Talking Religion...

[Bleed S & G]

Yeah I was close to laying into him for that post, but feared he may have a connection to Our Father (DaddyBigBucks) or His Chosen One (jwinslow) and have me banned or - worse - McKneeled.

I won;t McKneel anyone - especially in a thread about religion..

I'm guessing you and Bgrad believe that the astrological occurrences during this time period are just coincidence.

I find that laughable.. and a reach.

When I asked for a list of what modern scholars disagree, for the purposes of furthering my own knowledge, I was given one.

C'mon..

It just so happens that astrology is perhaps the Earths oldest practice.. and that Orion's Belt aligns with the Star in the East pointing to exactly where the sun will rise, after being dead three days by the Cross, on December 25th next to the star Virgo?

Coincidence?

I don't think so.. Early man would personify the stars and tell stories.. from generation to generation the stories would get passed on until someone wrote them down.

This passage comes right before the whole "I AM" passage I was challenged with previously..

John 8:43

Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say.

Mark 13:22

For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform signs and miracles to deceive the elect?if that were possible.

To me, the last passage means - the majority of Earths people have got the whole "religion" thing wrong..

A false "Christ" .. the popes official title is:
Vicar of Christ, or, Representative of Christ.. well, throughout history the Pope has really done a great job representing Christ.

False "prophets" that preform "signs and miracles".. a false prophet is very simply, one who speaks for the wrong God. I would put a lot of saints in here.. they preformed signs and miracles, were great people, convinced a lot of non-believers, but spoke for the wrong God. This doesn't make them bad people by any stretch.

Sound unreasonable.. 'how can someone who preforms miracles in the name of Christ be a false prophet?'

Matthew 7:21

'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'

Remember, it's a deception that fools nearly everyone.. so it's got to be one helluva deception.

Back to the good ol' Catholic church.. the Whore & Mother of all Harlots who DECEIVE the inhabitants of Earth:

Matthew 7:15

15"Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.

Jesus taught, you can recognize evil by the fruits.

What are the fruits of the Catholic church, and by extension, Christianity?

Crusades, Inquisition, Tithe, child molesting "priest", the list really does go on and on.. but the most telling fruit of the Cathlioc church is the fact that the Holy Roman Church is the richest instatution in the entire world. What did Christ teach about money?

Matthew 19:24

Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to squeeze through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to get into the kingdom of God."

Truly, a Whore.

In short, anyone who preforms signs/wonders, even if they are true signs/wonders - if they pull you away from the Law of Moses.. they are false prophets.

All of this theology aside, if you can call it that:

I would still like a reasonable explanation of how the phenomena of the winter solstice and the "Christmas Story" are not really one in the same..

I don't deny the life of Jesus - I do deny a virgin birth.

"Lay into me" if you must - but bring some proof to the table.. my ideas and thoughts change constantly on this subject, I'm open to new ideas..

But I don't understand how the story the sky tells, which Man has always watched - and the story of "Christmas" being nearly identical can be dismissed so easily, unless it is blind.

It is truly a scary thought, that Christians really worship the stars and are pagans..

Luke 6:39

A blind man cannot guide a blind man, can he? Will they not both fall into a pit?

 

[DontHateOState]

I would still like a reasonable explanation of how the phenomena of the winter solstice and the "Christmas Story" are not really one in the same.

Christianity has let pagan festivals and ideals influence it for sure, but what some are proposing is ridiculous. Mostly because the very theory has so many holes in it.

It just so happens that astrology is perhaps the Earths oldest practice.. and that Orion's Belt aligns with the Star in the East pointing to exactly where the sun will rise, after being dead three days by the Cross, on December 25th next to the star Virgo?

Coincidence?

Jesus is widely known to not have been born on December 25th. The Catholic Church knows it and does not deny it, most people know it, and anyone who reads Scripture knows that it makes no mention of birth on the 25th. It was placed there to compete with Pagan festivals. This supposed "strike" at the Nativity Story is an assumption by those who believe that Christiantiy relies on that date.

