Pagan Influences in Christianity [Archive] - Page 3

Muravyets

21-04-2006, 18:11

And yet you would obviously reject Jesus' claim that he is the only way to the Truth
FIRST, I was not aware that Jesus actually said that. Reading your later posts with GnI, it seems there is some debate about that.

SECOND, you are conflating Jesus with God. I understand that many Christians believe that Jesus was a physical manifestation of God, but are you also saying that God did not exist before manifesting in the form of Jesus? If that's what you are saying, that would be a belief I was completely unaware of before. Are you sure this is what Christians believe?

Because if God the Creator (as you conceive of him) has existed forever, then why should I not be able to believe that he exists, even if I don't follow the teachings of Christ? Obviously, the existence of God is not dependent on those teachings. Basically, from my non-Christian point of view, it would boil down to something like this: God exists. I don't worship him. At a certain time, he took the form of a man and taught/demonstrated a set of rules for his worshippers to follow. I'm not one of his worshippers, so I don't pay attention to that. Is that really so difficult to wrap one's brain around?

THIRD, I'll repeat what I said -- oh, how long ago was it; has it been years yet? -- if I followed the teachings of Christ, I'd be a Christian, by definition. I have been consistently saying that I accept that your god exists but I don't worship him. Yet you insist on trying to twist that simple statement into some kind of negative remark against your religion -- you've accused me of calling your religion false (I never did), of saying your god isn't real (I never did), and of specifically rejecting your religion (I never did). What it seems to boil down to for you is, anybody who is not with you is against you, i.e. anyone who doesn't practice your religion must be opposed to it. Well, if you enjoy that kind of negative mindset, then indulge in it, but you will find (and have found) nothing in my posts to support you.

Not rejection of man, but a rejection other gods. That is important for both Judaism and Christianity.
It's not important for animists. In fact, animists take the opposite approach. I should explain that I was describing the animist view of Christianity.

Belief in the existence of spirits does not negate Christ's sacrifice, but Christ's sacrifice means that following the spirits is pointless way to find the truth. In fact, following the spirits is seriously in danger of leading one away from Christ. It is Christ that we follow, and our trust is in Him alone, just as he commanded. Putting our trust in another will mean that we have not fully trusted him, which is the condition for salvation.
Okay, fine. That's a real difference between animism and Christianity.

But from the animist's point of view, couldn't an animist who became a Christian simply take the same view towards animist gods/spirits that I, as an animist, take towards the Christian god, i.e. that they exist but they are not worshipped?

I see. Good that you cleared that one up. Personally, I thin you mean 'acknowledge' or 'acquiesce' rather than accept.
Fine. My use of "accept" is correct, but now that you've got which definition I'm using, feel free to mentally substitute any synonym you like. I'll let you know if you are misunderstanding any specific statements of mine.

My point is that while you acknowledge my beliefs, you do not accept them to be true, since if you believed in the god that I believed in, it would radically change your life.
No. You are again projecting your thoughts onto me. Jesus changed your life, and that's nice for you. The fact that I do not care about Jesus and your god, does not in anyway lead to the conclusion that I don't think they're real. I think you're real, but I don't care what you do.

Look at it this way: It's true that smoking pot is relaxing. I don't smoke pot because I don't smoke and don't use drugs. I find other ways to relax. But I do not think that people who smoke pot to relax are wrong. I take the same attitude towards religion. I follow the path that takes me where I want to go. You follow the path that takes you where you want to go. To the extent they both deliver on their promises, they are both right and true. This is the point of view you are arguing with.

But there is a contradiction between your religion and mine. Your religion seems to be saying that all ways to god are OK, while my religion is definitely that only Jesus holds the key. Your religion, therefore, embraces many religions, but cannot avoid rejecting any religion that contradicts exactly that point.
But to the person who says that all ways are OK, there is no conflict between even your exclusionary way and my inclusionary way. How can a religion that says all ways are valid reject any individual way, even one that disagrees with it?

OK, but if you follow the type of Christian teaching that holds that there is some literal truth in the Adam and Eve story, then you have a situation where humans believed in God, without any suggestion of animism.
Here you are straying from spiritual-thinking Muravyets into secular-thinking Muravyets. I do not consider the Bible (or any religious texts of any religion, including my own (such as they exist)) to be history. If you "follow the type of Christian teaching that holds that there is some literal truth in the Adam and Eve story" then you are talking about your beliefs, not about the facts of what happened before your religion existed.

Archeology has no way of knowing what people really thought 25,000 years ago (to pick a random average number). It can only show us the artifacts they left behind. The artifacts are more consistent with the ritual objects of current animist religions and less consistent with the ritual objects of theistic religions (mono- or poly-). When historians and anthropologists take that fact and combine it with the recorded history of animist religions and the recorded history of animistic influences in cultures around the world, they reach the conclusion that it is likely that some form of animism has existed since the dawn of human societies and can thus be thought of as the first religion. This is only a theory based on collected data, and it can never be anything more than that because we will never find a written record from the periods in question -- there was no writing then. By the way, the exact same lack of proof applies to efforts to claim that monotheism has always existed, too.

When I said that I think this is what happened, I meant that I accept that theory as most likely. You may reject it, if you like. It means nothing to today's religions, either way.

Fair enough, but it was an example of a situation in which someone pronounced an ultimatum, which resulted in rejection/acceptance, an either/or situation. Elements of this sort can be found in religions like Islam, Judaism, and Christianity.
Let's stick with discussing religion.

