[Suska]

if you don't get out of the phrase "Son of God" the idea that it meant God empathizing in a real and personal way you've missed the main point, and very nearly the whole point. When people say "Jesus died for my sins" the meaning is mainly that we no longer ought to kill a lamb or ourselves when we grieve, the solution to remember is that God knows very well what we've been going through and is willing to talk about and maybe even forgive us - not that it can't be unpleasant - but that it is possible because of the Christ.

The Bible says a lot of contradictory stuff which is sometimes indecipherable unless you are familiar with the use of metaphor in storytelling which was once virtually a language by itself and is now, like many things important to everyone, a specialty. But its been so long a tradition its really not hard to learn. When Prometheus stole fire from the Gods he learned how to generate and manage fire. Its not that there was never a fire before on Earth - it was the learning of its secrets that was holy. In fact it was the capacity to learn that was Godlike. A vast number of myths become clear in that light, including Christian myths. Many don't of course; for example why was Prometheus punished for learning how to make fire? There is something about the symbolism of the vulture and the liver I do not recognize.

[Noelnada]

It is said that to his trial in front of the Roman judges, when he was asked if he considered as the King of jews, he answered "I am the Messiah", but since there was no word in latin to translate this, the translator said "Ego sum rex", thus he was condemned to death for treason.

[QatzelOk]

The original post leads us to a question based on a fixed set of conditions which asks, if we suppose the Bible is true, what are it's implications with regards to Jesus. The OP argued that not only does the Bible not say Jesus is God, but it actually says he is not.

First of all, my last post took issue with someone saying "Jesus said..." I didn't say "the bible is false," in response, I simply said that he was setting up his source incorrectly. The correct way to frame it would have been, "It's written that Jesus said." This is an important distinction.

Secondly, that "the bible is true" or that "Jesus is son of God" are similarly metaphorical. A person may think the bible is an incredibly important work of mythology without thinking that the events described inside it actually happened.

The bible being true misses the point just as much as Jesus being an offspring of an abstract notion.

If you can't get beyond true and false, good and bad, and son and father, then perhaps religion isn't really your thing. Maybe math, biology or physics might interest you more - with your methodology, religious texts could lead to all kinds of atrocities that are very unreligious.

[Suska]

A person may think the bible is an incredibly important work of mythology without thinking that the events described inside it actually happened.

The thing is, the purport is that it ACTUALLY DID HAPPEN, not that it ONLY SYMBOLICALLY HAPPENED. People have a real compassion and a real conscience and this is the proof of a moral law which is the sign that God is and knows us. You want it to be one way or the other - it only happened in a story or it happened as a literal result of copulation, gestation and birth canal etc. The Christ isn't a marginal footnote, its a revolution - its THE revolution.

Ego sum rex

King Jesus

[QatzelOk]

The thing is, the purport is that it ACTUALLY DID HAPPEN, not that it ONLY SYMBOLICALLY HAPPENED.

What purport are you talking about? The purport (intention) of the OP, or the purport (intention) of the authors of the bible?

Or are you talking about the purport (intention) of the readers of the bible?

Because in my opinion, religion has been ruined by bad purports.

[noemon]

For example why was Prometheus punished for learning how to make fire? There is something about the symbolism of the vulture and the liver I do not recognize.

Suska, consult this book. Google books has it on limited preview and some chapters you will be able to read for free. Browse the contents, and see which chapters would best help you rationalize the mythologem.

[Average Voter]

First of all, my last post took issue with someone saying "Jesus said..." I didn't say "the bible is false," in response, I simply said that he was setting up his source incorrectly. The correct way to frame it would have been, "It's written that Jesus said." This is an important distinction.

Again, this thread supposes that Jesus had, in fact, said such quotes.

Secondly, that "the bible is true" or that "Jesus is son of God" are similarly metaphorical. A person may think the bible is an incredibly important work of mythology without thinking that the events described inside it actually happened.

A good way of interpreting the Bible is directly from the author. If an author said he compiled a cronological order of historic events given to him by eyewitness accounts, we can assume that, that was how the author intended readers to interpret it, and that is how the author intended to convey it.

[Suska]

Noeman that book didn't help much, interesting but disorganized and without opinion. It helped me by presenting a greater depth of symbolism from which to glean the following hypothesis.