Furthermore, it is WIDELY known that there were more than three kings. The stars aligning with the purported three kings is no evidence, because there were many more than three kings. The three kings fallacy has been perpetuated for convenience sake.

There is a reason this theory's popularity has hit a peak with the "Youtube crowd." It has been ridiculed and derided many times in the past. It is just achieving new life with the Youtube videos.

 

[buckeyegrad]

When I asked for a list of what modern scholars disagree, for the purposes of furthering my own knowledge, I was given one.

That is just not true.

I gave you one source by name as a place to start (I specifically stated this). I also gave you a web site that quotes many different scholars on the topic that would allow you to pursue more.

If this is was not enough, I'm sorry that I don't have an annotated bibliography of works in my mind on the subject. However, since I am now home and have access to my library, here are a few more works I can suggest (they are the ones listed under "for further investigation" in the source I suggested as a starting place):

Reinventing Jesus (2006) by Komeszewski, Saywer and Wallace.
The Virgin Birth of Christ (1965) by Machen
The Riddle of Resurrection (2001) by Mettinger
Historical and Literary Studies: Pagan, Jewish and Christian (1968) by Metzger
The Gospel and the Greeks (2003) by Nash
Pauline Baptism and the Pagan Mysteries (1967) by Wanger
Persia and the Bible (1996) by Yamauchi

By the way, can you please list the modern scholars that serve as your references for this subject. I would love to look into their work and how it is received in the scholarly journals I have access to through OhioLink.

 

[buckeyegrad]

Bleed S&G,

You may want to note that Jesus' birth was not celebrated in the early years of Christianity. From the New Testament we are never given instruction to celebrate his birth, which is very distinct to the command to celebrate and remember his death and ressurection. From secular history, we have no record of anyone celebrating Jesus' birth until c. 200 C.E. in Egypt. Furthermore, Origin in the middle of the third century was very critical of those Christians who did celebrate Jesus' birth, claiming it was a pagan practice to celebrate birthdays and was unworthy of Christianity.

Once you start seeing Christian writers discuss the date of Jesus' birth at the end of the third century, you find that the original dates suggested did not align with the Winter Solstice--the spring equinox and January were much more popular times. As DontHate has already pointed out, it wasn't until Christianity became Romanized in the fourth century that his birth became tied to the Winter Solstice in order to get pagans to more easily adpot the new state religion. Of course, Matthew and Luke, and their accounts of Jesus' birth were already centuries old when these associations began to be made.

And just for the record, I hold the growing opinion in the scholarship that Jesus was actually born in late September/early October. I believe the Gospels suggest this time (though not directly stated) and there is also great significance with his birth aligning with the Jewish Feast of Sukkot that occurs during this time.

 

[Bleed S & G]

You may want to note that Jesus' birth was not celebrated in the early years of Christianity....

Furthermore, Origin in the middle of the third century was very critical of those Christians who did celebrate Jesus' birth, claiming it was a pagan practice to celebrate birthdays and was unworthy of Christianity.

Exactly.

Once you start seeing Christian writers discuss the date of Jesus' birth at the end of the third century, you find that the original dates suggested did not align with the Winter Solstice...

Jesus is widely known to not have been born on December 25th.

This is a basic of the faith correct? I think everyone knows Christ wasn't really born on Dec. 25th.. it is only when it is celebrated and fits into the liturgical calendar.

Just so both of you know, I was raised Catholic and have always been fascinated by faith - I know these simple truths and it is not the point I'm trying to make..

The Catholic Church knows it and does not deny it, most people know it, and anyone who reads Scripture knows that it makes no mention of birth on the 25th. It was placed there to compete with Pagan festivals.

Maybe I'm missing something..

My claim is that the gospels accounts of the Christmas story are the same stories found in every culture before and their Sun god. The only difference is, the gods name in Jesus in one, and Horus in the other. The similarities don't stop at birth, by the way.

Your claim is that Christmas is celebrated when it is to compete with pagan rituals - even though Christmas is pretty much the same ritual with the same story just personified differently.

