Post: #1

The term Judeo-Christian is bandied about by US politicians, but how accurate is it? I would have thought that the influence of Jews upon western political thought was minimal up until around 150 years ago e.g. Karl Marx and the birth of Hollywood.

Weren’t the founding fathers of the US and western political thought in the 18th century (e.g. John Locke,
Thomas Paine ostensibly from a Christian background? (Even though some may not have been religious).

Isn’t the same true for the main drivers in the Renaissance?

What do you guys think about this?

Post: #2

They have to pay lip service to the you-know-which lobby. Of course it has nothing to do with America having any sort of "judeo" heritage.

Post: #3

There must be something to it else why did Sir Isaac Newton bother to become fluent in Hebrew?

Post: #4

In my opinion, most of the Founding Fathers and drivers of Western Civilization were occultists. Kabbalists (hence learning Hebrew), Christian and Catholic mystics whose esoteric ideas were derived from the Bible, alchemists, Rosicrucians, Illuminists and the like.

Sir Isaac Newton for example, was 8 parts alchemist, 1 part physicist. Other men like Paracelsus, and before him, Pythagoras and Plato were all initiates in various esoteric doctrines, largely coming out of Egypt and occasionally Iran (from the Zoroastrian initiatory schools). I do not know if men like Tesla and Einstein were connected to these groups, but I would be shocked if they were not.

Christian morality is usually intertwined with some of their more noble and idealistic goals of creating the Great Society. A Masonic philosopher named Manly P. Hall is a great resource for this kind of stuff (check out The Secret Destiny of America, for example, or his lectures on YouTube). This is kind of the "hidden history" of Western culture that you will never read about in school textbooks, since the esoteric stuff is still considered "scary" and is very far from the mainstream fields that people tend to study.

Post: #5

I think you're looking way too much into the term. Judeo-Christian is simply a term used to, "encompass common beliefs of Christianity and Judaism." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judeo-Christian).

Post: #6

Read through the Talmud then come to your own conclusion.

Post: #7

(10-08-2015 11:07 PM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  They have to pay lip service to the you-know-which lobby. Of course it has nothing to do with America having any sort of "judeo" heritage.

You sure about that? The west would still be a feudalist shit hole if it wasn't for those god damn money lenders. Christians and Jews needed each other for the development of western civilization.

Post: #8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fsrtB5lp60s

Yes ,Jewish influence in Europe was crucial to development of the western world.

Post: #9

The western world is a product of Jewish mystical thought and genetic makeup of white (European pagan ranging from Greeks to Scandinavians and Slavs) people. Christianity is the misshapen child of the violent intercourse between Jewish esoteric knowledge and white blood dissolved in each other.

In modern times west is also accurately described by Communism, Cultural Marxism, Feminism and Liberalism. All these, which are actually one, are the natural result of excluding God - the mystical component from the post Christian thought and being left with mere secular humanism.

Post: #10

If you delve deeper Judeo Christianity is Egypto Greco Roman Babylonian to the core.

And Jesus looks a lot like Zeus.

Post: #11

Firstly, Judeo-Christianity is not European. It's just as Middle Eastern and exotic as Islam is. Secondly, the western civilisation didn't emerge because of Judeo-Christianity. The ancient Hellenes and Romans (pagans) laid its foundation and when the Renaissance and Humanist ideas emerged (secularisation), the Graeco-Roman idea's were re-introduced and perfected.

Post: #12

Greek civilization was built on a foundation of eastern Mediterranean cultures, and was preserved and extended by Islamic civilization, which for instance added modern algebra to Euclidian geometry. Libraries like the House of Wisdom in Baghdad had nearly one million books. The Renaissance owes much to Islamic civilization.

(10-11-2015 11:06 AM)Nowak Wrote:  

(10-08-2015 11:07 PM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  They have to pay lip service to the you-know-which lobby. Of course it has nothing to do with America having any sort of "judeo" heritage.

You sure about that? The west would still be a feudalist shit hole if it wasn't for those god damn money lenders. Christians and Jews needed each other for the development of western civilization.

We're in a different kind of feudalist shit hole, and I think the old one was a bit better. It seems like every generation things have gotten worse.

Post: #13

Quote:A Masonic philosopher named Manly P. Hall is a great resource for this kind of stuff (check out The Secret Destiny of America, for example, or his lectures on YouTube). This is kind of the "hidden history" of Western culture that you will never read about in school textbooks, since the esoteric stuff is still considered "scary" and is very far from the mainstream fields that people tend to study.

