A New Perspective on Jesus - August 10, 2009 entry in the blog
crunch
"I don’t believe Jesus was God. I don’t believe he was the son of God,
at least not in the virgin birth, unique way most Christians do. What
I do believe is that Jesus was a son of God, in the same way that
we’re all sons and daughters of God. But most of all, I believe Jesus
was a man–just a man–who was able to connect with God on such a deep
level that he and God became united. Jesus lived and breathed God’s
will. By the time of his death, he was One with God.
And this is so important, because if Jesus was just a man, if there
was nothing unique or special about his birth, this means that all of
us have that same opportunity to become united with God. We don’t get
to say, 'Well, Jesus was Jesus. I’m only human, after all!' as an
excuse for our spiritual failings.
We all can connect with God. We all have that potential within us to
follow Jesus’s path to God, to live in 'the way and the truth and the
life'."
-----
Even though I sympathize with the author's viewpoint,
I bring forward the Political Jesus. (I say that Jesus
was right on every major social issue of his day) -
Official Thiering website
http://www.pesherofchrist.infinitesoulutions.com/index_The_Political_Jesus.html
"Jesus was not a divine figure, not a Son of God. He was a noble
reformer, standing out against oppressive and destructive religion in
his own day. He was a part only of a great institution that preceded
him and followed him. The choices he made, within his own
circumstances, were those that the finest of human beings make,
responding to that within us that we have always thought of as
divine."
-----
Comments, please.
-----
David Christainsen
Sir David
the saddle:
> Official Thiering <flush>
Wow. It must feel good to get finally get the fix that you've been
jonesing for since Saturday! A good effort; three full days, cold
turkey. Of course, you had to ride a few lesser horses to tide you
over, but now you're back on your favorite hobbyhorse, pasting a link
and a quote from Babs. It's hard to believe you could go three days.
Bet you can't go four.
> Comments, please.
You're still Crunchy, Carl!
jwshe...@satx.rr.com
> http://thefriendlyfunnel.quakerism.net/
>
> "I don’t believe Jesus was God. I don’t believe he was the son of God,
> at least not in the virgin birth, unique way most Christians do. What
> I do believe is that Jesus was a son of God, in the same way that
> we’re all sons and daughters of God. But most of all, I believe Jesus
> was a man–just a man–who was able to connect with God on such a deep
> level that he and God became united. Jesus lived and breathed God’s
> will. By the time of his death, he was One with God.
>
> And this is so important, because if Jesus was just a man, if there
> was nothing unique or special about his birth, this means that all of
> us have that same opportunity to become united with God. We don’t get
> to say, 'Well, Jesus was Jesus. I’m only human, after all!' as an
> excuse for our spiritual failings.
>
Mt 5:48 - Be ye therefore perfect,
even as your Father
which is in heaven is perfect.
So, what is your excuse excuse for not
being perfect?
Jim
Ro 3:23 - For all have sinned,
and come short of the glory of God;
ADR
> http://thefriendlyfunnel.quakerism.net/
>
> "I don’t believe Jesus was God. I don’t believe he was the son of God,
> at least not in the virgin birth, unique way most Christians do. What
> I do believe is that Jesus was a son of God, in the same way that
> we’re all sons and daughters of God. But most of all, I believe Jesus
> was a man–just a man–who was able to connect with God on such a deep
> level that he and God became united. Jesus lived and breathed God’s
> will. By the time of his death, he was One with God.
>
> And this is so important, because if Jesus was just a man, if there
> was nothing unique or special about his birth, this means that all of
> us have that same opportunity to become united with God. We don’t get
> to say, 'Well, Jesus was Jesus. I’m only human, after all!' as an
> excuse for our spiritual failings.
>
> We all can connect with God. We all have that potential within us to
> follow Jesus’s path to God, to live in 'the way and the truth and the
> life'."
Well, this is not new at all. Jesus' divinity was something that went
up for a vote in the council of Nicaea and got passed with a thin
majority after a lot of backroom dealings. If one goes by the
synaptic gospels that seem to incorporate a previous documents (most
likely a summary of Jesus's teachings and sayings), Jesus never
proclaimed that he was God. He did insist, repeatedly, that he was
the Messiah, but within the Jewish context that he was operating, the
Messiah was a mortal person on a mission from God to redeem Israel.
There are some allusions to his deity in John's gospel, but this is a
much later document when certain sects were beginning to get fixed on
Jesus' divinity. The earlier texts, notably Mark's gospel, did not
even highlight the resurrection. It is now conclusively proven that
the final paragraph to Mark's gospel that deals with the resurrection
is a add-on by a later scribe as the literary style does not match.
I think that the resurrection became important when Christianity
jumped from the Jewish milieu to that of the antique world as a
whole. In this case, the resurrection was important because so many
of the other religions were based on it: the Isis cult, Mithraism and
Greek mystery rites. Of course, later on, Christianity got a further
infusion from these religions not only in dogma but in iconography as
well (the cross and the halo are Mithraic symbols).
So, this is about 2000 years old and you need a bit more to spark any
kind of discussion in this. Anyway, this belongs to religion-based
groups, not in a history group.
J Antero
Yahweh (Jesus certainly gets more attention and mythic fawning than Yahweh
does), and not to worship idols (like crucifixes).
Nothing in Christianity is original.
"The vestiges of pagan religion in Christian symbology are undeniable. Some
examples:
Egyptian sun disks became the halos of Catholic saints. Pictograms of Isis
nursing her miraculously conceived son Horus became the blueprint for our
modern images of the Virgin Mary nursing Baby Jesus. And virtually all the
elements of the Catholic ritual - the miter, the altar, the doxology, and
communion, the act of "God-eating" - were taken directly from earlier pagan
mystery religions."
The pre-Christian God Mithras - called the Son of God and the Light of the
World - was born on December 25, died, was buried in a rock tomb, and then
resurrected in three days. By the way, December 25 is also the birthday or
Osiris, Adonis, and Dionysus. The newborn Krishna was presented with gold,
frankincense, and myrrh. Even Christianity's weekly holy day was stolen from
the pagans."
CHRISTIAN RELIGIOUS DAYS HAVE PAGAN ORIGINS
Christian Holidays are ancient pagan feasts that were ushered in by the
Roman Catholic Church during the rule of emperor Constantine. Constantine
was a pagan sun-worshipper who had a "Christian experience" that wanted to
unite his empire, both Christian and pagan together. He achieved this by
re-writing history and re-naming pagan feasts with Christian names.
CHRISTMAS
Christmas was celebrated by pagan sun-worshippers for thousands of years
before the Messiah was born. It all started during the building of the tower
of Babel. Nimrod supervised the operation and was called the sun-god and
worshipped as such. Then a prophet of the Most High killed him and cut his
body into pieces and scattered those pieces all across the land. Ishtar or
Easter, also known by her biblical name Semiramis was the widow of Nimrod,
she was called the queen of heaven. She claimed to be impregnated by the
rays of the sun (Nimrod) and later had a son by the name of Tammuz who had a
miraculous birth on December 25th. All of the pagan sun-worshippers
celebrated the birthday of the reincarnate sun-god Tammuz on December 25th.
Scripture is very clear that we are not to celebrate this particular
holiday.
"The children are gathering wood, the fathers are lighting the fire, and the
women are kneading their dough, to make cakes for the sovereigness of the
heavens, and to pour out drink offerings to other mighty ones, to provoke
Me. (ISR Yirmeyahu/Jeremiah 7:18)
The passage above is obviously referring to making Christmas cookies and
leaving those cookies and a glass of milk for Nimrod's widow Easter who was
called the queen of heaven. The only difference is now those offerings are
left for Santa (Satan) himself. Let's move on and read another passage from
Scripture.
Thus said YaHuWaH, "Do not learn the way of the gentiles, and do not be awed
by the signs of the heavens, for the gentiles are awed at them. "For the
prescribed customs of these peoples are worthless, for one cuts a tree from
the forest, work for the hands of a craftsman with a cutting tool. They
adorn it with silver and gold, they fasten it with nails and hammers so that
it will not topple. (ISR Yirmeyahu/Jeremiah 10:2-4)
This passage is obviously referring to cutting down the Christmas tree,
putting it on some sort of tree stand, and decorating it. Once you learn why
it had become customary to use an erect evergreen tree that has a pointed
end decorate it with big red balls you will realize the extent of the
perversion in this holiday. The erect tree symbolizes Nimrod's erect
masculinity. The tree was evergreen because evergreen trees are full of life
year round, like Nimrod's penis. The tree was pointed at the end just like
Nimrod's pecker. The big red balls that dangle off the tree, well you get
the picture. This holiday is perversion at its best.
Mithra was another sun-god that was born on December 25th. Thousands of
Christians and Jews were crucified in honor of the sun-god Mithra. If there
was one day that the Messiah was not born, it was December 25th. Any
Internet search on Tamuz or Mithra and Christmas or December 25th will show
this.
EASTER SUNDAY
Easter is Ishtar, (Semiramis, widow of Nimrod, mother of Tammuz) the bare
breasted pagan fertility goddess of the east. Legend has it that she came
out of heaven in a giant egg, landing in the Euphrates river at sunrise on
the first Sunday after the vernal equinox, busted out, and turned a bird
into an egg laying rabbit. The priest of Easter would then sacrifice infants
(human babies) and take the eggs of Easter and die them in the blood of the
sacrificed infants (human babies). The Easter eggs would hatch on December
25th, the same day her son Tammuz the reincarnate sun-god would be
born...how convenient!
SUNDAY SERVICES
Early believers kept Saturday as the Sabbath until March 7, 321 CE when Pope
Constantine passed a law requiring believers to worship on Sunday, the day
the pagans worshipped the sun-god. Believers still kept Saturday as the
Sabbath until another law was passed eleven years later. This law signed
into decree by Pope Constantine forbid believers to worship on the Sabbath
(Saturday) and it was punishable by death by the Catholic Church. Many
believers were burned to death by the Catholic Church for keeping the
Sabbath.
VALENTINE'S DAY
Pagans in Rome celebrated the evening of February 14th and February 15th and
as an idolatrous festival in honor of Lupercus "the hunter of wolves". It
was not until the reign of Pope Gelasius that the holiday became a
"Christian" custom. "As far back as 496, Pope Gelasius changed Lupercalia on
February 15th to St. Valentine's Day on February 14th." The original Saint
Valentine was Nimrod, on this day in February, Semiramis, the mother of
Nimrod, was said to have been purified and to have appeared for the first
time in public with her son as the original "mother and child."
THANKSGIVING
The pagans in Rome celebrated their thanksgiving in early October. The
holiday was dedicated to the goddess of the harvest, Ceres, and the holiday
was called Cerelia. The Catholic church took over the pagan holiday and it
became well established in England, where some of the pagan customs and
rituals for this day were observed long after the Roman Empire had
disappeared. In England the "Harvest Home" has been observed continuously
for centuries.
In our own hemisphere, among the Aztecs of Mexico, the harvest took on a
grimmer aspect. Each year a young girl, a representation of Xilonen, The
goddess of the new corn, was beheaded. The Pawnees also sacrificed a girl.
In a more temperate mood, the Cherokees of the American Southeast danced the
Green Corn Dance and began the new year at harvest's end.
No wonder Chief Massasoit and his ninety braves felt right at home with the
Pilgrim Fathers on that day in 1621!! Obviously, the idea for this "first
Thanksgiving" did not just "pop" into the mind of Governor Bradford as most
people believe! On the contrary Thanksgiving, in the guise of the pagan
harvest festivals, can be traced right back to ancient Babylon and the
worship of Semiramis!
MOTHER'S & FATHER'S DAY
Mother's Day dates back to ancient cultures in Greece and Rome. In both
cultures, mother goddesses were worshipped during the springtime (Easter)
with religious festivals. The ancient Greeks paid tribute to the powerful
goddess Rhea, the wife of Cronus, known as the Mother of the
(Queen of Heaven). Similarly, evidence of a three-day Roman festival in
Mid-March called Hilaria, to honor the Roman goddess Magna Mater, or Great
Mother, dates back to 250 BCE. As Christianity spread throughout Europe, the
celebration of the "Mother Church" replaced the pagan tradition of honoring
mythological goddesses. The fourth Sunday in Lent, a 40-day fasting period
before Easter, became known as Mothering Sunday. To show appreciation for
their mothers, they often brought gifts or a "mothering cake" (Jeremiah
7:18) and over time, it began to coincide with the celebration of the Mother
Church. Mother's Day always falls on the second Sunday of May, and like so
many other holidays rooted in pagan sun-worship including Father's Day which
always falls on the third Sunday of June, usually fall on the day named in
honor of their god.
HALLOWEEN
All Saints' Day was followed by All-Souls' Day, November 2, unless that was
a Sunday then it was November 3, this was another Catholic adaptation of
pagan festivals for the dead. Prayers for the dead are an integral part of
the traditional All Saint's Day services, which are scheduled in Catholic
churches on November 1, and on the next Sunday. Halloween gets its name from
the Catholic holiday, it is a Hallowed evening, because it precedes All
Hallows' Day, thus: Hallow'en. Halloween is a pagan holiday to honor the
dead and evil spirits. We are warned not to take part in customs and
traditions like this in the Scripture.
Guard yourself that you are not ensnared to follow them, after they are
destroyed from before you, and that you do not inquire about their mighty
ones, saying, 'How did these nations serve their mighty ones? And let me do
so too.' "Do not do so to YaHuWaH your Elohim, for every abomination which
YaHuWaH hates they have done to their mighty ones, for they even burn their
sons and daughters in the fire to their mighty ones. (ISR
Debarim/Deuteronomy 12:30-31)
Halloween is a perfect example of what this passage is referring about.
Pagans served their gods by honoring the evil spirits on Halloween. They did
this by dressing up like the evil spirits and giving offerings to the evil
spirits. This is why candy is given out on Halloween, as offerings for the
evil spirits. The phrase trick or treat was attributed to this practice
because pagans believed the evil spirits would do something bad (trick) to
them if they did not leave an offering (treat) for them. I would rather
honor the Most High.
crunch
>...
> Well, this is not new at all. Jesus' divinity was something that went
> up for a vote in the council of Nicaea and got passed with a thin
> majority after a lot of backroom dealings. If one goes by the
> synaptic gospels that seem to incorporate a previous documents (most
> likely a summary of Jesus's teachings and sayings), Jesus never
> proclaimed that he was God. He did insist, repeatedly, that he was
> the Messiah, but within the Jewish context that he was operating, the
> Messiah was a mortal person on a mission from God to redeem Israel.
> There are some allusions to his deity in John's gospel, but this is a
> much later document when certain sects were beginning to get fixed on
> Jesus' divinity. The earlier texts, notably Mark's gospel, did not
> even highlight the resurrection. It is now conclusively proven that
> the final paragraph to Mark's gospel that deals with the resurrection
> is a add-on by a later scribe as the literary style does not match.
>
> I think that the resurrection became important when Christianity
> jumped from the Jewish milieu to that of the antique world as a
> whole. In this case, the resurrection was important because so many
> of the other religions were based on it: the Isis cult, Mithraism and
> Greek mystery rites. Of course, later on, Christianity got a further
> infusion from these religions not only in dogma but in iconography as
> well (the cross and the halo are Mithraic symbols).
>
> So, this is about 2000 years old and you need a bit more to spark any
> kind of discussion in this. Anyway, this belongs to religion-based
> groups, not in a history group.
Yet, you passed over my link in the lead post
on the Political Jesus. So, it belongs in a history group.
When any usenet material touching on the Thiering Thesis
is brought forward, this should prepare you for radical views
contrary to your views conventional to historians.
Also, it is worth challenging your view on the lateness of
John's gospel -
John's gospel written first, not last
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/qumran_origin/message/3739
"The fact that Lazarus-Simon Magus is treated positively is the main
indication
of date. This gospel was composed before AD 37."
Then again, the Thiering Take on the Resurrection is completely
different from yours -
Complete Pesher of the Resurrection
http://www.pesherofchrist.infinitesoulutions.com/index7.html
Was Jesus Christ divine?
-----
Were usenetters interested in any clarification of the difficult
Thiering material, do not hesitate to ask me questions.
-----
David Christainsen
Sir David
> Were usenetters interested in any clarification of the difficult
> Thiering material, do not hesitate to ask me questions.
More stand up comity from Crunchy! How about you start with the dozens
of questions that you've been unable to answer for many years?
Quit patting youself on the back for your imaginary expertise, and
quit exaggerating about Babs's fantasies being difficult. Your
hobbyhorse is not complicated or difficult, and even after all these
years, you still don't have a clue. The "new perspective" you alluded
to in the subject line is really just the same old same old
hobbyhorse, always the same, always tedious and boring, always
presented with your chest puffed out and a stupid blank stare in your
eyes. Use your supposed expertise with keywords and "the search
facility" to find the definition of hobbyhorse that you keep denying.
And keep tilting at newsgroups, Donkey Crunchy.
>
> -----
>
> David Christainsen- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
jwshe...@satx.rr.com
"Jesus never proclaimed that he was God."
Ex 3:14 - And God said unto Moses,
I AM THAT I AM: and he said,
Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel,
I AM hath sent me unto you.
Joh 8:58 - Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily,
I say unto you,
Before Abraham was, I am.
Joh 20:28 - And Thomas answered and said unto him,
My Lord and my God.
Jim
Col 2:9 - For in him dwelleth all the fulness
of the Godhead bodily.
(<<Kelly>>)
<snip>
> Comments, please.
More hobbyhorse beating, I see.
ADR
The Gospel of John is a much later gospel, written at about 90 to 100
CE. As such, it incorporates "visions of Christianity" that came into
voque at that time (but not throughout the hall of Christianity). It
is certainly not a very good evidence for whatever Jesus may have
said. Such an important saying is missing from the synaptic gospels,
which should ring some kind of a bell for you.
jwshe...@satx.rr.com
You are quoting scholars from the 20th century. Lets quote
an author from the 2nd who heard Polycarp in his youth and
Polycarp knew the Apostle John, Irenaeus of Lyons.
"So Matthew ... issued a writting of the gospel...Peter and Paul
were preaching the gospel at Rome...after their decease, Mark, the
disciple
and interpreter of Peter, also handed down to us in writting what
Peter
had preached. Then Luke, the follower of Paul, recorded in a book
the gospel as it was preached by him. Finally John, the disciple of
the
Lord,
who had also lain on his breast, himself published the Gospel,
while he was residing at Ephesus in Asia."
"Early Christian Fathers", Cyril C. Richardson, P 370
ADR
> Christianity is a violation of the commandmnets not to put other gods before
> Yahweh (Jesus certainly gets more attention and mythic fawning than Yahweh
> does), and not to worship idols (like crucifixes).
>
> Nothing in Christianity is original.
I agree with the borrowings by Christianity, but the fathers of the
Church (the Orthodox ones) solved the issue of the "single God" by
declaring Jesus being of the substance as the "Father", essentially,
another manifestation of the same God. The Gnostics, who were
eventually expelled, regarded Jesus as the prophet and "son" a God who
was hostile to Yahweh. A very divergent opinion that was abandoned by
mainstream Christianity.
It is a stretch to declare the cross as an idol. It is just a
symbol. Many symbols (i,e., flags) were given a lot of veneration.
