uniquely-ironic said on Nov 05, 2007....

destinydiva said on Nov 05, 2007....

lfbno7 said on Nov 05, 2007....

beyondtheveil said on Nov 05, 2007....

queenparanoia said on Nov 05, 2007....

sheltercrow said on Nov 05, 2007....

ninjapirate said on Nov 05, 2007....

inspiration2jms said on Nov 06, 2007....

rupert7 said on Nov 06, 2007....

ALIENated said on Nov 06, 2007....

Muhammad, Buddha, and Confucius left writings because they were mere men. God
in the flesh (Jesus) and God the Holy Spirit work through men. Muhammad, 
Buddha, and Confucius beat their chests and proclaimed their diety. Jesus let 
others do it, which is much more convencing. Which do you tend to believe, 
someone's opinion of themselves or other's opinion of them? This is all just a form
of "looking for loopholes". I tend to wonder why God (Jesus) does certain things
the way He does, not why he does not do things the way I would do them.
And, to answer your question, Jesus did not make any mistakes. God does not
make mistakes. Christianity could not be more precise and clear. The writings of
many, about Jesus, plainly state that He is the only way to heaven. Jesus
proclaimed that while on earth, but, unlike Muhammad, Buddha, and Confucius,
He had those who believe it write it down. Otherwise, we would just think Him
another mere mortal like Muhammad, Buddha, and Confucius. I fear your friend's
daughter is looking at the life of Jesus and trying to make sense of it as she would
a pile of rocks. The main reason for the life of Jesus was so He could give it in
return for our sins. I doubt she will ever read that in a college textbook.

Mamie said on Nov 06, 2007....

queenparanoia said on Nov 06, 2007....

kruuyai said on Nov 06, 2007....

lisamay said on Nov 06, 2007....

one_wired_kitty said on Nov 06, 2007....

silverwhisper said on Nov 06, 2007....

StillSeeking said on Nov 06, 2007....

satyr said on Nov 06, 2007....

Fallyn said on Nov 06, 2007....

beyondtheveil said on Nov 06, 2007....

lisamay said on Nov 06, 2007....

sheltercrow said on Nov 06, 2007....

sheltercrow said on Nov 06, 2007....

For other stuff

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/gospeljudas.html

http://www7.nationalgeographic.com/lostgospel/_pdf/GospelofJudas.pdf

http://www7.nationalgeographic.com/lostgospel/_pdf/CopticGospelOfJudas.pdf

http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/manuscripts/gospel_of_judas/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Judas

silverwhisper said on Nov 06, 2007....

sheltercrow said on Nov 06, 2007....

beyondtheveil said on Nov 07, 2007....

beyondtheveil said on Nov 07, 2007....

beyondtheveil said on Nov 07, 2007....

sheltercrow said on Nov 07, 2007....

silverwhisper said on Nov 07, 2007....

sheltercrow said on Nov 07, 2007....

Isn’t Christian fundamentalism meant to be a basis for a new legalism? Christian fundamentalism seems to me to be replacing the secular with the religious.

I’m not sure that Christian fundamentalism has much to do with Christ’s mission. There were no Christian fundamentalists in Christ’s time, that’s a modern phenomenon.

As far as legalism in Christ’s time I think you juxtaposition modern ideas with the ancient. I’m not sure they would have understood what legalism, as used today, would have meant.

silverwhisper said on Nov 07, 2007....

truthsayer said on Nov 07, 2007....

BeyondTheVeil, my dear friend...I am tagging this and, "truth be known" ; ) I actually read this yesterday and I have been prayerfully working on a proper response.  I am here, and I will be back to this thoughtful post asap. 

Keep me in your good thoughts and continue helping me through some "things" in the loving way you always do. : )  I may be back yet tonight for a brief time.  At least long enough to say "hello" and also, I do have a question for you.  Would you rather I ask it in here?  Or privately?  It does have to do with the subject of this blog...but private is good too. 

It is your choice my friend "who seeks to know the truth beyond the veil".  Yet, it seems that you believe that you are only allowed to perceive and share the flaws born in the divider's weave.

Love, love, love,

Truthsayer 

truthsayer said on Nov 07, 2007....

Silverwhisper!

The lack of personally penned writings was most certainly intentional...quite astute my friend : ) And that means that you are partially correct in your assumptions...but, to be partially correct and partially incorrect...well...welcome to the human race!  But God and Jesus are perfect in their intentions, ways and reasons.  BUT!  ; )  The scriptures are also TRUE...selah!