There are a couple of arguable issues with Manly P. Hall as a resource. I'm not sure about TSDoA, but he wasn't a Freemason when he wrote a The Secret Teachings of All Ages. He was made an honorary Mason, I believe, well into later life. Now, I'm not asserting that the information in the book is wrong in terms of an accurate description of Masonic belief, just that he wasn't exactly in the inner circle when he wrote his most heralded book of esoteric doctrine. I own the book (TSToAA), and find it useful and interesting to a degree for purposes of comparative religion, but I am cautious when it comes to its core message in terms how accurately it describes the actual Masonic thesis (that I can not confirm). I'm completely neutral on it precisely because I cannot confirm the central Masonic thesis.

This leads me to my next observation: I cannot state this with absolute certainty, but my middle-level knowledge of Egyptian Theology seems to conflict with the core message of A Secret Teaching of All Ages. Keep in mind that Egyptian theology is more or less represented as the foundational theology of esoterism in this book and, from what I know, in Freemasonry. This book's core theological concept is that the primary essence of God is reason. Thus, the book forwards an ultimately secular theology wrapped up, in incredible detail, with a lot of legitimate ancient theology and esoterism. From what I know, the actual Egyptian doctrine is more or less the philosophical opposite of reason. However, like I alluded to, I'd have to dig a little deeper to confirm this.

What this means is that any of the following might be true:

1. Hall's writing is misleading and does not accurately reflect the doctrine of Freemasonry (that does accurately reflect ancient doctrine);

2. Freemasonry's doctrine is the inverse of ancient theology while representing itself as its torchbearer (and Hall's writing accurately reflects Freemasonry).

3. The third option is that I am wrong and that Hall, Freemasonry, and Ancient Doctrine are all congruent. Though, given that the Platonism, that closely mirrored and likely came out of Egyptian theology, decidedly does not reflect Hall's central thesis; I find this to be implausible.

4. The fourth option, I suppose, is that Hall's thesis reflects a portion of Freemasonic teaching that is resolved with ancient theology in later, unrevealed initiations. Though, that would run counter to the widespread historical grievances against freemasons and their supposedly ultra-liberal nature. Plato did hold reason to be one of the last steps, but not the last step, out of the cave.

The software of Western civilization is Greek philosophy, which some people surmise arose from Egypt in its most historically vaunted form (Plato). As a theology, modern Christianity essentially bridges the gamut between Plato and Aristotle, with Aristotle dominating the core thought of most Christian denominations with Plato adding the window dressing (which is an unfortunate balance in my mind).

Judaic belief ranges widely, with Modern Orthodox Jews to more liberal Jews essentially embracing and Aristotelian theology and Haredi Jews (Ultra Orthodox) seemingly reverting back toward (and perhaps beyond) Plato in the form of the complicated Kabbalah doctrines. Though, I do not know enough bout Kabbalah to be able to say that this parallel is any more than conjecture based on limited knowledge on my part. Whatever the case, it is difficult to tack down the center of "Jewish theology" past its central eschatological beliefs. Some Jewish philosophy is similar to some Christianity, and millions of Jews believe in something that is essentially the opposite of most modern Christianity. The eschatological doctrines are more or less at odds with one another.

The most accurate category for the West would be that of Greek society, in my estimation, not as Christian nor Judaic.

Judaism and Christianity converge and diverge depending on what we are talking about, and Jews certainly do not believe that the Savior or Logos of mankind was here in the form of Christ (that honor is awaiting their savior), but in sum I think that the difference in what they see for the world's future is what ultimately prevents us from hyphenating Judaism and Christianity.

Post: #14

Quote:(10-13-2015 12:52 AM) Pride male [6]
If you delve deeper Judeo Christianity is Egypto Greco Roman Babylonian to the core.

And Jesus looks a lot like Zeus.
PM

You mean Catholicism and many apostate christian beliefs are egyptobabylonian to the core.
Well, christianity and Judaism share similarity to the babylosumerian stories of eNuma elish and atrahasis, Adapa. After all the world had an origin. Babylonians had the similar story of flood and the ark. Also even how they described the creation of universe and the triumph of mardul the supreme god. However Judaism is monotheistic.
Yes Greco egypto philosophy has penetrated into apostate christianity. Are you sure Zeus looks jesus, people arent sure about the exact appearance of Jesus.
Real christianity is more like no trinity, unitarian God, no cross, no hellfire, no immortality of soul...

Post: #15

(01-27-2016 10:51 PM)avantgarde Wrote:  However Judaism is monotheistic.

