Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: ABH Re: update

Expand Messages
  • walter mattfeld
    George, I too have had posts to the biblical studies group NOT posted, and without any explanation. Probably because the posts were controversial. The ONLY
    Message 1 of 54 , Nov 1, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      George,

      I too have had posts to the biblical studies group NOT posted, and without
      any explanation. Probably because the posts were controversial. The ONLY
      posts that do get posted are non-controversial. The group seems rather tame
      and quiet with few postings now, but I guess this inactivity suits the
      moderators just fine. The list touts itself as un-moderated, but experience
      shows that in effect it IS moderated and censored.

      Walter
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "historynow2002" <historynow2002@...>
      To: <AncientBibleHistory@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 12:13 AM
      Subject: ABH Re: update


      > Brian,
      >
      > I'm trying to follow what you mean in your post below.
      >
      > Ironically, I arrive at a different conclusion about
      > what happened to the Biblical Studies eGroup list.
      >
      > I reduced my postings there because the moderators began
      > to impose what I considered to be an unreasonably restrictive
      > moderation policy. No doubt they applied this same "protocol"
      > on some other posters.
      >
      > Thus, there is hardly any vigorous debate there.... because the
      > moderators don't seem to ALLOW vigorous posts.
      >
      > If I understand your post correctly, you have mistaken the
      > CAUSE for the EFFECT.
      >
      > George
      >
      >
      > --- In AncientBibleHistory@y..., "briansullivan" <briansullivan@o...>
      > wrote:
      > > Dear Richard,
      > >
      > > Thankyou for this post.
      > >
      > > I had been swamped with c1000 emails and only today found it
      > amongst "the
      > > pile." In my catch up reading I felt similar.
      > >
      > > I enjoy George,s posts but have sadly seen the Biblical Studies
      > list gutted
      > > of its once enthusiastic posters following strong minded debates
      > between
      > > himself and an other poster. I do not believe it is "censorship" to
      > keep
      > > topics inline with the majority of the group if the style of debate
      > disrupts
      > > its overall spirit.
      > >
      > > We are both in the NC group. Cami does an excellent job in
      > controlling the
      > > forum but those who have OC opinions articulate excellent points. I
      > for one
      > > have some reservations but robust debate can include good manners.
      > >
      > > Thank you for your well worded post.
      > >
      > > Yours Most Sincerely,
      > >
      > > Brian Sullivan
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > -----Original Message-----
      > > From: richardabbottuk [mailto:Richard@a...]
      > > Sent: Monday, 21 October 2002 3:04 AM
      > > To: AncientBibleHistory@y...
      > > Subject: ABH Re: update
      > >
      > >
      > > Dear guys and girls,
      > >
      > > I'm sorry to disrupt the general air of warm congratulations on this
      > > thread, but I feel I must disagree. As a list we are not very
      > > welcoming to folk expressing opinions outside quite a narrow range,
      > > and my assessment is that we have driven away, or else reduced to
      > > silent lurking, through intolerance, people who have expressed
      > > radically different points of view. We permit regular posts of a
      > > religiously biased and inflammatory nature (if anyone seriously
      > > doubts this I recommend they look back at the archives for the last
      > > week) which have nothing to do with historical matters. Conversely,
      > > factual matters which happen to support a more "conservative" view
      > > are dismissed on the grounds that they are faith-based.
      > >
      > > The front page reads (amongst other things) "This is a Historical
      > > Forum and absolutely -NOT INTENDED- for church promotion or
      > > religious/non-religious bias. Absolutely non-denominational. No
      > > proselytizing. Good list manners are strictly enforced!" but I do
      > > feel this is not the experience of many. For example, we
      > > don't "strictly enforce" anything.
      > >
      > > The origin of this thread was that Mr Gould (who I have never met,
      > > nor subscribed to his list, before anyone accuses me of bias)
      > > expressed a feeling that he ahd been abused on this list. He gave
      > > specific examples and appealed to the Yahoo T&C (which do exist
      > > whether we individually like it or not). My own feeling (for what
      > > it's worth) is that we do more to serve inter-personal relationships
      > > by being willing to apologise to him rather than try to justify
      > > ourselves in our own eyes (always an easy thing to do). For my part
      > I
      > > have absolutely no hesitation in offering him such an apology.
      > >
      > > Like it or not, the ABH list - taken collectively and not
      > necessarily
      > > the opinions of individuals - does adopt a supportive line on some
      > > theories of Biblical interpretation (such as late composition), and
      > a
      > > hostile view on others (such as early composition). That is the
      > > reality of matters. Like any list, we (again speaking collectively)
      > > have an angle, a preferred position. So let's not kid ourselves that
      > > we are a neutral, all-embracing discussion group able to warmly
      > > welcome anyone whatever their views.
      > >
      > > Again, sorry to break up the self-congratulations - but I do feel it
      > > is important to be real about these matters rather than kid
      > ourselves.
      > >
      > > All the best,
      > > Richard
      > > http://www.abbottfamily.clara.net
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > ANCIENT BIBLE HISTORY WEBPAGE:
      > > http://www.angelfire.com/or3/ancientbiblehistory/
      > > ABH GROUP PAGE:
      > > http://www.groups.yahoo.com/group/AncientBibleHistory
      > > PUBLIC ARCHIVES:
      > > http://www.eScribe.com/religion/AncientBibleHistory/
      > >
      > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
      > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      >
      >
      >
      > ANCIENT BIBLE HISTORY WEBPAGE:
      > http://www.angelfire.com/or3/ancientbiblehistory/
      > ABH GROUP PAGE:
      > http://www.groups.yahoo.com/group/AncientBibleHistory
      > PUBLIC ARCHIVES:
      > http://www.eScribe.com/religion/AncientBibleHistory/
      >
      > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      >
      >
    • Willard Scott
      ....And also with Michael, or Adam, the father of all, the prince of all,the ancient of days. (LDS scripture) ... the ... angels, ... angels ... to ... that
      Message 54 of 54 , Nov 9, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        ....And also with Michael, or Adam, the father of all, the prince of
        all,the ancient of days. (LDS scripture)