More later my friend.

Truthsayer : )

sheltercrow said on Nov 07, 2007....

I understand your concern but the Jews were not exactly a primal force for anything during the period we are talking about. I would go as far as to say that they were an obscure culture in their time. Again you must take into consideration the notion of their obscurity to all but themselves, at that time.

The Jews, to my understanding, were by necessity a self absorbed culture trying to survive in a very harsh and violent environment.

inspiration2jms said on Nov 07, 2007....

silverwhisper said on Nov 07, 2007....

sheltercrow said on Nov 07, 2007....

sheltercrow said on Nov 07, 2007....

Silverwhisper here are a few from the easiest source Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and this list is incomplete!

List of Jewish messiah claimants

Alexander the Great

Judas son of Hezekiah (Ezekias) (c. 4 BCE)

Simon (c. 4 BCE)

Athronges (c. 4-2? BCE)

Honi the circle-maker

Jesus

Theudas (44-46) in the Roman province of Judea

Menahem ben Judah partook in a revolt against Agrippa II in Judea

Simon bar Kokhba (died c. 135), defeated in the Second Jewish-Roman War

Moses of Crete (5th century)

Isḥaḳ ben Ya'ḳub Obadiah Abu 'Isa al-Isfahani of Ispahan lived in Persia during the reign of the Umayyad Caliph 'Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan (684-705).

Yudghan, lived and taught in Persia in the early eighth century disciple of Isḥaḳ ben Ya'ḳub Obadiah Abu 'Isa al-Isfahani of Ispahan

Serene (Sherini, Sheria, Serenus, Zonoria, Saüra) (c. 720)

David Alroy or Alrui (c. 1160)

Abraham Abulafia (b. 1240)

Nissim ben Abraham (c. 1295) active in Avila.

Moses Botarel of Cisneros (c. 1413)

Asher Kay (1502) a German near Venice.

David Reubeni (early sixteenth century).

Solomon Molcho (early sixteenth century).

Hayim Vital (1542-1620)

Sabbatai Zevi (alternative spellings: Shabbetai, Sabbetai, Shabbesai; Zvi, Tzvi) (1626-1676)

Barukhia Russo (Osman Baba), successor of Sabbatai Zevi.

Miguel (Abraham) Cardoso (b. 1630)

Mordecai Mokiakh ("the Rebuker") of Eisenstadt (active 1678-1683)

Jacob Querido (d. 1690), said to be the reincarnation of Shabbetai Zevi.

Löbele Prossnitz (Joseph ben Jacob), early eighteenth century

Jacob Joseph Frank (1726-1791), founder of the Frankist movement.

Shukr Kuhayl I, 19th-century Yemenite pseudo-messiah

Judah ben Shalom (Shukr Kuhayl II), 19th-century Yemenite pseudo-messiah

Menachem Mendel Schneerson (1902-1994). While Scneerson never claimed to be the messiah, some say that he hinted at the possibility on a number of occasions, and some followers maintain his status as the messiah to this day.

Menahem ben Judah

Menahem ben Judah, the son of Judas of Galilee and grandson of Hezekiah, the leader of the Zealots, who had troubled Herod, was a warrior. When the war broke out he attacked Masada with his band, armed his followers with the weapons stored there, and proceeded to Jerusalem where he captured the fortress Antonia, overpowering the troops of Agrippa II. Emboldened by his success, he behaved as a king, and claimed the leadership of all the troops. Thereby he aroused the enmity of Eleazar, another Zealot leader, and met death because of a conspiracy against him. He is probably identical with the Menahem ben Hezekiah mentioned in the Talmud (tractate Sanhedrin 98b) and called "the comforter that should relieve".

Simon Bar Kokhba

With the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem the appearance of messiahs ceased for a time. Sixty years later a politico-Messianic movement of large proportions took place with Shimeon Bar Kokhba (also: Bar Kosiba) at its head. This leader of the revolt against Rome was hailed as Messiah-king by Rabbi Akiva, who referred to him, Numbers xxiv: "There shall come forth a star out of Jacob, and a sceptre shall rise out of Israel, and shall smite through the corners of Moab,", and Hag. ii; "I will shake the heavens and the earth and I will overthrow the thrones of kingdoms. . . ." (Talmud tractate Sanhedrin97b). Although some doubted his messiahship, he seems to have carried the nation with him for his undertaking. After stirring up a war (133-135) that taxed the power of Rome, he at last met his death on the walls of Bethar. His Messianic movement ended in defeat and misery for the survivors.

sheltercrow said on Nov 07, 2007....

lfbno7 said on Nov 08, 2007....

silverwhisper said on Nov 08, 2007....

sheltercrow said on Nov 08, 2007....