That's the claim, but once one dives into their theological explanations that claim becomes a bit dubious. For instance, they wave off a core theological issue that Christianity wrestles with even with their trinity (that the other Abrahamic faiths often hold as polytheistic), by claiming that the monotheistic God has "two natures", one that exists in "nothing" or the pre-existent void and one that exists in material reality. No other faith has been able to theologically reconcile this, except for Orthodox Christians that distinguish between God's "essence", that remains in the void, and his "energies" that somehow appear in the material Universe. Though, Jewish doctrine does not distinguish it like this but instead articulates it almost akin to two full manifestations of God. Also, their deeper doctrine focuses on a number of Gods that they, again, wave off as emanations of a single God (again, reminiscent of the trinity that is sometimes derided as not monotheistic).

Quote:Are you sure Zeus looks jesus, people arent sure about the exact appearance of Jesus.

This is addressing the poster that you are responding to: Zeus is the Greek demiurge, which would approximate Atum or Ptah in Egypt (using Egyptian theology as a template to compare and contrast). Christ would be best approximated by Osiris, theologically speaking, who was not a demiurge but a resurrected God that gained a popular following because his addition to the Egyptian religion allowed commoners to be resurrected into the Egyptian equivalent of Heaven, which was before saved for the elite classes.

Quote:Real christianity is more like no trinity, unitarian God, no cross, no hellfire, no immortality of soul...

With a minor adjustment or two, that is more or less Mormonism. Their theology is both fascinating and useful for comparative religion, if you source a good book on it (being that they formally don't believe in theology as such). If anyone is interested, check out B.H. Roberts. Though, admittedly, some people find their myths a stumbling block. My advice is to consider them tools toward conveying a theological system, no more and no less, and so their relative truthiness is irrelevant. In any case, the myths aren't really recounted in books of theology.

Post: #16

(01-27-2016 11:54 PM)hydrogonian Wrote:  This is addressing the poster that you are responding to: Zeus is the Greek demiurge, which would approximate Atum or Ptah in Egypt (using Egyptian theology as a template to compare and contrast). Christ would be best approximated by Osiris, theologically speaking, who was not a demiurge but a resurrected God that gained a popular following because his addition to the Egyptian religion allowed commoners to be resurrected into the Egyptian equivalent of Heaven, which was before saved for the elite classes.

Zeus isn't really the demiurge. The demiurge basically spawns Uranus and Gaia, who then make the Titans, who then birth the Olympian gods. Osiris isn't resurrected in the "he returned to life in the real world" sense either. It's more of him being put back together, then ruling over the underworld.

Quote:With a minor adjustment or two, that is more or less Mormonism. Their theology is both fascinating and useful for comparative religion, if you source a good book on it (being that they formally don't believe in theology as such). If anyone is interested, check out B.H. Roberts. Though, admittedly, some people find their myths a stumbling block. My advice is to consider them tools toward conveying a theological system, no more and no less, and so their relative truthiness is irrelevant. In any case, the myths aren't really recounted in books of theology.

It's actually Jehovah's Witnesses he's referring to (I think). The Mormons are an interesting group though. I wouldn't call either one of them Christian, though.

Post: #17

In Judaism there is one God, no two separate emanations for the ruach (רוּחַ) of God is the breath or spirit/πνεύματος that drove creation.
Mormonism believe in God in three person quite literally and they believe in Gehenna as a place devoid of God and immortality of soul, so that is not I said.
Zeus is not the demiurge, if you read the greek creation cosmogony, Theogony , the universe was originally primordial void , chaos. From chaps came Nyx ( night) and Erebus( darkness) After while Zeus is born from cronos and rhea... there are some similarities to egyptian stories and Vedas.

Well well, truth teller, you got it right, I was talking about that.
Even Isaac Newton believed one God , not this egyptobabylonian trinity post-nicenian stuff.

Post: #18

(10-09-2015 08:50 PM)Drexel Scott Wrote:  Sir Isaac Newton for example, was 8 parts alchemist, 1 part physicist. Other men like Paracelsus, and before him, Pythagoras and Plato were all initiates in various esoteric doctrines, largely coming out of Egypt and occasionally Iran (from the Zoroastrian initiatory schools).

Hey!

God save us from people who mean well. -storm

Post: #19

Yeah Isaac Newton was in Rosicrucian and other esoteric stuff, doesn't mean he wasn't right.

Post: #20

(01-28-2016 02:04 AM)avantgarde Wrote:  In Judaism there is one God, no two separate emanations for the ruach (רוּחַ) of God is the breath or spirit/πνεύματος that drove creation.
Mormonism believe in God in three person quite literally and they believe in Gehenna as a place devoid of God and immortality of soul, so that is not I said.
Zeus is not the demiurge, if you read the greek creation cosmogony, Theogony , the universe was originally primordial void , chaos. From chaps came Nyx ( night) and Erebus( darkness) After while Zeus is born from cronos and rhea... there are some similarities to egyptian stories and Vedas.