Prometheus suffering is mortality, that is the main consequence of self-consciousness, which is the seat of the self and the seed of reason. The place from which the fire and the forge is stolen is the world as seen by those who have no will of their own but the God's. This disconnection is symbolically repaired by the Christ; yes, you are mortal, but this is the same sacred world and you have not been disowned nor are we responsible for our forefather's actions but our own. We are not born in sin but reenact the sequence of the fall when we sin. You suffer because you choose to, and you needn't, and even if you do suffer, this is not without divinity, merely the plain fact the fruit of the tree of knowledge is in its seed bitter.

[noemon]

but disorganized and without opinion

The book is organized but indeed without opinion, dont forget Kerenyi was the one upon which all of Jungs theories were built. It looks disorganized to you, because you expect a straight-forward direct exegesis. Kerenyi lets you work on it yourself and instead deconstructs all the details surrounding the myth, but does not really assemble them or summarize them consistently. That is why you get that illusion of disorganization.

Prometheus suffering is mortality, that is the main consequence of self-consciousness, which is the seat of the self and the seed of reason. The place from which the fire and the forge is stolen is the world as seen by those who have no will of their own but the God's. This disconnection is symbolically repaired by the Christ; yes, you are mortal, but this is the same sacred world and you have not been disowned nor are we responsible for our forefather's actions but our own. We are not born in sin but reenact the sequence of the fall when we sin. You suffer because you choose to, and you needn't, and even if you do suffer, this is not without divinity, merely the plain fact the fruit of the tree of knowledge is in its seed bitter.

That whole thing is incorrect, except for the first 2 sentences. I dont see at all where you got the rest from, especially from that book, which makes a comparison with Christ, but very off the mark of your own. Prometheus(Precognition) is the God who suffers to help mankind excel through the fire. Prometheus is the God who becomes human(mortal) to help humans.

There is no original sin to be repaired in this mythology. He is being punished because he stole from the Gods and had also tricked Zeus previously with sacrifice. As a Titan, he is a Tartarean, he belongs to the Darkness(Liver), which is eaten up during the day by the Eagle of Zeus(the Sun-Light) and grows back up during the night. Until Herakles, Zeus' son frees him from his torment. Hesiod demonstrates the motif of recurrence. The Olympians deposed the Titans and banished them to Tartarus, and this Titan is helping the humans to depose the Olympians by giving them fire, just like a Cyclops had given Zeus his thunderbolt to depose Kronos and the Titans. Heracles also a son of Zeus, but of the human kind is finally the one who will free Prometheus(pre-cognition) once and for all.

Zeus fearing that the humans might challenge his power now that they have the fire, he sends Pandora to unleash all the ills and chains Prometheus(pre-cognition). What does that represent?

Very simply that every advancement is followed by a myriad of problems. That nothing comes from free and without a price to be paid. That arrogance, trickery, and feelings of grandeur(deposing Zeus) are punished, yet in the end reconcile upon freedom and an eventual reconciliation between the two as in Aeschylus' trilogy(Prometheus the Fire-bringer), where Zeus and Prometheus eventually reconcile.

[Suska]

I'll have to see if my Library can get ahold of those books, the fragments available online don't seem to be enough - though these are tantalizing subjects... I believe I've just made a pun!

Do you hold that these are true histories as Robert Graves did? In which case Pre-Cognition has a history because some tribe made it their practice to ritually recall it, and then there history in a world of other such traditions is a slice of history containing the encoded development of the tradition surrounding Pre-Cognition. In which case Prometheus is really an object of worship/memory device for certain peoples to live by and living by it develop its implications. Prometheus story is the story of the developing implications of Pre-Cognition.

The counter tradition is post-Abrahamic in that such histories were deliberately abandoned because the implications had such burdensome implications (bureaucracy?), or put another way; the ritual was in the way. Christianity was a refutation of Paganism, mythologically an Iconoclasm in the same way the Republic was a refutation of the tyrants. It isn't hereditary, nor are the specifics so important, all of these developments occur in the individual so you don't need a text or a history - you just need to be honest - to see what the world is. It is taken as transcendental but it isn't so much that as personal.