I quote...

"sheltercrow: you're correct that the Jews were disenfranchised in the roman empire, where they were not outright persecuted, and indeed that is the sad truth of the Jewish people's existence through most of history.

however: remember that Jesus’ claim to being the messiah means that he is the messiah for whom Jews have been waiting ever since Moses received the ten commandments. Therefore, Jewish custom & practices of the day most certainly had a massive impact on the constituency and thinking of the first disciples."

With respect, I find in these two paragraphs speculation and distortion.

The Jews along with almost all of the conquered people outside the Italian peninsula were disenfranchised to one extent or another. That does not make them a target for special persecution or anything.

Whatever happened to the Jews throughout most of our history has little bearing about their condition at the start of the second millennium. They along with all the others were conquered at one time or another. It was also a common practice for conquers to disperse conquered peoples to make sure they stayed conquered. That does not make them a target for special persecution.

I assume there were some that were waiting for a messiah but it seems, from my reading of history, that so many false messiahs had come and gone and caused such terrible slaughter and violence that their tolerance or acceptance of another was less that you think.

Jewish customs and practices of the day had an influence on the first disciples because they themselves were Jewish. With that said they were not fools and would have viewed yet another messiah claimant with the same disdain that Christians would feel for another person claiming to the second coming of Christ. That is that they would have rejected him as a fool and a dangerous on at that.

The last observation I make is that communication in those days was crude and haphazard. Most of the population of area controlled by the tribes of the Jews would have never even heard of a new messiah much less speculate about his authenticity.

silverwhisper said on Nov 08, 2007....

beyondtheveil said on Nov 08, 2007....

sheltercrow said on Nov 08, 2007....

Christianity is based on a Jew who was crucified for claiming to be a messiah. The Jewish authorities at the time collaborated with the Romans to crucify this messiah. In his time no Jew of importance thought that his crucifixion was anything other than the putting to death of a man claiming to be another false messiah.

http://www.earlychristianhistory.net/frac.html

1. The Galilean Q Community

The earliest Christian document that we have, is not actually a document that we have! Rather, it’s a derivative document, the so-called “lost gospel” Q. Originally composed around 40-50 CE, it was a source for the three synoptic (or similar) gospels, Matthew, Mark and Luke (“Q” stands for the German word Quelle, meaning “source”). It was obvious to 19th century source critics that the synoptic gospels must have had some common source; over a period of time they distilled out of the synoptics those portions which must have come from their hypothesized source, Q. Their guesswork was confirmed in 1945, with the discovery, at Nag Hammadi Egypt, of a cache of 4th-century Gnostic documents. One of them, the Gospel of Thomas, was a later Gnostic elaboration of Q.

Q is an interesting document. It contains no significant biographical information about Jesus, and very little narrative of any kind. It is, rather, a collection of the sayings of a sage named Jesus, and since it mentions places in Galilee, he must have preached there. Those sayings—some of which have survived into Christianity and are well-known, such as “turn the other cheek”—are actually classical Cynical sayings. Classical Cynics were itinerant philosophers of a Socratic school; the most famous Cynic of ancient times was Diogenes of Sinope. It so happens that there were Cynical schools, just across the Jordan from Galilee, in the mainly-Greek province of Decapolis. There’s some debate over whether Galilee had been fully Hellenized at this time, but the fact is, that even for Jews in Galilee, their chief language was Greek, not Aramaic, so that Greek culture had become a part of life in Galilee—to what extent, is what’s debatable. We can easily suppose that a wandering ethnically-Jewish Cynical sage might have become popular enough that someone recorded some of his sayings. Or, people living there may simply have collected some Cynical sayings, and attributed them to an indefinite person named “Jesus.”