Well well, truth teller, you got it right, I was talking about that.
Even Isaac Newton believed one God , not this egyptobabylonian trinity post-nicenian stuff.

There is only "one" god. What the trinity describes is the path of the fall to where we are today. Jesus descended from the father, he is one and the same as God itself. The "spirit" is the emanation of Jesus after he has left.

Attempting to understand what God is a rather difficult proposition. A lot of esoteric texts from the Kabbalah to other Gnostic texts tell us a rather crazy story about where we came from and what we're experiencing today.

I'm more of a Gnostic text follower which has augmented my understanding of Christian eschatology. I've been told what I am doing is blasphemous, but I still believe that Jesus is my savoir so I fail to understand what i'm doing is considered evil or straying from the path. I feel closer to Jesus and "God" itself after all of my studies.

If Gnostic texts are to be considered as correct, we descended from a source of energy/love/ something. Something managed to break away from this source and begin to interact with it. More and more beings broke away from this source as a result. All of this was fine until a feminine being (I forget her name) took away from this source and created a rather ignorant and evil being. In her fear, she hide away this creation in a cloud of mist.

There's a lot of symbolism we can see present in this story. The last supper is for one. A bit of Greek Mythology pops into this as well.

This being became the demiurge who is subordinate to the supreme being (the source I mentioned above). In his ignorance, he assumed since he was alone that he was the one true God. This is the jealous envious God we see in the old testament.

There's a lot more to this that I'm leaving out as it has been a very long time so I'm undoubtedly leaving out a much larger story.

I'm of the belief that the God the Jews and Muslims are actively worshipping is the demiurge. Christians if they truly understand what the Trinity is and what Jesus represents can escape this trap.

On a side note, I find the concept of Alchemy fascinating. Modern physics and Chemistry came out from this and it is a shame that what this was isn't touched upon more in beginning science 101.

Alchemy was an attempt to connect with the spirit world for secrets related to the material world we live in. Sure we get a lot of, "turning lead into gold" stuff but original alchemists believed that they could get answers to questions by consulting the spirits.

Hilariously, we eventually get modern science from what we have today. There's something to be said about the "spirit" world giving us hints to technology. Mendeleyev in particular said he got the idea for the periodic table from a dream.

Experiments such as the double slit experiment fascinate me because I get the impression that as we learn more and more about this world we live in something tries its best to distract us or explain away what we're seeing. In the past, the ancients lived closer to the spirit world because by virtue they didn't know what was affecting them. As they began to observe nature more closely this "world" started to create the tiny microscopic organisms we see and know about today. This is assuming the world as we know it doesn't exist until it is observed.

Of course, we can all chalk this up to non-spiritual things as well amongst other things. After a few choice spiritual encounters in both church, during some psychedelics experiments, and experiments such as the double slit example above I tend towards the more esoteric spiritual one. The cold explanation of science leaves a lot to be desired and doesn't explain that persistent feeling of Jesus I haven't been able to shake even though I used to call myself an atheist in college (something in me knew I was wrong).

Post: #21

In gnosticism, that feminine being is Sophia and she created this being called yaldabaoth and other archons/rulers. It sounds like a lot of deviant stuff. The trinity is a post-apostle belief that was cemented by Constantine and others.

Post: #22

Quote:Zeus isn't really the demiurge. The demiurge basically spawns Uranus and Gaia, who then make the Titans, who then birth the Olympian gods. Osiris isn't resurrected in the "he returned to life in the real world" sense either. It's more of him being put back together, then ruling over the underworld.

Thanks for the Greek mythology correction. I'm actually least up to date on that particular tradition, and I now remember what you are referring to in terms of Uranus and Gaia. I was actually repeating information that I read from a likely unreliable source in regard to Zeus as a demiurge, which stuck in my head, and was taking it for granted that it was true. I was assuming that it was a later theological addition (Zeus as the demiurge) as such changes are common in ancient theology (Atum and Ptah for instance).

I was referring to Osiris being resurrected from the Dead to rule the underworld, which was still the equivalent concept for Egyptians if I am not mistaken. Before the addition of the cult of Osiris in Egyptian theology, there was no hope for "salvation" of the higher self for the Egyptian commoners. This generally parallels general Christian soteriology.

Quote:It's actually Jehovah's Witnesses he's referring to (I think). The Mormons are an interesting group though. I wouldn't call either one of them Christian, though.

