Hi All: Finally christian theologians are owning up to the truth about the Bible they either always knew as thinking reasoning rational human beings and were afraid to voice or suspected just on the basis of being rational and not ‘insane’.

Bart D. Ehrman
Author, 'Forged: Writing in the Name of God—Why the Bible’s Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are'
Bart D. Ehrman is the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill,
Who Wrote The Bible ….
Apart from the most rabid fundamentalists among us, nearly everyone admits that the Bible might contain errors -- a faulty creation story here, a historical mistake there, a contradiction or two in some other place. But is it possible that the problem is worse than that -- that the Bible actually contains lies?
Most people wouldn't put it that way, since the Bible is, after all, sacred Scripture for millions on our planet. But good Christian scholars of the Bible, including the top Protestant and Catholic scholars of America, will tell you that the Bible is full of lies, even if they refuse to use the term. And here is the truth: Many of the books of the New Testament were written by people who lied about their identity, claiming to be a famous apostle -- Peter, Paul or James -- knowing full well they were someone else. In modern parlance, that is a lie, and a book written by someone who lies about his identity is a forgery.
Most modern scholars of the Bible shy away from these terms, and for understandable reasons, some having to do with their clientele. Teaching in Christian seminaries, or to largely Christian undergraduate populations, who wants to denigrate the cherished texts of Scripture by calling them forgeries built on lies? And so scholars use a different term for this phenomenon and call such books "pseudepigrapha."

Now we are getting somewhere possibly we will eventually uncover the truth that Christianity is actually warmed over Egyptian theology as the Egyptologist Sir Ernest Alfred Thompson Wallis Budge realized when he translated The Egyptian Book of the Dead.

But, even he would have been surprise when Zakaria Sitchin in his Earth Chronicles suggest that the Egyptians got their religion from the Anunnaki of Sumera, who he suggest were of Extraterrestial origin and came to this planet 450,000 years ago and create the world we know today and that the Christian religion may actually be an Extraterrestrial religion… Interesting..

S.

I watched a show the other night where some scholars said that people used to credit what they wrote to one of the apostles in order to gain credibility.

This possibility exists whether you are speaking of a Gospel such as the Gospel of Thomas or one of the Gospels  Emporer Constantine allowed to be a part of the Bible.

So what does this mean? It means that just as with any book you need to use your discrimination, rather than accepting every word that is written. Especially if it says dumb things such as homosexuality is a sin. Numerous authors will lead to varied results.

If we listen to our heart and some common sense, rather than fear, we can figure out what the Christ spirit is about.

recoverer wrote on Mar 26^th, 2011 at 2:20pm:

I watched a show the other night where some scholars said that people used to credit what they wrote to one of the apostles in order to gain credibility. This possibility exists whether you are speaking of a Gospel such as the Gospel of Thomas or one of the Gospels  Emporer Constantine allowed to be a part of the Bible. So what does this mean? It means that just as with any book you need to use your discrimination, rather than accepting every word that is written. Especially if it says dumb things such as homosexuality is a sin. Numerous authors will lead to varied results. If we listen to our heart and some common sense, rather than fear, we can figure out what the Christ spirit is about.

LoL!! Finally I find agreement with you recoverer. That is refreshing... nice post.

S.

I have read, in another context, that it was the custom of the time to use a penname of a famous person when attributing authorship. If this was widespread practice, it should be no surprise that it happened in attributing authorship with books we now include in the Bible.

For instance, "Hermes Trismegistus" was a commonly used name for certain kinds of works. Hermes got around quite well, considering the modes of transpotation available.

Is it a lie the way we think of a lie if that is the way it was done back then?

And I thought the re-telling of the stories with Jesus as the main character in that version was a means to communicate the idea that Jesus was the real thing, the one the other stories had been talking about.

Although familiar with the old and new testaments, I am Jewish by faith and certainly not a fundamentalist of any kind.  I never would walk around citing scripture word for word in judgment of others.  The bible is best understood as a work meant to enlighten people by way of illustrative allegory - as well as a semi-historical record that ties a people to its past, and their covenant with God.

All that being said, the title of this thread is ludicrous and has little to do with the afterlife.  Nothing said in the original post has substance, and when we get to the last paragraph about extraterrestrials being the first Christians 450,000 years ago, well we are REALLY off the deep end here.

I am all for stimulating controversial discussions.  But this thread is bible bashing without understanding how the bible is meant to be read; as a book of stories to illustrate the human condition.  Not as a factual, nonfiction textbook of history.  If there are fundamentalists who don't understand this, they are in the minority when compared to many people of the book all over the world. 

The notion that anything said in the first post here is "the truth" is laughable.

On the chance that some on this site may get offended, I would suggest moving it to the "off topic" area.


M

DocM wrote on Mar 28^th, 2011 at 7:01am:

Although familiar with the old and new testaments, I am Jewish by faith and certainly not a fundamentalist of any kind.  I never would walk around citing scripture word for word in judgment of others.  The bible is best understood as a work meant to enlighten people by way of illustrative allegory - as well as a semi-historical record that ties a people to its past, and their covenant with God. All that being said, the title of this thread is ludicrous and has little to do with the afterlife.  Nothing said in the original post has substance, and when we get to the last paragraph about extraterrestrials being the first Christians 450,000 years ago, well we are REALLY off the deep end here. I am all for stimulating controversial discussions.  But this thread is bible bashing without understanding how the bible is meant to be read; as a book of stories to illustrate the human condition.  Not as a factual, nonfiction textbook of history.  If there are fundamentalists who don't understand this, they are in the minority when compared to many people of the book all over the world.  The notion that anything said in the first post here is "the truth" is laughable. On the chance that some on this site may get offended, I would suggest moving it to the "off topic" area. M

I usually respect the posts of Doc... because he usually is rational and thoughtful... but this one is as far out of order as it suggest mine was...

Doc M is attacking facts!!! Very strange...

1. The article cited is from a reputable mainstream Christian scholar and finally exposes the centuries of falsehood perpetrated by particularly Christian movements justifiying religocide in the name of these lies... and Doc's peculiar slant of how the bible should be read is not how it ever was read... and is a head in sand wishful thinking exerrcise in turning a blind eye to the truth... a lot of massacres where perpetrated in that certainlly put alot of people into the afterlife... traumatized and needing retrieval with sensitive guidance through the trauma of the unjust termination of their lives.