This supposed "strike" at the Nativity Story is an assumption by those who believe that Christianity relies on that date.

No, not the date.

Christianity does rely on a couple other things found in the stars.

Virgin Birth.

Hung on the Cross for 3 days then Resurrected.

This is just one strike among many others.

IMO, Christianity all has stemmed from the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church basically mashed what was Christianity and pagan practices into one faith. Thus, each branch of Christianity has it's roots in pagan practices and traditions.

Furthermore, it is WIDELY known that there were more than three kings. The stars aligning with the purported three kings is no evidence, because there were many more than three kings. The three kings fallacy has been perpetuated for convenience sake.

But the gospels tell of the 3 wiseman, no?

See, you're proving my point. The gospel account is NOT how the birth of Jesus came about. The gospel account is a pagan story.

Christianity has let pagan festivals and ideals influence it for sure, but what some are proposing is ridiculous. Mostly because the very theory has so many holes in it.

Please, what are the holes?

 

[BayBuck]

But the gospels tell of the 3 wiseman, no?

No, Matthew tells of "Magi from the east" (multiple but not numbered) who brought 3 kinds of gifts.

 

[Bleed S & G]

No, Matthew tells of "Magi from the east" (multiple but not numbered) who brought 3 kinds of gifts.

You are correct.

In the other account in the gospels, there are no magi..

 

[muffler dragon]

Except the title "I AM" has a very specific meaning in Judaism that all around him would have understood. Thus the response to stone him. If he had simply said something that no one had any clue about, why the reaction by the Jews who heard him?

What leads you to believe that the statement you have in the Christian testament means the same in Aramaic (let alone Hebrew)? Your English translation is taken from the Greek. Which according to those learned in the three languages (that I know personally), the text suffers at best for being a stretch as to what Christianity construes it.

Another good place via the web is Tekton, which has a hub page addressing the issue http://www.tektonics.org/copycat/copycathub.html

Please be careful about promoting tektonics as having any more validity than a blog. The guy has no formal education in Biblical languages, and the vast majority of his "arguments" are fallacies based on emotionalism.

That it was understood by all that Jesus was claiming to be God can be seen in the Jews' reaction to stone him. If he was simply claiming that I AM was before Abraham, then there would have been no reason to stone him as every Jew would agree to that.

If we want to talk about "reactions" in this regard, then one must also consider present day protocol. This will further lend itself to a credence discussion on the Christian testament. Free for all "stonings" were not permitted under Roman rule. Furthermore, "death sentences" were no longer conducted by the Sanhedrin as the Chamber of Hewn Stone was no longer accessible after 30 CE. Thus, the portrayal in the Christian testament is a fabrication based on these two FACTS alone. The purpose of said fabrication is to present some sort of verification to a supposed claim which may or may not have been made in the first place. This also takes us back to the premise of the Judaic understanding of anthropomorphisms. Do we want to go down that road again?

1. The God of Abraham is the God of the Qu'ran, Old Testament, and New Testament.

Prove it!

Seriously, there are divergences that make that difficult to say as "fact". However, who's to limit the possibility?

These are just two examples; many more exist and further prove the historicity.

Just a suggestion: it would be best to refrain from such statements as they are not always correct.

3. No man who ever lived has ever had an impact as great as Jesus Christ. This is undebatable, whether you are a Christian or not. Our time system is based after him, Christianity is the most popular religion by about 600 million people, history has been forever changed by his existence, and his word was good- he taught great things.

Actually, it is debatable. Are you game?

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Actually, it is debatable. Are you game?

Now Muffler, you wouldn't be suggesting that the fact that nearly every person on earth now believes that the sun is at the middle of our solar system, whereas before Copernicus the idea was considered insane would trump 600 million believers in Christianity would you?

 

[muffler dragon]

Now Muffler, you wouldn't be suggesting that the fact that nearly every person on earth now believes that the sun is at the middle of our solar system, whereas before Copernicus the idea was considered insane would trump 600 million believers in Christianity would you?

Nothing of the sort!!! That would be ludicrous.