[noemon]

The deposing of Uranus by Cronos, and then the deposing of Cronos by Zeus, could be real histories. The Sumerian ultimate God was the SkyGod(Anu) compare to Uranu=Sky in Greek. Its not just the Kings that change but their consorts as well. So it might be plausible that these depositions refer to Kings, or tribes. And were later transformed to other narratives. It is possible. Though i wouldnt really squeeze my head on this, because, if I we were like to map and try to rationalize such a history we would require, the myths of all the neighboring states, and this exercise was not even undertaken back then, by the best of historians who had neighboring myths available for research and comparison. Herodotus does it a bit where he finds a link during his trips and possibly the author of the Bibliotheca(Apollodorus) by cross-referencing information in the Libraries of Alexandria and Pergamon, but essentially it is a vain exercise.

Christianity was a refutation of Paganism, mythologically an Iconoclasm in the same way the Republic was a refutation of the tyrants. It isn't hereditary, nor are the specifics so important, all of these developments occur in the individual so you don't need a text or a history - you just need to be honest - to see what the world is. It is taken as transcendental but it isn't so much that as personal.

Christianity is a refutation of Judaism, not Paganism.
The philosophers were a refutation of Paganism, and the Christians jumped that bandwagon. All of christian polemics against the Pagans are all of them quoted and copy/pasted by the Greek philosophers. However that is not to say that all philosophers were against the myth or the ritual. But there were a lot that there were because there were a lot of people that took them literally, and the philosophers argued for more refined scientific narrative, but not for the destruction of myth.

The counter tradition is post-Abrahamic in that such histories were deliberately abandoned because the implications had such burdensome implications, or put another way; the ritual was in the way. Christianity was a refutation of Paganism, mythologically an Iconoclasm in the same way the Republic was a refutation of the tyrants. It isn't hereditary, nor are the specifics so important, all of these developments occur in the individual so you don't need a text or a history - you just need to be honest - to see what the world is. It is taken as transcendental but it isn't so much that as personal.

I would say, the counter-tradition is the post-Roman. Most of these stories were deliberately supressed during the formation of the Cult of the Emperor, which required singularism and absolutism to perpetuate itself, the Christians provided that platform, and what was so good was that this platform was fresh, it could be moulded. These myths had been told and re-told by artists and now re-telling them from an Imperial perspective would require some serious re-telling. The Bible though was alien, it could be told for the first time as they wished to tell it. These stories though were not entirely abandoned, these stories remained and were taught in both Roman and Byzantine Empire and that is why they survived at such an extent. Until 1453, Homer and Hesiod were compulsory subjects in education, as they are in Greece today, though today not so much for Hesiod.

[Suska]

a minor clarification please, it seems like you're saying that the Romans both attacked and kept alive the Pagan dialogs. I'm missing something.

It occurs to me perhaps I'm all too willing to apply shared symbolism to personal narratives, but I do believe that is how we arrive at appropriate narratives - in fact, that's the artists job, no?

I like how you explain things but where does it leave you and I in our world? Is there a tradition around that serves the same purposes as Pagan worships? Is it necessary? Couldn't Christianity be the descendant or even the final Thesis of that practice? I take it you are a philosopher, what is your opinion of the Pagan stories and their apparent practices?

I would have chosen the Uranos -> Cronos -> Zeus sequence as the last I'd call historical they have such rich allegorical possibilities and lack detail.

[noemon]

Yes, the thing is that there are many layers, and has taken me some serious reading to try to distinguish the layers.

The myth begins as a real story, it narrates real events that took place at some remote time. Through time, these events start serving various other narratives. The artist, the political office of propaganda, or the priest and so on take these stories and make them serve various morals in the political domain or the agricultural domain or the family domain, slowly the initial history that the myth narrated becomes obscure. History comes to save the day. History is eventually separated entirely and takes its own course, Thucidides is the last man to identify the historical information he can extract from the myth, and narrate them cleanly, with the help of some priests and their catalogue of Kings records. Philosophers start taking the moral from the myth as well, and putting them into the domain of Morals and Ethics, then Astronomy, Theology and Ontology follow and Law(constitution) itself. And the myth is eventually mundane as far as they are concerned. However, in populism you still require the artist and the myth to perpetuate certain attitudes to the popular domain, Plato identifies this and urges the Philosopher in his Republic to use the myth to perpetuate and advertise coercion.

The Romans then create the Cult of the emperor and utilize this to serve the Empire and the Emperor. They have to re-tell the myths from their perspective. Just like Aeschylus told Prometheus Bound from his artistic perspective, which varied from Hesiods. The Romans follow the footsteps of Ptolemy who had already been doing that in Alexandria quite effectively. Though Ptolemy knew that re-telling a story is not enough, you had to create new platforms, because the old ones had crystallized. So after you have utilized every possible twist a mytheme can give you, you get another platform alltogether. You get the other platform and utilize that instead for populism, you keep it simple, concise, and consistent to serve the State ideology.