2. I cited Budge who finally realized that where the Christian religion came from

3. The Earth Chronicles which suggest the extraterrestial origin of Christianity is written by a reputable scholar Zacharia Sitchin... yes I personally believe he is closer to the true than many might hold with but explosive truths are slow to penetrate the minds of brainwashed populations at large. These are reputable and rational writers who are not afraid to THINK for themselves and their work explodes on the world with the same power and force that Galileo's explosive revelation that the Earth revolves around the Sun and not the other way around... it took several hundred years for the Catholic church to decide that yes... Galileo was right...

Will Sitchin in some distant future be proven right in principle if not in detail?? Somebody should remote view this.

S.

I can't say I know, because I haven't researched the matter thoroughly, but I believe it is possible that some of the people who are connected with the words in the Bible got their information from aliens. There is evidence that suggests that aliens have been around for a long time.

Matthew is absolutely correct.  I would add that Bart Ehrman, like myself, is a Princeton Seminary grad.  As a scholar, he is strictly lightweight and is constructively used as an academic whipping boy by my New Testament class whose members have read and snickered at several of Ehrman's works.  The New Testament Gospels and Jesus' resurrection can easily be connected with eyewitness testimony and I have demonstrated this in detail when I was an active poster on this site.  Or course, eyewtinesses can be lying or deluded and any assessment of bilblical miracles is a victim of the presuppositional framework brought to bear on a text.  For this reason, direct experiernce of the paranormal and the afterlife is crucial to any progressive evaluation of biblical claims about such matters.  For this reason, Bruce's site, though sadly in recent decline, is an important gift to the internet.

Don

Berserk2 wrote on Mar 28^th, 2011 at 10:36pm:

Matthew is absolutely correct.  I would add that Bart Ehrman, like myself, is a Princeton Seminary grad.  As a scholar, he is strictly lightweight and is constructively used as an academic whipping boy by my New Testament class whose members have read and snickered at several of Ehrman's works.  The New Testament Gospels and Jesus' resurrection can easily be connected with eyewitness testimony and I have demonstrated this in detail when I was an active poster on this site.  Or course, eyewtinesses can be lying or deluded and any assessment of bilblical miracles is a victim of the presuppositional framework brought to bear on a text.  For this reason, direct experiernce of the paranormal and the afterlife is crucial to any progressive evaluation of biblical claims about such matters.  For this reason, Bruce's site, though sadly in recent decline, is an important gift to the internet. Don

I get it those who don't agree with you are lightweights. What constitutes a lightweight... did you read his arguements... are they valid... are his sources valid... the historical references are for all intents and purposes etched in stone... I think the preponderance of the evidence is that early Christian prosletizers decided 'intergrity and truth' was not important... the end justified the means... that is dishonest... ask the 40,000 murdered Kathar's how they feel about religiocide... in the name of a lie... we now know that the only reference to Jesus to surface in the literature of the ancient world was in Josephus and it is now well known to be a FORGERY.

Enough said.

S.

Don/Bruce-

It's interesting that even among supposed enlightened spirits in the afterlife, there is bias against organized religion, especially Christianity.

I had occasion recently to re-read one of Bruce's books (Voyages Into the Afterlife).  In the chapter titled The Planning Center, Bruce quotes one of the tour guides as saying:  "Look at the population segment where AIDS first showed up- in homosexuals.  Now there's a group even good Christians can hate."  (Italics mine).

I wouldn't think an advanced soul who is now serving an important role as a tour guide in the afterlife would ever say such a thing.

Makes one wonder.....

R

Although the internet is an amazing technical development, unfortunately, it promulgates psuedo-science and pseudo-factual information - confusing many otherwise intelligent conversations and making all efforts to obtain "known" truths relative.  There is my truth and your truth, and it is all relative, you see.

Only in some ways (important ways), it isn't all relative.  Either the first christians were ETs who frolicked on the earth some 450,000 years ago, as Seraphis states, or they were not and this someone's cup or imagination runneth over. 

In the old days, even 5 or 10 years ago, far out theories would be brought up, but through free debate, the theories not supported by fact would be discarded.  Nowadays, "scholars" are not always scholarly, and truth seems to come down to a matter of opinion. 

In the absence of a bonafide time machine, then, what are we to do?  Some of us, decide to make no judgments at all. 

You state you are the reincarnation of Napoleon?  Well, ok, maybe so, although I've heard of hundreds of others including, Shirley Mclaine.  But whatever.  Another person states that the President is, in fact a reptilian.   Well, its your view point, maybe its true, who can say?  "Reliable" "scholarly" sources say so (or it least its on the book of the month club site). 

You get my point.  While we all want to be open minded, the attitude that truth is relative, makes you, in the end believe either in absurdity, or in nothing at all (which may be good to get rid of belief systems, but is not at all practical in the physical world). 

We have the power of intellect and reason in part to use our discernment to separate out fantastic ideas, or fiction, from truth - which I define as clear perception of an event or thing, as it happened (or as it is).  We are not meant to throw these perceptual powers of discernment away so easily.


Matthew

DocM wrote on Mar 29^th, 2011 at 10:01am:

Only in some ways (important ways), it isn't all relative.  Either the first christians were ETs who frolicked on the earth some 450,000 years ago, as Seraphis states, or they were not and this someone's cup or imagination runneth over.

In the fifties when Zhacaria Sitchen was researching the Sumerian materials he was only one of about seven people in the world who could read the Sumerian texts. I do have a problem with his rational for the dating... but not with the text translations... they are quite valid and are based on today's knowns... no earlier 18th or even 19th century translator could have realized that certain Sumerian words actually refered to space vehicles since they had no knowledge of space vehicles... only a 20th century translator could realize what was being talked about when you align the words with the images and realize the images were space suits... but unlike Van Daniken who is not a scholar or a linguist Sitchin WAS a bonified and well respected scholar among his peers.

S.

  I imagine that translating such an ancient language that has only been readable since modern times is a hard task at times.  Translation errors are definitely possible. 

Either way, the way i look at it is the Sumerians and other ancient peoples didn't necessarily have the monopoly on truth and accuracy when it comes to beliefs and ideas. 

  I would make an analogy of say this current civilization collapsed along with most of it's knowledge and technology. 

What if in 3 thousand or 6 thousand years from now, a burgeoning new civilization with a totally different language (and ways of living) came upon some of our books, lol or perhaps somehow some massively saved I-net data. 

  Perhaps they learn to be able to read/translate our now ancient languages and they start doing so.

  Perhaps some might even start a new belief system and religion on some of ideas, concepts, and beliefs--after all, it's all so exotic and interesting to them.

  Well needless to say, while there is truth to be found in our various beliefs and there are "knowns", there is also plenty of opinion, errors, and skewed/limited perspectives.

Forming a belief system on our now ancient knowledge and beliefs would be a little short sighted for these future folks, wouldn't you say.  Wouldn't it be preferable for these future folks to find out the truth primarily from going within and directly hooking up to guidance?