The problem is that, today, there isn’t a whole lot about later Christianity which is Cynical. Classical Cynics disdained most social conventions; they disliked authority figures (a story was told that Alexander the Great came to call upon Diogenes, happening to arrive when he was bathing, and Diogenes put the conqueror to work as a towel-boy!); they distrusted tradition, they questioned everything, and sought to overturn societal expectations. This is not Christianity!

2. Paul’s Cilician Christ-Cult

The next documents we have, chronologically written in the 50s CE, come from the pen of Paul (formerly Saul) of Tarsus. We know nothing of him, other than what he reports in his own letters, and what was eventually put down in the book of Acts, almost a century later. Many of the epistles attributed to him, were not actually written by a mid-1st-century Hellenized Jew from Cilicia; the “genuine” Pauline letters are 1 Thessalonians, Galatians, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Romans, Philemon, and Philippians. Paul speaks of a movement which is of the classical collegia type; these were guilds, of sorts, in which members got together periodically, for companionship, to help one another out in need, etc. Modern lodges or fraternal societies are rough equivalents. Some collegia allowed in only certain kinds of people, usually of a particular profession, while others were ethnic in origin (just like modern ethnic clubs). They met, usually weekly, and in the manner of the mystery-religions of the time, they often had a communal meal.

It’s important to remember, though, that many of these collegia were not religious in origin, and never became religious. What makes Paul’s movement unique, unlike most other collegia, is that it appears to have had a good number of Jews as well as gentiles. Most cities in the eastern Mediterranean had enclaves of Jews, who (usually) kept to themselves. Many gentiles, however, mostly schooled in the Hellenic style, became interested in their “philosophy” (thinking that the synagogues in which the Jews congregated, were philosophical schools of a Hellenic style). In places they were allowed in, to listen to the rabbis teach; these folks become known to Jews as “Godfearers.” At any rate, it appears that the movement to which Paul belonged, was trying to reconcile Greek philosophy and mysticism, with Judaism, so that a new “community” could be forged, in which the Godfearers could become an integral part, rather than just remaining on the fringe.

Paul’s letters, therefore, speak of a “Christ” who is mainly an emanated spiritual being, residing in some remote spiritual plane, along the lines of Neo-Platonic thought. He offers almost nothing in the way of biographical information about his savior figure, and works hard to get Jewish scripture to mesh with Greek mysticism. He develops a notion of “sin,” which was common among Anatolian religions of the time, and claims that Christ delivers the believer from it.

Paul mainly was concerned about gentiles within his movement. This suggests that it was a primarily-Jewish movement, perhaps having started solely among Jews as a way to integrate Greek mysticism into their own religion; only later, prior to Paul’s time, did it “break” from Judaism completely, bringing in the Godfearers. Note that Jews in his movement were, apparently, still required to abide by the Mosaic Law—which also contravenes later Christianity.

3. The Syrian Martyr-Cult

The next Christian document that we know of is the gospel of Mark. Its author used Q as a source, but also appears to have drawn on a Hellenic tradition, that of the martyr. It was related to the “suffering hero,” driven by a cause, who transcends normal human experience and/or ability. A primeval example was the myth of Orpheus, the great musician, whose wife dies while he is on Jason’s quest for the golden fleece; he mourns her, singing dirges, eventually heading to the underworld (and, metaphorically, dying), where his song is so sad and compelling, that Hades himself relents and allows her to return with him. The Pythagorean movement is thought to have been based on Orpean mysticism.

In the case of the gospel of Mark, Jesus dies not for a cause which is at close at hand, such as retrieving his deceased wife, but for something else—soteriology, or improving the human condition. In that regard, the author of Mark departed from the usual Hellenic pattern. Instead he added in the notion of world-transforming savior, akin to the Jewish concept of the Messiah, who would come, re-establish the kingdom of Israel, and bring peace to the earth. Still, the author of Mark departed from even this idea, as Judaism at the time did not consider that the Messiah would have to be a martyr.

The author of Mark, while he uses Jews as figures in his story and discusses topics of interest to Jews of the time, disparages Judaism in general. According to him, Jesus comes down hard on the Pharisees and the Temple establishment. But oddly, he includes a passage wherein Jesus decries the destruction of the Temple, which took place in 70 CE, thus dating his gospel to no earlier than that year. The Christianity of the gospel of Mark is a rather indefinite hodgepodge of Jewish and Hellenic soteriology and some mysticism, which also condemns a good deal of Judaic thought.