Then, what do you do with the previous myths? Rome and later Byzantium kept them for their own education, because they were so rich, and they covered such complex psychological and political issues which were not required to serve the state ideology but were required to teach the elite of the administration. That is the duality of the Roman system, the bible for the illiterate mob, compulsory Homer for ourselves.

Here, lets talk about V for Vendeta, right? I take it you have seen the film, havent you?

V does not destroy the House of Parliament in his first attack, but the Bailey instead, why?

It wouldnt serve any purpose, because it would be by-passed and forgotten. He destroys the Bailey to get attention, then he appears on telly to verify the attention and make a promise, and then he destroys the Parliament, when the time is right. what does that tell you? That there are layers of initiation inside a narrative. People follow the flow. To get something right, you have to say it or demonstrate it at the right moment, it doesnt just take of you saying something ad infinitum. That is the mastery of mysticism. Mysticism guides even in the most complicated of situations.

Similarly to teach people a proper way of conduct, which is what the myth does essentially was required in the upper echelons of Rome, under tuition, while the Bible was what I called the Mcdonalds simply because its myths do not deal with complex situations, and complex ethos such as the situations surrounding Odysseus for example or Theseus. This gap is demonstrated by the complicated legal systems of Greece and Rome and the primitive commandments, which true enough, but certainly not enough to run complicated affairs and legal systems.

Where does that leave you and me?

It leaves us to utilize whatever we find fitting to run our affairs, without any frills whatsoever. And even create a new coherent mythology to serve the times of now. But I seriously dont get exactly what you are looking for with this question..which mythology should you or me follow? First of all id say that there is no restriction to read either or both, so it depends on the sincere individual who has been interested and studied outside of biased narratives. Both mythological texts deal with the fundamentals, Greco-Roman mythology is more wide and extensive corresponding to the enormous cultural gap between the 2. Only from the sheer number of tales and allegories, one can notice that there is an enormous difference both quantitatively and qualitatively. And this gap was filled by all of the above like codified law, philosophy and all that before a book like the Bible could be effected to advertise Imperial-state ideology. The Bible by no means can it cover this gap without the aid of law and philosophy. While law and philosophy are directly sourced from Graeco-Roman mythology and are in effect codified mythology. Even with Jung, his archetypal psychology could not have been made without this mythology, precisely because of its extensive nature to cover every little human detail and pathos. As for worship, I worship whatever I see fitting to the occasion and pray to whatever I deem I should pray to, without any restriction whatsoever. When I tell allegories with friends I dont mind if they are from the Bible or from Homer or Hesiod as long as they convey the point I am trying to make.

I would have chosen the Uranos -> Cronos -> Zeus sequence as the last I'd call historical they have such rich allegorical possibilities and lack detail.

They lack historical detail because in time these histories become obscure, they enrich philosophically and dramatically, while their historical truism is being reduced to serve moral and dramatic narratives. You have to keep in mind, these myths were eventually recorded in the antiquity after they had passed from some thousands mouths and ears and whatever historical content they have corresponds to the antiquity of the antiquity. We can accept as fixed the names because we have evidence(namely the Mycenean tablets and the Enuma Elish) to do so, but as I said above trying to rationalize them from a historical perspective is a vain exercise. Trying to rationalize them from a moral perspective is not because by the time they were recorded, they had already transformed to serve that purpose by the rhapsodies and in that sense ofc, theyonly thing they don't lack is detail.

[noemon]

delete

[Suska]

The Romans follow the footsteps of Ptolemy who had already been doing that in Alexandria quite effectively. Though Ptolemy knew that re-telling a story is not enough, you had to create new platforms, because the old ones had crystallized. So after you have utilized every possible twist a mytheme can give you, you get another platform alltogether. You get the other platform and utilize that instead for populism, you keep it simple, concise, and consistent to serve the State ideology.

I'm uncertain what you mean by "other platform" do you have an example?