Now, i am aware and do believe based partially on a combo of some E.T. contact, intuition, holistic logic, and research of other sources that seem sincere and believable, that E.T.'s have been visiting the Earth and otherwise interacting with humans for a very, very long time. 

   But there's many E.T. groups, and there are relatively different agendas on part of same.  Many are positive and spiritually inclined in relation to us and the rest of creation.  Some, at least one that i personally know of, is not. 

  Where does that leave us with ancient text, other than to know that some the very generals are true, but not necessarily the specifics even if one is  translating everything completely accurately to begin with (bit of an assumption to begin with)? 

If you go by some of the posts Don (Berserk) has written, hardly anybody is qualified to say what the Bible's history is about. This being the case, what is a person supposed to do? Let a so-called expert tell him what to believe? Considering what some supposed experts like the below say, I don't believe this is a good idea.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=baptist+women+should+submit&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=

On the other hand, a person could read the Bible and decide to listen to his own heart, experience, intuition, intelligence and common sense. He might make some errors if he does so, but at least it will be his own errors rather than errors large groups of people take part in.

Since it is reasonable to conclude that the Bible didn't fall out of the sky after God finished writing it, and many writers, selectors and translators are responsible for its content; it is also reasonable to conclude that not everything it says is accurate. This includes the parts that suggest that women should be submissive to brute husbands. I say "brute husbands," because only a man with a brute-like mentality would choose to believe that God actually wants women to be submissive to men.

I believe in freedom of choice. The question is, do people who try to tell other people what to believe with fear-based tactics also believe in freedom of choice? For example, you better believe what I say or you'll go to hell for all of eternity, or you better follow me or you won't get enlightened and will have to reincarnate numerous times. Some people say that Emperor Constantine made it so Christian mysticism died out in favor of a church-based approach. He did so because it was easier to control the masses in such a way. Does such an approach reflect freedom of choice? Does a person need to attend church if he can have direct communion with the divine on his own?

Regarding the presence of aliens in this world, if one really looks into the subject, one will find that there is supportive evidence beyond questionable hypnosis results and questionable UFO photos.

Rondelle wrote:

Don/Bruce-

It's interesting that even among supposed enlightened spirits in the afterlife, there is bias against organized religion, especially Christianity.

I had occasion recently to re-read one of Bruce's books (Voyages Into the Afterlife).  In the chapter titled The Planning Center, Bruce quotes one of the tour guides as saying:  "Look at the population segment where AIDS first showed up- in homosexuals.  Now there's a group even good Christians can hate."  (Italics mine).

I wouldn't think an advanced soul who is now serving an important role as a tour guide in the afterlife would ever say such a thing.

Makes one wonder.....

R


Recoverer responds: Could you please provide the page number so I can re-read the above?   

Below is what I wrote on another thread. I believe that if one is truly interested in what divine will has in mind, one would be willing to see if much of Christianity isn't accomplishing what is needed.

If massive earth changes do take place and fundamentalist religious people determine what the future is like, I don't believe this would be a good thing.

------------
Regarding the AIDs thing, I don't remember what precisely Bruce wrote, but I believe there are a lot of Christians who don't truly understand about unconditional love because if they did, they wouldn't have the attitude they have towards homosexual people.

When you see somebody you care for go through intense suffering, it can really play a key role in helping you move beyond a limited way of being you are stubborn about.

If a Christian who accepts homophobic viewpoints sees what takes place for a homosexual who has aids, this Christian might feel so much compassion for the person that he might decide to listen to his heart and live according to love, rather than what a limiting belief system tells him.

When Jesus said to love your neighbor as yourself, I don't believe he had it in mind to be judgmental towards homosexuals.

A few years ago they voted on the gay marriage issue in California. Christian groups held signs on public streets with the intent of getting people to vote against gay marriage. I'm heterosexual; nevertheless, I can't tell you how upsetting this was for me. What right does one person have to tell another person who she or she is able to love? None whatsoever.

Yet this is what the Christian groups were doing. They were infringing upon the free will of other people and not allowing them to decide who they want to love and marry.

Another sad thing is that these Christian groups acted as if they were doing something truly worthwhile that God and Jesus would approve of. If they realized how loving and non-judgmental God and Jesus are, they would see how off base they are.

Also sad, with all the bad things that happen in this  world, I've never seen these Christian groups demonstrate against anything else. They only sought to do so when they wanted to repress somebody else.

I became angry with them and shouted, "Jesus said to love your neighbors as yourselves. Is this what you are doing you hypocrits?"

So perhaps some souls who haven't learned about unconditional love will incarnate as judgmental Christians (rather than Christ oriented people), have contact with a homosexual person who is dying of AIDS, and decide to listen to their hearts rather than what some narrowminded preacher tells them.

Also, they might learn that it is better to find what's true for ourselves, rather than allow some guru or preacher tell us what to believe.

P.S. I believe there are many Christians who have good intentions and hearts; however, many of them are also caught up in a way of thinking that isn't beneficial. If they truly want their hearts and good intentions to blossum, they need to find an approach other than the one they are taking.

Albert-

Page 122

R

wrote on Mar 29^th, 2011 at 1:22pm:

I imagine that translating such an ancient language that has only been readable since modern times is a hard task at times.  Translation errors are definitely possible.  Either way, the way i look at it is the Sumerians and other ancient peoples didn't necessarily have the monopoly on truth and accuracy when it comes to beliefs and ideas.

Hi J: Have you read Sitchin's Earth Chronicles?

There are more than just the text, though in the light of modern understand of massive rocket propulsion... the descriptions in the actual texts are compelling... tho, the Sumerian material alone is not particular surprising since the Mahabarata already was signalling an ancient ET presence... albeit incomprehensible to researchers... they did understand the material to be refering to some kind of flying vehicles... tho until the present era they were regarded as mythological... but, now, when you read the Greek mythology one may also re-think that material in the light of modern technology and come up with an amazing new insight to what was consider mythology..

S.

S.

Thank you, and Roger that Roger. :) I'll try to remember to read it tonight when I arrive home.


rondele wrote on Mar 29^th, 2011 at 4:48pm:

Albert- Page 122 R

My issue with the bible and its proponents are their idea that "God said it, I believe it and that does it". Fine...but my issue is with how God said it when it was written by men, and why anyone would believe man-written God sayings without any thought of their own.  Where is the discernment?  If those writiings do not resonate they are not true to me anyway. 

No offense to those who live their lives in accordance with the bible; it simply does not resonate with me and I will continue to live according to the golden rule.