4. The Judean “Signs” Community

About the time that Mark was written, another work made the rounds in Palestine. Now known as the Signs Gospel, it is, like Q, a speculative work, but less definite than Q in that there hasn’t been another derivative document to back it up (as in the case of the Gospel of Thomas). It’s really a precursor of the gospel of John, but it left a trail in other early Christian writings such as the epistle of Barnabas—which is why source critics are sure it must have existed. It consists, like Q, of a number of short vignettes, this time describing a teacher whose career consists of unusual supernatural signs of something else. Sign miracles were common in Hellenic mythology. One such sign, the miracle at the wedding in Cana, was part of the Dionysian rites, on the Greek mainland, as described in Euripes’ Bacchae and other sources. Sign-stories were typically used, in Greek mysticism, to represent other truths—they were a code, of sorts. The many mystery-religions of the time all had godmen at their centers, about whom signs stories were told — and many were quite similar to one another.

Unfortunately, as we don’t have complete information about the mystery-religions, we can only speculate as to what the “code” was behind the signs stories. The signs stories were probably presented to initiates of the mystery-religion in stages, one or two at a time, with the former ones helping the initiate interpret later ones.

The Signs Gospel, whatever its metaphorical content may have been, was rather standard mystery-religion material, very much like other literature that trafficked in other mystery-religions. Here again, though, the situation is different from what Christianity became, and different from the other movements we’ve examined (the Q movement, Paul’s Christ-cult, and Mark’s martyrology cult).

5. The Didache Community

The next document is the Didache, or Teachings of the Disciples, first composed around 80-85 CE. The form in which we know it, discovered in Istanbul in modern times, is probably a late revision, very likely having some portions added after its original composition. Differences can be traced, however, using linguistic style evidence. The earliest versions of Didache contained liturgical instructions, outlining proper practices, and offering guidelines for how to relate to one another and to non-believers.

We don’t know where Didache was authored, which leaves us at a disadvantage in understanding it. In its earliest form, however, it was concerned with form, not doctrine, which suggests that at the time it was first written, there was no firm doctrine, or else it was so simple, or unimportant, that it didn’t need to be written. Later 2nd century revisions of Didache would have doctrinal points added, as well as some sayings of Jesus. At any rate, subsequent Christianity does not live up to all the specifications outlined in Didache — so again, we have something which does not fit into the picture.

6. The “Hebrews Epistle” Community

The next significant book is the epistle to the Hebrews, c. 85 CE. Its author was probably Jewish; his work would only have made some sense, at the time, to other Jews—or perhaps Godfearers. He attempts to reconcile sacrifice, which had been part of Judaism, with Greek mystical soteriology and martyrology. In doing so, he establishes that the man who dies for the sins of all, must himself be God—no other sacrifice would suffice. To most Jews of the time, this would have been a preposterous idea, but it may have appealed to some Hellenized Jews. They could retain their old Judaic traditions but embrace Hellenic mysticism, at the same time. Again, this is not what was being taught in the other movements, mentioned above.

Facing the Facts!

Progressing further ahead in time will only get more laborious. We aren’t more than a couple decades out of the 1st century yet, but at no time do we see any harmony among the six “Christian” movements listed already above, beyond a few superficial overlaps.

Contrast this picture with the common belief that Christianity started in one place, with one man, and radiated out from there; this idea just does not stack up, against the documentary evidence of the 1st and early 2nd century!

We’re forced, therefore, to depart with this notion, however traditional it may be. What we have, instead, is many different movements, which all contributed, eventually, to what became Christianity. More to the point, the things these movements taught, were quite dissimilar, and they even had different inherent purposes.

Implications of the Multiple-Origins Theory

Of course, setting aside the single-point-of-origin theory of Christianity, only presents more questions, such as: If these movements were so different, how did they merge together into Christianity? Why do widely-separated movements all give the same name, Jesus/Yeshua, to their central figures? It’s fine to say that multiple sources eventually “created” Christianity, but there must have been a dynamic by which this occurred.

Admittedly, I cannot be too specific about this. What I can say is that these movements did have at least one thing in common: They all crossed the line between the Jewish and Hellenic worlds. The Galilean Q community, for example, were (probably) ethnic Jews who had some Hellenic education and background. Paul’s Christ-cult had as its central problem the task of bringing together of Jews and gentiles. The Signs Gospel community was, like the Q community, ethnic Jews pursuing Hellenic ideas. And on it goes.