J Antero
"ADR" <aret...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:49f7d643-8606-4a48...@y28g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 18, 4:59 pm, "J Antero" <a...@xyz.com> wrote:
> Christianity is a violation of the commandmnets not to put other gods
> before
> Yahweh (Jesus certainly gets more attention and mythic fawning than Yahweh
> does), and not to worship idols (like crucifixes).
>
> Nothing in Christianity is original.
==
I agree with the borrowings by Christianity, but the fathers of the
Church (the Orthodox ones) solved the issue of the "single God" by
declaring Jesus being of the substance as the "Father", essentially,
another manifestation of the same God. The Gnostics, who were
eventually expelled, regarded Jesus as the prophet and "son" a God who
was hostile to Yahweh. A very divergent opinion that was abandoned by
mainstream Christianity.
==
Ludicrous pronouncements from a committee, and mangled pseudo-logic aside,
jesus is in practice thought of as a separate entity from yahweh.
How many christians pray to "jesus", how many to yahweh?
In practice, a god has indeed been put before yahweh.
That is a serious breech of the commandments.
==
It is a stretch to declare the cross as an idol. It is just a
symbol. Many symbols (i,e., flags) were given a lot of veneration.
==
The cross is obviously an idolic symbol, especialy the ones with depiction
of the god jesus on them.
The crucifix is not a flag. Nodody prays to supernatural beings by groveling
before a flag.
Tiglath
>
> Well, this is not new at all. Jesus' divinity was something that went
> up for a vote in the council of Nicaea and got passed with a thin
> majority after a lot of backroom dealings. If one goes by the
> synaptic gospels that seem to incorporate a previous documents (most
> likely a summary of Jesus's teachings and sayings), Jesus never
> proclaimed that he was God.
How ignorant.
In Judaism only God can be worshiped, don't you know? It's only the
FIRST COMMANDMENT, for fuck's sake.
“And when they climbed into the boat, the wind died down. Then those
who were in the boat worshiped him, saying, ‘Truly you are the Son of
God.'”
-- Matthew 14:32-33
"On coming to the house, they saw the child with his mother Mary, and
they bowed down and worshiped him.”
-- Matthew 2:1
Do you read Jesus protesting he was only mortal when people worshiped
him?
It's called a clue.
> He did insist, repeatedly, that he was
> the Messiah, but within the Jewish context that he was operating, the
> Messiah was a mortal person on a mission from God to redeem Israel.
More bullshit. The Jewish context always was that the Messiah was
God.
“For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government
will be on his shoulders. And He will be called Wonderful Counselor,
Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.”
-- Isaiah 9:6
: “Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be
with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.”1
-- Isaiah 7:14
The same in Matthew's
"Look! The virgin will conceive a child! She will give birth to a
son, and he will be called Immanuel (meaning, God is with us)."
-- Matthew 1:23
> There are some allusions to his deity in John's gospel,
Allusions?
‘I and the Father are one.’
-- John 10:30-33
That looks more like a fucking absolute declaration of divinity.
Are you ever right?
v1_0
> On Nov 18, 4:59 pm, "J Antero" <a...@xyz.com> wrote:
>
> > Christianity is a violation of the commandmnets not to put other gods before
> > Yahweh (Jesus certainly gets more attention and mythic fawning than Yahweh
> > does), and not to worship idols (like crucifixes).
>
> > Nothing in Christianity is original.
It wasn't intended to be..
>
> I agree with the borrowings by Christianity, but the fathers of the
> Church (the Orthodox ones) solved the issue of the "single God" by
> declaring Jesus being of the substance as the "Father", essentially,
> another manifestation of the same God.
I think I understand your statement, but the use of "manifestation"
seems to impy that they are the same being. This was explored for a
time, but rejected: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabellianism. It
has currently been resurected in some of the pentecostal churches, I
think.
The church fathers explained the relationship between The Father,
Jesus, and Holy Spirit as the Trinity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity
J Antero
"ADR" <aret...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:49f7d643-8606-4a48...@y28g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> Christianity is a violation of the commandmnets not to put other gods
> before
> Yahweh (Jesus certainly gets more attention and mythic fawning than Yahweh
> does), and not to worship idols (like crucifixes).
>
> Nothing in Christianity is original.
=== I agree with the borrowings by Christianity, but the fathers of the
Church (the Orthodox ones) solved the issue of the "single God" by
declaring Jesus being of the substance as the "Father", essentially,
another manifestation of the same God. The Gnostics, who were
eventually expelled, regarded Jesus as the prophet and "son" a God who
was hostile to Yahweh. A very divergent opinion that was abandoned by
mainstream Christianity.===========
By the way, men designating other men to be gods was not new.
The Roman Senate voted to make Julius Caesar, then Octavian/Augustus and
then
Claudius, gods.
Similarly, Constantine brought together a committee that voted jesus to be a
god.
The commandments about putting gods before yahweh are clear, and it's clear
how brain dead christians came to believe that jesus was a god - a committee
of smelly old supernaturalists voted that he was.
So, if someone thinks this was a valid process for creating a god, then a
good argument can also be made for Julius Caesar, Octavian/Augustus and
Claudius, being gods.
Roger Pearse
> http://thefriendlyfunnel.quakerism.net/
>
> "I don’t believe Jesus was God. I don’t believe he was the son of God,
> at least not in the virgin birth, unique way most Christians do. What
They'd need to demonstrate that there is a God first.
All the best,
Roger Pearse
Roger Pearse
> Well, this is not new at all. Jesus' divinity was something that went
> up for a vote in the council of Nicaea and got passed with a thin
> majority after a lot of backroom dealings.
Nope. This bullshit is a modern myth, and you could have found this
out if you'd checked. The council was not concerned with the divinity
of Jesus, but with whether the Second person of the Trinity was of the
same substance (homoousios) as the First Person, or of like substance.
> I think that the resurrection became important when Christianity
> jumped from the Jewish milieu to that of the antique world as a
> whole. In this case, the resurrection was important because so many
> of the other religions were based on it: the Isis cult, Mithraism and
> Greek mystery rites.
This again is bullshit. Pagan mystery cults did not spend their time
looking like Christianity, at least not until the 4th century and then
only partially. Again you could have checked this....
We don't need these crappy anti-historical legends about Christian
origins pushed by people who know no ancient history and care less.
Roger Pearse
> Nothing in Christianity is original.
>
> "The vestiges of pagan religion in Christian symbology are undeniable. Some
> examples:
>
> Egyptian sun disks became the halos of Catholic saints. Pictograms of Isis
> nursing her miraculously conceived son Horus became the blueprint for our
> modern images of the Virgin Mary nursing Baby Jesus.
If this means "ancient craftsmen adapted existing workshop patterns
when they first started depicting biblical scenes" then that much is
true, although quite how that helps your case I don't know. If it
means anything else, it's bullshit.
> And virtually all the elements of the Catholic ritual - the miter, the altar, the doxology, and
> communion, the act of "God-eating" - were taken directly from earlier pagan
> mystery religions."
Bullshit again. Please... didn't you check any of this.
> The pre-Christian God Mithras - called the Son of God and the Light of the
> World - was born on December 25, died, was buried in a rock tomb, and then
> resurrected in three days.
All bullshit. None of this is recorded about Mithras in any ancient
source; not even any mention of him pre-AD!
> By the way, December 25 is also the birthday or
> Osiris, Adonis, and Dionysus.
Nope. BS again.
> The newborn Krishna was presented with gold, frankincense, and myrrh.
Says who? And are we supposed to believe the Jews copied this from
INDIA?!? Did they fly Ryanair on the way?
> Even Christianity's weekly holy day was stolen from the pagans."
Nonsense.
> CHRISTIAN RELIGIOUS DAYS HAVE PAGAN ORIGINS
This is really disgustingly dishonest. There are seven days in the
week. If the Christians want to celebrate one, they are bound to take
one already used for some other purpose. That is unavoidable, and
means nothing.
> Christian Holidays are ancient pagan feasts that were ushered in by the
> Roman Catholic Church during the rule of emperor Constantine.
Nope.
> CHRISTMAS
>
> Christmas was celebrated by pagan sun-worshippers for thousands of years
> before the Messiah was born. <snip endless crude lies>
Christmas, you could discover, was not made a public holiday by
Constantine and does not appear as one, even a century later.
> Mithrawas another sun-god that was born on December 25th.
Nope.
> Thousands of
> Christians and Jews were crucified in honor of the sun-godMithra.
Nope.
> Any Internet search on Tamuz orMithraand Christmas or December 25th will show
> this
Any such search will reveal endless crap and various rather better
informed refutations.
.
> EASTER SUNDAY
>
> Easter is Ishtar, (Semiramis, widow of Nimrod, mother of Tammuz) the bare
> breasted pagan fertility goddess of the east.
What do you mean, "... is ..."? They are not the same. One is a
time, the other is an ancient cult.
>L egend has it that she came
> out of heaven in a giant egg, landing in the Euphrates river at sunrise on
> the first Sunday after the vernal equinox, busted out, and turned a bird
> into an egg laying rabbit. The priest of Easter would then sacrifice infants
> (human babies) and take the eggs of Easter and die them in the blood of the
> sacrificed infants (human babies). The Easter eggs would hatch on December
> 25th, the same day her son Tammuz the reincarnate sun-god would be
> born...how convenient!
No ancient text records any of this.
I'm going to snip the rest. Wherever you got it from, you're an idiot
not to have checked it and every word of it appears to be a crude
modern falsehood.
ADR
> === I agree with the borrowings by Christianity, but the fathers of the
> Church (the Orthodox ones) solved the issue of the "single God" by
> declaring Jesus being of the substance as the "Father", essentially,
> another manifestation of the same God. The Gnostics, who were
> eventually expelled, regarded Jesus as the prophet and "son" a God who
> was hostile to Yahweh. A very divergent opinion that was abandoned by
> mainstream Christianity.===========
>
> By the way, men designating other men to be gods was not new.
> The Roman Senate voted to make Julius Caesar, then Octavian/Augustus and
> then
> Claudius, gods.
This is a misconception arising from bad Latin translations. Julius
Caesar and other members of the Julio-Claudian family were proclaimed
"divi" (nominative "divus") not "deii" (nominative "deus"). "Deus"
was God, "divus" was a person "touched by the divine", approaching
"divine" but certainly not Deus. It was a similar process to
sanctification. These people were exceptional one, they were part of
the divine orb; favors were bestowed upon them that ordinary humans
could not approach. There were beyond ordinary but they were not
Gods.
> Similarly, Constantine brought together a committee that voted jesus to be a
> god.
This happened although his successor, Constantius, essentially
repealed this decision favoring Arianism
> The commandments about putting gods before yahweh are clear, and it's clear
> how brain dead christians came to believe that jesus was a god - a committee
> of smelly old supernaturalists voted that he was.
Well, this was an heated subject of discussion in Christian churches
for many decades before it was resolved in Nicaea
> So, if someone thinks this was a valid process for creating a god, then a
> good argument can also be made for Julius Caesar, Octavian/Augustus and
> Claudius, being gods.
Well, so far, I am not aware of any other process of "creating a
God". Unless there have been manifestations that I am not aware of,
all Gods were "created" by humans. Sure, some individuals claimed to
have had revelations and that these Gods appeared to them, but beyond
these few selected individuals, religion is a human intellectual
exercise.
ADR
>
> > Christmas was celebrated by pagan sun-worshippers for thousands of years
> > before the Messiah was born. <snip endless crude lies>
>
> Christmas, you could discover, was not made a public holiday by
> Constantine and does not appear as one, even a century later.
Constantine did not have to designate December 25 as a public holiday
because it already was. Aurelian instituted it as a public holiday
(it was part of the Saturnalia) celebrating the rebirth of Sol
Invictus (the Unconquered Sun). Constantine did not have to change
anything because he was not a Christian (he became only in his
deathbed). So, later Christianity borrowed the day (and why not),
plus many other elements of the worship of Sol Invictus, most notably
representation within the Sun disk, which became the Christian halo.
Tiglath
>
> This is a misconception arising from bad Latin translations. Julius
> Caesar and other members of the Julio-Claudian family were proclaimed
> "divi" (nominative "divus") not "deii" (nominative "deus"). "Deus"
> was God, "divus" was a person "touched by the divine", approaching
> "divine" but certainly not Deus.
It is a misconception, all right. YOURS.
"Periit sexto et quinquagensimo aetatis anno atque in deorum numerum
relatus est[.]"
-- Suetonius - De Vita Caesarum, Divus Julius 88
What do you think "in deorum numerum relatus est" means?
It meas that Julius Caesar was counted amoung the gods: Among the
'Deii.'
ADR, the historical mugger, lays down on us the notion than Divi was
lesser than Deii, but it is neither true nor that simple. Latin,
like all languages, evolved. Before Caesar 'Divi' (there was no 'v'
in Latin then) was Diui and it was synonymous with Deii (gods).
Marcus Terentius Varro (116 BC – 27 BC), a contemporary, thought that
Divi were above all gods.
See our compadre Pearse's blog on the subject with proper
quotations.
http://www.roger-pearse.com/weblog/?p=1929
In the end the difference boils down to divi having been men
consecrated after death, but ending up being gods all the same.
As to Claudius:
"Orsus hinc a pietatis ostentatione Claudium apparatissimo funere
elatum laudavit et consecravit."
-- Suetonius - De Vita Caesarum, Nero 9
"Then beginning with a display of filial piety, he gave Claudius a
magnificent funeral, spoke his eulogy, and deified him."
"et consecravit" entails the process of 'consecratio' ('apotheoun' in
Greek), which means 'to make God.'
As usual ADR conveyed the wrong notion; while there are subtle
differences between Divi and Deii, as the language evolves and among
authors, it is certainly not the brutal difference ADR tell us, to the
effect that Divi were almost gods but not quite.
No surprise.
What can you expect from a scientist who claims in public that:
"The > and < symbols are not used in solving inequalities."
And who touts paradoxes like the gospel truth: Like that you cannot
prove a negative.
Weland
> Christianity is a violation of the commandmnets not to put other gods before
> Yahweh (Jesus certainly gets more attention and mythic fawning than Yahweh
> does), and not to worship idols (like crucifixes).
The first statement is a matter of theology; the second is
false....Christians do not worship the symbol anymore than Jews worship
a wall, or Buddhists worship a statue.
>
> Nothing in Christianity is original.
Well, that's false. Like any religious and philosophical system, there
are elements that overlap other religious and philosophical systems and
elements that give those inherited elements a new twist, and elements
that are new and unique.
>
> "The vestiges of pagan religion in Christian symbology are undeniable. Some
> examples:
So?
>
> Egyptian sun disks became the halos of Catholic saints.
Well, by a long, long road of transmission: by the time of Christian
use, Greco-Roman art used the nimbus in all sorts of ways to designate
gods, demigods, and important personages in art. Christianity simply
followed suit. So what?
Pictograms of Isis
> nursing her miraculously conceived son Horus became the blueprint for our
> modern images of the Virgin Mary nursing Baby Jesus.
Possibly; the image of a woman seated in a chair with a nursing baby is
a wide spread depiction and not exclusively Isis and Horus--they
certainly are part of the mix that serve as the model, but again so what?
And virtually all the
> elements of the Catholic ritual - the miter, the altar, the doxology, and
> communion, the act of "God-eating" - were taken directly from earlier pagan
> mystery religions."
Or both came from other religious/political traditions in the
Hellenistic world...
>
> The pre-Christian God Mithras - called the Son of God and the Light of the
> World - was born on December 25, died, was buried in a rock tomb, and then
> resurrected in three days.
Well, a number of assumptions here. You've failed to distinguish
Iranian Mithraism from the Roman Mysteries. The latter are difficult to
date, but the evidence for them doesn't exist until after 75 CE, well
after Christianity has been around. I'd like to see any pre-Christian
sources that called Mithras Son of God and Light of the World--evidence
for such titles so far as I know are third century CE, well after
Christians were using such terms (which they derived from the Hebrew
Bible and Hellenistic philosophy). The declaration of Mithras' birthday
as Dec 25 was third century CE under Aurelian and by that point many
Christian groups were already celebrating Dec 25 as the date of Jesus'
birth. The only real ancient source we have for this by the way, is a
late fourth century calendar, when most Christian groups were honoring
Christ's birth on Dec 25.
> By the way, December 25 is also the birthday or > Osiris, Adonis, and Dionysus.
In Hellenistic religions, yep...they were all associated with vegetation
and fertility...natural that the day on which the days begin to get
longer should be the day of rebirth of vegetation. So what?
>The newborn Krishna was presented with gold,> frankincense, and myrrh.
So? Not likely an influence.
> Even Christianity's weekly h,\oly day was stolen from
> the pagans."
Doubtful. There are only so many days of the week, and so far as I
know there was no regular, weekly "holy day" in Hellenistic religions.
BTW, I find it interesting that in another thread you disparage so
roundly Dan Brown's The Davinci Code for its lack of history or twisted
history, and yet in this thread feel free to quote it verbatim as though
it contained history and was accurate in this thread. Consider and
compare your words cited above with:
�The pre-Christian God Mithras�called the Son of God and the Light of
the World�was born on December 25, died, and was buried in a rock tomb,
and then resurrected in three days. By the way, December 25 is also the
birthday of Osiris, Adonis, and Dionysus. The newborn Krishna was
presented with gold, frankincense, and myrrh. Even Christianity�s weekly
holy day was stolen from the pagans� (p. 232)."
It was wrong in Brown's book, it's just as wrong here.
> CHRISTIAN RELIGIOUS DAYS HAVE PAGAN ORIGINS
>
> Christian Holidays are ancient pagan feasts that were ushered in by the
> Roman Catholic Church during the rule of emperor Constantine.
Nope. Some Christian holidays are ancient pagan feasts, some are
ancient Jewish feasts, and some are new. Most of those borrowed from
Greco-Roman paganisms came in after 382 to make it easier for pagans to
convert to Christianity, not under Constantine.
> CHRISTMAS
There are many reasons that the early Christians chose this day as
Christ's birthday. How central that day is to the Christian faith is an
important question, I'd suggest not at all. That other religions also
celebrated some event, such as the "rebirth" of the rising/dying god, is
true, and is a so what.
>
> "The children are gathering wood, the fathers are lighting the fire, and the
> women are kneading their dough, to make cakes for the sovereigness of the
> heavens, and to pour out drink offerings to other mighty ones, to provoke
> Me. (ISR Yirmeyahu/Jeremiah 7:18)
>
> The passage above is obviously referring to making Christmas cookies
Nope. It does refer to a common practice in Near Eastern and other
religions of offering food to the gods and the pouring out of libations.
In some cases the food was burned on the altar to be "sent" to heavens
and in some cases, simply left in the Temple where the priests and
priestesses ate it, claiming the gods did it. Christmas cookies aren't
offered to the gods and aren't consumed by the gods, burned on altars,
and not consumed only by priests and priestesses etc, but by everyone.
and
> leaving those cookies and a glass of milk for Nimrod's widow Easter who was
> called the queen of heaven. The only difference is now those offerings are
> left for Santa (Satan) himself. Let's move on and read another passage from
> Scripture.
This is a *huge* stretch. A libation is POURED OUT onto the ground or
into the sea....a very far cry from leaving it out to be consumed later.
The association of Santa with Satan is a false one; the historical
development of Sanctus Nikolas into Santa Claus is a well-known and
traceable one.