Regarding Matthew's comments about our intellect and reason and not minimizing our perceptual powers of discernment in evaluating our beliefs...it seems to me that my strongest perceptual powers are those I find beyond my intellect and reason.  If I hang on to the "expert opinion" I never get benefit of my feelings and senses.  I get instead platitudes and parables.  If I hang on to what I sense and what resonates deeply within me I get understanding and wisdom I can find nowhere else.  So what does one do?  Stick with what is known and verifiable and minimize the underlying sensation, or move toward what feels right and what produces a positive influence in my life? 

I am fiinding great life lessons and satisfaction through non-verifiable, untested avenues and the restrictions placed on me through organized religion leave me wanting.

Hi Usetawuz,

You may have misunderstood my posts.  I did not say trust your intellect over your "gut,"  rather, I said that when you have people debating their own versions of history, and you do not use your intellect along with your gut, you get either absurdity, or you are left with nothing at all.

My take was not that people should follow the Bible in a literaral sense word for word, but use it as a text of stories, allegories and illustrative cases to illuminate the human condition (and learn from). 

The notion that your gut should win out every time over reason, and that truth is always relative will always lead to an emotional response and may lead one astray.

As an example, I am a physician and constantly hear about fringe patient advocacy groups recommending diagnoses and treatments that are off the beaten path.  Some of these websites and recommendations, are in fact dangerous.  There are patient groups on the web, with seemly scholarly references which state, for example that Lyme disease is never cured, and that more than one year's worth of antibiotics are required to treat and cure most patients.   

The CDC and many organizations have proven through controlled studies that current antibiotic regimens have over a 98% complete cure rate for the Lyme organism.   These studies were presented in peer-reviewed journals, so that data could be analyzed and statistics could show the cure rate with different regimens.  In contrast, the patient advocacy groups make claims based on anecdotes, and there is little true science behind their published opinions.

If truth is relative, you can have a Seraphis - equivalent on the Lyme forum swearing that the "evidence" has proven that 2 years of home intravenous antibiotics are required to treat Lyme disease.  On the other hand, it is a "known" to me and most physicians that rigorous studies have disproven that statement.  A 30 day course of antibiotics cures Lyme disease for 98% of patients. 

If you read the patient advocacy web page, your "gut" might tell you to get yourself a home intravenous antibiotic, even though it is not indicated.  You might receive unnecessary antibiotics for over a year which could damage your liver, gastrointestinal system and cause serious side effects.

I believe that the highest state of our being is pure perception, but it appears that this state of clarity is difficult to achieve on the earth plane.  Our discernment then depends on a combination of our intellect and our "gut" or emotions. 

M

Our intellect is a tool designed to work with our emotions.  Discernment or "right perception" in the physical world involves the seemless application of both our emotions and our intellect.  Perhaps in other mental planes,

DocM wrote on Mar 29^th, 2011 at 9:51pm:

Hi Usetawuz, If truth is relative, you can have a Seraphis - equivalent on the Lyme forum swearing that the "evidence" has proven that 2 years of home intravenous antibiotics are required to treat Lyme disease.  On the other hand, it is a "known" to me and most physicians that rigorous studies have disproven that statement.  A 30 day course of antibiotics cures Lyme disease for 98% of patients.

This is a strange reference since my posting cites three reputable authorites and does not include my personal belief... I delibrately took this tack because I am not an authority... I am an ordinary person with an opinion, but, not a researcher... or you saying that Budge was wrong in realizing that Christianity is heavily based on The Egyptian Book of the Dead???... he wrote many books attempting to make that case with strong intellectual and factual arguments.

Sitchin another respected scholar simply realized the obvious in the light of 20th century space exploration technology... that what he was translating made amazing sense when he redefined certain words with the idea that they refered to space travel, spacesuits and anti-gravity flying devices...

The most compelling insight comes in the Epic of Gilgamesh where in the thundering earth can only mean the lift off of spacecraft... as Gilgamesh a half-breed earth/space alien offspring tries to claim his heritage... before Sitchin this story was never understood for what it really was...

You are describing your own failure to understand my post and blaming it on me.

S.

Rondelle:
I just read what Bruce wrote, and it seems as if you left out some key words.  Below is the entire discussion. The last paragraph is key.

When Bruce wrote “even good Christians” I don’t believe he was putting them down. Rather, he was saying even some good people such as good Christians will hate homosexuals.

I know “hate” is a strong word, and some Christians will say that they do things such as try to convert homosexuals because love motivates them to do so. However, I believe if such people truly understood about unconditional love, they wouldn’t judge homosexuals as if they are doing something sinful just because a few words in the Bible erroneously say that homosexuality is a sin. If they allow themselves to questions what such words say, their souls will open up to love to an extent that exceeds the degree they have already opened.

Perhaps if a few people didn’t make the poor decision to include those words as a part of the Bible, and perhaps if some people weren’t afraid to doubt some of the words that are in the Bible, then perhaps the drastic measures Bruce wrote about wouldn’t be necessary.

From Bruce's book:

“We’ve got some special projects, like AIDs,” he said matter-of-factly.

“AIDS? You guys are responsible for AIDS?” I asked incredulously.

“AIDs is just a new form of the disease process spawned by overpopulation. Earth has seen it before in things like the Black Plague and other types of diseases. Many who decided to enter during this time saw AIDS as an incredible opportunity.”

“An opportunity?”

“Certainly!  Look at the factors involved. Detection of the virus is possible many years before any symptoms show up, so the certainty of death is there long before the actual event. Many who decided on the AIDs route understood the value of facing certain death. Facing it for years gives lots of opportunities to break through the fear. And it has embedded within it the opportunity for those not facing the certain death of AIDS to advance their ability to experience and express unconditional love.”

“What do you mean?” I asked.

“Look at the population segment where AIDS first showed up—in homosexuals. Now there’s a group even good Christians can hate. That’s a real incongruity in a religion based on a God who said you must love your neighbor as yourself. Such incongruities can cause Christians to question their beliefs. And such questioning can lead to changes in beliefs that are more consistent with ‘love your neighbor as yourself.’ That incongruity is an opportunity to incarnate into a lifetime as a Christian to learn about Love.”

