What's his name? Immanuel or Jesus?

[Nehushta]

Originally posted by jcarl
Nehushta,
So pretty much all of the OT is mythical. Are you including David, Solomon, the temple, the captivity, etc. in this statement?

Absolutely! In fact, the name Solomon is made up of 3 ancient sun names - the Roman Sol, the Hindu Om, or Aum, and the Chaldeo-Egyptian On. All 3 represented the creative spirit and were worshipped as such. Solomon is the personification of this creative spirit. You see, the ancients believed that the planet Earth was once a sun that burned out and became a "wanderer", until our own sun caught it up in its own orbit. The ancient myths tell this story of creation over and over again in many different ways, using different characters to represent the sun and the earth each time.

Solomon was a son of God who saw that the daughters of men were fair and took them to wife. The women in this story represent matter (as they always do in mythology), and this is what turned his heart away from the spiritual to the material. It was from this point on that Solomon turned evil - a murderer who even killed his own brother, Adonijah (ring any bells?). Don't be too upset by that - this happens to all the gods who make their descent from spirit into matter - it's all part and parcel of the whole "fallen god" gig. Being a fallen god himself, Jesus had no choice but to descend from this line - but I digress.

The "holy temple" God commissioned Solomon to build represented the earth (that temple not made with hands, eternal in the heavens...), which took seven years to build (this is the same as the seven days of creation)....

It's difficult to see at first, but if you read the various bible stories from the beginning with this idea in mind, you'll begin to see the same pattern emerge time and time again. I know of no proof that either David or Solomon ever existed. If, indeed, all the kings of the earth sought Solomon's presence, wouldn't evidence of this have shown up in some ancient historical document somewhere (aside from the bible, obviously)?

Probably the only book that was actually historical was the Book of Maccabees, but this was rejected by the compilers of the canon as "uninspired." Go figure.

 

[Jenyar]

Absolutely! In fact, the name Solomon is made up of 3 ancient sun names - the Roman Sol, the Hindu Om, or Aum, and the Chaldeo-Egyptian On. All 3 represented the creative spirit and were worshipped as such. Solomon is the personification of this creative spirit. You see, the ancients believed that the planet Earth was once a sun that burned out and became a "wanderer", until our own sun caught it up in its own orbit. The ancient myths tell this story of creation over and over again in many different ways, using different characters to represent the sun and the earth each time.

Very imaginative. But Solomon means "peaceful" (JewishEncyclopedia). He lived among people who firmly believed God created both the sun and the earth - and Solomon was hardly part of their creation story.

The "holy temple" God commissioned Solomon to build represented the earth (that temple not made with hands, eternal in the heavens...), which took seven years to build (this is the same as the seven days of creation)....

Do you deny then that there ever was a first Temple?

 

[Nehushta]

Originally posted by Jenyar
Very imaginative. But Solomon means "peaceful" (JewishEncyclopedia). He lived among people who firmly believed God created both the sun and the earth - and Solomon was hardly part of their creation story.

It's true that what is written and pronounced as "Solomon" in the English version of the OT is a name that is pronounced shel-o-mo', meaning peace, in Hebrew. So do you wonder at all why a name that was originally pronounced "shelomo" would have been so perverted during translation that it was pronounced very differently from the original, and therein are contained 3 words that all mean "sun" in 3 different languages? And that the languages represented therein are from the very cultures from which the original myths were taken? Could it be that the translators wanted to preserve the original meanings as much as possible without a visit to the torture chambers?

I'm not sure if you read the following bit from that link you posted, but I find this interesting (in so much as it is readable, as the font used has caused some of the letters to be corrupted):

Importance in Jewish Legend.

—In Rabbinical Literature and Legend:
(see image) Solomon's House of the Forest of Lebanon.(Restored by Chipiez.)