>
> Thus said YaHuWaH, "Do not learn the way of the gentiles, and do not be awed
> by the signs of the heavens, for the gentiles are awed at them. "For the
> prescribed customs of these peoples are worthless, for one cuts a tree from
> the forest, work for the hands of a craftsman with a cutting tool. They
> adorn it with silver and gold, they fasten it with nails and hammers so that
> it will not topple. (ISR Yirmeyahu/Jeremiah 10:2-4)
>
> This passage is obviously referring to cutting down the Christmas tree,
No, I'm afraid it doesn't. There's nothing to associate it with Dec 25
for one thing. For another, it is referring to images of the gods in
temples....in the Near East usually made of wood rather than of stone.
It is a common trope in the later Hebrew prophets to remark on the
representations of the gods in temples as the products of human
activity....and of course because they were large and heavy, these huge
carvings would not stand on their own but needed to be fastened.
The origins of the Christmas tree are Germanic and belong in pagan NW
Europe, not in the ancient Near East.
> putting it on some sort of tree stand, and decorating it. Once you learn why
> it had become customary to use an erect evergreen tree that has a pointed
> end decorate it with big red balls you will realize the extent of the
> perversion in this holiday. The erect tree symbolizes Nimrod's erect
> masculinity. The tree was evergreen because evergreen trees are full of life
> year round, like Nimrod's penis. The tree was pointed at the end just like
> Nimrod's pecker. The big red balls that dangle off the tree, well you get
> the picture. This holiday is perversion at its best.
Sounds to me more like a sexual fixation of the original author of this
piece.
> Mithra was another sun-god that was born on December 25th. Thousands of
> Christians and Jews were crucified in honor of the sun-god Mithra. If there
> was one day that the Messiah was not born, it was December 25th. Any
> Internet search on Tamuz or Mithra and Christmas or December 25th will show
> this.
Evidence?
>
> EASTER SUNDAY
>
> Easter is Ishtar
An old canard. Easter comes form Eoster, a German goddess of the dawn
whose principle feast day was around the Spring equinox. Since the
Resurrection, on the first sabbath after Passover, is usually celebrated
at the same time, the goddess' name quickly became connected:
Eostertide....the time around the Spring equinox. The name also gives
us the directional name "east" and is related to Aurora in Greek,
meaning "dawn" and also a minor goddess. But nothing to do with the
Near Eastern goddess except in the general way that there are goddesses
of the dawn and light etc.
<snip of interesting though historically false description of religious
rites)
> SUNDAY SERVICES
>
> Early believers kept Saturday as the Sabbath until March 7, 321 CE
Yeah...no. Some early believers did so, but in the second century
already the day had shifted for most Christian groups from Saturday to
Sunday as a) a commemoration of the Resurrection which they believed
occurred on a Sunday...already in the late first century we have
references to the "Lord's Day" which seems to indicate Sunday and b) as
a way of distinguishing Christianity from Judaism, the latter well known
for Sabbath observance on Saturday.
Constantine when he declared Sunday the day of "rest" throughout the
empire in 321 did so as a pagan, a worshipper of the sun god. He
invented the first weekend.
>
> VALENTINE'S DAY
>
> Pagans in Rome celebrated the evening of February 14th and February 15th and
> as an idolatrous festival in honor of Lupercus "the hunter of wolves". It
> was not until the reign of Pope Gelasius that the holiday became a
> "Christian" custom. "As far back as 496, Pope Gelasius changed Lupercalia on
> February 15th to St. Valentine's Day on February 14th."
Oh, wow, no....
Yes, Feb 14-15 were the Lupercalia, a day dedicated to purification and
chasing away the evil spirits from the city, later there came to be
fertility associations in popular religion. Gelasius did outlaw the
Lupercalia and dedicated the day to a St Valentine, but there is no
association between this date and saint's commeoration and "romance"
until the 14th century and the explosion of Romance literature.
THANKSGIVING
>
> The pagans in Rome celebrated their thanksgiving in early October. The
> holiday was dedicated to the goddess of the harvest, Ceres, and the holiday
> was called Cerelia. The Catholic church took over the pagan holiday and it
> became well established in England, where some of the pagan customs and
> rituals for this day were observed long after the Roman Empire had
> disappeared. In England the "Harvest Home" has been observed continuously
> for centuries.
There's no connection between the Roman celebration and the English one.
All agrarian societies observe some kind of "thanksgiving" during or
shortly after the harvest season. The Romans did, the Celts, the
Germans, the Hebrews etc....There was no official Christian day of
thanksgiving observed by the "catholic church" and the modern American
day was instituted in the 19th century and didn't become official by law
(not by church decree) until WWII. Canada's became an official day in
the late '50s. I'm not sure how this can be called a "Christian
holiday" with pagan roots.
>
> MOTHER'S & FATHER'S DAY
>
> Mother's Day dates back to ancient cultures in Greece and Rome.
Both modern inventions in our cultures. No direct connections to
anything in ancient Greece and Rome.
<snipped "stuff">
> HALLOWEEN
>
> All Saints' Day was followed by All-Souls' Day, November 2, unless that was
> a Sunday then it was November 3, this was another Catholic adaptation of
> pagan festivals for the dead.
Yep. Woot.
I find it interesting that most of what you say comes from here:
http://www.nazarite.net/evil-holidays.html
Religion may be toxic bs, but so is the debunking of religion when it is
based in very bad history.
Weland
I should note too that you've done nothing here:
1) if you want to show that Christianity borrowed elements and practices
from the Greco-Roman world, well, so what...not only is it nothing
new,but you did it badly
2) The things you choose to focus on have little to do with the central
tenets of the Christian faith and so at best you've nibbled around the
edges a bit.
ADR
It is a pity when you make yourself laughable with your inadequate
knowledge and your incredible chutzpah, springing out of total
ignorance. Let's forge the fact that everything referring to Julius
Caesar is "Divus Iulius" (temples, coins, inscriptions) and not to
"Iulius, Deus", Having said this, check the title of the book of
Suetonius regarding Julius Caesar. It is actually titled "Divus
Iulius". Enough said. The funny part is then you go ahead and agree
with me regarding the difference between divus and deus. Good going.
I would also to suggest a course in Greek to understand the terms
"apotheosis" and "theosis". In any case, the concept of the divine
and the concept of God had starker differences in the thought-world of
antiquity from what they sound and conceived in modern times. Deii
(theoi) controlled elements of the nature and the supernatural, but
divii were an extension of divinity to encompass mortal men who had
transcended the boundaries of normal existence and were enveloped by
the divine, achieving thus a "god-like" statute but not "god-like"
powers. These powers remained the domain of Gods (Deii).
Tiglath
Trust ADR to selectively quote Suetonius. Again the quote is this:
"Periit sexto et quinquagensimo aetatis anno atque in deorum numerum
relatus est[.]"
-- Suetonius - De Vita Caesarum, Divus Julius 88
It shows that Suetonius uses Divus and Deum interchangeably. Just as
the usage was at the time.
ADR comments on "Divus" only and it's "enough said." for him. The
rest is inconvenient evidence, and we know what he does with that,
don't we?
ADR projects much later Christian differentiations of the terms when
Divus was given the meaning of "blessed" onto Classical times when
such meaning did not exist. He is been told so, but in typical
fashion he digs his heels in.
> The funny part is then you go ahead and agree
> with me regarding the difference between divus and deus.
I do not. Can't you read? Divus is no less God that Deus. You make
it a lesser divinity. You are wrong.
> I would also to suggest a course in Greek to understand the terms
> "apotheosis" and "theosis".
ADR is throwing spitballs again. He has no clue as to how to rebut my
correct claim that 'apotheoun' in Greek (ἀποθεόω) means "to make a
God," "to deify."
> In any case, the concept of the divine
> and the concept of God had starker differences in the thought-world of
> antiquity from what they sound and conceived in modern times.
More of the ambivalent unspecific bunk from ADR we've become
accustomed to. Antiquity is a long period and to claim a single
"thought-world" for such a long period is just intellectual
wanking.
The sources clears show when Divus and Deus were synonymous and what
the differences were. And the difference is NOT that Deus was god and
Divus wansn't.
It's all well explained in Pearse's blog, which completely rebuts ADR,
and unlike ADR, with proper references.
All ADR comes back with nothing but indignant hot air and naked re-
assertion to make his point. It is to laugh.
> Deii
> (theoi) controlled elements of the nature and the supernatural, but
> divii were an extension of divinity to encompass mortal men who had
> transcended the boundaries of normal existence and were enveloped by
> the divine, achieving thus a "god-like" statute but not "god-like"
> powers. These powers remained the domain of Gods (Deii).
As usual NO REFERENCES that would apply to Caesar or Claudius.
Go wank elsewhere.
crunch
This Friend speaks my mind about Jesus.
There is a context, Roger, different from yours, which
is a world of intuition wherein the Holy Spirit mediates
the Light for the individual. It does not analytically
demonstrate that there is a God or define God.
For me I say that God is ineffable. Further, in the Course
of Miracles, which I follow in a group sponsored by a
Quaker Committee at Cambridge Meeting, basic terms
like Love or God etc. are not defined. I give the online lessons
for it in case usenetters are interested -
http://www.acim.org/Lessons/index.html
Peace,
David Christainsen
Roger Pearse
> On Nov 20, 2:32 am,Roger Pearse<roger.pea...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Christmas was celebrated by pagan sun-worshippers for thousands of years
> > > before the Messiah was born. <snip endless crude lies>
>
> > Christmas, you could discover, was not made a public holiday by
> > Constantine and does not appear as one, even a century later.
>
> Constantine did not have to designate December 25 as a public holiday
> because it already was.
We were discussing Christmas, remember?
Christmas was not made a public holiday by Constantine. When all the
pagan festivals were abolished in the late 4th century, Dec. 25 ended
up as not a holiday.
> Aurelian instituted it as a public holiday
The only evidence that it was a public holiday is from 354 AD. I
suspect that Aurelian DID so institute it; but I don't see how that
helps your case, which seems to switch to and fro rather wildly.
First you say that Christmas was always celebrated for thousands of
years. I point out that it wasn't celebrated at all in late Roman
times as a public holiday.
Then you switch subject and say that a pagan festival was created on
25 Dec by Aurelian in 274. Well, which is it? If he had to create
it, clearly it did NOT exist for "thousands of years".
And the only evidence for such a festival is from 354 AD, well after
Constantine.
> (it was part of the Saturnalia)
Erm, Saturnalia finished on Dec. 23, so, no it wasn't.
> celebrating the rebirth of Sol Invictus (the Unconquered Sun).
Possibly, but the ancient evidence for this is very thin.
> Constantine did not have to change
> anything because he was not a Christian
His legislation says otherwise. But you've switched subject again.
The subject is whether "Christmas was celebrated for thousands of
years". I imagine that every day of the year has been celebrated
somewhere at some time. But if you want to show a tradition of
continuous celebration, you need to do better than a public festival
which CEASED to be a public festival during the 4th century.
> (he became only in his deathbed).
Nope.
> So, later Christianity borrowed the day (and why not),
> plus many other elements of the worship of Sol Invictus, most notably
> representation within the Sun disk, which became the Christian halo.
Erm, the representation of the sun in images of Sol Invictus is NOT a
halo!
If you can produce ancient evidence of any borrowing, and not merely
"this looks like that so this must be copied from that", then please
do. But you will not find it.
J Antero
"Roger Pearse" <roger....@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:b3fb51dc-55b1-4cce...@c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 19, 12:59 am, "J Antero" <a...@xyz.com> wrote:
> Nothing in Christianity is original.
> "The vestiges of pagan religion in Christian symbology are undeniable.
> Some examples:
> The pre-Christian God Mithras - called the Son of God and the Light of the
> World - was born on December 25, died, was buried in a rock tomb, and then
> resurrected in three days.
Pierce: === All bullshit. None of this is recorded about Mithras in any
ancient source; not even any mention of him pre-AD! ====
Pierce, we've had arguments about religion before, and you've always managed
to reveal yourself to be a pretentious clown.
Here, you do it more clearly than usual.
"Mithra" dates back before AD times.
How could Pearse NOT know that?
Even an American grade schooler exposed to History Channel emmissions would
probably not make that mistake... <chuckle>
Ency. Britannica, 2002
MITHRA
also spelled Mithras, Sanskrit Mitra,
in ancient Indo-Iranian mythology, the god of light, whose cult spread from
India in the east to as far west as Spain, Great Britain, and Germany. (See
Mithraism.) The first written mention of the Vedic Mitra dates to 1400 BC.
His worship spread to Persia and, after the defeat of the Persians by
Alexander the Great, throughout the Hellenic world. In the 3rd and 4th
centuries AD, the cult of Mithra, carried and supported by the soldiers of
the Roman Empire, was the chief rival to the newly developing religion of
Christianity. The Roman emperors Commodus and Julian were initiates of
Mithraism, and in 307 Diocletian consecrated a temple on the Danube River to
Mithra, "Protector of the Empire."
According to myth, Mithra was born, bearing a torch and armed with a knife,
beside a sacred stream and under a sacred tree, a child of the earth itself.
He soon rode, and later killed, the life-giving cosmic bull, whose blood
fertilizes all vegetation. Mithra's slaying of the bull was a popular
subject of Hellenic art and became the prototype for a bull-slaying ritual
of fertility in the Mithraic cult.
As god of light, Mithra was associated with the Greek sun god, Helios, and
the Roman Sol Invictus. He is often paired with Anahita, goddess of the
fertilizing waters.
xxend
Roger-dodger--- you make big noises, but that's all it is: noise...
<snip further non-Piercing rubbish>
J Antero
On Nov 19, 5:25 pm, "J Antero" <a...@xyz.com> wrote:
> === I agree with the borrowings by Christianity, but the fathers of the
> Church (the Orthodox ones) solved the issue of the "single God" by
> declaring Jesus being of the substance as the "Father", essentially,
> another manifestation of the same God. The Gnostics, who were
> eventually expelled, regarded Jesus as the prophet and "son" a God who
> was hostile to Yahweh. A very divergent opinion that was abandoned by
> mainstream Christianity.===========
>
> By the way, men designating other men to be gods was not new.
> The Roman Senate voted to make Julius Caesar, then Octavian/Augustus and
> then Claudius, gods.
ADR: ==== This is a misconception arising from bad Latin translations.
Julius
Caesar and other members of the Julio-Claudian family were proclaimed
"divi" (nominative "divus") not "deii" (nominative "deus"). "Deus"
was God, "divus" was a person "touched by the divine", approaching
"divine" but certainly not Deus. It was a similar process to
sanctification. These people were exceptional one, they were part of
the divine orb; favors were bestowed upon them that ordinary humans
could not approach. There were beyond ordinary but they were not
Gods. ====
Uh huh.
Apparently, it's a misconception that has taken in classical scholars.
Below is one who may be in need of your enlightenment, Anastassios....
He clearly states that deified Emperors WERE considered "gods".
Why don't you email your corrections to this professor and then post the
exchanges between you two, hmmm?
(A few of us will be standing on the sidelines, ready with bandages and
compresses....)
<chuckle> ;-))
quote:
Like Caesar, deified emperors were given the title "Divus", (for example,
Divus Augustus, Divus Claudius, and so forth) and received a temple, a
priest, and annual public offerings.
Among Roman citizens and in official contexts, Roman authorities made some
attempt to maintain a distinction between deceased and deified emperors, who
were worshiped as gods, and the living emperor, who was not; only tyrannical
emperors like Caligula and Commodus demanded that they be treated as gods
while alive.
xx end quote
from page 150 in:
Religion in the Roman Empire, 2006,
au: James B. Rives, PhD Stanford 1990, Associate Professor york university.
""" Professor Rives teaches in the area of Classical Studies. He has
regularly taught in the popular Foundations course, 'Myth and Imagination in
Ancient Greece and Rome', as well as Latin classes at the second year level
and above. He is currently the Director of the Programme in Classical
Studies.
His research interests centre on the history of religion in the Roman
imperial period, particularly in its interrelations with social and
political organization. They encompass not only Graeco-Roman religious
traditions, or 'paganism', but also early Christianity and Judaism in the
late Second Temple and early rabbinic periods. He is interested in viewing
all these traditions together as parts of the overall religious culture of
the Roman world. He has recently completed an introduction to religion in
the Roman empire, to be published by Blackwell in 2006.
His interests also include ethnic identity in the Graeco-Roman world,
particularly as this was defined in relation to religious allegiance, but
also as it was embodied in historical and ethnographic writings. He has
worked on the Graeco-Roman view of the peoples of northern Europe,
especially as presented in Tacitus' monograph on the ancient Germans.
Professor Rives is currently serving as Review Editor for Phoenix, Journal
of the Classical Association of Canada.
Representative Publications:
'Interdisciplinary Approaches', in D. S. Potter, ed., The Blackwell
Companion to the Roman Empire. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers (forthcoming).
'Phrygian Tales', forthcoming in Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 45
(2005).
'Christian Expansion and Christian Ideology', in W. V. Harris, ed., The
Spread of Christianity in the First Four Centuries: Essays in Explanation.
Leiden: E. J. Brill (forthcoming 2005), 15-41.
Edited, with Jonathan Edmondson and Steve Mason. Flavius Josephus and
Flavian Rome. Oxford: Oxford University Press (2005); pp. xvi + 400.
'Flavian Religious Policy and the Destruction of the Jerusalem Temple', in
J. Edmondson, S. Mason, and J. Rives, eds., Flavius Josephus and Flavian
Rome. Oxford: Oxford University Press (2005), 145-66.
'Aristotle, Antisthenes of Rhodes, and the Magikos', Rheinisches Museum f�r
Philologie 147 (2004), 35-54.
'Magic in Roman Law: The Reconstruction of a Crime', Classical Antiquity 22
(2003), 313-39.
'Magic in the XII Tables Revisited', Classical Quarterly 52 (2002), 270-90.
'Structure and History in the Germania of Tacitus', in J. F. Miller, C.
Damon, and K. S. Myers, eds., Vertis in Usum: Studies in Honor of Edward
Courtney. Munich: K. G. Saur (2002), 164-73.
'Civic and Religious Life', in J. Bodel, ed., Epigraphic Evidence: Ancient
History from Inscriptions. London: Routledge (2001), 118-136.
'Imperial Cult and Native Tradition in Roman North Africa', Classical
Journal 96.4 (2001), 425-36.
Tacitus: Germania. Translated with an Introduction and Commentary. Oxford:
Clarendon Press (1999).
'The Decree of Decius and the Religion of Empire', Journal of Roman Studies
89 (1999), 135-54.
Religion and Authority in Roman Carthage from Augustus to Constantine.
Oxford: Claredon Press (1995) """
========
J Antero
"Weland" <gi...@poetic.com> wrote in message
news:he6qht$2lp$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>J Antero wrote:
>> Christianity is a violation of the commandmnets not to put other gods
>> before
>> Yahweh (Jesus certainly gets more attention and mythic fawning than
>> Yahweh
>> does), and not to worship idols (like crucifixes).
>
> The first statement is a matter of theology;
Wrong. It is simple logic. Jesus IS worshipped; yahweh is almost an
afterthought.
>the second is false....Christians do not worship the symbol anymore than
>Jews worship a wall, or Buddhists worship a statue.
Bullshit.