Seraphis1 wrote on Mar 29^th, 2011 at 5:40pm:

wrote on Mar 29th, 2011 at 1:22pm:   I imagine that translating such an ancient language that has only been readable since modern times is a hard task at times.  Translation errors are definitely possible.  Either way, the way i look at it is the Sumerians and other ancient peoples didn't necessarily have the monopoly on truth and accuracy when it comes to beliefs and ideas.    Hi J: Have you read Sitchin's Earth Chronicles? There are more than just the text, though in the light of modern understand of massive rocket propulsion... the descriptions in the actual texts are compelling... tho, the Sumerian material alone is not particular surprising since the Mahabarata already was signalling an ancient ET presence... albeit incomprehensible to researchers... they did understand the material to be refering to some kind of flying vehicles... tho until the present era they were regarded as mythological... but, now, when you read the Greek mythology one may also re-think that material in the light of modern technology and come up with an amazing new insight to what was consider mythology.. S. S.

Not in entirety or thoroughly, i've just perused and flipped through some of his books. 

  I wasn't specifically addressing his work per se, but more speaking very generally. 

  But more specifically, i do agree with some of Sitchins and the Sumerians conclusions in a very general way, but don't find much agreement on some of the specific stuff that i'm aware of.   As mentioned I believe that there are and have been for a long time, E.T.'s involved with humanity.  That part seems pretty plain to me. 

  I don't think we were created specifically as a "slave race" for the Anunnaki for example.  I think Sitchin and people like him rely too much on their intellect and on material world data for information, and should go directly more within or use their intuition more if they want to get a more holistically accurate perspective.

p.s. i rarely read spiritual, metaphysical, etc. type books anymore, though occasionally will pick up a book here or there more so to support an author i believe is having a constructive effect on others.  The next book i will purchase will probably be Vicky's and then maybe Campbell's "My Big TOE". 

[Seraphis:] "ask the 40,000 murdered Kathar's how they feel about religiocide... in the name of a lie..."

Your comment demonstrates the essence of bigottry and racism, i. e. the stereotyping of a movement or race on the basis of its worst examplars.

[Seraphis:] "we now know that the only reference to Jesus to surface in the literature of the ancient world was in Josephus and it is now well known to be a FORGERY.  Enough said."

Yes, "enough said" to establish that you don't know what you are talking about.  First, there are 2 references to Jssus in Josephus, not one.  The one in Antiquities 20.9.1 refers to the high priest Ananus [= Annas] and his execution of "James, the brother of Jesus the one called Christ." The authenticity of this reference is almost universally accepted and, by itself, refutes your claim.

The 2nd is a rather comprehensive summary of Jesus' ministry (Antiquities18.3.3).  Two brief phrases create the impression that Josephus was a Christian and are clearly later Christian interpolations.  So the question arises as to whether the whole passage is an interpolation or just these 2 brief phrases.  In 1971 new Arabic and Syriac translations of this passage were published and both lack the 2 phrases in question.  This indicates that most of the Josephus text is authentic. More improtantly, the rest of the Josephus passage has a style that is vintage Josephus.  Ancient forgers lacks computers and thus lacked the sophistication to imitate an author's style in significant detail.  For this reason alone, the scholarly consensus is that the passage is aunthentic apart from the two interpolated phrases.

Furthermore, in his book 'Jesus the Magician," Morton Smith (an athest) discusses the version of Jesus' life circulated by his Jewish detractors. These anti-Christian traditions acknowledge that Jesus appeared to be a miracle worker and healer but insist that the miracles were in fact either magically induced hallucinations or demonically powered healings.  Elements of this anti-Gospel are traceable to Rabbi Eliezer (70 AD).  Thus, Jesus' existence as an alleged miracle worker finds other first centuryJewish testimony beyond Josephus.

Then there is the Nazareth inscrption from the time of Tiberius or Claudius warning the Jews of the penalties against future grave robbing, an obvious reference to Roman belief that Jesus' disciples stole his body to justify their claim that he rose from the dead.

Also significant, are the allusions in ancient Roman historians Tacitus and Suetonius to "Chrestus" and "Chrestians," the Roman terms for Christ and Christians.  "Chrestus was a common Roman name, but Christus was unprecedented.  But these historians have a poor grasp of Christian practice and claims about Jesus.

I am not able to accurately consider what Don  (Berserk) just said about Jesus because my historical knowledge is too incomplete.

Thankfully, I don't need to become an expert in such a way, because I've had experiences that let me know that Jesus the man did in fact live.

For example, years ago, when I was basically an atheist, I found myself in a heaven-like realm one night. The experience began with my finding that the Bible's story of Jesus is basically correct.  I say basically, because I couldn't tell you on a verse by verse basis which is accurate.

During the experience I was very surprised that Jesus did in fact exist. Nevertheless, it was quite clear.

I have had other experiences that involved the spirit of Jesus. For example, one night I was meditating and feeling love, peace and expansiveness, and his image appeared to me. He gave me a couple of messages and then left.

There are people who have experienced the presence of Jesus during near-death experiences and other experiences, and it doesn't seem as if they were simply experiencing a hallucination or some sort of interpretive error. There are people who are quick to say this is so, but how do they actually know this when they didn't have the experiences? On the basis of their belief system which doesn't allow for the possibility that people have in fact communicated with the spirit of Jesus, they "assume" that such people experience nothing more than a belief-system based interpretation or hallucination.

Considering how people interpret things in numerous ways, I believe we would be hard pressed to find a person who can interpret the historical evidence that exists in a manner that is completely free from bias. It seems as if people tend to lean in one direction or the other.

Perhaps they can meditate and pray and see if they can find out about Jesus in an experiential way. Such experience might make historical arguments seem rather secondary.

I just said this even though the experiences above happened without my intending for them to happen. There have also been other occasions when the image of Jesus appeared to me (while my eyes were closed) and he gave me a message. He appeared and gave messages in a way where it seemed highly unlikely that I was experiencing nothing more than an illusion.

Berserk2 wrote on Mar 30^th, 2011 at 4:16pm:

