accepting sources

[Guest guest]

 

Dear Erin,

Thank you very much for your kind reply and clarifications.

I agree with almost everything you say.

However, I hope you and the others will bear with me if I make some further

comments.

 

I respect the Eastern integral philosophy of Sri Aurobindo and the others

(although I am more on a orthodox Hindu position), and I appreciate your work in

trying to bridge the gap between East and West.

I believe this is the work we should do.

 

Regarding the different editions of the Bible, I agree that in the last 300 or

so years Bible scholars have tried their best to embellish the canonic text so

that the grossest and most offensive parts would be played down. It would be

nice to arrive, one day, at an edition where nobody preaches aggressive

conversion or the idea of Christian dominion on the world, or the “falsity” of

other religions, etc.

However, although I respect your perspective, I agree to disagree with you

regarding the Dead Sea Scrolls as not containing the teachings of Jesus and his

earliest followers.

In my opinion, Jesus had no intention of starting Christianity, as presented in

the Canonic New Testament.

 

The point that I make in my own book (still under “construction”) is that the

Bible (both New and Old Testament) has been put together in more recent times

than what most people think, and for specific political reasons.

So I completely agree with your statement, “I said in my previous argument

several times that I didn't believe the bible to be a historically or otherwise

accurate work.”

With this, we have found at least a common basis.

 

I respect your opinion when you date the story of Moses as written around 1900

BCE, but I disagree with it.

In my understanding, the version we have (I mean the “original” texts that have

been translated in various ways) has been written much later.

As I said already, from my understanding the whole Bible as we know it has been

compiled, FROM PREVIOUS MUCH MORE ANCIENT Mesopotamian and other sources (that

were manipulated, cut, and tailored to the purpose) around 500 BCE.

I am not saying that the story of Moses did not exist in some written form

before 500 BCE: I am saying that I believe the “real” story of Moses could have

been much older, but the version we read in the Bible we have today (the

“original” texts) is more recent. And the old story might have been very

different – containing much more of what was considered “secret knowledge”

rejected by the Canonic texts.

 

Regarding the episodes in Jesus’ life, I think I understand what you mean, but

still I disagree.

In my opinion, many of the episodes contained in the Gospels were actually

fabricated in the 2nd and 3rd centuries CE to suit the dramatic changes of

doctrine of the “Christians” and support Paul’s policies of converting non-Jews

to his peculiar form of Christianity.

In my book (more extracts are available, but I did not send them) I have brought

examples of many early Christian groups who were furious with Paul for his

changes and his deviant preaching, but they were reduced to silence with

violence and persecution.

The Canon (4 Gospels, Old Testament and Acts) was specifically put together by

the “Patres” of the Church created by Paul, with the purpose of supporting

Paul’s view when his party had successfully wiped away the “dissenters” and

destroyed (or hidden) all previous sources.

However, they had to keep “something” from the original, so we still find some

occasional “contradictions” presenting a peaceful and loving Jesus, who just

preaches “The Law in Spirit and Truth” to his Jewish people. This is, in my

opinion, totally out of context with the presentation of a Jesus who wants to

send his followers to convert the whole world. So my point is that those

passages that contradict the passages I quoted have been introduced to “create a

false context” that give a different meaning to the original passages

themselves.

I believe this is the core of our disagreement.

 

My crucial argument, i.e. to say that Jesus was only there for the Jews, was the

same argument of the Ebionites and the Gnostics, among which James the brother

of Jesus and the other people who had known Jesus directly.

If you believe this is a false point, we find ourselves in a checkmate, because

I believe it is a good point. Unfortunately, the followers of Paul have made a

very good job in destroying the evidence in support of “my” (i.e. the

Ebionites’) point, and fabricating evidence against it.

Again, I may not fully understood your previous posting, but again I will say

that for me, the Dead Sea Scrolls contain the teachings of Jesus – anyway, a

greater part of them than is contained in the Canonic texts (including the Greek

versions).

 

On this basis, I believe you can understand why I disagree with your points

about the validity of the official sources.