You don't even understand the definition of the term.
idol
-noun
1. an image or other material object representing a deity to which religious
worship is addressed.
The christian cross, with or without jesus hanging on it, qualifies.
The Oxford Companion to the Bible
page 297 idols, idolatry.
"" In idol is a figure or image worshiped as the representation of a deity.
Strict prohibition of idolatry is one of the most distinctive features of
the Israelite religion: Yahweh, the God of Israel, could not be represented
in physical form and would not tolerate the idols of any other gods. """
The Weland/Swain pseudo-scholar demonstrates the characterisitc of a small
intellect - it can't gain an objective view of its own culture.
The "others" have idols to which they genuflect and make entreaties, but
we're totally different with the cross and the sacrificed image on it...
A high school level intellect....
>> Nothing in Christianity is original.
>
> Well, that's false. Like any religious and philosophical system, there
> are elements that overlap other religious and philosophical systems and
> elements that give those inherited elements a new twist, and elements that
> are new and unique.
What major facet(s) is original to christianity? Can you tell us?
Maybe you can come up with something.
>> "The vestiges of pagan religion in Christian symbology are undeniable.
>> Some
>> examples:
>
> So?
Don't you understand the signifcance of lack of originality?
Most christians think the religion is unique in having 'truths" and was
something new.
The whole point, that you miss in the items posted, is to show that it was
not, that it is just another man made fantasy that stole from other
pre-existing religions.
It's like a scientist coming up with something he thinks is a new theory,
only to find out that its parts had been floated, refuted and discarded in
the past.
<snip>
J Antero
> Weland wrote:
> I should note too that you've done nothing here:
>
> 1) if you want to show that Christianity borrowed elements and practices
> from the Greco-Roman world, well, so what...not only is it nothing new,but
> you did it badly
Well, pseudo-scholar, it was done well enough that you again reveal your
stupidity in a series of vacuous pseudo-refutations.
Most people have enough common sense to know that a theory or system, when
shown to be largely made up of facets stolen from preceding theories or
systems that it claims are discredited, has a problem.
.... but you won't be able to follow that logic line, will you... <chuckle>
> 2) The things you choose to focus on have little to do with the central
> tenets of the Christian faith and so at best you've nibbled around the
> edges a bit.
Sure sure. That's why you feel so threatened by it.
What I posted shows that christianity is just a patchwork of facets and
customs from pre-exisiting cults and "religions".
But if you wan to tell us what is original to it, go ahead.
Predicitng the end of the world is coming? ;-)
Or, oo, oo, resurection? lol
(<<Kelly>>)
No one's interested.
You've been told this innumerable times, yet you persist. You
persist, because you don't really care if anyone is interested or
not. All you care about is that you and your whacko hodge-podge of
"spiritual" beliefs are highlighted. Indeed, such is the life of a
self-aggrandizing whining, wimpering weasel of a boy in a man's body
who totes around his untreated Narcissistic Personality Disorder like
a badge of honor.
Roger Pearse
> On Nov 20, 5:22 am,Roger Pearse<roger.pea...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 18, 9:57 pm, crunch <pchristain...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > >http://thefriendlyfunnel.quakerism.net/
>
> > > "I don’t believe Jesus was God. I don’t believe he was the son of God,
> > > at least not in the virgin birth, unique way most Christians do. What
> > > I do believe is that Jesus was a son of God....
>
> > They'd need to demonstrate that there is a God first.
>
>
> There is a context, Roger, different from yours, which
> is a world of intuition wherein the Holy Spirit mediates
> the Light for the individual. It does not analytically
> demonstrate that there is a God or define God.
How do we know, tho, that it's not just self-delusion? After all,
people intuit about all sorts of things. Every week people have an
intuition that certain numbers will win them the lottery; and every
week they are wrong.
Do you really believe we can just make up facts about the universe?
That "if it feels good" is a valid form of discovery of facts? Surely
not.
Roger Pearse
Come, this is a bit uncalled-for. David may have some strange ideas,
and I agree the endless repetition of them can get tiresome, but these
forums are free to all, and what else are they for but the discussion
of hobby-horses?
(<<Kelly>>)
> > > On Nov 20, 1:39 pm, crunch <pchristain...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > This Friend speaks my mind about Jesus.
>
> > > There is a context, Roger, different from yours, which
> > > is a world of intuition wherein the Holy Spirit mediates
> > > the Light for the individual. It does not analytically
> > > demonstrate that there is a God or define God.
>
> > > For me I say that God is ineffable. Further, in the Course
> > > of Miracles, which I follow in a group sponsored by a
> > > Quaker Committee at Cambridge Meeting, basic terms
> > > like Love or God etc. are not defined. I give the online lessons
> > > for it in case usenetters are interested -
> > No one's interested.
>
> > You've been told this innumerable times, yet you persist. You
> > persist, because you don't really care if anyone is interested or
> > not. All you care about is that you and your whacko hodge-podge of
> > "spiritual" beliefs are highlighted. Indeed, such is the life of a
> > self-aggrandizing whining, wimpering weasel of a boy in a man's body
> > who totes around his untreated Narcissistic Personality Disorder like
> > a badge of honor.
> Come, this is a bit uncalled-for.
Not in the least. You're obviously not a regular.
> David may have some strange ideas,
> and I agree the endless repetition of them can get tiresome, but these
> forums are free to all, and what else are they for but the discussion
> of hobby-horses?
Soggy Crunch-Flakes doesn't want "discussion", he wants to be the only
show in here, prancing around and pretending he's a "European
villager", or pretending he's a Quaker, or pretending he's an
archaeologist, or pretending he's Spock, or pretending he's a
meteorologist, or pretending he's knowledgeable about Thiering's
Theories. He promises "discussion" and then refuses to do exactly
that. He begs for questions to be asked of him and then refuses to
answer them. He claims he is a teacher, yet refuses to actually
teach.
Apparently, you haven't been paying attention, Roger.
crunch
> On Nov 20, 9:39 pm, crunch <pchristain...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 20, 5:22 am,Roger Pearse<roger.pea...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 18, 9:57 pm, crunch <pchristain...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > >http://thefriendlyfunnel.quakerism.net/
>
> > > > "I don’t believe Jesus was God. I don’t believe he was the son of God,
> > > > at least not in the virgin birth, unique way most Christians do. What
> > > > I do believe is that Jesus was a son of God....
>
> > > They'd need to demonstrate that there is a God first.
>
> > This Friend speaks my mind about Jesus.
>
> > There is a context, Roger, different from yours, which
> > is a world of intuition wherein the Holy Spirit mediates
> > the Light for the individual. It does not analytically
> > demonstrate that there is a God or define God.
>
> How do we know, tho, that it's not just self-delusion? After all,
> people intuit about all sorts of things. Every week people have an
> intuition that certain numbers will win them the lottery; and every
> week they are wrong.
I agree that false intuition exists. I say we cannot
prove the existence of God. For me God is ineffable.
While not defining basic terms like God and Love, I
still regularly study the "Course of Miracles" for spiritual
guidance with 12 other people.
> Do you really believe we can just make up facts about the universe?
> That "if it feels good" is a valid form of discovery of facts? Surely
> not.
>
> All the best,
>
> Roger Pearse
The Essenes carried to an extreme their notion that
God put order into the universe. They went off the deep end.
Best,
David Christainsen
crunch
>
> - Show quoted text -
If usenetters begin to engage me intellectually, the
vicious lies that Kelly spreads about me will fade into
nothing.
Further, people fail to challenge any strange ideas of
mine with scholarly counter-material. They do not fight
fair. I do NOT repeat them; you are quite mistaken. I
change my topics often within the broad area of the Thiering
Thesis.
Recently, I gave the Thiering derivation of Christian apocalyptic
timetable from sectarian schemes of history. She is competent
to make the case. I invite you to take an interest in it.
Best,
David Christainsen
Roger Pearse
> "Roger Pearse" <roger.pea...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:b3fb51dc-55b1-4cce...@c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 19, 12:59 am, "J Antero" <a...@xyz.com> wrote:
>
> > Nothing in Christianity is original.
> > "The vestiges of pagan religion in Christian symbology are undeniable.
> > Some examples:
> > The pre-Christian God Mithras - called the Son of God and the Light of the
> > World - was born on December 25, died, was buried in a rock tomb, and then
> > resurrected in three days.
>
> Pierce: === All bullshit. None of this is recorded about Mithras in any
> ancient source; not even any mention of him pre-AD! ====
>
>
> "Mithra" dates back before AD times.
> How could Pearse NOT know that?
Perhaps you don't know the difference between the ancient Persian cult
of Mitra -- which certainly is NOT the deity described above -- and
the Roman cult of Mithras, the usual candidate for these misleading
sorts of stories? See for example Manfred Clauss,"The Roman cult of
Mithras" (the standard undergraduate textbook).
> Even an American grade schooler exposed to History Channel emmissions would
> probably not make that mistake... <chuckle>
An unfortunate comment, considering the gross error of fact just made.
> Ency. Britannica, 2002MITHRA
> also spelled Mithras, Sanskrit Mitra,
> in ancient Indo-Iranian mythology, the god of light, whose cult spread from
> India in the east to as far west as Spain, Great Britain, and Germany. (See
> Mithraism.) ...
This may purport to be an Encyclopedia Britannica article, but it is
factually bunk.
> The first written mention of the Vedic Mitra dates to 1400 BC.
Doubtless, but of no importance whatever.
> According to myth,Mithrawas born, bearing a torch and armed with a knife,
No myth says so. Roman Mithras -- not Persian Mitra -- was born from
a rock carrying these two items, as we can tell from representations
on monuments. A search of Google Images should locate some examples.
><snip further dubious claims>
Hearsay off the web is not a good source of information. Verify your
claims, hmm?
> Roger-dodger--- you make big noises, but that's all it is: noise...
Refutation indeed!
Roger Pearse
> "Weland" <gi...@poetic.com> wrote in message
>
> news:he6qlk$2lp$2...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> > Weland wrote:
> > I should note too that you've done nothing here:
>
> > 1) if you want to show that Christianity borrowed elements and practices
> > from the Greco-Roman world, well, so what...not only is it nothing new,but
> > you did it badly
>
<smile>
> > 2) The things you choose to focus on have little to do with the central
> > tenets of the Christian faith and so at best you've nibbled around the
> > edges a bit.
>
> Sure sure. That's why you feel so threatened by it.
> What I posted shows that christianity is just a patchwork of facets and
> customs from pre-exisiting cults and "religions".
Evidently not, considering that it was full of factual errors which
you ignored.
It is unfortunate that convenience seems to be the keynote in all
these posts.
J Antero
On Nov 21, 1:04 am, "J Antero" <a...@xyz.com> wrote:
> "Roger Pearse" <roger.pea...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:b3fb51dc-55b1-4cce...@c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 19, 12:59 am, "J Antero" <a...@xyz.com> wrote:
>
> > Nothing in Christianity is original.
> > "The vestiges of pagan religion in Christian symbology are undeniable.
> > Some examples:
> > The pre-Christian God Mithras - called the Son of God and the Light of
> > the
> > World - was born on December 25, died, was buried in a rock tomb, and
> > then
> > resurrected in three days.
>
> Pierce: === All bullshit. None of this is recorded about Mithras in any
> ancient source; not even any mention of him pre-AD! ====
>
> Pierce, <abuse>
>
> "Mithra" dates back before AD times.
> How could Pearse NOT know that?
===Perhaps you don't know the difference between the ancient Persian cult
of Mitra -- which certainly is NOT the deity described above -- and
the Roman cult of Mithras, the usual candidate for these misleading
sorts of stories? See for example Manfred Clauss,"The Roman cult of
Mithras" (the standard undergraduate textbook).===
Not only is what you say not true, but you are stupid enough to compound
your demonstration of ignorance with one of a low lying character.
You are an incompetent who has been shown up, and is now lying, rather than
admitting a stupid and revealing error.
You don't have the brains to play this game.
Another cite from the Britannica (2002): """ Mithraism:
the worship of Mithra, the Iranian god of the sun, justice, contract, and
war in pre-Zoroastrian Iran. Known as Mithras in the Roman Empire during the
2nd and 3rd centuries AD, this deity was honoured as the patron of loyalty
to the emperor. After the acceptance of Christianity by the emperor
Constantine in the early 4th century, Mithraism rapidly declined. """"
And by the way, idiot, ancient myths and their myriad variations, were not
documented over the many centuries like a transcript of a court trial. Your
clueless reference to supposedly important differences about what Mithra was
carrying is another sign of just how far over your head all this is.
Now, go away, fool.
<snip>
J Antero
On Nov 21, 1:45 am, "J Antero" <a...@xyz.com> wrote:
> "Weland" <gi...@poetic.com> wrote in message
>
> news:he6qlk$2lp$2...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> > Weland wrote:
> > I should note too that you've done nothing here:
>
> > 1) if you want to show that Christianity borrowed elements and practices
> > from the Greco-Roman world, well, so what...not only is it nothing
> > new,but
> > you did it badly
>
> Well, pseudo-scholar, ...<abuse>
<smile>
> > 2) The things you choose to focus on have little to do with the central
> > tenets of the Christian faith and so at best you've nibbled around the
> > edges a bit.
>
> Sure sure. That's why you feel so threatened by it.
> What I posted shows that christianity is just a patchwork of facets and
> customs from pre-exisiting cults and "religions".
====Evidently not, considering that it was full of factual errors which
you ignored.
It is unfortunate that convenience seems to be the keynote in all
these posts.=====
This, from the fool who has shown he didn't know what Mithraism was, then
tried to cover it all up with a lie which compunded his dilemma.
The first embarassing stupidity (this thread 11/20)
Pierce: === All bullshit. None of this is recorded about Mithras in any
ancient source; not even any mention of him pre-AD! ====
Pierce, we've had arguments about religion before, and you've always managed
to reveal yourself to be a pretentious clown.
Here, you do it more clearly than usual.
"Mithra" dates back before AD times.
How could Pearse NOT know that?
Even an American grade schooler exposed to History Channel emmissions would
probably not make that mistake... <chuckle>
Ency. Britannica, 2002
MITHRA
also spelled Mithras, Sanskrit Mitra,
in ancient Indo-Iranian mythology, the god of light, whose cult spread from
India in the east to as far west as Spain, Great Britain, and Germany. (See
Mithraism.) The first written mention of the Vedic Mitra dates to 1400 BC.
His worship spread to Persia and, after the defeat of the Persians by
Alexander the Great, throughout the Hellenic world. In the 3rd and 4th
centuries AD, the cult of Mithra, carried and supported by the soldiers of
the Roman Empire, was the chief rival to the newly developing religion of
Christianity. The Roman emperors Commodus and Julian were initiates of
Mithraism, and in 307 Diocletian consecrated a temple on the Danube River to
Mithra, "Protector of the Empire."
According to myth, Mithra was born, bearing a torch and armed with a knife,
beside a sacred stream and under a sacred tree, a child of the earth itself.
He soon rode, and later killed, the life-giving cosmic bull, whose blood
fertilizes all vegetation. Mithra's slaying of the bull was a popular
subject of Hellenic art and became the prototype for a bull-slaying ritual
of fertility in the Mithraic cult.
As god of light, Mithra was associated with the Greek sun god, Helios, and
the Roman Sol Invictus. He is often paired with Anahita, goddess of the
fertilizing waters.
xxend
The second compounding embarassing stupidity (this thread 11/21).
Pierce: ===Perhaps you don't know the difference between the ancient Persian
jwshe...@satx.rr.com
MARK LOWERY
One need not accept the historicity of the Gospels on blind faith. It
is eminently reasonable to believe that in Jesus Christ, born in
Bethlehem, the deepest yearnings of mankind, expressed in so many
various mythological modes, have been fulfilled.
I distinctly remember a time as a young man when it occurred to me
that Christianity, with its teachings about God becoming man, the
Virginal Conception, and the Resurrection, might in fact be one more
myth in a long line of ancient religious myths; that Jesus may have
been quite an admirable and charismatic person (if a bit mixed up as
such people often are) and that his followers gradually mythologized
their dead hero. I asked myself, a bit proud of my intellect, whether
a rational person could be expected to believe that a God came down
from heaven, became incarnate, was born of a Virgin, rose from the
dead and then ascended right back up into heaven again. Isn't this the
very essence of myth? Who can be expected to take such mythological
data as true?
To make matters worse, these thoughts occurred to me on the feast of
Christmas, at Midnight Mass. I didn't quite know what to make of it,
but it certainly was discomfiting. I imagined how easily the whole
edifice of Catholicism would come crashing down. For if the Church had
taught for centuries that these "myths" were historical facts, and if
the Church were wrong, then the Church was wrong about lots of other
things too, from her teachings on the afterlife to her teachings on
morality, and right on down the line.
Lots and lots of people have had a similar experience. Reading and
listening to thinkers such as Joseph Campbell — vis-à-vis Bill Moyers
— has only reinforced for them the possibility that Christianity is
just another version of the ancient Roman, Greek, Persian, Egyptian,
and Babylonian myths, a set of awesome stories that tell us a lot
about the human condition, but still mythical for all that. And it
hasn't helped young people much to have George Lucas come on the scene
with his admittedly brilliant Stars Wars series, claiming that he
thinks all religions are true, and that he is providing a new myth
that will be of help in a modern technological age. Lucas is a great
filmmaker but a bad philosopher.
Nor has the Jesus Seminar helped much. That's the group of "scholars"
that gets a lot of publicity, usually around Christmas and Easter, for
their "scientific" findings about the Gospels, namely, that only a
tiny portion of the material therein is historically accurate. You
guessed it — the Virginal Conception, the Resurrection, and of course
Jesus' divinity are all mythological add-ons to the historical Jesus.
While the Jesus Seminar claims objectivity, their conclusions
represent instead very particular biases of the members, biases
against the very possibility that God could have become man, died for
our sins, and risen from the dead.
In the midst of such challenges, I myself was very lucky, or rather,
very blessed. Fortunately, and providentially, a ready answer soon
appeared, an answer that literally (no pun intended) turned upside
down this argument about Christianity as a myth. The argument came
from C.S. Lewis, in a brilliant little essay called "Myth Become
Fact." Lewis opened up an entirely different possibility for me, based
on two insights:
1.All the myths of mankind's primitive religions were expressions of a
deep yearning — the deepest yearning — in mankind's consciousness,
namely that the mysterious transcendent God would come into intimate
contact with mankind, and do so in such a way that He would repair the
damages made by mankind's sinfulness, and would grant to mankind a
safety that would last forever.
2.Christianity, rather than being one myth alongside many others, is
thus the fulfillment of all previous mythological religions. It is a
myth, like the others, but this time a myth that is also a fact.
Here it is straight from the horse's mouth:
The heart of Christianity is a myth which is also a fact. The old myth
of the Dying God, without ceasing to be myth, comes down from the
heaven of legend and imagination to the earth of history. It happens —
at a particular date, in a particular place, followed by definable
historical consequences. We pass from a Balder or an Osiris, dying
nobody knows when or where, to a historical Person crucified (it is
all in order) under Pontius Pilate. By becoming fact it does not cease
to be myth: that is the miracle.1
As Christoph Cardinal Schoenborn (yes, the mastermind behind the new
Catechism) has pointed out, Lewis himself as a young man had fallen
into the trap of thinking Christianity just another myth. He had read
J. G. Frazer's celebrated twelve-volume work on myth, The Golden Bough
(1890-1915), and was intrigued by the many parallels in the history of
religions to the idea of the "dying god."