[Seraphis:] "ask the 40,000 murdered Kathar's how they feel about religiocide... in the name of a lie..." Your comment demonstrates the essence of bigottry and racism, i. e. the stereotyping of a movement or race on the basis of its worst examplars. [Seraphis:] "we now know that the only reference to Jesus to surface in the literature of the ancient world was in Josephus and it is now well known to be a FORGERY.  Enough said." Yes, "eough said" to establish that you don't know what you are talking about.  First, there are 2 references to Jssus in Josephus, not one.  The one in Antiquities 20.9.1 refers to the high priest Ananus [= Annas] and his execution of "James, the brother of Jesus the one called Christ." The authenticity of this reference is almost universally accepted and, by itself, refutes your claim. The 2nd is a rather comprehensive summary of Jesus' ministry (Antiquities18.3.3).  Two brief phrases create the impression that Josephus was a Christian and are clearly later Christian interpolations.  So the question arises as to whether the whole passage is an interpolation or just these 2 brief phrases.  In 1971 new Arabic and Syriac translations of this passage were published and both lack the 2 phrases in question.  This indicates that most of the Josephus text is authentic. More improtantly, the trest of the Josephus passage has a style that is vintage Josephus.  Ancient forgers lacks computers and thus lacked the sophistication to imitate an author's style in significant detail.  For this reason alone, the scholarly consensus is that the passage is aunthentic apart from the two interpolated phrases. Furthermore, in his book 'Jesus the Magician," Morton Smith (an athest) discusses the version of Jesus' life circulated by his Jewish detractors. These anti-Christian traditions acknowledge that Jesus appeared to be a miracle worker and healer but insist that the miracles were in fact either magically induced hallucinations or demonically powered healings.  Elements of this anti-Gospel are traceable to Rabbi Eliezer (70 AD).  Thus, Jesus' existence as an alleged miracle worker finds other first centuryJewish testimony beyond Josephus. Then there is the Nazareth inscrption from the time of Tiberius or Claudius warning the Jews of the penalties against future grave robbing, an obvious reference to Roman belief that Jesus' disciples stole his body to justify their claim that he rose from the dead. Also significant, are the allusions in ancient Roman historians Tacitus and Suetonius to "Chrestus" and "Chrestians," the Roman terms for Christ and Christians.  "Chrestus was a common Roman name, but Christus was unprecedented.  But these historians have a poor grasp of Christian practice and claims about Jesus.

Rebuttal: First, I don't think I said there was not Jesus... and I guess I left out an important point... what is not in any ancient record or sources outside of the Christian mythology is the Crucifixion which I personally don't think happened... it is an allegory (the crucifixion) of the last struggle of the Soul... it's dark night... before self-realization which requires in these particular systems of unfoldment the 'destruction' of the person ego...

As far as a man called Jesus, I am sure he existed but, he was one of the leaders of the Essene community which was destroied in the Roman retaliation for the Jewish revolt that ended in Massada... the Essenes reconstituted as and became the underpinning of the evolution of Christianity.

The truth is as Evemerist scholar Shaye Cohen, professor of Judaic and Religion Studies at Brown University, admits the desparate situation of trying to fine the 'historical' reformer/rebel under accreted layers of miracles:

Modern scholars have routinely reinvented Jesus or ave routinely rediscovered in Jesus that which they want to find....

S.

recoverer wrote on Mar 30^th, 2011 at 5:43pm:

I am not able to accurately consider what Don  (Berserk) just said about Jesus because my historical knowledge is too incomplete. Thankfully, I don't need to become an expert in such a way, because I've had experiences that let me know that Jesus the man did in fact live. For example, years ago, when I was basically an atheist, I found myself in a heaven-like realm one night. The experience began with my finding that the Bible's story of Jesus is basically correct.  I say basically, because I couldn't tell you on a verse by verse basis which is accurate. During the experience I was very surprised that Jesus did in fact exist. Nevertheless, it was quite clear. I have had other experiences that involved the spirit of Jesus. For example, one night I was meditating and feeling love, peace and expansiveness, and his image appeared to me. He gave me a couple of messages and then left. There are people who have experienced the presence of Jesus during near-death experiences and other experiences, and it doesn't seem as if they were simply experiencing a hallucination or some sort of interpretive error. There are people who are quick to say this is so, but how do they actually know this when they didn't have the experiences? On the basis of their belief system which doesn't allow for the possibility that people have in fact communicated with the spirit of Jesus, they "assume" that such people experience nothing more than a belief-system based interpretation or hallucination. Considering how people interpret things in numerous ways, I believe we would be hard pressed to find a person who can interpret the historical evidence that exists in a manner that is completely free from bias. It seems as if people tend to lean in one direction or the other. Perhaps they can meditate and pray and see if they can find out about Jesus in an experiential way. Such experience might make historical arguments seem rather secondary. I just said this even though the experiences above happened without my intending for them to happen. There have also been other occasions when the image of Jesus appeared to me (while my eyes were closed) and he gave me a message. He appeared and gave messages in a way where it seemed highly unlikely that I was experiencing nothing more than an illusion.

From S: I personally have no quarrel with personal spriitual encounters with the Jesus figure... I am sure it happens, I have encounter Jesus at least twice... but, one needs to remember what Jung said about Archtypes... also in the Astral one creates what one needs to create to process experience... so these encounters are valid.. but they are best left to the individual to decide how he/she will regard them.

S.

Regarding the crucifixion, going by the messages I received, Jesus was crucified.

Also, the spirit contact sources that seem most credible to me say that Jesus was crucified. When channeled sources say it didn't happen, they contradict each other (and themselves) about what happened in key ways.

The experiences I had weren't Jungian archetypes.

Retired Air Force Major Predicts UFO Sightings at Royal Wedding

Ok, so we go from Bible bashing to UFOs at the Royal wedding?  Odd bedfellows, this conversation.

  Seraphis, might it not be that you are operating from a set of belief systems that is "anti-Bible," even judging by the title of your thread?  Your premise at the start appears to be that those who revere the good book only due so literally, reading word for word as if there is no other truth, believing that the scriptures were written by the hand of God himself, instead of men.

Yet Judeo-Christian scholars who study the two testaments and the communities who investigate biblical thought do not promulgate or agree with your basic premises.  So from the get go, most sources believe that the two testaments were synthesized works written and compiled by men, which contained great truths within them (along with a chronicle of man's covenant with God). 

In many circles, Jews and Christians gather to debate the meaning of the passages, constantly reinterpreting the ancient texts to gain further insight into the human spirit.  In Judaism this has taken the form of Talmudic study and debate.  If all believed as your premise stated (that the Bible was the word of God alone), then surely Talmudic scholars would not get together over the years to debate and interpret these texts.

But debate and reinterpretation is exactly what is occuring over the centuries.  The Vatican and other religious christian organizations have their equivlent to Talmudic Judaism.  This makes the followers of both testaments not a stagnant group of people, but a vibrant and ever evolving group - not tied to the dictates of the Bible with chains, but able to learn from the allegories in it and continually debate the significance of these stories. 

I hope you can see why even the title of your thread might thus be seen by Jews and Christians as offensive.  You start with an assumption that all followers are fundamentalists (a gross misrepresentation), and then you proceed to cast doubt on the very existence of the Bible as a text of stories, and the reality of Jesus and the crucifixation itself.

While the flaws in your arguments are obvious to anyone who hears both sides, one must also ask  "what exactly are you trying to accomplish?"  To prove that Jesus never existed and was not crucified? - This is surely going to offend more than settle anything.