Solomon not only occupies a very important part in rabbinical legend, but is glorified even from a theological point of view. It must be added, however, that the Tannaim, with the exception of Jose b. Ḥalafta, were inclined to treat only of his weaknesses and his downfall. Solomon was one of those men to whom names were given by God before their birth, being thus placed in the category of the just ("ẓaddiḳim"; Yer. Ber. vii., 11b; Gen. R. xlv. 11; Tan., Bereshit, 30). Besides his three principal names, Jedidiah (II Sam. xii. 25), Ḳohelet (Eccl. i. 1 et passim, Hebr.), and Solomon, various others are assigned to him by the Rabbis, namely, Agur, Bin, Jakeh, Lemuel, Ithiel, and Ucal (Prov. xxx. 1, xxxi. 1), the interpretations of which, according to the earlier school, are as follows: "He who gathered the words of the Torah, who understood them, who later enunciated them, who said to God in his heart, 'I have the power; consequently, I may transgress the prescriptions of the Torah.' " The later school, on the other hand, adopts the following explanations: Agur ="he who girt his loins"; Bin = "he who built the Temple"; Jakeh = "he who reigned over the whole world"; Ithiel = "he who understood the signs of God"; and Ucal = "he who could withstand them" (Cant. R. i. 1; Midr. Mishle xxx. 1; Targ. Sheni to Esth. i. 2). Solomon was also one of those who were styled "baḥurim" (="chosen"), "yedidim" (="friends"), and "ahubim" (="beloved ones"; Ab. R. N., ed. Schechter, p. 121). Solomon's instructor in the Torah was Shimei,whose death marked Solomon's first lapse into sin (Ber. 8a).

Do you deny then that there ever was a first Temple?

No, I just deny that the bible records the building of it in anything that approaches accuracy.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

Jesus of the Zodiac

Originally posted by Nehushta
It's true that what is written and pronounced as "Solomon" in the English version of the OT is a name that is pronounced shel-o-mo', meaning peace, in Hebrew. So do you wonder at all why a name that was originally pronounced "shelomo" would have been so perverted during translation that it was pronounced very differently from the original, and therein are contained 3 words that all mean "sun" in 3 different languages? And that the languages represented therein are from the very cultures from which the original myths were taken? Could it be that the translators wanted to preserve the original meanings as much as possible without a visit to the torture chambers?

I'm not sure if you read the following bit from that link you posted, but I find this interesting (in so much as it is readable, as the font used has caused some of the letters to be corrupted):

Importance in Jewish Legend.

—In Rabbinical Literature and Legend:
(see image) Solomon's House of the Forest of Lebanon.(Restored by Chipiez.)

Solomon not only occupies a very important part in rabbinical legend, but is glorified even from a theological point of view. It must be added, however, that the Tannaim, with the exception of Jose b. Ḥalafta, were inclined to treat only of his weaknesses and his downfall. Solomon was one of those men to whom names were given by God before their birth, being thus placed in the category of the just ("ẓaddiḳim"; Yer. Ber. vii., 11b; Gen. R. xlv. 11; Tan., Bereshit, 30). Besides his three principal names, Jedidiah (II Sam. xii. 25), Ḳohelet (Eccl. i. 1 et passim, Hebr.), and Solomon, various others are assigned to him by the Rabbis, namely, Agur, Bin, Jakeh, Lemuel, Ithiel, and Ucal (Prov. xxx. 1, xxxi. 1), the interpretations of which, according to the earlier school, are as follows: "He who gathered the words of the Torah, who understood them, who later enunciated them, who said to God in his heart, 'I have the power; consequently, I may transgress the prescriptions of the Torah.' " The later school, on the other hand, adopts the following explanations: Agur ="he who girt his loins"; Bin = "he who built the Temple"; Jakeh = "he who reigned over the whole world"; Ithiel = "he who understood the signs of God"; and Ucal = "he who could withstand them" (Cant. R. i. 1; Midr. Mishle xxx. 1; Targ. Sheni to Esth. i. 2). Solomon was also one of those who were styled "baḥurim" (="chosen"), "yedidim" (="friends"), and "ahubim" (="beloved ones"; Ab. R. N., ed. Schechter, p. 121). Solomon's instructor in the Torah was Shimei,whose death marked Solomon's first lapse into sin (Ber. 8a).

No, I just deny that the bible records the building of it in anything that approaches accuracy.
----------
M*W: Interesting concept of Solomon. I may have mentioned briefly a while back about Jesus and the Zodiac. Jesus, the Son(Sun) of God(Universe), and his 12 desciples:

Ram = Lamb of God
Bull = False idol
Twins = Thomas, Jesus' twin
Crab = any suggestions?
Lion = Lion of God; Sphinx
Virgin = Mary, Mother of God and Mary Magdalene
Scales of Justice = Heaven and hell
Scorpion = any suggestions?
Archer = Piercing the side of Jesus?
Goat = Satan, Devil, Sacrificial animal (Jesus-alleged born in Capricorn)
Water Bearer = Wedding at Cana, etc.
Fish = Fisher of men, loaves and fishes, etc.