In this view, the myths of Adonis and Osiris, for example, are only
myths of natural growth. These figures, who died and rose again to
renew the world and their followers, are symbols of the grain that
dies, is buried, and rises up in a new harvest. The myths symbolically
apply this natural process to human life: Man, too, must endure death
in order to live again.
As a young man, Lewis concluded that the Gospel stories were simply
another myth of natural growth. Jesus says the wheat must die to bear
fruit; He breaks the bread (grain) and calls it His body; He dies and
rises again. Thus He seems to be just another harvest-god symbolically
offering his life for the world.
Yet a moment came in Lewis' life that "turned the tables" as it were
on such reductionism. As he notes in his autobiography, Surprised by
Joy, one evening Lewis heard "the hardest boiled of all the atheists"
he'd ever known make the startling observation that the evidence for
the historicity of the Gospels was quite surprisingly good. The friend
concluded: "All that stuff of Frazer's about the Dying God. Rum thing.
It almost looks as if it had really happened once." The atheist was
thus musing on the possibility that in the Gospel we could find, yes,
all the old myths, but myths that really happened in history. This
comment from such an unlikely source paved the way for
LEWIS'S CONVERSION! 2
Lewis had always been fascinated by myths, and in fact wrote some
pretty good ones himself. Schoenborn describes what it was about myth
that fascinated Lewis: [T]hey awaken in the reader a longing for
something that is beyond his grasp. Myths have this fascination
because they effect a catharsis, that is, they move us and purify us;
thus they expand our consciousness, allowing us through them to
transcend ourselves. So myths are not "poets' deceptions" (as Plato
said in his Republic) nor demonic delusions (as many of the Church
Fathers thought), nor clerical lies (as many Enlightenment figures
asserted), but "Myth in general is . . . at its best, a real though
unfocused gleam of divine truth falling on human imagination."3
In sum, all of mankind's religious and philosophical yearnings partake
in, have an inchoate share in, the truth of the Incarnation. The
particularity of Christianity — namely, that it is the true religion —
is no longer scandalous, but a beautiful mystery that extends
universally, seeing reality whole. As someone once said to me, even if
this viewpoint is not true, it certainly is beautiful. I think it
beautiful and true.
This also accounts for all the vestiges of Christianity found in
ancient philosophy. For example, the teachings of the neo-Platonists,
as the young St. Augustine discovered on his path to conversion, had
lots of hints of Christianity in them, especially the notion of the
Logos (the Word). They had remarkable similarity to the writings of
St. John, who would not have known those works. But as St. Augustine
notes, they lacked the historical flavor of Christianity, particularly
the fact of the Word becoming flesh.
Myth and Christianity are not, therefore, antagonistic to each other.
Various myths exist either as anticipations of Christianity or as
echoes of Christianity. It then makes perfect sense that Christianity
took various pagan holidays and feast days and "borrowed" them, or
rather purified them and infused them with deeper meaning, instead of
rejecting them. Too often we try to "hide" the fact that Christmas is
really a pagan holiday that Christians borrowed. This is something
rather to be proud of.
Many Christians recently went to Rome for a Holy Year pilgrimage. One
of the big sights is the Pantheon, one of the best-preserved buildings
from Roman times. (If you don't remember, it's the ancient-looking
place that has a big opening at the top of the dome.) It was built by
Marcus Agrippa in 27 B.C. as a shrine dedicated to the planetary gods
and as an imperial monument.
In A.D. 609 the Byzantine emperor Phocas gave the building to Pope
Boniface IV, who converted it into a Christian church. A famous legend
tells us that Boniface had 28 cartloads of martyrs' bones brought to
the Pantheon from Rome's various cemeteries — hence the Christian name
of the Church, Santa Maria ad Martyres.
When you visit the Pantheon, the true relationship between myth and
Christianity can really come alive. What is the relationship between
all the gods and goddesses of antiquity, shrouded in myth, and
Christianity? Christianity is myth become fact. The Pantheon-become-
Church is a reminder of this fulfillment, and a reminder that all of
mankind's religious and philosophical yearnings have an inchoate share
in the truth of the Incarnation.
The book I've been quoting from, The Mystery of the Incarnation by
Christoph Cardinal Schoenborn (Ignatius Press, 1983), is now out of
print. I used to have my students at the University of Dallas read
this little book before they went on their sojourn in Rome and Greece
— after all, when students see all the pagan shrines, it can easily
occur to them that maybe Christianity is just another myth like all
these other ancient ones. And if they've read or seen Joseph Campbell,
who has popularized the idea of myth, then they can easily have their
Christianity pulled out from under them.
That disaster is made all the more easy by the fact that it is
convenient to put Christianity on the back burner for a while, to keep
Christianity as a nice "mythical" religion on their shelf, practiced a
bit on Christmas and Easter and maybe Ash Wednesday. It is
particularly convenient to take Christianity's moral code and put it
on the shelf for a while. If the Church is wrong when it teaches that
God became man, died for our salvation, and rose from the dead, then
the Church is probably equally wrong in its moral code that instructs
us about euthanasia, just wages, homosexuality, just war, abortion,
slavery, sterilization, and genocide.
Then, as one runs about flouting a new "enlightened" idea that
Christianity is really just a myth, one neatly rationalizes any
variety of immoral acts. The enlightened person's life soon becomes
sheer misery, an enslavement to sin. In a word, this "enlightened"
viewpoint isn't really very enlightened.
This Christmas, think about it the other way around. Christianity,
without ceasing to be mythical, is solidly rooted in fact. Your faith
is rooted in real events that happened in history. Did you ever notice
how the first chapter of St. John's Gospel, accused of being the
epitome of myth with its claims about the Word becoming flesh,
sparkles with historical detail? ("A man named John . . . "). Have you
ever noticed how St. Luke goes out of his way to state that his
account is based on real facts (see Luke 1:1-4)? And St. Paul comes
right out with it: "And if Christ has not been raised, then empty is
our teaching" (1 Cor. 15:14).
One need not accept the historicity of the Gospels on blind faith. It
is eminently reasonable to believe that in Jesus Christ, born in
Bethlehem, the deepest yearnings of mankind, expressed in so many
various mythological modes, have been fulfilled.
ENDNOTES:
1.C. S. Lewis, God in the Dock: Essays on Theology and Ethics (Grand
Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1970), 66-67.
2.C. S. Lewis, Surprised by Joy (London: Collins, 1955), 178-9.
3.Schoenborn, 17.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Mark Lowery "Myth Become Fact." Envoy (Janauary/February 2001)
Reprinted courtesy of Envoy Magazine.
THE AUTHOR
Dr. Mark Lowery is a husband and the father of six children. Dr. Mark
Lowery is Associate Professor, Department of Theology, University of
Dallas, Irving, TX 75062. Mark Lowery, Ph.D., can be contacted by e-
mail at low...@acad.udallas.edu
http://catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0071.html
J Antero
<jwshe...@satx.rr.com> wrote in message
news:8f7cb64f-c754-4b4b...@d21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
Myth Become Fact
MARK LOWERY
=== One need not accept the historicity of the Gospels on blind faith.
Mr. Jesus: Matthew 19:12 For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth,
and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are
eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of
heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it.
Thomas 114: Simon Peter says to them: "Let Mary go out from our midst, for
women are not worthy of life!"
Jesus says: "See, I will draw her so as to make her male so that she also
may become a living spirit like you males.
For every woman who has become male will enter the Kingdom of heaven."
Steve Hayes
>
>"Weland" <gi...@poetic.com> wrote in message
>news:he6qht$2lp$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>J Antero wrote:
>
>>> Christianity is a violation of the commandmnets not to put other gods
>>> before
>>> Yahweh (Jesus certainly gets more attention and mythic fawning than
>>> Yahweh
>>> does), and not to worship idols (like crucifixes).
>>
>
>> The first statement is a matter of theology;
>
>Wrong. It is simple logic. Jesus IS worshipped; yahweh is almost an
>afterthought.
For Christians, Jesus IS YHWH. YHWH is Father Son and Holy Spirit. The Father
is YHWH, the Son is YHWH and the Holy Spirit is YHWHJ, nevertheless there are
not three YHWHs but one YHWH.
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://khanya.wordpress.com
Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com
The instruments of the churl are evil: he deviseth
wicked devices to destroy the poor with lying words,
even when the needy speaketh right.
But the liberal deviseth liberal things;
and by liberal things shall he stand (Isaiah 32:7-8).
Matt Giwer
While it is not clear why the names are so similar the mythologies connected
with Mithra and Mithras are entirely different making them different
gods/cults. You may not like it but that is the way it is.
--
When one says there are people worse than he is, his is also say he is no
better than them.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4198
http://www.giwersworld.org/bible/sewer-bible.phtml a15
Sun Nov 22 07:16:00 EST 2009
samvaknin
http://malignantselflove.tripod.com/journal45.html
http://malignantselflove.tripod.com/faq47.html
The Cult of the Narcissist
Matt Giwer
> <jwshe...@satx.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:8f7cb64f-c754-4b4b...@d21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
> Myth Become Fact
> MARK LOWERY
> === One need not accept the historicity of the Gospels on blind faith.
> Mr. Jesus: Matthew 19:12 For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth,
> and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are
> eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of
> heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it.
Is that why communion is Viagra and wine?
> Thomas 114: Simon Peter says to them: "Let Mary go out from our midst, for
> women are not worthy of life!"
> Jesus says: "See, I will draw her so as to make her male so that she also
> may become a living spirit like you males.
> For every woman who has become male will enter the Kingdom of heaven."
Promoting lesbian rights ahead of his time.
--
"As a discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison
involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one." -- Godwin's Law
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4196
http://www.giwersworld.org a1
Sun Nov 22 07:25:31 EST 2009
Matt Giwer
Kelly rather understates the matter of crunchy. There is no need to restate
the litany. You have seen it often enough.
--
Hodie decimo Kalendas Decembres MMIX est
-- The Ferric Webcaesar
http://www.giwersworld.org/antisem/GAZA-pics/ a13
Sun Nov 22 07:31:32 EST 2009
Martin Edwards
--
As through this world I've rambled, I've met plenty of funny men,
Some rob you with a sixgun, some with a fountain pen.
Woody Guthrie
Martin Edwards
> On Nov 20, 2:32 am, Roger Pearse <roger.pea...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>>> Christmas was celebrated by pagan sun-worshippers for thousands of years
>>> before the Messiah was born. <snip endless crude lies>
>> Christmas, you could discover, was not made a public holiday by
>> Constantine and does not appear as one, even a century later.
>
> Constantine did not have to designate December 25 as a public holiday
> (it was part of the Saturnalia) celebrating the rebirth of Sol
> Invictus (the Unconquered Sun). Constantine did not have to change
> anything because he was not a Christian (he became only in his
> deathbed). So, later Christianity borrowed the day (and why not),
> plus many other elements of the worship of Sol Invictus, most notably
> representation within the Sun disk, which became the Christian halo.
Not precisely true. He had become a Christian of sorts, but it is
doubtful whether he realized he had to be only a Christian. In fac this
seems to have been true of many Christians as late as the reign of Hadrian.
Martin Edwards
I thought the Christians abolished conveniences. Sorry, I couldn't
resist it.
Martin Edwards
> J Antero wrote:
>> <jwshe...@satx.rr.com> wrote in message
>> news:8f7cb64f-c754-4b4b...@d21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
>> Myth Become Fact
>> MARK LOWERY
>
>> === One need not accept the historicity of the Gospels on blind faith.
>
>> Mr. Jesus: Matthew 19:12 For there are eunuchs who have been so from
>> birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and
>> there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the
>> kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it.
>
> Is that why communion is Viagra and wine?
>
>> Thomas 114: Simon Peter says to them: "Let Mary go out from our midst,
>> for women are not worthy of life!"
>> Jesus says: "See, I will draw her so as to make her male so that she
>> also may become a living spirit like you males.
>> For every woman who has become male will enter the Kingdom of heaven."
>
> Promoting lesbian rights ahead of his time.
>
default for a foetus is female, and the y chromosome makes us males the
freaks that we are. C. S. Lewis, a clever academic, simply regressed to
a childhood state when writing about Christianity. He and similar
elective retards like Auberon Waugh were simply never called on their
puerile fallacies.
Martin Edwards
> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 18:37:23 -0700, "J Antero" <a...@xyz.com> wrote:
>
>> "Weland" <gi...@poetic.com> wrote in message
>> news:he6qht$2lp$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> J Antero wrote:
>>>> Christianity is a violation of the commandmnets not to put other gods
>>>> before
>>>> Yahweh (Jesus certainly gets more attention and mythic fawning than
>>>> Yahweh
>>>> does), and not to worship idols (like crucifixes).
>>> The first statement is a matter of theology;
>> Wrong. It is simple logic. Jesus IS worshipped; yahweh is almost an
>> afterthought.
>
> For Christians, Jesus IS YHWH. YHWH is Father Son and Holy Spirit. The Father
> is YHWH, the Son is YHWH and the Holy Spirit is YHWHJ, nevertheless there are
> not three YHWHs but one YHWH.
>
>
quite normally.
J Antero
"Matt Giwer" <jul...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:4b092c05$0$4968$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com...
>J Antero wrote:
>
> While it is not clear why the names are so similar the mythologies
> connected with Mithra and Mithras are entirely different making them
> different gods/cults. You may not like it but that is the way it is.
You could erroneously make the same point about xianity in comparing its
earliest forms with its current forms.
Both were widespread cults that changed over time and place.
In any case, the Britannica disagrees with you about Mithraism:
Britannica (2002): """ Mithraism:
the worship of Mithra, the Iranian god of the sun, justice, contract, and
war in pre-Zoroastrian Iran. Known as Mithras in the Roman Empire during the
2nd and 3rd centuries AD, this deity was honoured as the patron of loyalty
to the emperor. After the acceptance of Christianity by the emperor
Constantine in the early 4th century, Mithraism rapidly declined. """"
By the way, your signature line needs grammatical correction so that it's
mis-logic will be more immediately apparent.
J Antero
"Steve Hayes" <haye...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5bkhg59kicdegd9nf...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 18:37:23 -0700, "J Antero" <a...@xyz.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Weland" <gi...@poetic.com> wrote in message
>>news:he6qht$2lp$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>J Antero wrote:
>>
>>>> Christianity is a violation of the commandmnets not to put other gods
>>>> before
>>>> Yahweh (Jesus certainly gets more attention and mythic fawning than
>>>> Yahweh
>>>> does), and not to worship idols (like crucifixes).
>>>
>>
>>> The first statement is a matter of theology;
>>
>>Wrong. It is simple logic. Jesus IS worshipped; yahweh is almost an
>>afterthought.
>
> For Christians, Jesus IS YHWH. YHWH is Father Son and Holy Spirit. The
> Father
> is YHWH, the Son is YHWH and the Holy Spirit is YHWHJ, nevertheless there
> are
> not three YHWHs but one YHWH.
Mr. jesus didn't seem to think so. He addressed yahweh, instead of
addressing himself.
The most famous example is: father why have thou foresaken me", or something
like that.
Anyway, this duality, trinity or whatever, was contrived by a committee of
men and then voted on.
The fact that a lot of people "believe" it, is a tribute to brainwashing and
human gullibility.
However, you can prove your point simply by having your gods show up on
earth, prove their existence and powers, and tell us the right way to kow
tow to them.
When will you do that?
jwshe...@satx.rr.com
"Anyway, this duality, trinity or whatever, was contrived by a
committee of
men and then voted on."
Gen
18:1 And the LORD appeared unto him in the plains of Mamre: and he
sat in the tent door in the heat of the day;
18:2 And he lift up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood by
him: and when he saw [them], he ran to meet them from the tent door,
and bowed himself toward the ground,
18:3 And said, My Lord, if now I have found favour in thy sight,
pass not away, I pray thee, from thy servant:
Notice: Three Persons, One Lord
Mt 28:19 - Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in
the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Notice: Name singular, three Persons.
Jim
The icon of the Trinity was painted around 1410 by Andrei Rublev
It depicts the three angels who visited Abraham at the Oak of Mamre -
but is often interpreted as an icon of the Trinity.
It is sometimes called the icon of the Old Testament Trinity.
The image is full of symbolism - designed to take the viewer into the
Mystery of the Trinity.
J Antero
<jwshe...@satx.rr.com> wrote in message
news:02834027-96fb-4c60...@f16g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 22, 11:39 am, "J Antero" <a...@xyz.com> wrote:
"Anyway, this duality, trinity or whatever, was contrived by a
committee of
men and then voted on."
====Gen
18:1 And the LORD appeared unto him in the plains of Mamre: and he
sat in the tent door in the heat of the day;
18:2 And he lift up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood by
him: and when he saw [them], he ran to meet them from the tent door,
and bowed himself toward the ground,
18:3 And said, My Lord, if now I have found favour in thy sight,
pass not away, I pray thee, from thy servant:
Notice: Three Persons, One Lord
Mt 28:19 - Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in
the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Notice: Name singular, three Persons.=====
Ahhh, so you found the word "three" somewhere in the bible, so that's how
you prove the trinity, where three different people/things is one
people/thing.... ahhhh....( maybe it was Baal )... or maybe it was a
schizophrenic's vision,
So, you are not a monotheist, are you....
Does this mean you are going to have your three different people/things is
one people/thing appear to us and prove your "three different people/things
is one people/thing" existence and powers?? Hmmm???
Here's a litte tidbit for you about the rules for fathers selling their
daughters into sexual slavery ... enjoy.
(Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)
When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end
of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her,
he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her
to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if
the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer
treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he
himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food
or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of
these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment.
(Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)
crunch
<jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com> wrote:
>...
> Notice: Three Persons, One Lord
>
> Mt 28:19 - Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in
> the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
>
> Notice: Name singular, three Persons.
'I am who I am'; and three persons not in one.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/qumran_origin/message/1722
"The Trinity illustrates the way history ended up as metaphysics. In
the practice of a theocratic state such as Israel, there were three
leaders representing the needs of the state. The two main ones were
the high priest and the king, for Qumran the Messiahs of Aaron and
Israel, priest and layman. In addition to these there was a ‘prophet’,
as shown in the list of three leaders in 1QS 9:11. The high priest had
to have a levite, for the Atonement ceremony required that a deputy
must be standing near at hand in case the high priest failed in the
performance of his duty (Mishnah, Yoma 1:1, and I would add Luke 1 on
Zechariah the Zadokite Michael and his deputy Gabriel, the Abiathar
priest). The levite/prophet came next after the priest in the
hierarchy. The king, the lay Messiah of Israel, took third place under
the priest and levite.
When the Sadducees took over the high priesthood in AD 6, they gave a
higher status to the David, the (potential) king. He now became ‘the
Son of God’, that is, the deputy of the Sadducee who was believed to
be an incarnation of God. That made him equal to a levite. The priest,
who took over the position of the ‘Abraham’, the Pope, was called the
Father, with the David as the Son. The third person was now the
Kohath, that is the village priest, called to hagion pneuma (Mt
28:19), one form of the name ‘holy spirit’. In the organisation of
village Essenes, the Kohath always came next after the levite Raphael.