I like the example of V for Vendetta, but all I see is a dramatic device, I'm not sure how that applies to the matters at hand.

your accounts remind me of something I read recently, "How different is it, what we know about King Arthur, from what we know about George Washington or Billy the Kid?" Robert Goodwin from Crossing the Continent. That story is his example really of his concept of History, that it "can no longer simply be the origin myth of the Christian White Man alone." and he includes lengthy descriptions of his research process full of stories about his sources and even the chance events that brought to him key documents. In that case several histories of the Spanish Conquests in the New World are discussed, all of the tremendously biased even while written by conscientious and credible historians. It seems to me that history has been - right up to today, if not outright propaganda than, and I think at the best of times, merely paint on a palette. It isn't hard to see how an antique moment in history might survive thousands of years, and how it would certainly not survive in a form that resembles what it once was. What interests me is the almost Alchemic way in which these stories become metaphysical lists, ontological sequences, and virtuous sayings. I say it is Alchemic because I prefer to think of the process as itself antique than to say that it is Jungian or a matter of Semiotics. I think this way because I don't believe science can cope with the myths - as you tell them, broken histories - as I think of them, moments in time in which something which perseveres today was constructed, and think that if one could read them properly as such it would be clearer for instance from where and in what order all the things we do and think now by reflex were created. I suppose you might say, I prefer the Ontological approach where it comes to the Greek Myths. I think a different approach is needed for Christianity, you say Christianity was a reaction to Judaism, but if you scratch the Christian surface it bleeds pagans as well as desert mystics. I think there was a real synthetic method in this case, fully conscious of how symbols had been used the first Christians retorted in their language that it wasn't the actors themselves that we wanted to see in the story, but the principles at play. And at that, and in a synthetic manner, shouldn't we look to the back of the book and see not what is first or latest, but what is best.

[noemon]

I'm uncertain what you mean by "other platform" do you have an example?

The Graeco-roman mythology is a platform. It contains various stories, allegories, legends, and such, All of which were told and re-told by artists, priests, politicians, musicians. In the 1st century there existed a dozen varieties of the Prometheus story, this had crystallized the story to a main narration for however divergent these variations were, their main theme was identical, some added a bit of drama. The bible was a new platform, alien and fresh. And that is why Ptolemy had it translated as well, while he also forced the translators to abolish every sort of copyright. And that is why Alexandria is dubbed as a factory of religion. The previous platform had served the State ideologies of the Greek domain, and it had crystallized to serve that narrative of independent states, democracies, councils and unions no further than Leagues(such as NATO for example), during the Imperial time of the Greeks such an independence oriented mythology was poison, the Greek monarchs had to reinvent myth to serve the new Imperial institutions and retelling their stories would a) fuck up their stories and b) would be unsuccessful because they were crystallized. They served an entirely different world-view. That is why Ptolemy started inventing new mythologies and Gods like Serapis for example, and acquire new platforms like the Bible. Rome was not going to escape this reality, and she did the same, exactly.

I like the example of V for Vendetta, but all I see is a dramatic device, I'm not sure how that applies to the matters at hand.

The story of V does not apply here, what applies is the momentum V builds to make his point. That is demonstrated by the difference the same event makes(ie the blowing up of parliament) in 2 separate occasions. This is to tell you, that mysticism is not just about telling you what is correct(.ie in this case to blow up the parliament), but telling you so when you are ready to embrace it as correct. This is what distinguishes the christian role in Rome, with the pagan role in Roman education. Christians just preach their ultimatums ad-infinitum like a broken record. All you have to know about christianity can be summarized in 10 sentences. Mystes on the other hand guide their initiates through a series, which ultimately lead to the embracing of an attitude as appropriate. And that is a much more complicated thing, than merely calling oneself a christian or whatever. That is why Rome could not have abandoned these myths and consequently the accompanying mysticism.

I think this way because I don't believe science can cope with the myths - as you tell them, broken histories - as I think of them, moments in time in which something which perseveres today was constructed, and think that if one could read them properly as such it would be clearer for instance from where and in what order all the things we do and think now by reflex were created. I suppose you might say, I prefer the Ontological approach where it comes to the Greek Myths.

I dont think of them as broken histories, you asked me what I think about this guys idea of them being histories and I told you that it is possible, though i wouldnt really bother to see them from a historical perspective because they have much more to give, if you see them from a mystical perspective, and by the time they were eventually recorded that was their primary function(mystical) as well. The thing is that each myth conveys a reality which you are able to grasp at the right moment, when you yourself partake in such a reality. Each myth represents dilemmas and occasions that take place in ones lifetime, and through the myth you can see how the protagonist dealt with that situation, and that way be ready to face up to the next challenge.