Sorry, I don't remember all of the signs, but if Jesus is the Sun and the disciples are around him, this would mean that the story of Jesus and his disciples is based on the zodiac.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

Re: Jesus of the Zodiac

Originally posted by Medicine*Woman

Originally posted by Nehushta
It's true that what is written and pronounced as "Solomon" in the English version of the OT is a name that is pronounced shel-o-mo', meaning peace, in Hebrew. So do you wonder at all why a name that was originally pronounced "shelomo" would have been so perverted during translation that it was pronounced very differently from the original, and therein are contained 3 words that all mean "sun" in 3 different languages? And that the languages represented therein are from the very cultures from which the original myths were taken? Could it be that the translators wanted to preserve the original meanings as much as possible without a visit to the torture chambers?

I'm not sure if you read the following bit from that link you posted, but I find this interesting (in so much as it is readable, as the font used has caused some of the letters to be corrupted):

Importance in Jewish Legend.

—In Rabbinical Literature and Legend:
(see image) Solomon's House of the Forest of Lebanon.(Restored by Chipiez.)

Solomon not only occupies a very important part in rabbinical legend, but is glorified even from a theological point of view. It must be added, however, that the Tannaim, with the exception of Jose b. Ḥalafta, were inclined to treat only of his weaknesses and his downfall. Solomon was one of those men to whom names were given by God before their birth, being thus placed in the category of the just ("ẓaddiḳim"; Yer. Ber. vii., 11b; Gen. R. xlv. 11; Tan., Bereshit, 30). Besides his three principal names, Jedidiah (II Sam. xii. 25), Ḳohelet (Eccl. i. 1 et passim, Hebr.), and Solomon, various others are assigned to him by the Rabbis, namely, Agur, Bin, Jakeh, Lemuel, Ithiel, and Ucal (Prov. xxx. 1, xxxi. 1), the interpretations of which, according to the earlier school, are as follows: "He who gathered the words of the Torah, who understood them, who later enunciated them, who said to God in his heart, 'I have the power; consequently, I may transgress the prescriptions of the Torah.' " The later school, on the other hand, adopts the following explanations: Agur ="he who girt his loins"; Bin = "he who built the Temple"; Jakeh = "he who reigned over the whole world"; Ithiel = "he who understood the signs of God"; and Ucal = "he who could withstand them" (Cant. R. i. 1; Midr. Mishle xxx. 1; Targ. Sheni to Esth. i. 2). Solomon was also one of those who were styled "baḥurim" (="chosen"), "yedidim" (="friends"), and "ahubim" (="beloved ones"; Ab. R. N., ed. Schechter, p. 121). Solomon's instructor in the Torah was Shimei,whose death marked Solomon's first lapse into sin (Ber. 8a).

No, I just deny that the bible records the building of it in anything that approaches accuracy.
----------
M*W: Interesting concept of Solomon. I may have mentioned briefly a while back about Jesus and the Zodiac. Jesus, the Son(Sun) of God(Universe), and his 12 desciples:

Ram = Lamb of God
Bull = False idol
Twins = Thomas, Jesus' twin
Crab = any suggestions?
Lion = Lion of God; Sphinx
Virgin = Mary, Mother of God and Mary Magdalene
Scales of Justice = Heaven and hell
Scorpion = any suggestions?
Archer = Piercing the side of Jesus?
Goat = Satan, Devil, Sacrificial animal (Jesus-alleged born in Capricorn)
Water Bearer = Wedding at Cana, etc.
Fish = Fisher of men, loaves and fishes, etc.

Sorry, I don't remember all of the signs, but if Jesus is the Sun and the disciples are around him, this would mean that the story of Jesus and his disciples is based on the zodiac.
----------
M*W: I wanted to add this post about the symbolism of "lion" when referring to Judas:

"I think judas is derived from judah. Declared the lions whelp or cub when born. The lion refers to the strength of god. So the honor of naming a child judas was that the child would be perhaps able to remain upright in the ordeals of life or remain true to the higher conviction."

jstone@lvcm.com

 

[Nehushta]

Re: Jesus of the Zodiac

Originally posted by Medicine*Woman
Crab = any suggestions?