Given that Jews or Judaism influenced each of these movements, it would be natural, therefore, that their central figures would be Jewish, with a Jewish name. Jesus/Yeshua was a common name at the time; and furthermore, some Judaic messianism speculated that the Messiah would be Jesus/Yeshua (just as Joshua, which is the same name, followed Moses, so too the Messiah would usher in a new age to follow the Mosaic).

It’s probably this Jewish component within each, which eventually drew all of these movements together. When the Romans put down Jewish uprisings in 70 and 135 CE, this forced Jews to disperse to other parts of the Empire. This exposed other peoples to Judaism, and also, people already in these movements (even gentiles), saw an advantage in drawing together; their world was becoming increasingly hostile to anything Jewish, hence, those within these movements sought mutual protection at the very least.

If it sounds far-fetched to believe that people with different beliefs would alter them in order to come together, it’s actually not surprising. Look, for example, at Paul’s letter to the Galatians. In it, he specifically calls for a major alteration in the cult’s doctrine, in order to release gentiles from the Mosaic Law. In his Corinthian letters, he corrects the Corinthians, who are frequently caught up in traditional Hellenic mystical practices such as prophesying; he instructs them to alter their beliefs in order to coincide with the rest of the Christ-cult. These are just two of many examples of occasions when Christians consciously altered their own doctrine, to achieve harmony with other movements (or at the very least, Paul expected them to!).

Multiple Origins, Many Christianities

Finally — please note that there has never really been a time when Christianity was ever truly “united.” Since the religion’s inception, there’s always been some Christian, somewhere, teaching a divergent doctrine of some sort. In fact, even as the “merger” among these many 1st-century movements took place, they simultaneously drifted apart, into two camps. One, now known as Gnosticism, emphasized the mystical elements of the religion; the other, commonly referred to as “orthodoxy” or Literalism, emphasized form over mysticism. Eventually Literalism became dominant, and wiped out Gnosticism.

sheltercrow said on Nov 08, 2007....

What a story!

http://homepage.mac.com/janetshafner1/2005/pages/Honi%20the%20Circle%20Maker.html

Honi the circle-maker lived in the latter part of the first century BCE . He was renowned for his righteousness and for having an extraordinary power of prayer. During a time of great drought in the land of Israel, the people asked Honi to pray for rain.

Honi prayed, but no rain came. Honi then drew a circle in the dust and stood within it and said: ” Master of the Universe! I swear by Your great Name that I shall not move from here until You have mercy on Your children.” A mere trickle of rain came down, so Honi turned once again to heaven. “It is not for this that I have prayed, but for rain to fill cisterns, ditches and caves”. Immediately the rains came in great torrents, flooding the ground and overflowing the wells. The people ran to Honi crying for him to stop the floods of water.

Honi answered them, “ We may not pray on account of an excess of good. Despite this, bring me a bullock for a thanksgiving-offering.” Honi laid his hands on the animal and said: “ This people that you brought out of Egypt can take neither too much evil nor too much good. Please give them what they ask so they may be satisfied.” God sent a wind that blew away the rains, and the people gathered mushrooms and truffles.

The extraordinary rain in the story of Honi has a deeper meaning; it has been connected to the waters of the mist which we read about in the sixth day of Creation. Rashi explains that the water that God used to mold the dirt for man’s creation came from no ordinary rain, but from a unique mist which ascended from the waters of the impenetrable deep.

http://www.neveshalom.org/html/arts/art_gallery_keith.htm

Here is a fragment of the story as it appears in the Mishnah, the early compendium of rabbinic oral wisdom (M. Ta’anit 3:8):

It once happened that they said to Honi Ham'agel (the circle maker): "Pray that rains may fall." He said to them: "Go out and bring in the ovens for the Passover sacrifices so that they will not dissolve." [They were made of clay and would deteriorate in the rain.] He prayed, but rains did not fall. What did he do? He drew a circle and stood within it and he said before God: "Master of the Universe! Your children have turned their faces to me, for I am like a member of Your household. I swear by Your great Name that I will not move from here until You have mercy on Your children."