He was responsible for villagers like Peter and for their Gentile
equivalents."
-----
David Christainsen
Sir David
> 'I am who I am'; and three persons not in one.http://groups.yahoo.com/group/qumran_origin/
Hobbyhorse
jwshe...@satx.rr.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Wesley P. Walters
As different as para-Christian groups or cults are from each other,
most have one thing in common: they hate the biblical teaching of the
Trinity. They want their God to be simplistic, uncomplicated, and less
complex than the world He created. They want a God reduced to terms
they can get their finite minds around.
Modern advances in science have shown that the created world is an
extremely complex mechanism. Those who work in nuclear physics or
molecular biology are continually discovering the complexity of the
world God has created.
In fact, some complex, seemingly contradictory data has yet to be
fitted into a rational system that explains the relationships. A
simple thing like "light" is known to move like "waves" yet strike
like "particles." Atomic physicists are still struggling to put
together a theory that can fully explain this apparent contradiction.
Those who work in the complex mathematical equations of quantum
mechanics are told by their instructors that "If you think that you
really understand quantum mechanics and how it applies to reality,
that proves you do not understand it." One of the basic theorems is
that if the speed of a particle is known, then its location can not be
known, and the more accurately you know its location, the less
accurately you know its speed. This does not seem very logical to the
average person, but it works very well in atomic physics, in which
scientists get very close to the essence of matter.
Thus, while scientists are continually learning more about how complex
and even apparently contradictory the world of created reality is,
cults that reject the complexity of the God who made this reality are
proliferating. They, along with Moslems and modern Jews, taunt
Christians, saying: "How can there be just one God, and yet the Father
be God, the Son be God and the Holy Spirit be God? Is He the Son of
Himself and the Father of both?"
Even though Christ Himself taught that the name [singular] of God in
which we baptize is Father, Son and Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19), all
cults falsely assert that the doctrine of the Trinity is a teaching
that grew out of fourth century paganism. So unified are the cults in
this assertion that they appear to be using the same erroneous Church
history book and parroting one another.
The truth is that by the time of Christ, the first century A.D., the
Jews themselves, on the basis of the Old Testament, were coming to an
understanding of the complexity of Yahweh.
The Teachings of The Targums
When the Jews returned from Babylonian captivity 450 years before the
birth of Jesus, they had adopted Aramaic as their native language.
Although it is a dialect of ancient Hebrew, Aramaic is about as
different from it as modern Italian is from its classical Latin
ancestor. Consequently, during the first and early second centuries
A.D., Aramaic translations of the Hebrew Old Testament were made.
These translations, called Targums, were The Living Bibles of their
day, an interpretive paraphrase of Scripture. They help us see how
these first-century Jews understood their Old Testament.
One of the striking things these Targums show is that first century
Jews had come to understand the phrase "the Word of God" as referring
to a divine entity within God Himself, yet distinguishable at times
from God. J.W. Etheridge, in the introduction to his translations of
the Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan, has given us a number of examples
of this Jewish understanding of the term, "the Word" (Aramaic: Memra).
In Genesis 18:1, where the Hebrew Bible says Yahweh (Jehovah) appeared
to Abraham, the Targum says, "The Word of the Lord appeared to
Abraham." Further on, where the Hebrew reports "Yahweh rained down
upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from Yahweh out of
heaven," the Targum states that "the Word of the Lord sent down upon
them sulphur and fire from the presence of the Lord out of
heaven." (Genesis 19:24)
In Genesis 16, when Hagar sees "the Angel of the Lord," the Targum
says she saw "the Word of the Lord." After seeing this "Word" (Memra)
she says, "Here has been revealed the glory of the Shekineh of the
Lord." Then, according to the Jerusalem Targum, "Hagar returned thanks
and prayed in the name of the Word of the Lord, who had appeared to
her." Thus the Word not only is regard- ed as the presence of deity,
but is in some manner personally distinguishable from the Lord.
In Genesis 28:20 the Targum of Onkelos paraphrases Jacob's vow, "If
God will be with me... then Yahweh will be my God" with the words, "If
the Word of the Lord will be my help... the Word of the Lord shall be
my God." Again, the Angel of Yahweh who spoke to Moses at the burning
bush (Exodus 3:14) is designated by the Jerusalem Targum as "the Word
of the Lord."
The distinct personality of this Divine Word is seen pointedly in
Jonathan's Targum of Isaiah 63:7-10. There, where the Hebrew text
speaks of Yahweh being their Savior, the Targum reads, "the Word
(Memra) was their Redeemer." (vs. 8) When the Israelites continued to
disobey, then "His Word (Memra) became their enemy, and fought against
them" -- an action ascribed to Yahweh in the Hebrew text. Again in
Isaiah 45:22 the Targum of Jonathan exhorts, "Look unto My Word and be
saved."
While this personalizing of the Word was being expressed in Palestine
in the Targums of Jesus' day, Philo, an Egyptian Jew and contemporary
of Jesus, was expressing similar thoughts in even more distinct words.
In his essay "On the Creation," Philo states that man was not made in
the image of some creature, but in the image of God's own uncreated
Word. He wrote: "for the Creator, we know, employed for its making no
pattern taken from among created things, but solely, as I have said,
His own Word."
Philo continues: "Man was made a likeness and imitation of the Word,
when the Divine Breath was breathed into his face. ("On the Creation,"
XLVIII: 139, Loeb Edition I, pp. 110-111)
In his work on Noah, Philo again expresses the teaching that man is
made by "the First Cause" (that is, God) in the image of "the Eternal
Word:" "Our great Moses likened the fashion of the rea- sonable soul
to no created thing, but averred it to be a genuine coinage of that
dread Spirit, the Divine and Invisible One, signed and impressed by
the seal of God, the stamp of which is the Eternal Word."
He continues: "...man has been made after the Image of God (Genesis
1:27), not however after the image of anything created... man's soul
having been made after the image of the Archetype, the Word of the
First Cause." ("Noah's Work as a Planter," I:18-20, Loeb III, pp.
222-223)
Thus, the eternal Word is in some sense distinguishable from God, and
yet at the same time is, like God, uncreated, rational and the bearer
of the divine image. This comes very close to the teaching of the New
Testament that the Word was distinguishable from God, and yet was God.
As John 1:1 expresses it, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word
was with God, and the Word was God." It also appears similar to Paul's
teaching that the Son is "the image of the invisible God" (Colossians
1:15); and the writer of Hebrews statement that the Son "is the exact
representation of His being." (Hebrews 1:3)
Philo, however, goes further. He says that God is the king and
shepherd of all creation, but rules and controls it through his
eternally existing Word, whom Philo calls God's "First-born Son."
His "hallowed flock" of created things God directs by his divine laws,
setting over it His true Word and first-born son, who shall take upon
Him its government like some viceroy of a great king. ("On Husbandry,"
I:51, Loeb III, pp. 134-135)
Philo has God expressing Himself in this manner: "I alone... sustained
the Universe to rest firm and sure upon the Mighty Word, who is My
viceroy." ("On Dreams," I:241, Loeb V, pp. 424- 425)
Therefore this eternal Word, God's first-born Son, is the upholder of
the whole creation, "the everlasting Word of the eternal God is the
very sure and staunch prop of the Whole. He it is, who extending
Himself from the midst to its utmost bounds... keeps up through all
its length Nature's unvanquished course, combining and compacting all
its parts. For the Father who begat Him constituted His Word such a
Bond of the Universe as nothing can break." ("Noah's Work as a
Planter," I:8-9, Loeb III, pp. 216-217)
This reflects the same thought that Paul expressed about the Son as
being the one "in whom all things hold together." (Colossians 1:17) It
also reminds also reminds us of Hebrews 1:3, which depicts the Son as
"sustaining all things by his powerful Word."
Philo continues his discussion of the Word by maintaining that to
those incapable of seeing the supreme cause, God Himself, He appears
to them in the form of His Angel, the Word: "For just as those who are
unable to see the sun itself, see the gleam of the parahelion and take
it for the sun, and take the halo round the moon for that luminary
itself, so some regard the image of God, His Angel, the Word, as His
very self." ("On Dreams," I:239, Loeb V, pp. 422-423) This sounds very
similar to the teaching tha t the Son is "the radiance (or outshining)
of God's glory" (Hebrews 1:3), the only part of God's nature that
people are allowed to see. This is true because "no one has ever seen
God," but "the only begotten God... He has made Him known." (John
1:18) Thus, Jesus, the Son, can say, "Anyone who has seen me has seen
the Father." (John 14:9)
Philo further explained that God, being light, is "the archetype of
every other light." As such He is "prior to and high above every
archetype." Thus He holds the position of "a model of a model," that
is, He is the model for His Word, which Word becomes the model for
creation. The Word, therefore, contains all the qualities of God. As
Philo expressed it, "the model or pattern was the Word which contained
all His fullness -- light, in fact." ("On Dreams," I:75, Loeb V, pp.
336-337) Paul expressed a similar thought when he wrote that in the
Son all God's fullness dwells. (Colossians 1:19; 2:9)
To Philo, therefore, the Word of God is the eternal, uncreated Word
containing all the fullness of God and bearing His image. That divine
image which the Word bears is the image in which man was created. The
Word is further the sustainer, upholder and ruler of the world,
carrying on the governing of all things, as God's viceroy, and
containing all God's fullness.
While the Word is not a created thing and carries on all the functions
of God, Philo is clear that there are not two gods -- although he does
not attempt to explain how this can be. Philo's teaching is,
therefore, very close to the biblical doctrine of the Trinity. Philo
reached his conclusions without the aid of the New Testament and
certainly without deriving his ideas from pagan notions of deity. The
Old Testament teaching that the Angel of Yahweh is really the presence
of Yahweh Himself seems to have strongly influenced Philo's ideas.
To relegate the doctrine of the Trinity, therefore, to a fourth-
century adaptation of paganism is to ignore the conclusions that
several Jewish theologians and teachers had reached four centuries
earlier, from God's revelations given to Israel before the time of the
coming of Christ. At the very time that the Word was becoming flesh
(John 1:1, 14), Jewish writers were already beginning to see that
God's Word could in some way be distinguished from God the Father
Himself, yet have all the fullness of God contained in Him.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://prophecyarchive.com/ray/barr-family.com/godsword/trinity.htm
J Antero
conmen and fools.
The stuff you post is just nonsense that no thinking person can accept.
However, I'm willing to be convinced - have your gods appear to the people
of the world and prove their existence and powers.
Weland
> "Weland" <gi...@poetic.com> wrote in message
> news:he6qht$2lp$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> J Antero wrote:
>
>>> Christianity is a violation of the commandmnets not to put other gods
>>> before
>>> Yahweh (Jesus certainly gets more attention and mythic fawning than
>>> Yahweh
>>> does), and not to worship idols (like crucifixes).
>
>> The first statement is a matter of theology;
>
> Wrong. It is simple logic.
From false premises, and even if true, would still be a theological
statement rather than an historical one.
Jesus IS worshipped; yahweh is almost an
> afterthought.
Yep, but whether that constitutes idolatry very much depends on one's
theological viewpoint. Orthodox Christianity, for example, would not
draw a distinction between the two...making your claim a moot one.
>
>> the second is false....Christians do not worship the symbol anymore than
>> Jews worship a wall, or Buddhists worship a statue.
>
> Bullshit.
> You don't even understand the definition of the term.
>
> idol
> -noun
> 1. an image or other material object representing a deity to which religious
> worship is addressed.
>
> The christian cross, with or without jesus hanging on it, qualifies.
Nope,since the cross isn't worshiped.
> Strict prohibition of idolatry is one of the most distinctive features of
> the Israelite religion: Yahweh, the God of Israel, could not be represented
> in physical form and would not tolerate the idols of any other gods. """
Except that Christianity isn't Israelite religion, aka Yahwism, and for
that matter modern Judaism isn't Yahwism either.
>
>
> The Weland/Swain pseudo-scholar demonstrates the characterisitc of a small
> intellect - it can't gain an objective view of its own culture.
In contrast to your mistaken one......
> The "others" have idols to which they genuflect and make entreaties, but
> we're totally different with the cross and the sacrificed image on it...
And create straw men arguments...
>
> A high school level intellect....
is one like yours that typically rests on misunderstood half-fact,
innuendo, straw man arguments, and lies.
>
>
>
>>> Nothing in Christianity is original.
>> Well, that's false. Like any religious and philosophical system, there
>> are elements that overlap other religious and philosophical systems and
>> elements that give those inherited elements a new twist, and elements that
>> are new and unique.
>
> What major facet(s) is original to christianity? Can you tell us?
In contrast to the less than major facets you listed....
>
> Maybe you can come up with something.
The incarnation, the virgin birth, the resurrection (yes, there are
resurrection myths that predate Christianity, the difference being that
Christianity pointed to a specific time, place, and person who was
resurrected with eyewitnesses) the orthodox expression of the Trinity at
all times and in all forms being one God is a pretty original
formulation, prayer in private by individuals is an original twist.
>
>>> "The vestiges of pagan religion in Christian symbology are undeniable.
>>> Some
>>> examples:
>> So?
>
> Don't you understand the signifcance of lack of originality?
Historically speaking, it means nothing. It may or may not
theologically, depending on one's point of view.
>
> Most christians think the religion is unique in having 'truths" and was
> something new.
So? Even if so, (and how does one measure "most Christians"? and why
that should be in any important to the discussion) this was addressed
long centuries ago already in the second century when Christianity was
young. Most Christians know that.
> The whole point, that you miss in the items posted, is to show that it was
> not, that it is just another man made fantasy that stole from other
> pre-existing religions.
I didn't miss it, simply pointed to a number of historical problems and
problems with the sources you use. In any case it's a false problem
both historically and theologically.
> It's like a scientist coming up with something he thinks is a new theory,
> only to find out that its parts had been floated, refuted and discarded in
> the past.
False Analogy.
jwshe...@satx.rr.com
Mt 12:39 - But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous
generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to
it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas:
J Antero
>J Antero wrote:
>> "Weland" <gi...@poetic.com> wrote in message
>> news:he6qht$2lp$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> J Antero wrote:
>>
>>>> Christianity is a violation of the commandmnets not to put other gods
>>>> before
>>>> Yahweh (Jesus certainly gets more attention and mythic fawning than
>>>> Yahweh
>>>> does), and not to worship idols (like crucifixes).
>>
>>> The first statement is a matter of theology;
>>
>> Wrong. It is simple logic.
>
> From false premises, and even if true, would still be a theological
> statement rather than an historical one.
The only false premises are the ones you salt through this thread.
People think of jesus as a distinct entity not as some illogical part of a
threesome, and there are numerous quotes in the NT that have addressing
yahweh, which puts the lie to whole trinity fabrication.
By the way pseudo-scholar, religion is a prominent facet of history.
You go on with pseudo-refutations that are of the same quality as the one I
disposed of.
<snip>
J Antero
<jwshe...@satx.rr.com> wrote in message
news:472f0667-2b77-44de...@p32g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 22, 7:21 pm, "J Antero" <a...@xyz.com> wrote:
> I think xianity and all religion is just nonsense kept alive by
> hypocrites,
> conmen and fools.
>
> The stuff you post is just nonsense that no thinking person can accept.
>
> However, I'm willing to be convinced - have your gods appear to the people
> of the world and prove their existence and powers.
>
> When will you do that?
===Mt 12:39 - But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous
generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to
it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas:===
In other words, just enjoy the show, but don't look behind the curtain -
there's nothing there...
Weland
>> Weland wrote:
>
>
>> I should note too that you've done nothing here:
>>
>> 1) if you want to show that Christianity borrowed elements and practices
>> from the Greco-Roman world, well, so what...not only is it nothing new,but
>> you did it badly
>
> stupidity in a series of vacuous pseudo-refutations.
>
> Most people have enough common sense to know that a theory or system, when
> shown to be largely made up of facets stolen from preceding theories or
> systems that it claims are discredited, has a problem.
AH, so you mean every religious, philosophical, scientific system in the
world from the beginnings of human thinking about such things to the
present is discredited. You therefore embrace nihilism. Understood.
> .... but you won't be able to follow that logic line, will you... <chuckle>
Perhaps because it isn't logical? Perhaps because it doesn't address
what I actually said? You're personal problems with religion have
nothing to do with reporting history badly and making historical
mistakes and using bad history to support conclusions that don't follow
from the faulty premises.
>
>> 2) The things you choose to focus on have little to do with the central
>> tenets of the Christian faith and so at best you've nibbled around the
>> edges a bit.
>
> Sure sure. That's why you feel so threatened by it.
LOL!!!! Threatened by bad history? By someone who quotes the Da Vinci
Code as if it were fact? It was an entertaining diversion, nothing more.
>
> What I posted shows that christianity is just a patchwork of facets and
> customs from pre-exisiting cults and "religions".
Not really, especially as what you quote takes on such vitally important
topics like "Christmas cookies" by misquoting and misunderstanding a
text. Last I checked "Christmas cookies" weren't exactly central to the
faith of Christians any more than the celebration of All Souls is a
central tenet or even practiced by all Christians at all times.
> But if you wan to tell us what is original to it, go ahead.
> Predicitng the end of the world is coming? ;-)
> Or, oo, oo, resurection? lol
LOL! Poor Antero! You have yet to rise to the level of a Jtard, but
keep trying, you may get to that level of ignorance yet!
Weland
> "Steve Hayes" <haye...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:5bkhg59kicdegd9nf...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 18:37:23 -0700, "J Antero" <a...@xyz.com> wrote:
>>
>>> "Weland" <gi...@poetic.com> wrote in message
>>> news:he6qht$2lp$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>> J Antero wrote:
>>>>> Christianity is a violation of the commandmnets not to put other gods
>>>>> before
>>>>> Yahweh (Jesus certainly gets more attention and mythic fawning than
>>>>> Yahweh
>>>>> does), and not to worship idols (like crucifixes).
>>>> The first statement is a matter of theology;
>
>>> Wrong. It is simple logic. Jesus IS worshipped; yahweh is almost an
>>> afterthought.
>
>> For Christians, Jesus IS YHWH. YHWH is Father Son and Holy Spirit. The
>> Father
>> is YHWH, the Son is YHWH and the Holy Spirit is YHWHJ, nevertheless there
>> are
>> not three YHWHs but one YHWH.
>
> Mr. jesus didn't seem to think so. He addressed yahweh, instead of
> addressing himself.
> The most famous example is: father why have thou foresaken me", or something
> like that.
Somewhat immaterial, as the issue is what CHRISTIANS BELIEVE, not what
Jesus believed when incarnate. At the same time, the "most famous
example" is actually a quote from the Psalms and does nothing to affect
Christian statements on the nature of the Trinity.
>
> Anyway, this duality, trinity or whatever, was contrived by a committee of
> men and then voted on.
Gross oversimplification, and again so what? Your charge
was that Christians by worshipping Jesus commit idolatry, but from the
orthodox Christian view this isn't true.
> The fact that a lot of people "believe" it, is a tribute to brainwashing and
> human gullibility.
>
> However, you can prove your point simply by having your gods show up on
> earth, prove their existence and powers, and tell us the right way to kow
> tow to them.
>
> When will you do that?
