Interpretation of Texts (General)

by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Monday, October 04, 2010, 15:51 (5162 days ago) @ dhw

Actually, it is ironic you mention all of those in one message. As I mentioned in another thread, I have just recently finished reading a copy of the Gnostic Gospels. Quite interesting really, but there were specifically some points that struck close to home with the conversation we have been having. -The first was that the Mosaic Law was not 'purely' Gods law. The writer makes a strong case for this argument. First he points out that the Mosaic law covenant was divided into three categories: God's Laws, Moses' Laws, and the Elders' Laws.-For example, he starts with divorce, which according to Genesis(reaffirmed later in the NT) that God's law is that marriage is permanent. However, Moses, according to Jesus, made a provision for divorce in order to protect his people from harming one another. I do not have the book in front of me(I loaned it to the medic to read) but in a few days I will try to link page numbers and authors and what not. I am not going to quote more until I have the references in front of me. But I promise to post more on this subject in the next week.-As for Jesus' genealogy, that was something else expressed in no uncertain terms. In a nutshell, it said that Mary could not conceive from the Holy Spirit, because the Holy Spirit is feminine. Elsewhere it says that the holy spirit is the feminine aspect of Jesus' spiritual form, since his spirit was considered to be androgynous in its original state. This would mean that Joseph was his blood father. I am particularly curious on this point myself. Some time back, and I forget where, I heard something about the early church altering documents to support the virgin birth etc.But I would need to look into that more, and I have not had the time yet. Also of note here, is the dispute over two genealogies between Mathew and Luke, though, it is suspected that one was his lineage through Mary, and the other through Joseph, which would have of course been different, yet reinforced his claim as 'King of the Jews'. -Why would I care enough to prove that the bible writers were not crackpots? This is probably the least rational of any of my arguments. The reason is simply, because I believe that they were telling the truth, at least insofar as they knew it, and I think that they, like the rest of our ancestors that accomplished amazing things, should get the credit and respect that they deserve. So often our society of gross materialism and idiotic superiority complexes scoffs at the works of people who were, in their own right, truly brilliant, and in my opinion much more so than is generally believed. -The second reason, and more personal of the two, is that despite what science says, I know there is something more. Ever since I was small I have known it more surely than anything else in my life. It has nothing to do with religion, because believe it or not, I abhor religion. However, the part of me that tells me what my eyes see, my ears hear, my tongue tastes, and my fingers feel, also tells me that it is aware of something that can not be defined by materialism, and the part of me that is tremendously aware of how little I know continues to push me to learn more so that one day I might understand it. While I don't think that the straight forward reading and literal translations of the bible and other texts are the answer, there are rare times when I read something and understand it to mean much much more than what is explicitly said. If that makes me sound like a nut, then so be it. At the end of my path, I am the only one that can judge whether it was all worth it.