What happened? It rained like crazy. It would rain so hard that he would have to do something extraordinary, unintended, to stop the rain. “It wasn’t what I was praying for,” Honi said.

http://www.hebrew-with-halabe.com/Honni8dd.htm

Honni the Circle Maker

(The translation Is from the Soncino English Talmud retrieved from

http://www.maqom.com/Honi.html

R. Yohanan said: This righteous man [Honi] was throughout the whole of his life troubled about the meaning of the verse, "A Song of Ascents, When the Lord brought back those that returned to Zion, we were like unto them that dream. (Psalm 126:1)" Is it possible for a man to dream continuously for seventy years?

One day he was journeying on the road and he saw a man planting a carob tree. He asked him, How long does it take [for this tree] to bear fruit? The man replied: Seventy years. He then further asked him: Are you certain that you will live another seventy years? The man replied: I found [ready grown] carob trees in the world; as my forefathers planted these for me so I too plant these for my children.

Honi sat down to have a meal and sleep overcame him. As he slept a rocky formation enclosed him which hid him from sight and he continued to sleep for seventy years. When he awoke he saw a man gathering the fruit of the carob tree and he asked him, Are you the man who planted this tree? The man replied: I am his grandson. Thereupon he exclaimed: It is clear that I slept for seventy years. He then caught sight of his ass who had given birth to several generations of mules and he returned home. He there inquired, Is the son of Honi the Circle-Drawer still alive? The people answered him, His son is no more, but his grandson is still living. Thereupon he said to them: I am Honi the Circle Drawer but no one would believe him. He then repaired to the Beit Hamidrash and there he overheard the scholars say, The law is as clear to us as in the days of Honi the Circle Drawer for whenever he came to the Beit Hamidrash he would settle for the scholars any difficulty that they had. Whereupon he called out, I am he. But the scholars would not believe him nor did they give him the honor due to him. This hurt him greatly and he prayed [for death] and he died. Raba said: Hence the saying, Either companionship or death. (B. Taanit 23a)

truthsayer said on Nov 08, 2007....

Wow ladies and gents...what a lengthy compendium of gnostic views on the Bible, the texts found to be unacceptable and other fun facts to know and tell! : )

I only interject here briefly...really!  I just want to mention that eventhough one may quote worldly definitions of gnosticism, and one may label (wrongly, I might add IMOU (there's a new one for you silverwhisper ; )...with all due respect to all concerned that may have, that most likely have a different understanding of gnosticism-vs-literalism or fundamentalism:  To believe every word of the Holy Scriptures on all levels (natural level being only one level...and of course, supernatural level being His Kingdom Come ; ) 

In that Light, I daresay that I may be a bit more accepting and understanding of mystical or supernatural meanings in the scriptures and from my personal walk with The Master, than one that believes Jesus was just a man (even a special or powerful or otherwise exceptional man)  that was born, lived, died ("perchance to dream" ; ) and now we are on our own to figure things out for ourselves...just like many believe that He did, I suppose. 

Anyway, just wanted to remind everyone that the split came about because some failed to believe that Jesus/Yeshua was conceived of the Holy Spirit, born of a virgin, and that He lived among us as the Face of God, the Hand of God; the embodiment of the One that sent Him....the Son of His Heavenly Father (thanks to the blood of Jesus, we have been reunited to our Heavenly Father), Yahweh.  He was crucified, dead and buried in a borrowed tomb (He wasn't going to need it for long anyway).

If you can agree to all of that, then the Father has brought you to knowledge of His Son and it is time, if you have not done so already, for you to gratefully repent (turn from your sin, back to Him) ask Him into your heart as your Savior and the Lord of your life!  Hallelujah! 

If you cannot agree to all of that, then you are either mistaken or misinformed (accepted error as truth), rebellious (as most of us have been at one time or another), or you simply are not ready to surrender your flesh ; )

Now, please pass the Tootsie Rolls as all this typing has made me quite hungry!  Beyond, I did a fascinating word study on your name today.  I await your response to my questions before I proceed.  Blessings upon you always my friend.   

I am so pleased to meet you sheltercrow.  I admire your scholarly writing.  I can tall that you have studied passionately.  Thanks for all of the interesting dissertations!  I am in good company here I see! 

I have to go now though.  I get on here about once a day briefly.  It sure is good to see all of you again though...thanks for noticing and remembering me silverwhisper!  I'll get back to my comments later, if you are still interested.  If not:  No worries.

Just good to see everyone again and dip my ethereal toe into the SoulCast Lake of personalities.

Love, love, love,

Truthsayer     

sheltercrow said on Nov 08, 2007....