Nor would I mention the Greek mythology that impacted societies for centuries, and spread throughout many regions. Couple that with the irrelevance of fallacies such as Appeal to Common Practice, Appeal to Popularity, Appeal to Tradition, or anything else like that.

 

[scarletandgrey]

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." Stephen F. Roberts

"Those who seek consolation in existing churches often pay for thier peace of mind with a tacit agreement to ignore a great deal of what is known about how the world works." Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi

 

[buckeyegrad]

What leads you to believe that the statement you have in the Christian testament means the same in Aramaic (let alone Hebrew)? Your English translation is taken from the Greek. Which according to those learned in the three languages (that I know personally), the text suffers at best for being a stretch as to what Christianity construes it.

Well, since Jesus wouldn't have made that statement in Greek, we are dealing with a translation from what he said, therefore things get messy already. Add to the fact that the idea containted in eyeh 'asher 'eyeh is almost impossible to translate into any language without losing meaning and the problem becomes even worse. Nevertheless, John wrote in Greek, so he had to tackle this obstacle. So, the more important question is what does he use. He uses the Greek words ἐγώ εἰμι, which is part of the Greek translation in the LXX for the eyeh 'asher 'eyeh phrase of Exodus 3:14 (ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν). Regardless of the missing words, the Jewish idea of existence in the name of God is expressed in the Greek phrase ἐγώ εἰμι.

The meaning of Jesus' words, "I am" in John 8:58

Please be careful about promoting tektonics as having any more validity than a blog. The guy has no formal education in Biblical languages, and the vast majority of his "arguments" are fallacies based on emotionalism.

So, the sources they reference, which was the point of directing him there, are not legitimate or scholarly? Why? Also, what I directed him to had nothing to do with discission on Biblical languages, but references to scholarly work on pagan mythologies.

If we want to talk about "reactions" in this regard, then one must also consider present day protocol. This will further lend itself to a credence discussion on the Christian testament. Free for all "stonings" were not permitted under Roman rule. Furthermore, "death sentences" were no longer conducted by the Sanhedrin as the Chamber of Hewn Stone was no longer accessible after 30 CE. Thus, the portrayal in the Christian testament is a fabrication based on these two FACTS alone. The purpose of said fabrication is to present some sort of verification to a supposed claim which may or may not have been made in the first place. This also takes us back to the premise of the Judaic understanding of anthropomorphisms. Do we want to go down that road again?

Well, I'm not sure what your statements suggest here. 1) The events in John 8 would be before 30 CE. 2) I don't know what you mean by "free from all stonings". 3) Is it not possible that a mob could stone someone despite Roman law forbidding it?

As for anthropomorphism, can you direct me to Jewish writings that pre-date the first century that would suggest it is not a possibility. My understanding of Jewish writings against the possibility is that they all date after Jesus and the birth of his followers as a movement in Judaism. If there is an earlier source, say the Dead Sea Scrolls or the writings of Philo, I would be very interested in it as it would hold a lot more weight against the possibility in Judaism since everything that comes after holds the possibility of being a reaction against the claims of what became Christianity.

 

[muffler dragon]

Well, since Jesus wouldn't have made that statement in Greek, we are dealing with a translation from what he said, therefore things get messy already. Add to the fact that the idea containted in eyeh 'asher 'eyeh is almost impossible to translate into any language without losing meaning and the problem becomes even worse. Nevertheless, John wrote in Greek, so he had to tackle this obstacle. So, the more important question is what does he use. He uses the Greek words ἐγώ εἰμι, which is part of the Greek translation in the LXX for the eyeh 'asher 'eyeh phrase of Exodus 3:14 (ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν). Regardless of the missing words, the Jewish idea of existence in the name of God is expressed in the Greek phrase ἐγώ εἰμι.

The meaning of Jesus' words, "I am" in John 8:58

I'm confused. You're already admitting that Greek (and any other language) does not reflect the proper meaning of eyeh asher eyeh, but somehow it's supposed to mean the same in John's letter as what is poorly translated in Deuteronomy. Is that correct?

