Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
All go to one place; all came from dust, all will return to dust.
Who knows the life-breath of human beings, whether it goes upward on high;
or the life-breath of animals, whether it goes downward below to the netherworld?
(Ecclesiastes 3:19-21, AB 18C)
Ecclesiastes dates from about 1000 BC doesn't it---long before Hellenistic philosophy infiltrated Jewish thought.
Ecclesiastes dates from about 1000 BC doesn't it---long before Hellenistic philosophy infiltrated Jewish thought.
No, I'm afraid that dating is incorrect.
Tradition has ascribed the authorship to King Solomon (thus the supposed date of 1000 BC), as was common with virtually all "wisdom" writings. Since King Solomon was reported to have been the "wisest man" ever, many ancient tradents either ascribed an anonymous "wisdom" work to Solomon or wrote in the guise of Solomon - to lend it an air of authority. Proverbs has been traditionally ascribed to Solomon, even though it contains several separate compositional groups - one by a mother to her son.
The superscription at the beginning of the work simply says
The words of Qohelet, the Davidide, a king in Jerusalem.
(Ecclesiastes 1:1 AB 18C)
The literal phrase ben-Dawid ("son of David", "descendant of David", "Davidide") can have several meanings and does not always mean a literal immediate son (for example, Solomon) of David. Other examples of "son of X" are frequent in the Hebrew Bible and extra-Biblical materials to help illustrate this point.
Authorship as Determined From Contents
Whoever wrote the book, or edited it, does make an attempt to connect the authorship to a royal figure, however. He does this in 1:12-2:11:
I am Qohelet. I have been a king over Israel in Jerusalem.
(1:12)
But nowhere is it explicit that it is Solomon, and again - the author may have been using the very common practice of using a famous figure to give his work an air of authority. Other Biblical books did the very same thing.
The other contents of the book, however, argue against a book written by a King. It is basically written from the standpoint of someone outside of the Royal Court - not inside. It is very critical of the injustices done in the land, especially due to the laxity of the King. This is not something a King would have written about his own rule! See 4:13-16; 8:1-6; 10:16-20; 3:16; 4:1-2; 5:8; 10:4-7. Even the epilogue refers to the author as a sage (hakam), rather than a King (12:9-14).
What seems clear is that the author was a sage, a traditional wisdom teacher that operated a school training students. Other than that, there is little that we can definitely say for certain.
The Date of Authorship
The biggest factor mitigating against such an early date of authorship is the language that is employed in the book. Besides the Late Biblical Hebrew employed, Persian loanwords, especially, point to a date of authorship not before the mid-5th Century BC (the use of pardesim, "parks", etc.). It is simply not possible for the book to have been written by Solomon, or by anyone around 1000 BC.
So yes - Greek Hellenism and Persian Dualism were definite influences on Judaism at the time, and something to which the author refers several times, as well as having influenced the work by employing Persian loanwords that would not have been available in Solomon's time. Tradition - working many years after the fact - is not always correct, and frequently incorrect, which is exactly why it's called Tradition and not factual information that does not require a dogmatic statement to prop it up. Additionally, the passage I first cited concerning a "heaven" was a late idea not known to Israelite religion during the time of Solomon. That should be reason enough to see a late date.
If we think of it as an activity that goes on in our heads
I have seen no reason to think of it any other way. Certainly not from the people pumping out nonsense Dark Energy Theories of consciousness or universal field theories of a conscious universe.
Once awareness is produced it does not become unaware
What does this mean exactly or are you going to continue to pretend to ignore questions?
Awareness is not produced like an on-off switch. It begins are some point in our development and increases over time. At the death of the body there is no reason to think it continues on. Awareness appears to all our knowledge to cease just as much as all other activity in the body.
I have seen no reason to think of it any other way. Certainly not from the people pumping out nonsense Dark Energy Theories of consciousness or universal field theories of a conscious universe.
Nor have I. Nothing persuasive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by monumentus
What does this mean exactly or are you going to continue to pretend to ignore questions?
Awareness is not produced like an on-off switch. It begins are some point in our development and increases over time. At the death of the body there is no reason to think it continues on. Awareness appears to all our knowledge to cease just as much as all other activity in the body.
That's what I can see in actual practical fact. Awareness develops from where there was none. In the development of the embryo to the education of the young human we see awareness - indeed consciousness- developing as an integral construct of the bod and mind. We also see the reverse process in the case of mental disease and death. Matter disintegrates and the capacity to function as a working, thinking bioform vanishes, just as assembling a computer out of components enables it to work and taking it apart stops it working.