The Crab might represent the "backsliding" sun, after it reaches its full strength at the solstice and begins to diminish in power thereafter.

Scorpion = any suggestions?

The Scorpion is the "backbiter" that betrays the sun as its power is waning.

Sorry, I don't remember all of the signs, but if Jesus is the Sun and the disciples are around him, this would mean that the story of Jesus and his disciples is based on the zodiac.

Have you read "The Christ Conspiracy," by Acharya S? If not, I think you'll find her theories fascinating. Check out her website, if you get a chance, and let me know what you think.

 

[Nehushta]

Re: Re: Jesus of the Zodiac

Originally posted by Medicine*Woman
M*W: I wanted to add this post about the symbolism of "lion" when referring to Judas:

"I think judas is derived from judah. Declared the lions whelp or cub when born. The lion refers to the strength of god. So the honor of naming a child judas was that the child would be perhaps able to remain upright in the ordeals of life or remain true to the higher conviction."

jstone@lvcm.com

This is interesting, and although I had thought of Judas as the Scorpion, I think this fits in very nicely with the ideas about Judas from the web article I had posted earlier (Jesus: The Truth). By the way, the above link is to an e-mail address - do you have the correct webpage link?

 

[Medicine*Woman]

Re: Re: Re: Jesus of the Zodiac

Originally posted by Nehushta
This is interesting, and although I had thought of Judas as the Scorpion, I think this fits in very nicely with the ideas about Judas from the web article I had posted earlier (Jesus: The Truth). By the way, the above link is to an e-mail address - do you have the correct webpage link?

----------
M*W: http://www.jdstone.org/truth/

 

[jcarl]

No, I just deny that the bible records the building of it in anything that approaches accuracy.

What leads you to believe that the actual temple was different from the description in the OT.

 

[Nehushta]

Originally posted by jcarl
What leads you to believe that the actual temple was different from the description in the OT.

Why do you think it took Solomon 7 years to build the temple (see 1 Kings 6:38), but 13 years to build his own house (see 1 Kings 7:1)? Does this make sense to you? And why were there 3,300 overseers of the work, in addition to the many thousands of workers, when this was a fairly small building, as far as temples go (only about 90'L x 30'W x 45'H)?

 

[Jenyar]

Originally posted by Nehushta
Why do you think it took Solomon 7 years to build the temple (see 1 Kings 6:38), but 13 years to build his own house (see 1 Kings 7:1)? Does this make sense to you? And why were there 3,300 overseers of the work, in addition to the many thousands of workers, when this was a fairly small building, as far as temples go (only about 90'L x 30'W x 45'H)?

He put much more expense, effort and care (see this analysis of its inner dimensions - and that's just the inside) into building the Temple - it was infinitely more important than his own palace after all...

Considering that "no hammer, chisel or any other iron tool was heard at the temple site while it was being built", and the intricacies described in its design, it's a wonder it didn't take longer.

 

[Nehushta]

Originally posted by Jenyar
He put much more expense, effort and care (see this analysis of its inner dimensions - and that's just the inside) into building the Temple - it was infinitely more important than his own palace after all...

Considering that "no hammer, chisel or any other iron tool was heard at the temple site while it was being built", and the intricacies described in its design, it's a wonder it didn't take longer.

So why did it take twice as long to build his own house?

 

[Jenyar]

How many people helped to build his palace? And how much bigger was it than the Temple? You can probably guess the palace had a few more rooms than the Temple, and a few more doors, etc. They are two different building projects, with different designs and different purposes. How do propose to compare them that the Temple seems fictional and the palace real?

 

[Nehushta]

Originally posted by Jenyar
How many people helped to build his palace? And how much bigger was it than the Temple? You can probably guess the palace had a few more rooms than the Temple, and a few more doors, etc. They are two different building projects, with different designs and different purposes. How do propose to compare them that the Temple seems fictional and the palace real?

I did not say the temple was fictional while the palace was real. For all I know they were both mythical - after all, I'm pretty sure that Solomon was. The description of the temple contains a fair amount of astrological symbology, and it seems to have existed in some plane other than the ordinary reality we know. Until I see solid proof of its and its builder's existence, I see no reason to believe otherwise. (I'm not saying there wasn't a temple - just not one that fits the description given in the OT.)