The premise behind the two testaments; to love thy neighbor as thyself, and to love God, are synonymous with the basic underpinnings of every peace loving religion or ideology, including New Age thought, and ideas brought back from experiences from Robert Monroe, Bruce Moen and TMI.  Are you not clearly aware of that?

Matthew

DocM wrote on Mar 31^st, 2011 at 12:03am:

Ok, so we go from Bible bashing to UFOs at the Royal wedding?  Odd bedfellows, this conversation.   Seraphis, might it not be that you are operating from a set of belief systems that is "anti-Bible," even judging by the title of your thread?  Your premise at the start appears to be that those who revere the good book only due so literally, reading word for word as if there is no other truth, believing that the scriptures were written by the hand of God himself, instead of men. Yet Judeo-Christian scholars who study the two testaments and the communities who investigate biblical thought do not promulgate or agree with your basic premises.  So from the get go, most sources believe that the two testaments were synthesized works written and compiled by men, which contained great truths within them (along with a chronicle of man's covenant with God).  In many circles, Jews and Christians gather to debate the meaning of the passages, constantly reinterpreting the ancient texts to gain further insight into the human spirit.  In Judaism this has taken the form of Talmudic study and debate.  If all believed as your premise stated (that the Bible was the word of God alone), then surely Talmudic scholars would not get together over the years to debate and interpret these texts. But debate and reinterpretation is exactly what is occuring over the centuries.  The Vatican and other religious christian organizations have their equivlent to Talmudic Judaism.  This makes the followers of both testaments not a stagnant group of people, but a vibrant and ever evolving group - not tied to the dictates of the Bible with chains, but able to learn from the allegories in it and continually debate the significance of these stories.  I hope you can see why even the title of your thread might thus be seen by Jews and Christians as offensive.  You start with an assumption that all followers are fundamentalists (a gross misrepresentation), and then you proceed to cast doubt on the very existence of the Bible as a text of stories, and the reality of Jesus and the crucifixation itself. While the flaws in your arguments are obvious to anyone who hears both sides, one must also ask  "what exactly are you trying to accomplish?"  To prove that Jesus never existed and was not crucified? - This is surely going to offend more than settle anything. The premise behind the two testaments; to love thy neighbor as thyself, and to love God, are synonymous with the basic underpinnings of every peace loving religion or ideology, including New Age thought, and ideas brought back from experiences from Robert Monroe, Bruce Moen and TMI.  Are you not clearly aware of that? Matthew

The problem is that very few people have your mindset on the issue... at the point the so called Christian leadership gained state power they began murdering non-believers... 40,000 Kathars was a drop in the bucket compared to the milliions of pagans wiped out and the hundreds of thousands of so called heretics, murdered and tortured in the inquistion... down to today's murder of abortion doctors, and the disrespect of our service men's funerals by Westboro baptists... the intimidation of Air Force Academy Cadets by Haggard's evangelicals in the '60's and '70's.

We are in a never ending battle with the Christian community in this country to prevent them from establishing Christianity as a State religion... if and when that does happen... I think even you will be very upset... the price of liberty is eternal vigilance against all vicious fanatics.

Again you are not acknowledging that I have not introduced these issues on my personal bais but the research of reputable scholars... the UFO thing was from an English Air Force officer's article... h also said that UFO's are now being scene over the Libyian airspace...

S.

By the way, the Monroe Institute was picketed at one point by a local Baptist Church in Charlotteville as the work of the devil..

S.

hi i beleive in the bible  what it says about demons,i beleive they really exist,jesus cast out many demons,if satan does not exist,why is he mentioned

all through the years there have been exorcisims because of satan and demons

i always ask God for his protection of love and light

love and God bless   love juditha

Too much time has passed in which humans have kept insufficient records and insufficient recording devices. (I.E. video camera verification etc.)

Unless you can create a backwards time machine and psychically return to the past to witness all of the original writers of the bible and or witness said events, the bible must always be considered a book that is in almost every way unverifiable.

There is no way to constitute or establish any "truth" about the Bible since there is not enough scientific data to process and test in a laboratory environment.

Quote:

We are in a never ending battle with the Christian community in this country to prevent them from establishing Christianity as a State religion... if and when that does happen... I think even you will be very upset... the price of liberty is eternal vigilance against all vicious fanatics.

Well the Christian community is not one entity, though it is surprising that the fundamentalist types have established such a foothold in these times. I'm not so sure Christianity was interpreted quite the same way in the 1700's or so, when the country got started. Freedom of religion mixed with freedom of speech are sometimes explosive.

I was searching for some info on the real Nat Turner one time, and came across some information indicating that around 1800, close to the time Turner was born, I think, there was a BAptist preacher in Virginia who was strongly against slavery on religious grounds. The point was made that it was the strongly held belief in freedom of speech that enabled the debate on slavery to be carried out. Slavery was not a new human phenomenon but having the institution co-exist with an active debate on its legitimacy was. The price of liberty is having to allow all this open discussion to go on. I bet that baptist preacher back in 1800 had an ornery side, but that ornery-ness probably served to keep driving the discussion forward.

That is true even here. I just wish the concepts could be argued. It ends up being done in a way that makes it feel unsafe to some people to discuss their personal experiences because they might be criticized as falling sway to some teacher who is unpopular with another board member or having an experience that is not in line with someone else's guidance. Those arguments start to sound narrow, like all fundamentalist arguments.

<<We are in a never ending battle with the Christian community in this country to prevent them from establishing Christianity as a State religion... if and when that does happen... I think even you will be very upset... the price of liberty is eternal vigilance against all vicious fanatics. >>

Seraphis-

Perhaps you could be a bit more specific.  Which Christian community is attempting to establish Christianity as a State religion?  If this allegation is true, all I can say is that they are not making much progress.

You should be far more worried about radical Islam.  Now that represents an infinitely more dangerous movement than Christianity. 

Those folks slaughter people who oppose Islam.  Just read today's headlines. 

And if you dare even insult them, they will kill you.  Look up Theo van Gogh sometime.  And there are many more examples of Muslim violence in the name of their "religion."  Publishing a mere cartoon about Muslims puts your life in danger. How about burying a woman up to her head and stoning her to death because she committed adultery?  Do Christians do that??

Examples of that fanaticism abound in this country as well.  A Muslim television executive in Buffalo beheaded his wife because she dared file for divorce.  A Muslim father killed his daughter because she wanted to leave the religion.  And on and on and on it goes.

It's fascinating how Christians are such an easy and safe target.  I guess it's politically correct to bash them, but at the same time to be silent in the face of Muslim atrocities.

So....when you say "vicious fanatics", I'm curious as to why you are silent about who the real fanatics are?