So, the sources they reference, which was the point of directing him there, are not legitimate or scholarly? Why? Also, what I directed him to had nothing to do with discission on Biblical languages, but references to scholarly work on pagan mythologies.

I didn't click on the link; therefore, I didn't know what was being presented. As for tektonics, I dismiss anything he presents. Thus, I wouldn't suggest ever posting what he links elsewhere or his thoughts.

Well, I'm not sure what your statements suggest here. 1) The events in John 8 would be before 30 CE.

Just what date do you ascribe to Jesus' beginning his ministry? Furthermore, what date do you give the occurrence of John 8? And what is said date based on?

2) I don't know what you mean by "free from all stonings".

I didn't write, "from"; but instead, "for". As in "free for all". Does that help?

3) Is it not possible that a mob could stone someone despite Roman law forbidding it?

According to the Christian testament, this was not a mob. These were according to v. 3, "The scribes and the Pharisees". It's common knowledge that the Pharisees were the more lenient of the Jewish sects, and in fact, did not interpret the Torah in a literal fashion when it came to capital offenses or "an eye for an eye". Thus, the depiction is erroneous.
Now, if we want to talk about Roman rule and enforcement; then by all means, we can have at it. However, I think we both know that they ruled with an iron fist even on minor points of criminality.

As for anthropomorphism, can you direct me to Jewish writings that pre-date the first century that would suggest it is not a possibility. My understanding of Jewish writings against the possibility is that they all date after Jesus and the birth of his followers as a movement in Judaism. If there is an earlier source, say the Dead Sea Scrolls or the writings of Philo, I would be very interested in it as it would hold a lot more weight against the possibility in Judaism since everything that comes after holds the possibility of being a reaction against the claims of what became Christianity.[/quote]

 

[buckeyegrad]

I'm confused. You're already admitting that Greek (and any other language) does not reflect the proper meaning of eyeh asher eyeh, but somehow it's supposed to mean the same in John's letter as what is poorly translated in Deuteronomy. Is that correct?

The question is if Jesus did say in Aramaic that he was eyeh asher eyeh, then how would you express that in another language. You have only three options 1) just use the word of the original language and leave your audience in the dark as to what it means; 2) try to phonetically spell the word in the other language as best you can, which still leaves the audience in the dark and doesn't work in Greek in this instance as there are no Greek letters to express the sounds of the yud or the shin; or 3) look to other sources as a guide to see how they did it and copy their actions, thus at least creating a common recognition of what is being disucssed--for example, using the Greek in the LXX for eyeh asher eyeh. (Your claim that the LXX is a poor translation is irrelevant to this particular question, because the argument does not hinge on the quality of the translation, but simply what the translation is).

I didn't click on the link; therefore, I didn't know what was being presented. As for tektonics, I dismiss anything he presents. Thus, I wouldn't suggest ever posting what he links elsewhere or his thoughts.

Well, if you dismiss it, then I guess I better not use it anymore. I'll be sure to run all my sources by you in the future.

Just what date do you ascribe to Jesus' beginning his ministry? Furthermore, what date do you give the occurrence of John 8? And what is said date based on?

I hold Jesus to have been born in the fall of 5 BCE--Herod died around Passover of 4 BC, so Jesus has to have been born before that. Luke says he began his ministry around the age of 30, so that would place it around the fall of 26 CE. He has a three-and-half year ministry, which then places his death at Passover of 30 CE. I've never looked specifically at which year of Jesus' ministry the event occurs, but it would be between 27-29 CE.

I didn't write, "from"; but instead, "for". As in "free for all". Does that help?

Sorry about writing "from", I really did mean to write "for". What I didn't understand was that you were saying "free-for-all". I was reading them as three distinct words instead of one catch-all phrase.

According to the Christian testament, this was not a mob. These were according to v. 3, "The scribes and the Pharisees".

That would not preclude them from acting like a mob in the sense of an emotional, spur-of-the-moment reaction by a group of people to Jesus claiming to be YHVH.