I think a different approach is needed for Christianity, you say Christianity was a reaction to Judaism, but if you scratch the Christian surface it bleeds pagans as well as desert mystics. I think there was a real synthetic method in this case, fully conscious of how symbols had been used the first Christians retorted in their language that it wasn't the actors themselves that we wanted to see in the story, but the principles at play. And at that, and in a synthetic manner, shouldn't we look to the back of the book and see not what is first or latest, but what is best.

Christian polemics against the Pagans, go without saying, you dont need to scratch the surface, it is right there and obvious. Am fully aware of that, but if you scratch really deep, you will see that christian polemics against pagans are on par with mainstream pagan attitudes towards superstitious pagans at the time, pick up any christian polemicist and you will find the christian speaking either by quoting directly x, or y pagan philosopher or by misquoting x or y pagan philosopher. And the fact the christianity is indeed a reaction to judaism goes without saying as well, but this animosity towards judaism was a entirely a christian thing. While towards the Pagans was not. That is why the christian narrative towards the pagans can be seen as jumping the bandwagon, while for judaism is unique to christianity, and such it qualifies. This is further demonstrated by the attempts of the pagan Emperor Julian(dubbed as the Hellena for jews or the Apostate for christians) to re-construct the jewish temple which was boycotted by christians, precisley because it would disprove the very essence of their refutation towards the Jews.

But, why do you feel this need to reconcile christianity? Do you feel you are somehow required? To find good things in a book(.ie what is best), shouldnt be that hard, nor impossible. The thing is if you read the Book, do you get what you need from it? Good for you. If not, read another, and another. You seem to be infected by this sort of rationalism that your faith should be reconciled with the rationalism of the book and guided through this rationalization of the reconciliation, if that makes sense. The same infection is what prompted the OP to amke his post in here, and the same infection is what guides christian apologists in all their debates. For me these are 2 different things. I dont require faith to read the book, nor do I require the book to give me faith. My faith and my mysticism are completely distinctly separate. My faith is independent from any book. And the mythology I utilize is completely independent from my faith. In fact that is how things really, normally and actually are for everybody, but the proclaimed divinity of a particular book imbues to people this sort of identity crisis. Such as...."Am I wrong for questioning the enormous amount of crap I read in Leviticus? I could be..." Lets reconcile it, and then my faith will be pure, if not..then i should better become an atheist". There are in fact christian priests that are so ignorant of religion that ahve gone through this stage. There was one in telly the other day, a christian bishop explaining his transition to atheism, because he couldnt reconcile Leviticus with the image of God he had formed in church as the proper God. What does that tell you? That religion has been reduced to a game of whose narrative is more on par with the imagined image of God or Science. A self-fulfilling prophecy that was going to come anyway after all that shitty narrative. But that is really a game for the mob, a game of semiotics, a game of whose penis looks better in semiology, OK then lets pray to that.

This douchebaggery is not going to stop, nor people are going to stop going further astray from faith, until they come to realize that their giving thanks through their faith to something other than themselves is a process in and of itself independent from all that shit. And a very rewarding process indeed.

[Oxymoron]

For example why was Prometheus punished for learning how to make fire?

You mean teaching.

[Suska]

This is what distinguishes the christian role in Rome, with the pagan role in Roman education. Christians just preach their ultimatums ad-infinitum like a broken record. All you have to know about christianity can be summarized in 10 sentences. Mystes on the other hand guide their initiates through a series, which ultimately lead to the embracing of an attitude as appropriate. And that is a much more complicated thing, than merely calling oneself a christian or whatever.

I don't disagree with this, at least it accords with my understanding of the time except that I did imagine there was something of a Gnostic Mystic tradition behind all the populism.

But, why do you feel this need to reconcile christianity? Do you feel you are somehow required? To find good things in a book(.ie what is best), shouldnt be that hard, nor impossible. The thing is if you read the Book, do you get what you need from it? Good for you. If not, read another, and another.

I don't see what I'm doing as attempting to reconcile Christianity. I do think CS Lewis did as good a job a layman could do rationalizing Christianity for Laymen. In fact, reading his books lately has simply given me an interest in Christianity. Something, I might add, I haven't had even a taste for in near 2 decades. I am intrigued by your opinion since it is essentially my own but supported by a more developed understanding of the Myths. I may not have looked so deeply there but in other places, for example Buddhism I consider myself well informed, and am broadly educated on a great many topics and cultures of Religion; I have read, and read another, another... My problem is not being dissatisfied but endlessly fascinated.