What are your comments about Muslims attempting to impose Shariah law on the court systems of both the UK and the U.S.?  Is that ok with you? 

I'll take my chances with Christianity any day of the week over the killing agenda of radical Islam.

R

rondele wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2011 at 10:41am:

<<We are in a never ending battle with the Christian community in this country to prevent them from establishing Christianity as a State religion... if and when that does happen... I think even you will be very upset... the price of liberty is eternal vigilance against all vicious fanatics. >> Seraphis- Perhaps you could be a bit more specific.  Which Christian community is attempting to establish Christianity as a State religion?  If this allegation is true, all I can say is that they are not making much progress.

Hi Rondele: The Evangelical community… but, my postings on this issue got far from the original intent… which was to highlight the inner Christian theological schools were beginning to talk openly about the problems with the Bible and the idea that one had to take it literally… actually, the closest we came to a Christian take over of the American government and the establishment of a State religion was in the Nixon era… but, they were beaten back and tho… the Haggard group in Colorado (Haggard turned out to be a closeted homosexual… LOL!!)… almost made the Air Force Academy a Christian enclave rent : Constantine’s Sword the documentary.

Don’t forget no Republican politician can win a primary unless he passes the creationism test… he/she must swear that he does not believe in Evolution and that he believe in Creationism/Intelligent design… so that is a fact of life in the American Republican party.

S.

rondele wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2011 at 10:41am:

You should be far more worried about radical Islam.  Now that represents an infinitely more dangerous movement than Christianity.  Those folks slaughter people who oppose Islam.  Just read today's headlines.  And if you dare even insult them, they will kill you.  Look up Theo van Gogh sometime.  And there are many more examples of Muslim violence in the name of their "religion."  Publishing a mere cartoon about Muslims puts your life in danger. How about burying a woman up to her head and stoning her to death because she committed adultery?  Do Christians do that??

Hi R: This is true on the surface… Islam is where Christianity was during the 30 years war that changed the way Christian sects related to one another. But, the current unrest in the Middle east is a sign they are headed toward ‘democarcy’… the arab street through the internet and modern communication is showing the arab street there is another way to live… but this evolution of their consciousness will take probably another 100 years to penetrate… [/quote]


rondele wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2011 at 10:41am:

Examples of that fanaticism abound in this country as well.  A Muslim television executive in Buffalo beheaded his wife because she dared file for divorce.  A Muslim father killed his daughter because she wanted to leave the religion.  And on and on and on it goes.

These are case by case issues in a class with Christian abortion fanatics who murder Doctors. They are hardly endemic. They are taken care of by law enforcement.

[/quote]


rondele wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2011 at 10:41am:

It's fascinating how Christians are such an easy and safe target.  I guess it's politically correct to bash them, but at the same time to be silent in the face of Muslim atrocities. So....when you say "vicious fanatics", I'm curious as to why you are silent about who the real fanatics are?

It wasn’t the subject of my thread… my subject was originally the awakening and dissemination in the Christian community of sound research by their own researchers the truth about the Bible as a literal document.


rondele wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2011 at 10:41am:

What are your comments about Muslims attempting to impose Shariah law on the court systems of both the UK and the U.S.?  Is that ok with you? I'll take my chances with Christianity any day of the week over the killing agenda of radical Islam. R

In America Shariah law is impossible to impose… we have two legislative bodies which must vote yes and then it has to be signed into law by the President… then it must pass the court challenges and ultimately be ruled upon by the Supreme Court.  There is nothing in Sharia law that I know of that could past the test of Constitutional compatibility so all that right wing screaming about Sharia law in America is a political demagoguery to attempt to scare idiots into voting republican.

S.

I believe it is true that Republican leaders who did things such as start unnecessary wars, torture people, and lie to the citizens of the United States, were supported by Christian groups who seem to believe that not allowing people to believe in evolution and not supporting gay marriage is more important than the  afforementioned issues. This being the case, quite understandibly many people get upset with parts of Christianity.

George W and company have caused so much negativitiy in this world, yet some people will say he's a good Christian. Phltt!

Perhaps if more people weren't afraid to question the Bible, fewer people would put creationism and the non-support of gay marriage before more important issues.

I like that old Don McLean song :"American Pie"

Listen to it if you never have..........

"Did you write the book of love, and do you have faith in God above, if the Bible tells you so?"

"Now do you believe in rock and roll and can music save your mortal soul, and can ya teach me how to dance real slow?"

And the chorus

"So bye, bye Miss American pie,
Drove my chevy to the levy, but the levy was dry.
"Them good ol' boys was drinking whiskey and rye, singing this will be the the day that I die....."


M

Matthew, one of the all time great songs with lyrics that spoke to a heartbroken generation yet held mysteries aplenty.  Thanks for bringing it to mind again.  More:

Oh, and there we were all in one place,
A generation lost in space
With no time left to start again.
So come on: jack be nimble, jack be quick!
Jack flash sat on a candlestick
Cause fire is the devil’s only friend.

Oh, and as I watched him on the stage
My hands were clenched in fists of rage.
No angel born in hell
Could break that satan’s spell.
And as the flames climbed high into the night
To light the sacrificial rite,
I saw satan laughing with delight
The day the music died

He was singing,
"bye-bye, miss american pie."
Drove my chevy to the levee,
But the levee was dry.
Them good old boys were drinkin’ whiskey and rye
And singin’, "this’ll be the day that I die.
"this’ll be the day that I die."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tr-BYVeCv6U&feature=related

It is a great song allowing us to relive the Buddy Holley metaphor over and over again. Love it!

Don't know if this song is about the afterlife, but it sure seems to be.

Maybe the "clear day" is the day we die?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nz5DLO8fclA

R

Rondele,

Cheers for the tune. Really, really nice lyrics!

I don't understand why the bible has to keep popping up? The "bible" with the old and new testaments is not the first religion in existence... It was a religion created later and yet is supposed to encompass our entire beginnings and origin correctly?

Numerous religions predate "GOD" and "JESUS." In fact, Jesus was a stolen concept utilized in the christian religion, much like many of the hodgepodge of stories collected in the bible.

The bible, the "ultimate spiritual reference" is a completely untrustworthy book, to say the least.

wrote on Apr 7^th, 2011 at 2:30pm:

Numerous religions predate "GOD" and "JESUS." In fact, Jesus was a stolen concept utilized in the christian religion, much like many of the hodgepodge of stories collected in the bible. The bible, the "ultimate spiritual reference" is a completely untrustworthy book, to say the least.

The above is why it keeps popping up 80 to 90 of the Christian population think it is literal and unimpeachable... they have be constantly shown just how ridiculous that assertion really is...

S.