It's common knowledge that the Pharisees were the more lenient of the Jewish sects, and in fact, did not interpret the Torah in a literal fashion when it came to capital offenses or "an eye for an eye". Thus, the depiction is erroneous.

Do you believe the Pharisees never acted violently toward another group or person? Unless you hold this, your statement here makes little sense.

Now, if we want to talk about Roman rule and enforcement; then by all means, we can have at it. However, I think we both know that they ruled with an iron fist even on minor points of criminality.

What does that have to do with anything? We also know that starting at least by 6 CE, there were Jewish groups that openly defiled Roman authority. To say that a Jewish group of Pharisees never transgressed Roman law, even out of a momentary flash of passion, due to fear of Roman reprisal is just too great a stretch of the imagination to be believeable.

 

[muffler dragon]

The question is if Jesus did say in Aramaic that he was eyeh asher eyeh, then how would you express that in another language.

Since you raised it, how do you know this is what Jesus said in Aramaic?

You have only three options 1) just use the word of the original language and leave your audience in the dark as to what it means; 2) try to phonetically spell the word in the other language as best you can, which still leaves the audience in the dark and doesn't work in Greek in this instance as there are no Greek letters to express the sounds of the yud or the shin; or 3) look to other sources as a guide to see how they did it and copy their actions, thus at least creating a common recognition of what is being disucssed--for example, using the Greek in the LXX for eyeh asher eyeh.

I realize this is taking a step back, but I must ask: why do you believe that John's audience would be in the dark? Would John's audience have not been familiar with the other gospels in order to draw conclusions?

(Your claim that the LXX is a poor translation is irrelevant to this particular question, because the argument does not hinge on the quality of the translation, but simply what the translation is).

I was using your words in my statement. You said:

Well, since Jesus wouldn't have made that statement in Greek, we are dealing with a translation from what he said, therefore things get messy already. Add to the fact that the idea containted in eyeh 'asher 'eyeh is almost impossible to translate into any language without losing meaning and the problem becomes even worse.

This leaves the entire situation up in the air.

Well, if you dismiss it, then I guess I better not use it anymore. I'll be sure to run all my sources by you in the future.

I wasn't being flippant towards you. I want you to know that. I was suggesting that it might be able to provide a source/link that comes from someone/something that is not of such ill repute. That's why it was a suggestion.

I hold Jesus to have been born in the fall of 5 BCE--Herod died around Passover of 4 BC, so Jesus has to have been born before that. Luke says he began his ministry around the age of 30, so that would place it around the fall of 26 CE. He has a three-and-half year ministry, which then places his death at Passover of 30 CE. I've never looked specifically at which year of Jesus' ministry the event occurs, but it would be between 27-29 CE.

This is the first time I've run into someone claiming a ministry that early. I ask that you allow me the time to come back to this.

That would not preclude them from acting like a mob in the sense of an emotional, spur-of-the-moment reaction by a group of people to Jesus claiming to be YHVH.

As role models to the nation of Israel as teachers and maintainers of Scripture of tradition; yes, I believe this would preclude them. I would have to ask for primary source material to show that this was a rampant consideration. Lest we forget, there were fringe groups aplenty and dozens of messianic figures who brought all sorts of doctrines with them. Even as Gamaliel is portrayed in Acts, this is completely asymmetrical from the Pharisaic POV.

Do you believe the Pharisees never acted violently toward another group or person? Unless you hold this, your statement here makes little sense.

Are you really going to ask for an "en toto" response from me on this? "Never"? If this is the route you're going to go; then expect quid pro quo. I'm talking about high certainty. That's all the more you should expect.

What does that have to do with anything? We also know that starting at least by 6 CE, there were Jewish groups that openly defiled Roman authority. To say that a Jewish group of Pharisees never transgressed Roman law, even out of a momentary flash of passion, due to fear of Roman reprisal is just too great a stretch of the imagination to be believeable.

This completely dismisses the historicity of the Pharisees during the first century CE, and that is the select group that's been highlighted.