Dr Margaret Barker is an independent biblical scholar, a former president of
the Society for Old Testament Study, and co-founder of the Temple Studies
Group. She is a Methodist preacher. "This was a much broader movement than just the Christians"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6EkE3cwA1E
Nazareth actually has an Omega in it and meant "Jesus the Restorer"
The Red Dragon as Satan is straight from Daoist alchemy!!
I just discovered last night Dr. Margaret Barker's research on the connection of early Christianity to Mother Goddess origins of Judaism - very fascinating that this healer makes the same connection.
She is accessing nirvikalpa samadhi! That's what she means by the "higher dimension" - Ramana Maharshi describes this as the intensity of light gets so bright that you lose self-awareness just as in deep dreamless sleep.
Dr. Margaret Barker is saying that Adam and Eve were supposed to eat from the "Tree of Life" - which is the lower tan t'ien as Sri Yukteswar explains!!
Deborah means the Great Lady since G is also D in Hebrew.
the Red Dragon as evil is the same in west asia as in Daoism!!
So the ancient eternal Day Atonement of creation (Covenant of eternal loving-kidness) with Noah and Mose is the secret of the Holy Supper as communion.
Jesus in the Book of Hebrews is Melchizedek
God was present in a human being - as being born again as a Son of God.
The Old Testament is about not just one divine being.
Scholars debate whether "El Elyon" refers to the same God as Yahweh or a separate deity, potentially above Yahweh
The Holy Spirit is Feminine in Hebrew and actually was the Great Lady as the Mother Goddess!!
Solomon was called God
The Great Lady, the Mother of Emmanuel
It's not "A" virgin shall conceive but THE virgin shall conceive.
Evidence from the time of Jesus, however, shows that there was another
version of Isaiah which did clearly identify^ the suffering servant as the
Anointed One in the way that the present Hebrew text does not, and fur-
thermore suggests that he saw the glory after his sufferings. The text is the
Qumran Isaiah Scroll, which existed in the time of Jesus. The Targum of
Isaiah, the Aramaic translation of the Hebrew text that incorporates mate-
rial from this period, also knew that the suffering servant was the Anointed
One.
An important problem that underlies any discussion of how the early
Fathers interpreted the scriptures is what texts did they use, and how and
when did those texts change to become what we they are today? In the New
Testament, the Letter of Jude quotes from the prophecies of Enoch — a text
now known from Qumran— but this is only in the Old Testament of the
Ethiopian Church. When Jesus expounded Moses and all the prophets on
the road to Emmaus, what prophets did he quote?
There are many quotations of prophecies in early Christian writings
that cannot now be found in the Old Testament: the Letter of Barnabas
has several, including some that can be identified as coming from Enoch.
Justin, writing in the mid-2nd century, showed that the Christian message
was proclaimed in terms of fulfilled prophecies^ and accused the Jews of alter-
ing important texts and even removing them from the Hebrew scriptures
{Trypho 71). There is sufficient evidence from the fragments of Hebrew text
found at Qumran to show that Justin was describing what actually hap-
pened: key texts that the Christians used were in the older Hebrew text but
not in the post-Christian form that is used today.
Origen, when he began his great work on the texts of the scriptures,
recognised that there were passages in the Christian Old Testament that
were not in the text currently used by the Jews, and he was prepared to use
the “Jewish” version of the Hebrew scriptures as the basis for discussion with
them. Jerome also chose the Hebrew text current in his time as the basis for
his Latin, despite Augustine’s warning that it would have disastrous conse-
quences, since it implied that the Greek text was defective (Jerome Letters
104). Jerome said that by adopting their text, it would put an end to the
Jews’ claim that the church had false scriptures {Preface to Isaiah). The ques-
tion to ask is not only “Did the Greek and Latin Fathers read the scriptures
differently?” but “Did they read different scriptures?”
This is true also for the New Testament. There is clear evidence that the
New Testament text was changed during transmission to remove difficul-
ties and interpretations that the church could not accept. St Luke’s account
of Jesus’ baptism in the Codex Bezae has the heavenly voice declare, ‘You
are my son. Today I have begotten you’ (Luke 3:22). Evidence from the
2nd and 3rd centuries suggests that this was the original reading,^ but later
texts had the form found in Mark: “With you I am well pleased.” The “dif-
ficult” reading became part of the old Syrian baptism rite {Didascalia 93).
St Luke’s account of the last supper in the Codex Bezae does not mention
the covenant cup (Luke 22:19b-20). These are but two examples of major
variants. Which scriptures, then, both Old and New Testaments, did the
Fathers read?
Irenaeus, who is such an important source for knowing how the scrip-
tures were read, quoted sayings of Jesus not found in the New Testament,
which he had learned from Papias, who had learned them from John {Against
Heresies 5.33). He used these to show that Jesus taught about the millennial
kingdom on earth, and that this was what St Paul had meant when he wrote about the creation being released from bondage to decay (Rom. 8:19-21).
Clement of Alexandria knew a saying of Jesus not found in the New Testa-
ment: “My mystery is for me and the sons of my house” (Misc 5.10 also in
Clem Horn 19.20). It derived from theTargum to Isaiah 24:16, the words of
the Righteous One, where the house means the temple. The Christians also
preserved 2 Esdras, which says there were 94 books of Hebrew scriptures,
of which only 24 could be made public — the Hebrew canon as we know
it today. The other 70, the most important books, were to be kept only for
the wise, for in them was understanding, wisdom and knowledge (2 Esd.
14.45-47).
Did the early Christians regard the books or teachings not in the public
canon as more important? Maybe the mystery was kept for the sons of the
temple? St Basil, in his treatise On the Holy Spirit, wrote of teaching handed
down in a mystery by the tradition of the apostles, which accounted for
beliefs and practices for which there was no basis in the scriptures. These
teachings concerned fundamental aspects of Christian worship, such as
anointing, baptizing, and the epiclesis. The generation that taught St Basil
(born in 330 ce) had formulated the Nicene Creed, and St Basil himself
composed one of the great liturgies of the Orthodox Church. It is an inter-
esting exercise to see how much of the creed and the liturgy can be rooted
directly in the scriptures, and what might have come from the “unwritten”
temple tradition.
Fr John made the important point that the Tradition existed before
the New Testament writings, and that the person and work of Jesus Christ
were expounded by means of imagery drawn from the Old Testament. The
question is: Did the original Christian interpreters of the Hebrew scriptures
re-use them, or simply use them? Was their way of reading the scriptures
an innovation? Justin [and others] emphasized the fulfilment of prophecy,
a continuity with the Hebrew scriptures. This does not necessarily imply a
re-use, or using them in a difFerent way. The Old Testament is certainly a
compendium of words and images used to describe Christ, and the older
scriptures were understood by Christians in the light of Jesus’ death and res-
urrection. But this was not necessarily a new way of reading the scriptures. It
cannot be said with certainty that the older scriptures “acquired a coherence
and unity” that they had not previously had.
The Qumran texts have shown how certain Hebrew texts were put side
by side to describe, for example, the expected return of Melchizedek. Until
these were found, nobody had guessed that these texts were related to each .............
No comments:
Post a Comment