I dont require faith to read the book, nor do I require the book to give me faith. My faith and my mysticism are completely distinctly separate. My faith is independent from any book. And the mythology I utilize is completely independent from my faith.

As always on these matters, very well said. Thank you for taking the time.

[noemon]

I don't disagree with this, at least it accords with my understanding of the time except that I did imagine there was something of a Gnostic Mystic tradition behind all the populism.

There was indeed but in a small pocket which eventually vanished and was in fact banished. Some scholars even consider that these mystic Gnostics were perhaps a pagan offshoot from a neoplatonic academy who just utilized the Bible. Mysticism, and its pre-requisites were alltogether alien to the people of the Bible. Their mysticism developed much later during the middle-ages, both for Christians and for Jews.

I don't see what I'm doing as attempting to reconcile Christianity. I do think CS Lewis did as good a job a layman could do rationalizing Christianity for Laymen. In fact, reading his books lately has simply given me an interest in Christianity. Something, I might add, I haven't had even a taste for in near 2 decades. I am intrigued by your opinion since it is essentially my own but supported by a more developed understanding of the Myths. I may not have looked so deeply there but in other places, for example Buddhism I consider myself well informed, and am broadly educated on a great many topics and cultures of Religion; I have read, and read another, another... My problem is not being dissatisfied but endlessly fascinated.

I dont see you doing anything regarding christianity, i dont consider you an apologist or anything of the sort. I see you sometimes thinking about what should be done to reconcile christianity and that is what prompted my remark. And to be honest with you, this whole journey of mine with religion which extends back to when i was a kid, started from an urge to reconcile the mythemes with the prominent morality of our time. This exercise is getting very prominent with so many conflicting narratives, and I have eventually come to the conclusion that this is exactly where the problem is, though it is so difficult to demonstrate.
Thank you for your appreciation and I have to say that you are very worthy to discuss these religious matters, which is not an easy thing, and I can hardly find anybody to do so.

As always on these matters, very well said. Thank you for taking the time

No problem man, thanks for the discussion.

[Nattering Nabob]

When Prometheus stole fire from the Gods he learned how to generate and manage fire. Its not that there was never a fire before on Earth - it was the learning of its secrets that was holy. In fact it was the capacity to learn that was Godlike. A vast number of myths become clear in that light, including Christian myths. Many don't of course; for example why was Prometheus punished for learning how to make fire? There is something about the symbolism of the vulture and the liver I do not recognize.

Man received the gift of fire (consciousness) and while punishment was meted out to Prometheus, it was also meted out to man via Pandora and her box...I think it was Zeus who sent Pandora to man after dealing with Prometheus.

Prometheus is equivalent to Lucifer (Bringer of Light)...light being symbolic of consciousness...Prometheus brought "fire". The apple from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil gave man self-awareness and they knew they were "naked". In the biblical version it was Eve (vice Pandora) who brought punishment on man in the form of expulsion from the Garden of Eden (symbolic of mans preconscious state).

Jung said that consciousness was bought at a "terrible price" to man's psyche in that consciousness is a literal seperation of a part of the subconscious from itself. A splitting of a part of the mind from itself is a neurosis.

This "terrible price" is symbolized by the ills of Pandora's box and the expulsion from the Garden attributted to Eve.

The punishment given to Prometheus has nothing to do with human nature but is the equivalent of the snake (Lucifer) from the Garden of Eden being made to crawl on it's belly and hounded by man from then on.

Consciousness then is the original sin spoken of in the bible.

Jesus (and all major religious figures) show the way back, show how to heal the divide between consciousness and the subconscious.

How is this done?

Love, selfless service, asceticism, meditation...these are all techniques of reducing ego/self-centeredness.

This accounts for the historic bias against intellectual means to salvation/enlightenment as it is the mind itself (consciousness) which prevents the hoped for reunion of the consciousness with the subconsciousness.

The mystic John of the Cross in his work "Ascent of Mount Carmel" says that when you experience union with God via "infused contemplation" (an advanced state of meditation) you do not recall anything and your only knowledge of the experience is of it's after effects:

I remained, lost in oblivion;
My face I reclined on the Beloved.
All ceased and I abandoned myself,
Leaving my cares forgotten among the lilies.