        --- In AncientBibleHistory@y..., Lars <siaxares@y...> wrote:
        > Hello John,
        >
        > Thanks for the research on Mithras; it's informative to hear what
        the
        > scholars are saying, even if they don't all agree. So I'll just
        > regress to the beginning in restating that in Eden, these two
        angels,
        > Satan and Michael (who became the Christ) were pitted against one
        > another, Michael and his seed versus the Devil/the woman and his/her
        > seed. This battle, approrpiately, is prophesied in the last book of
        > the Bible, Revelation, where we find, quite simply, "Michael and his
        > angels" battling against Satan, the "original serpent" and his
        angels
        > at which time Satan and his angels are cast out of heaven and down
        to
        > the earth. In the meantime, the prophecy of Eden included a
        > reference that, indeed, the Satan/woman/serpent would bruise Michael
        > in his heel, meaning at his first coming he would kill him. But
        that
        > sacrifice, having died sinless and blameless would provide life to
        > the world.
        >
        > Thus the generic theme of Eden includes the death of Jesus at the
        > hands of Satan, but through that death, life to a dying world. This
        > is a very fundamental theme that finds various expressions in the
        > "mysteries" including the theme of the dying king which took on the
        > symbolism of the seasons where the king dies in the winter along
        with
        > vegegation and is raised back up in the spring when all things are
        > new, etc., etc.
        >
        > The mythology of Mithras might have some specific twists and turns
        in
        > it, but the basic theme remains; Satan kills Jesus and the result is
        > regeneration. With that very fundamental theme, I don't see it very
        > difficult to identify the sacrifice and the killer in the Mithraic
        > variation.
        >
        > Finally as far as your comment regarding merely depicting the
        > lion-headed Ahiram with Mithras not confirming a continuity with
        > Ahiram, I'll just note that the lion-headed/snake infoiled God has a
        > prominent place in the mithraic iconography and whether Mithras is
        > opposing him or helping him would be an issue of debate. But in
        that
        > regard, I do see, as noted, that the LION KILLING THE BULL THEME,
        was
        > a strong Iranian theme already. Thus in the iconography I can
        clearly
        > see that Mithras is opposing the bull where the Lion does that
        > elsewhere. For you to suggest, therefore, that the bull is
        > representing Ahiram and evil in the iconography and thus the bull
        and
        > the lion become one, is a bit of a stretch for me; especially since
        > others seem to presume the representation is a background identity
        > for Mithras,the lion-serpent, who is now consistently doing what the
        > Devil/serpent in other representations does, which is kill the
        bull.
        > On the other hand, it is much easier (at least for me) when seeing
        > the Lion-headed god in the background of the mitraic iconography
        > while seeing Mithras slaying the bull to understand that Mithras is
        > simply replacing the Lion here and this is just an extension of the
        > Lion vs bull theme that was already well established in Persian
        > culture and which has a more ancient root in other cultures of the
        > Middle East. The lion-headed god stands above him and behind him,
        > while the bull is beneath him. Am I misreading something? Or are
        > those who think Mithras and the evil one are different the ones
        being
        > deceived?
        >
        > Remember, Satan appears as an "angel of light" and deceives the
        > unwary.
        >
        > As far as your reference as to why Christians who know about this
        > pagan connection between Mithras and December 25th or even the pagan
        > fertility goddess and Christmas trees, I leave it to you to answer
        > that. The Christians in general know that Christmas trees not only
        > has nothing to do with Christ but they very well know it came from
        > pagan ritual. But if you present this to "Christians" they simply
        > note it has a different meaning for them and thus it is now
        > "Christianized". So basically, many "Christians" don't care or
        think
        > it doesn't matter, explanation sufficient for the symbiosis between
        > pagan ritual and pseudo-Christianism. But this is considered the
        > "apostasy" and the "mystery" of that apostasy that would take over
        > Christianity that even started before the apostles began to die off.
        >
        > But, that's how the Devil works.
        >
        > Lars
        >
        > --- John <jdcroft@y...> wrote:
        > > Lars wrote
        > >
        > > > The above reference identifies a form of Mithras as the
        > > Lion-headed
        > > > god entwined by a snake as others have.
        >
        > __________________________________________________
        > Do you Yahoo!?
        > HotJobs - Search new jobs daily now
        > http://hotjobs.yahoo.com/
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.