted).

Hope that helps to give you more to think about.

m

Buddhism believes that the idea of an individual soul is an illusion. There are no souls; we are actually all one with everything in the universe. As long as you believe in a soul, you're doomed to be reborn on earth again and again. Once you realize that ego is an illusion, you can step off the wheel of rebirth and be free.

Not surprisingly, this is not a very popular view of things and not at all what people want to hear, and so a kind of "folk" Buddhism has arisen, in which the Buddha is treated like a god and there are angels and demons and heavens and hells.

The fact remains, though, that Buddhism denies the existence of the individual soul. The goal of Buddhism is realize the emptiness of all things, that they're all illusions.

 

[Dar~]

It's quite possible I am worng MM, I do know that Krishna and Christ are very similar stories and charaters. There is one other, but it has been awhile since I have studied them.

 

[cloudy]

It's quite possible I am worng MM, I do know that Krishna and Christ are very similar stories and charaters. There is one other, but it has been awhile since I have studied them.

I'm sure I'll get roasted alive by the christians, but there's tons of similarities between the Muslim prophet (I'm blanking, right now), and Jesus Christ: the twelve disciples, etc.