Except that his point as stated was that for Christians, as Jesus is
reported to have said, "I and the Father are one" which Christians take
as one example that Jesus is Yahweh, and so worshipping Jesus is
worshipping Yahweh, worshipping Yahweh is worshipping Jesus, and no
idolatry is involved. His point would be utterly unaffected by a
manifestation of the Christian divine, and you're simply moving the
goalposts.
J Antero
>J Antero wrote:
>> "Weland" <gi...@poetic.com> wrote in message
>> news:he6qlk$2lp$2...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> Weland wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I should note too that you've done nothing here:
>>>
>>> 1) if you want to show that Christianity borrowed elements and practices
>>> from the Greco-Roman world, well, so what...not only is it nothing
>>> new,but
>>> you did it badly
>>
>> Well, pseudo-scholar, it was done well enough that you again reveal your
>> stupidity in a series of vacuous pseudo-refutations.
>>
>> Most people have enough common sense to know that a theory or system,
>> when
>> shown to be largely made up of facets stolen from preceding theories or
>> systems that it claims are discredited, has a problem.
>
> AH, so you mean every religious, philosophical, scientific system in the
> world from the beginnings of human thinking about such things to the
> present is discredited. You therefore embrace nihilism. Understood.
I've said it before - you have a poor mind.
I don't want to waste my time making a fool of you again, when I have such a
nice discrediting example hot off the press, from another of your posts,
which amply and clearly shows what your level of competence is.
Here:
Weland-Swain the pseudo-scholar wrote in crticism of a post I recently made:
> The quote is
> found on page 232 of Brown's book and is false in every particular:
> Mithras is the rock born god, not the son of god, the Persian Mithras was
> sometimes called "light of the world" but not the Roman Mithras,
Weland-Swain the pseudo-scholar strikes again, by shooting himself in the
ass, several times.
(Are you related to ADR and Pearce?)
What I posted wasn't refering to the Roman version of Mithras, although
that's really not important to the discussion, except in your confused mind.
Here's what I posted:
"" The pre-Christian God Mithras - called the Son of God and the Light of
the World - was born on December 25, died, was buried in a rock tomb, and
then resurrected in three days. By the way, December 25 is also the birthday
or Osiris, Adonis, and Dionysus. ""
Here's examples of mention of these same factors in various historical
books. The very least of any book that one is likely to find touching on the
various Mitra, Mithra, Mithras cults, is exponentially more reliable than
anything coming from you.
1) In Search of Zarathustra: Across Iran and Central Asia to Find the
World's ... - Page 122
Paul Kriwaczek - History - 2004 - 288 pages
Over the following centuries, as the religion evolved beyond Zarathustra's
inspiration, Mithra came to be seen as the **Son of God** - the three
aspects of
...
2) The Emperor Julian - Page 31
Constance Head - History - 1976 - 229 pages
Mithra was the Persian **god of light**. His story, far older than the
official
Zoroastrian religion of Persia and incorporated into it, told of his birth
from .
3) A brief history of Western man - Page 99
Thomas H. Greer - History - 1968 - 594 pages
(Long before Christ, **December 25** was celebrated as the date of his
birth.)
Mithra was also associated with the sun, and his followers marked Sunday as
his
4) The Templar Revelation: Secret Guardians of the True Identity of Christ?
Lynn Picknett - Religion - 2004
His resurrection took place, like that of Mithra, from a **rock-tomb**...13
[our
italics] There is not a conception associated with Christ that is not common
to
5) Chinese Religion Through Hindu Eyes; A Study in the Tendencies of Asiatic
...? - Page 146
Wu Ting-Fang, Benoy Kumar Sarkar - History - 2009 - 362 pages
... dying and **resurrected saviour-god**, an Osiris, an Adonis, an Attis, a
Mithra.
Religions of this type were everywhere displacing the old national faiths.
...
6) A brief history of Western man? - Page 88
Thomas H. Greer - History - 1972 - 546 pages
The divine Mithra was believed to be a lieutenant of Ahura Mazda, ... all
told
of a god who had died and was **resurrected**, as the cold death of winter
is ...
7) Human values from the Greeks to modern times: a continuing circle? -
Page 46
Glenn Shillington Visher - Philosophy - 1997 - 254 pages
... their dead were **resurrected**, to a heaven above or a hell in the
bowels of
the earth; their god Mithra had made a sacrifice which saved the human race;
...
<snip further Weland CH4 emmisions>
Now, just leave it alone, larry, won't you? ;-)
Quit wasting my time.
J Antero
Incredible. What the supposed all knowing "god" believed is irrelevant as to
whether he was a god or not.
What kind of an oatmeal brain generates something like that?
The one that also generated this:
Steve Hayes
>J Antero wrote:
>> Most people have enough common sense to know that a theory or system, when
>> shown to be largely made up of facets stolen from preceding theories or
>> systems that it claims are discredited, has a problem.
>
>AH, so you mean every religious, philosophical, scientific system in the
>world from the beginnings of human thinking about such things to the
>present is discredited. You therefore embrace nihilism. Understood.
That's what J. Antero said in the subject line, if not actually backing it up
the body of the original message.
Steve Hayes
I'm so glad to see that someone in a newsgroup actually responds to what is
written, instead of posting yet another straw man.
>> However, you can prove your point simply by having your gods show up on
>> earth, prove their existence and powers, and tell us the right way to kow
>> tow to them.
>>
>> When will you do that?
>
>Except that his point as stated was that for Christians, as Jesus is
>reported to have said, "I and the Father are one" which Christians take
>as one example that Jesus is Yahweh, and so worshipping Jesus is
>worshipping Yahweh, worshipping Yahweh is worshipping Jesus, and no
>idolatry is involved. His point would be utterly unaffected by a
>manifestation of the Christian divine, and you're simply moving the
>goalposts.
I thought of saying that, and then thought that trying to respond to the straw
men (persons?) and non sequiturs of J. Antero simply wan't worth the bother.
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
(<<Kelly>>)
> Quit wasting my time.
That's hilarious.
You make the choice to keep reading and responding to his posts, and
then claim *he* is the one wasting your time. I take it that someone
is holding a gun to your head forcing you to read and respond to his
posts...?
LOL!
J Antero
You didn't respond becasue you didn't have anything to respond with, fool.
All the fool did was brainlessly restate a doctrine that is ridiculous.
Jesus addressed yahweh, which he would not have done were he yahweh.
Is that hard to understand?
J Antero
"(<<Kelly>>)" <rosie...@rocketmail.com> wrote in message
news:bd5a0c7c-5670-46a3...@a10g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 22, 9:27 pm, "J Antero" <a...@xyz.com> wrote:
> Quit wasting my time.
=====That's hilarious.
You make the choice to keep reading and responding to his posts, and
then claim *he* is the one wasting your time. I take it that someone
is holding a gun to your head forcing you to read and respond to his
posts...?
LOL!===
Only to someone of a similar IQ level to the moron I just made a fool of.
pyotr filipivich
Nov 2009 18:21:40 -0700 did write/type or cause to appear in
alt.religion.christian.episcopal the following:
You'll have to take that up with Management. It's not my
department.
toodles
pyotr
-
pyotr filipivich
Monotheism, someone has said, offers two simple axioms:
1) There is a God.
2) It's not you.
Steve Hayes
What's even more hilarious is that J. Antero, having asserted that religion is
tiresome toxic bullshit, persists in wanting to write about it. Must be a new
form of masochism.
--
Terms and conditions apply.
Steve Hayes
haye...@hotmail.com
J Antero
No, it's just a way of getting braindeads like you exposed to some light.
(<<Kelly>>)
> > Quit wasting my time.
> =====That's hilarious.
>
> You make the choice to keep reading and responding to his posts, and
> then claim *he* is the one wasting your time. I take it that someone
> is holding a gun to your head forcing you to read and respond to his
> posts...?
>
> LOL!===
> Only to someone of a similar IQ level to the moron I just made a fool of.
I don't know whether or not he's a fool. One thing I do know for
certain, however, is that you've bested a fool, you've proven nothing
other than you're just slightly more clever than the fool.
This just keeps getting better and better - have anything else you'd
like to add?
;-)
Matt Giwer
> "Matt Giwer" <jul...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:4b092c05$0$4968$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com...
>> J Antero wrote:
>> While it is not clear why the names are so similar the mythologies
>> connected with Mithra and Mithras are entirely different making them
>> different gods/cults. You may not like it but that is the way it is.
>
> You could erroneously make the same point about xianity in comparing its
> earliest forms with its current forms. Both were widespread cults that
> changed over time and place.
>
> In any case, the Britannica disagrees with you about Mithraism:
>
> Britannica (2002): """ Mithraism: the worship of Mithra, the Iranian
> god of the sun, justice, contract, and war in pre-Zoroastrian Iran. Known
> as Mithras in the Roman Empire during the 2nd and 3rd centuries AD, this
> deity was honoured as the patron of loyalty to the emperor. After the
> acceptance of Christianity by the emperor Constantine in the early 4th
> century, Mithraism rapidly declined. """"
>
> By the way, your signature line needs grammatical correction so that it's
> mis-logic will be more immediately apparent.
In this case I can only direct your attention to the mythology
surrounding the two different names. After you read them both you will be
eligable to correct the Britannica article. Remember, encyclopedias are not
suitable for reference beyond high school.
--
If you believe religion to be infallible be thankful your
neighbor is not a man of the cloth.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4189
http://www.giwersworld.org/disinfo/occupied-2.phtml a6
Mon Nov 23 05:39:07 EST 2009
Matt Giwer
> Matt Giwer wrote:
>> J Antero wrote:
>>> <jwshe...@satx.rr.com> wrote in message
>>> news:8f7cb64f-c754-4b4b...@d21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
>>> Myth Become Fact
>>> MARK LOWERY
>>> === One need not accept the historicity of the Gospels on blind faith.
>>> Mr. Jesus: Matthew 19:12 For there are eunuchs who have been so from
>>> birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and
>>> there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the
>>> kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it.
>> Is that why communion is Viagra and wine?
>>> Thomas 114: Simon Peter says to them: "Let Mary go out from our midst,
>>> for women are not worthy of life!" Jesus says: "See, I will draw her so
>>> as to make her male so that she also may become a living spirit like you
>>> males. For every woman who has become male will enter the Kingdom of
>>> heaven."
>> Promoting lesbian rights ahead of his time.
[I forgot to mention the attraction of warrior women like Xena which
which is obviously of religious significance.]
> Also another example of the nonsense that ancient people believed. The
> default for a foetus is female, and the y chromosome makes us males the
> freaks that we are.
I prefer describing the nonsense things people believe today because
they were included in unprovenanced religious material. In the right context
it can be a comic enterprise. Why is abortion murder? See Homunculus. See
seed and soil understanding of procreation. Soul comes when seed meets soil
aka moment of conception. It is only a matter of size from then on. It is
not when there is a brain capable of developing a human personality because
the brain is for lubricating the nose.
That said, the Y chromosome thing is rather a modern feminist
statement. Not all primates have a Y chromosome yet all of both sexes. There
are dozens of ways of differentiating sexes which are quite different from
the human Y method. The methods of sex differentiation are probably more
numerous and interesting than have been identified. Yet asexual reproduction
is the notable rarity and often a default adaptation to an extreme
environment.
Female is not the default. The Y could disappear and we would still
have two sexes despite the fluff pieces of journalism majors. The likely
main difference would be less size differentiation which is greatest in
mammals in humans and gorillas if I remember correctly.
> C. S. Lewis, a clever academic, simply regressed to a childhood state when
> writing about Christianity. He and similar elective retards like Auberon
> Waugh were simply never called on their puerile fallacies.
The rather incredible part of it is not that they found a market for
their writings but the continuing high regard for their juvenalia among
adults who do not consider it juvenalia. Not that I have anything against a
good juvenile like Starship Troopers or Lord of the Rings but one is
supposed to mature to the point of recognizing them for what they are even
though enjoying them.
--
What are millions of German troops against
billions of British pounds?
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4207
http://www.giwersworld.org/holo/ a8
Mon Nov 23 05:06:06 EST 2009
Roger Pearse
> "Roger Pearse" <roger.pea...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:aa1c5495-0350-4868...@s15g2000yqs.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 21, 1:04 am, "J Antero" <a...@xyz.com> wrote:
>
> > "Roger Pearse" <roger.pea...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:b3fb51dc-55b1-4cce...@c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> > On Nov 19, 12:59 am, "J Antero" <a...@xyz.com> wrote:
>
> > > Nothing in Christianity is original.
> > > Some examples:
> > > the
> > > World - was born on December 25, died, was buried in a rock tomb, and
> > > then
> > > resurrected in three days.
>
> > ancient source; not even any mention of him pre-AD! ====
>
> > Pierce, <abuse>
>
> > "Mithra" dates back before AD times.
> > How could Pearse NOT know that?
>
> ===Perhaps you don't know the difference between the ancient Persian cult
> of Mitra -- which certainly is NOT the deity described above -- and
> the Roman cult of Mithras, the usual candidate for these misleading
> sorts of stories? See for example Manfred Clauss,"The Roman cult of
> Mithras" (the standard undergraduate textbook).===
>
> Not only is what you say not true, but <abuse>
You aren't disagreeing with me. You're disagreeing with the experts.
Good luck with that.
And making nasty names doesn't do your case any favours either.
> Another cite from the Britannica (2002):
Allow me to remind me of what I wrote in response to your last claim
of authority:
This may purport to be an Encyclopedia Britannica article, but it is
factually bunk.
> And by the way, idiot, ancient myths and their myriad variations, were not
> documented over the many centuries like a transcript of a court trial. <abuse>
If you are asserting that your claims are not based on evidence, I
agree with you. Whatever we say about the past must be based on
whatever survives, tho.
All the best,
Roger Pearse
Roger Pearse
> "Roger Pearse" <roger.pea...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
>
> On Nov 21, 1:45 am, "J Antero" <a...@xyz.com> wrote:
>
> > "Weland" <gi...@poetic.com> wrote in message
>
>
> > > Weland wrote:
> > > I should note too that you've done nothing here:
>
> > > 1) if you want to show that Christianity borrowed elements and practices
> > > from the Greco-Roman world, well, so what...not only is it nothing
> > > new,but
> > > you did it badly
>
>
> <smile>
>
> > > 2) The things you choose to focus on have little to do with the central
> > > tenets of the Christian faith and so at best you've nibbled around the
> > > edges a bit.
>
> > Sure sure. That's why you feel so threatened by it.
> > customs from pre-exisiting cults and "religions".
>
> you ignored.
>
> It is unfortunate that convenience seems to be the keynote in all
> these posts.=====
>
> <snip abuse, reiteration, reposts>
Refutation indeed. :-)
Roman Mithras is not documented in any pre-AD source. The ancient
Persian cult of Mitra is not the same in any important respect,
notably the tauroctony. A look at any modern textbook by a Mithras
scholar would verify these points, and I refer those interested to
Manfred Clauss, The Roman cult of Mithras, which is the standard
undergraduate textbook on the subject.
I suppose we could ask why this anonymous and abusive poster --
whoever he may be -- feels such a desperate need to believe this, but
sadly I think we all know.
SolomonW
> they hate the biblical teaching of the
> Trinity.
The trinity does not come out of the bible.
Roger Pearse
> > found on page 232 of Brown's book and is false in every particular:
> > sometimes called "light of the world" but not the RomanMithras,
>
> that's really not important to the discussion....
>
> Here's what I posted:
>
> the World - was born on December 25, died, was buried in a rock tomb, and
> then resurrected in three days. ""
>
> books.
Good to hear. Start producing the ancient sources that tell us these
things about Mitra.
People used to make these sorts of claims about Mithras. Now quite a
few of us have researched Mithras, and can firmly squelch these
claims. Funnily enough people now start to make them about Mitra. In
neither case, tho, do we discover any real knowledge.
> 1) In Search of Zarathustra: Across Iran and Central Asia to Find the World's ... - Page 122
> Paul Kriwaczek - History - 2004 - 288 pages
>
> Over the following centuries, as the religion evolved beyond Zarathustra's
> inspiration, Mithra came to be seen as the **Son of God** - the three
> aspects of
> ...
And we should accept the statement of this person... why?
Produce ancient evidence, not stuff googled off the web.
> 2) The Emperor Julian - Page 31
> Constance Head - History - 1976 - 229 pages
>
> Mithra was the Persian **god of light**. His story, far older than the
> official Zoroastrian religion of Persia and incorporated into it, told of his birth
> from .
Ditto.
> 3) A brief history of Western man - Page 99
> Thomas H. Greer - History - 1968 - 594 pages
>
> (Long before Christ, **December 25** was celebrated as the date of his
> birth.)
> Mithra was also associated with the sun, and his followers marked Sunday as
> his
Ditto.
> 4) The Templar Revelation: Secret Guardians of the True Identity of Christ?
> Lynn Picknett - Religion - 2004
>
> His resurrection took place, like that of Mithra, from a **rock-tomb**...13
> [our italics] There is not a conception associated with Christ that is not common
> to
<wild hilarity> This is offered as evidence?!?
You need to stop pasting hearsay and start asking for ancient
evidence. That other people are just as ignorant as you is your
problem, not anyone else's.
<snip more crap>
And where, I wonder, did all these "quotes" come from?
> Quit wasting my time
No ancient evidence? Back under the rock with you.
All the best,
Roger Pearse
crunch
> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 16:48:04 -0800 (PST), jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com wrote:
> > they hate the biblical teaching of the
> > Trinity.
>
> The trinity does not come out of the bible.
'I am who I am'; and three persons not in one.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/qumran_origin/message/1722
"The Trinity illustrates the way history ended up as metaphysics. In
the practice of a theocratic state such as Israel, there were three
leaders representing the needs of the state. The two main ones were
the high priest and the king, for Qumran the Messiahs of Aaron and
Israel, priest and layman. In addition to these there was a
‘prophet’,
as shown in the list of three leaders in 1QS 9:11. The high priest
had
to have a levite, for the Atonement ceremony required that a deputy
must be standing near at hand in case the high priest failed in the
performance of his duty (Mishnah, Yoma 1:1, and I would add Luke 1 on
Zechariah the Zadokite Michael and his deputy Gabriel, the Abiathar
priest). The levite/prophet came next after the priest in the
hierarchy. The king, the lay Messiah of Israel, took third place
under
the priest and levite.
When the Sadducees took over the high priesthood in AD 6, they gave a
higher status to the David, the (potential) king. He now became ‘the
Son of God’, that is, the deputy of the Sadducee who was believed to
be an incarnation of God. That made him equal to a levite. The
priest,
who took over the position of the ‘Abraham’, the Pope, was called the
Father, with the David as the Son. The third person was now the
Kohath, that is the village priest, called to hagion pneuma (Mt
28:19), one form of the name ‘holy spirit’. In the organisation of
village Essenes, the Kohath always came next after the levite
Raphael.
He was responsible for villagers like Peter and for their Gentile
equivalents."
-----
David Christainsen
(<<Kelly>>)
> On Nov 23, 7:58 am, SolomonW <Solom...@nospamMail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 16:48:04 -0800 (PST), jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com wrote:
> > > they hate the biblical teaching of the
> > > Trinity.
>
> > The trinity does not come out of the bible.
>
No original thought of your own again, I see. You're always riding on
someone else's coat-tails, Soggy...why is that?
crunch
wrote:
> SolomonW wrote:
> > On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 16:48:04 -0800 (PST), jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com
> > wrote:
>
> >> they hate the biblical teaching of the
> >> Trinity.