 

I acknowledge your clarification that you do not deny the existence of

importance of the early gnostics, mystics etc. My logical leap was that you said

(and repeat now) that you do not consider them as containing the teachings of

Jesus, but simply the particular views of a radical sect.

In this sense, my logical leap was: if you do not recognize them as containing

the teachings of Jesus, you deny their importance and relevance in regard to

understanding what was the actual original teaching of Jesus vs the teaching of

Paul and the Church he founded.

I hope this helps you in seeing the logical passage.

 

I have not read yet the text you mention (The Thunder, Perfect Mind) although I

have seen the title in the list of the apocrypha I quote in my book, and I hope

to find it so that I will be able to read it.

However, from what you mention (a beautiful Coptic poem of the goddess) I do not

think it will shed light on the point of Jesus preaching to the Jews only or

wanting to convert the whole world or declaring that all other religions are

false and should be destroyed.

 

Regarding my conflicting statement, I do not recall disgregarding “all of

western philosophy and scholarship”. I remember saying that I do not agree with

the purely theoretical approach of western scholarship in the academic

Establishment.

When I was studying philosophy in my old student days, I remember feeling very

frustrated in seeing that nobody seemed really interested in reconciling the

different perspectives of the various philosophers and trying to understand the

basic truths, and even more, to APPLY them in practical life. The only practical

application I saw in the Catholic school I attended was the support of the

Christian biased Establishment.

In my (personal) opinion, CG Jung is an exception to that tendency because (from

what I know) he was actually trying to apply his knowledge in doing something

practical to help people, through psychology.

 

Regarding the important point you make, that I was quoting Canonic sources

apparently out of context, I need to explain the purpose of my work.

My intention is to show people, especially in India, that the Bible is not an

“historical or otherwise accurate work” and in fact contains a great number of

fundamental contradictions.

Specifically, I use these quotes to support my point, (i.e. the Ebionites’

point) that Jesus never wanted to start a Church like we see today attacking

Hinduism (and even attacking the watered down forms of gym yoga) and we saw in

past centuries attacking all other Traditions and virtually destroying them.

So thorough was the destruction that today we can only put together the crumbs

and filling the gaps with Vedic texts – that, by God’s grace, have survived

better than any other Corpus of Knowledge.

I recognize that my feathers are ruffled, but they are more so because of what

is happening today in India (and USA) and what happened in the past in the world

in general, than because of what you have said. Actually I must say that my

feathers are still ruffled from the old days of my Catholic school, Catholic

family – and largely from the memories of my previous lifetimes (even if the

Establishment scholarship may not accept these as a proof, they are very much

real and emotional to me).

Anyway, I thank you again for your kind words.

 

Regarding the Abrahamic religions being (or not being) the source of all strife

and conflict, I agree that there have been other sources as well.

I thank you for the quote from the apocryphal book of the Maccabees, which I had

not yet found in my research, and I will insert it in my data. I think it is a

very interesting point. Can I have more details? Such as the name of the general

etc. I don’t know much about that historical period, and I suspect that it may

be quite important in the development of the theocratical consciousness of the

Jews.

 

I will also welcome any other information regarding the evidence of religious

oppression in early civilizations – and if possible, quoting the sources, as I

am particularly suspicious of politically motivated conquerors “who write

history”. I hope you will not feel attacked by my request of more details about

the sources you refer to.

>From my particular Vedic perspective, I have to add the point that around 3,000

BCE the “dark age” of Kali yuga began, influencing all cultures in the world,

including the Indian civilization.

However, I still believe that some cultures had more “affinity” to the Kali yuga

influences, and that due to those common traits such cultures have become more

powerful in this period (more easily accepted and followed by the masses, in

most of the world).

 

Regarding the early Aryan hymns of Vedic times that the Aryans conquered another

group of "dark" people, and talk about their inferior ways, their inferior gods,

etc, I suspect that such quote may come from one of the biased

translations/versions of the Vedic texts made by the MCaulay school. If this is

the case again I must disagree on the credibility of the source.

Do you have the original Sanskrit text for that quote? If you do, I am very

interested in getting it.

 

Thank you again for your positive approach. I really appreciate it.

 

PKD