Si Si Blog - Religion

Write a Comment

Religion, Philosophy, Deep Thoughts

Teaching The Hebrew Bible
by TheEtruscan at 22:22 March 12, 2014

The Case against Studying or Teaching the Hebrew Bible: Those are the easy examples of things that came to light only in the last hundred years. The stele of Hammurabi's code is in the Louvre, Paris, France and the Papyrus of Ani at the British Museum in London, England for all to see. Moses' tablets exist only in the fantasy of the chroniclers of the Hebrew Bible on par with the Mormons' Gold Tablets. Who knows how many other "borrowings" (antecedents) from more ancient and preceding civilizations there are in the "divine revelation" of the Hebrew Bible?

As sacred texts go, is there any difference between the Egyptian Book of the Dead and the Hebrew Bible as far as style is concerned?

Denying divine revelation status to the Hebrew Bible is not denying faith or god! The fact is all civilizations preceding, contemporary and following the 500-300 BCE time frame the Hebrew Bible was composed had organized religions with their myths, high priests and devoted followers. Rome had a Pontifex Maximus long before the Hebrew Bible and Christianity were established.

If Jesus of Nazareth as a sacrificial lamb is required by some believers for the salvation of mankind, wouldn't Osiris and/or Dionysus also do? Myth for myth, would His former Holiness Benedict XVI now write a book on Dionysus of Naxos instead of Jesus of Nazareth? Instead of the fabulist rants of Jewish hicks the melodies of sophisticated Greeks?

Instead of teaching the parochial, sectarian and distorted point of view of the Hebrew Bible, why not teach universal morality and ethics? I am sure lots of other texts would qualify. Convene a new Septuagint? Commission our best inspirational, motivational and spiritual writers to produce text and they will be divinely inspired.

Parallel with Christianity

A group of deities with closely related characteristics had already been in existence for centuries prior to the advent of Jesus. They were most notably males, demigods, born of virgins, underwent life-death-rebirth cycles and had redeeming powers for mankind. To describe them, the term Osiris-Dionysus is used.

By the Hellenic era, Greek awareness of Osiris had grown, and attempts were made to merge this cult with that of Dionysus (the Bacchus of the Romans). The result was in a new mystery religion where the myth of the resurrection was paramount. Gradually this mystery religion spread to other parts of the Greek sphere of influence.

It is possible that this mythology later found its way into Christianity. Among the many similarities between Jesus and Osiris-Dionysus, the Christian notion of consuming "the flesh" and "blood" of Jesus is also shared by these cults and their followers could also commonly be "possessed" by these deities, go into trances and speak in tongues.

Actually there is a big difference between Jesus and the other old myths of Death and Resurrection by gods. In all these myths the god was done in by other gods which is impossible to do if only one god is postulated ergo mankind's role in the execution on the behalf of whom the deed had to be carried out. But given the Trinity it could have been a conspiracy between the Father and the Holy Ghost... Bah! A god who sacrificed himself on mankind's behalf. Really? What kind of sacrifice is it when he resurrected (sic) three days later? Why three days and not two or four? Is it a god or a zombie? And wouldn't a god know the future already?

Embrace Humanism instead.