>
> > The trinity does not come out of the bible.
>
>
> "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was
> God [...] and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us".
>
> Tim.
Strictly to answer your question, Tim, I give a
VERY DIFFICULT Thiering explanation here. Do
read her entire article and then ask me any questions
for clarification -
Meaning of 'the Word of God'
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/qumran_origin/message/2852
"Brad asks about the pesher of Jn 1:1 "in the beginning was the Word…
and the Word was God." I did show, in The Book that Jesus Wrote, that
the sentence is a masterpiece, combining philosophy with history in a
way that gives equal validity to both. For the Greek readers who were
more interested in abstract philosophical questions than in the
historical origins of their new religion, the sentence affirmed that
the immanent divine Reason (defined in the quote Rowan has given) was
incarnated in the person of Jesus. He was the instrument of divinity,
the expression of God in the workings of this world. He was there ‘in
the beginning’, at the time of creation, the Beginning of Gen 1:1.
For those expecting also historical facts, there is more to be learned
about Jesus himself. It is this sentence that supplies the pesher of
the term ‘Word of God’. When the term appears elsewhere it is giving
information about the actions of Jesus, for whom ‘Word of God’ was, at
times, a title. Very important events are referred to by this means,
for example in Acts 6:7; 12:24; 2 Tim 2:9. These readers expected
technical terms within religious terms, and looked closely at every
detail, such as the presence or absence of the definite article (in
the reliable Greek text). ‘God’ with the definite article meant also
the Sadducee high priest, who was believed to incarnate God in heaven.
I’ve given several times the evidence for this, in Philo’s definition
of the high priest (On Dreams 2:188-189). Without the definite
article, the word means ‘a priest’, in the sense given in the Sabbath
Sacrifice documents, a graduate who in the Diaspora acted as a priest,
a member of a symbolic Holy of Holies."
-----
David Christainsen
jwshe...@satx.rr.com
> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 16:48:04 -0800 (PST), jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com wrote:
> > they hate the biblical teaching of the
> > Trinity.
>
> The trinity does not come out of the bible.
You are wrong!!!
Gen
18:1 And the LORD appeared unto him in the plains of Mamre: and he
sat in the tent door in the heat of the day;
18:2 And he lift up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood
by
him: and when he saw [them], he ran to meet them from the tent door,
and bowed himself toward the ground,
18:3 And said, My Lord, if now I have found favour in thy sight,
pass not away, I pray thee, from thy servant:
Notice: Three Persons, One Lord
Mt 28:19 - Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in
the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Notice: Name singular, three Persons.
Jim
The icon of the Trinity was painted around 1410 by Andrei Rublev
It depicts the three angels who visited Abraham at the Oak of Mamre -
but is often interpreted as an icon of the Trinity.
It is sometimes called the icon of the Old Testament Trinity.
The image is full of symbolism - designed to take the viewer into the
Mystery of the Trinity.
http://www.wellsprings.org.uk/rublevs_icon/rublev.htm
Weland
> "Weland" <gi...@poetic.com> wrote in message
> news:hed29i$7fc$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> J Antero wrote:
>>> "Weland" <gi...@poetic.com> wrote in message
>>> news:he6qlk$2lp$2...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>> Weland wrote:
>>>
>>>> I should note too that you've done nothing here:
>>>>
>>>> 1) if you want to show that Christianity borrowed elements and practices
>>>> from the Greco-Roman world, well, so what...not only is it nothing
>>>> new,but
>>>> you did it badly
>>> Well, pseudo-scholar, it was done well enough that you again reveal your
>>> stupidity in a series of vacuous pseudo-refutations.
>>>
>
>
>>> Most people have enough common sense to know that a theory or system,
>>> when
>>> shown to be largely made up of facets stolen from preceding theories or
>>> systems that it claims are discredited, has a problem.
>> AH, so you mean every religious, philosophical, scientific system in the
>> world from the beginnings of human thinking about such things to the
>> present is discredited. You therefore embrace nihilism. Understood.
>
> I've said it before - you have a poor mind.
Oh, very probably true, but at least my poor mind is better than one
that calls a book "mangled history" and then quotes that book as history
and then follows up supporting that quote by citing the mangled
history's source text, a fringe, pseudo-history by the authors who think
that the Stargate movies and television show represent real history!
>
> I don't want to waste my time making a fool of you again,
LOL!!! Oh, you mean like when you claimed I hadn't heard of Bart Ehrman
until you mentioned him to me in 2009, but Ehrman acknowledges me in a
2003 book? You mean that time when you made a fool of me? LMAO!!! Or
maybe you're referring to the time when you were invited to write
Ehrman and ask him his current views on Secret Mark that I reported to
you from his very own publicly stated words at SBL, yet you still
haven't had the courage to do it. He's still waiting to hear from you.
Or maybe it was the time you claimed to have read a book of MacMullen,
yet somehow in spite of it being on the shelf in your library according
to you, you are unable to tell us what appears on pages not in the
Google preview. Poor Antero...
when I have such a
> nice discrediting example hot off the press,
LOL!!! Oh, yes, quoting Pinkett is priceless! Citing a whole list of
non-experts is certainly evidence!
from another of your posts,
> which amply and clearly shows what your level of competence is.
>
> Here:
>
> Weland-Swain the pseudo-scholar wrote in crticism of a post I recently made:
For those interested, and who didn't see the previous response, I paste
here my response to Antero's claims. Take careful note of his sources!
> Here:
>
> Weland-Swain the pseudo-scholar wrote in crticism of a post I
recently made:
>
>> The quote is
>> found on page 232 of Brown's book and is false in every particular:
>> Mithras is the rock born god, not the son of god, the Persian
Mithras was
>> sometimes called "light of the world" but not the Roman Mithras,
>
> Weland-Swain the pseudo-scholar strikes again, by shooting himself in the
> ass, several times.
>
> (Are you related to ADR and Pearce?)
>
> What I posted wasn't refering to the Roman version of Mithras,
Then it doesn't establish your point about Christianity borrowing from
Mithraism since Christianity grew in the first century in the
Greco-Roman context, not the Persian.
although
> that's really not important to the discussion, except in your
confused mind.
Or your uninformed mind.
>
> Here's what I posted:
>
> "" The pre-Christian God Mithras - called the Son of God and the Light of
> the World - was born on December 25, died, was buried in a rock tomb, and
> then resurrected in three days. By the way, December 25 is also the
birthday
> or Osiris, Adonis, and Dionysus. ""
Note the lack of admission in spite of being verbatim from Brown's
DaVinci Code, a book you attacked for mangled history that you now must
defend! HILARIOUS!
>
> Here's examples of mention of these same factors in various historical
> books. The very least of any book that one is likely to find touching
on thea boo various Mitra, Mithra, Mithras cults, is exponentially more
reliable than
> anything coming from you.
>
> 1) In Search of Zarathustra: Across Iran and Central Asia to Find the
> World's ... - Page 122 Paul Kriwaczek - History - 2004 - 288 pages
Seriously? This is what you trot out as evidence? A book by a former
dentist and television producer? That's what qualifies as expert
opinion to you? Wow...note on pg. 122 how he doesn't tell you where he
read this; it isn't in the proffered hymn he cites below the text, it
isn't in the book he cites above the text you cite. He cites neither
expert opinion nor ancient sources, it's just something he read
somewhere. That's what counts as evidence to you. Very apparent that
your citations here are examples of the thread title.
>
> 2) The Emperor Julian - Page 31
> Constance Head - History - 1976 - 229 pages
>
> Mithra was the Persian **god of light**. His story, far older than the
> official
> Zoroastrian religion of Persia and incorporated into it, told of his
birth
> from .
So what? Here's what I said: "the Persian Mithras was sometimes called
"light of the world" but not the Roman Mithras," It is the latter that
is the only system that could have substantially influenced
Christianity, the claim in your quote is that the Christians borrowed
this from Mithraism, but it only applies to a type of Mithraism that
didn't influence Christianity.
>
> 3) A brief history of Western man - Page 99
> Thomas H. Greer - History - 1968 - 594 pages
Seriously? You're going to quote a guy who wrote on American topics
(Roosevelt, American political development) and some very general works?
A specialist, before he died in 2004, in contemporary affairs? This
is your source of proof on ancient religious systems? Note again he
provides no documentation to either known experts on Mithraism or more
importantly to ancient sources.
Besides, even if true, which it isn't, the Persians had a different
calendar than the Hellenistic Christians who chose Dec 25 and it can
only be happenstance.
>
> 4) The Templar Revelation: Secret Guardians of the True Identity of
Christ?
> Lynn Picknett - Religion - 2004
Seriously??!!??!!??!! Do you even bother to assess the crap you cite or
do you just type in a phrase and take whatever comes? Really? You want
to cite as evidence Picknett and Prince?? The book from which Brown
took, by his own admission, took his "mangled history"??!!!! That's
what you're going to cite as proof that Brown was right!!!!! HILARIOUS!
These are the authors that brought us The Stargate Conspiracy which
argues that ancient Egypt and Mars shared a civilization, and that
beings from Sirius are the gods of ancient Egypt...and they're coming
back--the date and hour only a secret cabal manipulated by the CIA
know....THIS IS THE SOURCE BOOK OF BROWN's MANGLED HISTORY MORON!!!!
>
A Study in the Tendencies of Asiatic
> ...? - Page 146
> Wu Ting-Fang, Benoy Kumar Sarkar - History - 2009 - 362 pages
What? You can't give the full title? LOL! So you're going to cite
Sarkar's book with a throw-away line as evidence? Wow.....
Where are the citations of ancient sources? Where are the citations of
actual experts in Mithraism? Where are the references to the
iconography of Mithras? Missing from your, dare I call it, "analysis."
Let's be honest: you typed some phrases into a search on Google books
and uncritically took whatever came up as "evidence", including widely
recognized "pseudo-history", the very source of information for Brown's
book that you claimed was mangled history.
>
> 6) A brief history of Western man? - Page 88
> Thomas H. Greer - History - 1972 - 546 pages
Oh Greer again...see above....he was not an expert, he cites no experts,
nor does he cite ancient sources.
>
> 7) Human values from the Greeks to modern times: a continuing circle? -
> Page 46
> Glenn Shillington Visher - Philosophy - 1997 - 254 pages
Really? Again? You're going to cite a stratigrapher who is writing a
book on genetic influence on human values as a source for Mithraism?
Really? And you didn't bother to check that Visher is actually quoting
someone else, nor did you check that qualifications of that person. Nice
job! So you cite a non-expert in ancient history and mithraism citing
another non-expert in ancient history and mithraism to prove something
about Mithraism that experts don't talk about. Yes, I'm sure we are all
very impressed at the level of intellect this displays!
>
>
> Now, just leave it alone, larry, won't you? ;-)
Oh, I'm sure you'd like that...no one to point out your absolute
ridiculous claims and how very contrary to fact they are! But we all
like a good laugh...so please, quote Brown or his source as history
again...please!
>
> Quit wasting my time.
The only one wasting your time is you: google searches are no substitute
for knowledge. As for our time, well, a good laugh at your expense
releases endorphins at least!
Weland
> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 22:15:48 -0600, Weland <gi...@poetic.com> wrote:
>
>> J Antero wrote:
>
>>> Most people have enough common sense to know that a theory or system, when
>>> shown to be largely made up of facets stolen from preceding theories or
>>> systems that it claims are discredited, has a problem.
>> AH, so you mean every religious, philosophical, scientific system in the
>> world from the beginnings of human thinking about such things to the
>> present is discredited. You therefore embrace nihilism. Understood.
>
> That's what J. Antero said in the subject line, if not actually backing it up
> the body of the original message.
Not quite. He mentioned religion only. His characterization of "a
theory or system largely made up of facets stolen from preceding
theories or systems has a problem" applies to not only religion but
almost ever area of human endeavor and thought, far beyond just human
religions.
Tiglath
> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 21:44:38 -0800 (PST), "(<<Kelly>>)"
>
> >On Nov 22, 9:27 pm, "J Antero" <a...@xyz.com> wrote:
>
> >> Quit wasting my time.
>
> >That's hilarious.
>
> >You make the choice to keep reading and responding to his posts, and
> >then claim *he* is the one wasting your time. I take it that someone
> >is holding a gun to your head forcing you to read and respond to his
> >posts...?
>
> What's even more hilarious is that J. Antero, having asserted that religion is
> tiresome toxic bullshit, persists in wanting to write about it. Must be a new
> form of masochism.
Is it perhaps that the assertion that religion is tiresome toxic
bullshit is not really talking religion, which would be tiresome, but
talking about how tiresome and toxic religious bullshit is, which
might not be tiresome at all?
Tiglath
>
> No ancient evidence? Back under the rock with you.
>
> All the best,
>
I source need not be ancient to be reliable.
I hope Roger is not implying that unless you know Old Bactrian and can
produce the ancient hymns about Mithras it's no good.
Modern references can be just as good as a good ancient one, provided
it's from a proper authority, like say the CAH., where one can safely
presume that authors have scrutinized the ancient sources and have the
training to understand them, and report accurately what the sources
say in a manner that the claims from the source and the author's
interpretation can be clearly differentiated.
No to mention that with ancient sources your mileage will vary too.
crunch
Yet, I started this thread and made consistent contributions
showing a wealth of ancient history, not so much religion.
For me Dr. Thiering's discoveries and explanation are
revolutionary. If a few paradigms get crushed along the
way, that's just too bad.
David Christainsen
(<<Kelly>>)
Whassamatter, Soggy? Upset that the conversation veered away from you
and your Thiering Hobbyhorse?
Weland
>>>> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 18:37:23 -0700, "J Antero" <a...@xyz.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Weland" <gi...@poetic.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> J Antero wrote:
>>>>>>> Christianity is a violation of the commandmnets not to put other gods
>>>>>>> before
>>>>>>> Yahweh (Jesus certainly gets more attention and mythic fawning than
>>>>>>> Yahweh
>>>>>>> does), and not to worship idols (like crucifixes).
>>>>>> The first statement is a matter of theology;
>>>>> Wrong. It is simple logic. Jesus IS worshipped; yahweh is almost an
>>>>> afterthought.
>>>> For Christians, Jesus IS YHWH. YHWH is Father Son and Holy Spirit. The
>>>> Father
>>>> is YHWH, the Son is YHWH and the Holy Spirit is YHWHJ, nevertheless
>>>> there are
>>>> not three YHWHs but one YHWH.
>
>
>>> Mr. jesus didn't seem to think so. He addressed yahweh, instead of
>>> addressing himself.
>>> The most famous example is: father why have thou foresaken me", or
>>> something like that.
>> Somewhat immaterial, as the issue is what CHRISTIANS BELIEVE, not what
>> Jesus believed when incarnate.
>
> whether he was a god or not.
To a degree yes, it is common in human systems for the followers to
drift from the founder's core message, even though they may not be aware
of that drift and continue to look back and interpret the founder's
teachings to continue to apply to their current situation. If you want
to know what Christians, a 2000 year old belief system, believe you
can't stop simply at Jesus.
Further, there are plenty of statements by Jesus that indicate equality
or participation with Yahweh.
> What kind of an oatmeal brain generates something like that?
One that has considered objects beyond his belly button...
Weland
>>>> J Antero wrote:
>>>>> Christianity is a violation of the commandmnets not to put other gods
>>>>> before
>>>>> Yahweh (Jesus certainly gets more attention and mythic fawning than
>>>>> Yahweh
>>>>> does), and not to worship idols (like crucifixes).
>>>> The first statement is a matter of theology;
>>> Wrong. It is simple logic.
>
>> statement rather than an historical one.
>
> The only false premises are the ones you salt through this thread.
Oh, nice claim...but also false on your part. Doing bad history is just
bad history, drawing illogical conclusions is just that. You can't
escape your stated stupidities no matter how often you snip.
>
> People think of jesus as a distinct entity not as some illogical part of a
> threesome,
And what people are those? Surely not those who confess Jesus and God
are one, surely.
> and there are numerous quotes in the NT that have addressing
> yahweh, which puts the lie to whole trinity fabrication.
Except those on which it is based.....
> By the way pseudo-scholar, religion is a prominent facet of history.
Oh indeed! And one really wishes that you would treat it as history
rather than as some badly scrabbled together cheap polemical tool.
>
> You go on with pseudo-refutations that are of the same quality as the one I
> disposed of.
Sad. Disposed of what? Waving your hand airily doesn't "dispose" of
anything except your bad gas.
Steve Hayes
wrote:
>On Nov 23, 4:22�pm, Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net> wrote:
>> On Nov 23, 1:21 am, Steve Hayes <hayesm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> > What's even more hilarious is that J. Antero, having asserted that religion is
>> > tiresome toxic bullshit, persists in wanting to write about it. Must be a new
>> > form of masochism.
>>
>> Is it perhaps that the assertion that religion is tiresome toxic
>> bullshit is not really talking religion, which would be tiresome, but
>> talking about how tiresome and toxic religious bullshit is, which
>> might not be tiresome at all?
>
>Yet, I started this thread and made consistent contributions
>showing a wealth of ancient history, not so much religion.
You started this thread?
That makes you a sock puppet for J Antero.
Roger Pearse
> On Nov 23, 8:46 am,Roger Pearse
>
>
>
> > No ancient evidence? Back under the rock with you.
>
> > All the best,
>
> I source need not be ancient to be reliable.
I'm not sure that I understand. Our knowledge of any event from
ancient times can only come, surely, from one of three sources?
1. An ancient literary source
2. An ancient inscription, or other documentary source
3. Archaeology.
Unless it is found in one of these, it's unevidenced.
> I hope Roger is not implying that unless you know Old Bactrian and can
> produce the ancient hymns about Mithras it's no good.
I'm not sure about Old Bactrian! An English translation would serve
fine. But ... why not ask to see the primary sources? Otherwise we
end up, medieval-style, arguing about authorities. That's rather
useless, IMHO.
> Modern references can be just as good as a good ancient one, provided
> it's from a proper authority, like say the CAH., where one can safely
> presume that authors have scrutinized the ancient sources and have the
> training to understand them, and report accurately what the sources
> say in a manner that the claims from the source and the author's
> interpretation can be clearly differentiated.
But why not go straight to the sources? Not that I have anything
against the CAH, but.... why trust a middleman?
> No to mention that with ancient sources your mileage will vary too.
Mileage? <confused>
All the best,
Roger Pearse
crunch
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 14:20:29 -0800 (PST), crunch <pchristain...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Nov 23, 4:22 pm, Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net> wrote:
> >> On Nov 23, 1:21 am, Steve Hayes <hayesm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> > What's even more hilarious is that J. Antero, having asserted that religion is
> >> > tiresome toxic bullshit, persists in wanting to write about it. Must be a new
> >> > form of masochism.
>
> >> Is it perhaps that the assertion that religion is tiresome toxic
> >> bullshit is not really talking religion, which would be tiresome, but
> >> talking about how tiresome and toxic religious bullshit is, which
> >> might not be tiresome at all?
>
> >Yet, I started this thread and made consistent contributions
> >showing a wealth of ancient history, not so much religion.
>
> You started this thread?
>
> That makes you a sock puppet for J Antero.
I must drop you as a usenet correspondent because
you are too erratic. I wish it were different. A pity.
David Christainsen