That's what I can see in actual practical fact. Awareness develops from where there was none. In the development of the embryo to the education of the young human we see awareness - indeed consciousness- developing as an integral construct of the bod and mind. We also see the reverse process in the case of mental disease and death. Matter disintegrates and the capacity to function as a working, thinking bioform vanishes, just as assembling a computer out of components enables it to work and taking it apart stops it working.
The evidence is clear that our awareness as we experience it is nothing but a "playback" of what already occurred. We live with a time-delayed ACCESS to the consciousness that we produce . . . which becomes our unconscious before we actually experience it. Our entire access to it is dependent upon our brain and its recordings (memories). It is the only access we have at this level of becoming (in-process). We do not have direct access to the "finished product" (our unconscious) because it resides in the universal field. I used an analogy before . . . but there is an unwarranted hostility to analogy here and a tendency to deliberately misunderstand it and its purpose of simplification. But I will try again.
Our Mind is our "Soul-in-the-process-of-becoming" through our thoughts and feelings. In other words, our Mind is the in-process state and our Soul is the finished product. We might liken our mind to "white-hot Iron" before it is submersed in a cooling liquid to become "Steel." The "white-hot Iron," even if it were aware as we are, could not know the quality and character of the tensile strength and hardness it will possess after its immersion into the liquid to become "Steel."
Analogously, our organic "white-hot Ion" transfers (thoughts and feelings) are submersed (whatever that means) in the liquid (amniotic brain fluid) around the brain to cool (whatever that means) and become our "Soul." Our "white-hot Ion" transfers (in-process souls), even though they are aware, do not know what they become after immersion into the water of life around our brains to become our "Soul."
(Zechariah 13:9)
. . . And I will bring the third part through the fire and will refine them as silver is refined; And I will try them as gold is tried. They shall call upon my name, and I will hear them.
Our conscious existence is an intermediate process state that is aware of itself, but the conscious state is an illusory self. The true self is a later stage. We do not consciously "experience" the later stage, but our consciousness is influenced and controlled by it.
John your all-or-nothing thinking is what has you trapped in an extreme position. Inspirations are just that . . . inspiration . . . but they can only be interpreted using the existing knowledge and beliefs of the receivers. This does not mean we are limited to THEIR interpretations since we have a larger base of knowledge and understanding to apply.
You have no idea what their interpretations were. You continually castigate those who follow the teachings of the OT, because you call them ignorant. So you can't credibly use their teachings to make the points you agree with without opening yourself to criticisms of following teachings of the ignorant.
You have no idea what their interpretations were. You continually castigate those who follow the teachings of the OT, because you call them ignorant. So you can't credibly use their teachings to make the points you agree with without opening yourself to criticisms of following teachings of the ignorant.
Nonsense. I simply credit the existence of the inspirations. Their ignorant interpretations of the inspirations are another matter entirely.
There's much in the Hebrew Bible that is insightful and helpful - regardless of one's religious views or lack thereof. Likewise there is much in the Hebrew Bible that is not helpful, barbaric, nationalistic and racist and not applicable to any modern situation.
One can read a proverb counselling a certain behavior and take it to heart, while decrying the actions of a prophet who decided to butcher hundreds of prophets of a rival god. One can appreciate some of the laws of the Torah that teach helping the poor, the strangers, the foreigners - while rejecting the laws that forbade a lame, crippled or otherwise physically flawed individual from approaching God.
The Bible is not some monolithic structure that has a systematic theology running throughout it. The biblical authors frequently disagreed with one another over many issues. Christians have done a fine job, themselves, of picking and choosing what parts of the "Old" Testament they feel should apply to themselves. So I see no problem with Mystic doing what almost every single reader of the Bible has done since its inception, and during its composition: taking the good, rejecting the bad. He is not claiming anything otherwise.
There's much in the Hebrew Bible that is insightful and helpful - regardless of one's religious views or lack thereof. Likewise there is much in the Hebrew Bible that is not helpful, barbaric, nationalistic and racist and not applicable to any modern situation.
One can read a proverb counselling a certain behavior and take it to heart, while decrying the actions of a prophet who decided to butcher hundreds of prophets of a rival god. One can appreciate some of the laws of the Torah that teach helping the poor, the strangers, the foreigners - while rejecting the laws that forbade a lame, crippled or otherwise physically flawed individual from approaching God.
The Bible is not some monolithic structure that has a systematic theology running throughout it. The biblical authors frequently disagreed with one another over many issues. Christians have done a fine job, themselves, of picking and choosing what parts of the "Old" Testament they feel should apply to themselves. So I see no problem with Mystic doing what almost every single reader of the Bible has done since its inception, and during its composition: taking the good, rejecting the bad. He is not claiming anything otherwise.
He made a blanket statement about the OT writers, calling them ignorant. Yet, when asked about his statements he quotes these "ignorant" writers. Do you not see the irony?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