Oh yeah? I'm not familiar with Jehovah's Witness theology. That's interesting.

Much of what he mentioned is reminiscent of Mormon theology as well but, like I said, with some adjustments.

I suppose that who is held to meet the general standard for Christendom is a matter of opinion. For me, its difficult to award the crown to anyone over any other religion only because of structural theology differences, considering how long it took (and is still taking) most Christian denominations to arrive at a definitive theology. Mormons really do have a robust Christology, perhaps more so than most mainstream denominations, and so for me it is difficult to proclaim that they aren't Christian. Though, I do agree that their theology is markedly different from most other Christian faiths.

Post: #23

Mormons added new scriptures And questionable beliefs. Jehovah's Witness once called bible studies focuses on the bible and analyzing the historical and textural context of scripture and avoid pagan stuff or greek philosophy influence. It was through the scripture, trinity was found to be false and Jesus was never referred as The God but once the word as a god meaning authority(John 1:1). In the Old Testament, if you look through Ecclesiastes 9 and genesis 3, you can find proof for body soul mortalism. Gehenna translated as hell in some translations was a place where people sacrificed to Baal and later on a place they burned the criminals' bodies and trash. The word stauros commonly translated as cross originally meant upright pole or stake, but later some historians said crucifixion eventually became a cross being used to execute but others maintain a stake being used to punish the convicted. In addition the cross is found in various pagan religions worldwide, from the babylonian symbol Tammuz, egyptian ankh, Aztec t cross, Hindu and Buddhism swatsika...

Post: #24

(01-28-2016 11:33 AM)avantgarde Wrote:  In gnosticism, that feminine being is Sophia and she created this being called yaldabaoth and other archons/rulers. It sounds like a lot of deviant stuff. The trinity is a post-apostle belief that was cemented by Constantine and others.

Thanks for the correction on the names. The Gnostic stuff really connected early Greek God myths for me.

As for the trinity, there's a mention in Matthew of what to say during a Baptism which has some connection to the trinity.

Matthew 28:19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

But you're correct that it wasn't truly codified until Constantine.

Post: #25

(01-28-2016 05:32 AM)The Beast1 Wrote:  I'm more of a Gnostic text follower which has augmented my understanding of Christian eschatology. I've been told what I am doing is blasphemous, but I still believe that Jesus is my savoir so I fail to understand what i'm doing is considered evil or straying from the path. I feel closer to Jesus and "God" itself after all of my studies.

At a guess the objection they're probably raising relates to the assertion that the God that the Jews and Muslims worship is different from the God from whom Jesus is begotten. The argument being = insofar as the Nicene Creed is a short handbook for what Christians believe, it holds the OT and NT god are one and the same: Jesus is eternally begotten of the Father through whom all things were made, that Father being the maker of all things seen and unseen.

Jesus descends to Earth "in accordance with the scriptures" which on the books of the Old Testament are given via the prophets from (I think) Isaiah and back. In essence orthodox (and I intentionally use small o rather than large) Christianity holds Jesus's birth was prophesised as the gift of the God who tested Abraham by asking Abraham make a sacrifice of his only son. Abraham's obedience to God in obeying Yahweh to the last moment before killing his own son prompted/inspired/obliged God to a great covenant: the first being that he will make Isaac and his descendants his chosen people. The second covenant implicitly being that since Abraham did not withhold his only son that he loved from death at God's command, God would not only not withhold his own Son but would offer him as a positive sacrifice to remove the taint of Original Sin (if not more, depending on whether you're a Protestant or not as I understand it.)

Holding that the God of the OT and that of the NT are different entities invalidates that narrative. Or so the argument would go. But as I said that's just my guess, consult your local theologian if you want a definitive view of the differences.

Quote:On a side note, I find the concept of Alchemy fascinating. Modern physics and Chemistry came out from this and it is a shame that what this was isn't touched upon more in beginning science 101.

Alchemy was an attempt to connect with the spirit world for secrets related to the material world we live in. Sure we get a lot of, "turning lead into gold" stuff but original alchemists believed that they could get answers to questions by consulting the spirits.

Blame the Romans for that. They regarded chemistry and alchemy as other than practical sciences, while stuff like civil engineering and architecture was paramount. (They also believed in spirits and gods and whatnot but had a rather ... orderly mindset about the whole deal.) Scientific progress took the path it did in part because of their cultural biases. This is not to blame them for that, Greek philosophy in theory set us back a couple hundred years or so scientifically because they didn't have as much interest in abstract concepts if I understand it right.

God save us from people who mean well. -storm