OK. Relationships. But is there not a sense that life is not really the way it should be? Within Christianity, there is the concept that humans have fallen from the place that they should be. We have lost our closeness to our Creator, and Jesus came to restore that closeness, or even to make it better than before. Thus being a Christian means that Christ has come to live within us, making our lives a temple where he is celebrated in sweet communion.
No, animism contains no such concept.

Animism does not question the condition or organization of the universe. The universe is what it is, just as you and I are what we are. It makes of itself what it wishes or can, just as we do in our lives. The universe is perfect, complete, and without end, and so is life. It contains all possible experiences -- happiness and unhappiness, peace and conflict, birth and death, sickness and health, friends and enemies. It is up to us to navigate our way through life and the world as best we can. By teaching a spiritual philosophy based on harmony among beings, animist religions offer ways of maximizing the benefits of life and minimizing the effects of negative things. Animism starts from a sense of contentment with the way things are in this world, and if things go badly, it says, well, they're just going badly for now. Animists depend on their harmonious relationships to help them survive bad times.

I'll use an anecdote to illustrate this point: I recently watched a documentary about the Indonesian tsunami on Discovery Channel. An interesting fact of that disaster is that, of all the places that were hit hard, only the tiny Andaman Islands suffered very little loss of human life. Despite the lack of warning, it seems that the Andaman Islanders are really good at reading the ocean, and they spotted the extreme withdrawal of the sea as the danger sign and evacuated to high ground pretty much just in time. Only one Andaman Islander died -- tragically, it was disabled boy. In the rush of evacuation, everybody thought someone else had picked him up. By the time they missed him, the wave was already hitting and they could not go back for him.

The documentary talked, among other things, about how survivors were trying to deal with the disaster. They talked to Hindus who thought it was an extreme event of karma. They talked to Christians and Muslims who both thought God was punishing them for sins. And they asked the Andaman Islanders what they thought. The Andaman Islanders are animists. They said, very simply, well these things happen sometimes. As they explained it, according to their beliefs, the ocean spirits and the land spirits sometimes get into fights over where the boundary between their realms should be, but they give warnings before they go at it. People have to pay attention to those warnings and get out of the way until the spirits settle their dispute. And that's exactly what the Andaman people did.

Good point. I hadn't thought of that. I shall attempt to explain what they mean to me, but keep in mind that even Christians differ on the meaning.
OK.

Here Jesus is saying that the way to God lies in following him (actually that was the context). And then he mentions the cost of following him. It will cost us our lives. The payment is the constant yielding to God, such as he showed by example (Not my will, but yours be done). When we yield to God, we reject selfishness, the tendency to put my own interests before God's and others', and we live as though our lives belonged to God, not that little tyrant that lives within each one of us. And if we do this, he promises that we will discover true life. Thus he is drawing a distinction between the life lived when we are in control of it, and the life lived in close communion with God, with God having the authority. He goes further to say that the price of being the master of your own life is that you will eventually have it taken from you, but if you give your life to God, you will receive the gift of eternal life (i.e. right now, not after physical death) and that gift will never be taken from you. And thus the value of eternal life is infinitely worth more than being the master and owner of the whole world.

It also means that there are basically two types of people. Those following Christ, and those who don't.
Okay. If you start with the belief that you are not where you need to be spiritually (re: your question about a sense that life isn't the way it should be), then yes, you should dedicate yourself to a path that will get you where you need to be. As I said above, animism does not have that idea, so animism does not issue any call to follow any path towards salvation. It does not think there is any danger to be saved from.

I bolded the parts about losing life vs gaining eternal life. This is a big difference between Christianity and animism..

The core of animism (the definition of it, really) is the belief in souls.

I said a while back that I follow both Shintoist and old European traditions. I'll clarify that here: I use Shinto for the forms of rituals because I like their style, but I venerate the spirits that live around me where I am now and my own ancestral spirits who are of European descent. I think all forms of animism are pretty uniform about the nature of souls, but I will refer you to the descriptive websites I've already given you for details and to the individual religions themselves. What I'm saying here is colored by my European animist traditions.

That disclaimer in place -- The animist view is that the soul is immortal and independent of the physical body. The life of the soul is forever and eternal. There is no way it could ever lose its life. It is a piece of life itself. Therefore, death is only a physical change. As far as souls are concerned, there is no such thing as death. So from the animist point of view, the idea that if you don't follow this one path you'll lose the option to live forever, doesn't mean anything. Living forever is the condition of souls. It's not an option.

Now, I was under the impression that Christians also think the soul is immortal. If so, how can you lose your life? I mean, you do accept the existence of physical death, right? So when you talk about gaining eternal life, you're talking about the life of the soul, right? But if the soul is immortal, how can it die?

I think he meant that when someone decides to follow Christ, but then reaches a point where they reject Christ, they have shown by their choice that they were never originally really following Christ with a worthy motive. For example, someone who followed Christ because he thought it would make him rich (or famous or powerful, i.e. motivated in the interests of self), and then found ashes instead of riches, and thus gave up following Christ, would have simply demonstrated that his basis for following Christ was not an honest one, i.e., not fitting. Thus, ones choice to turn back from following Christ is an indication of a motive that was not fitting. That's a rather hefty claim, and would indeed sound rather foolish coming from anyone who was not God.
Then, to me, it sounds like a requirement for sincerity. Straightforward enough.

Every human is born of water (natural birth), but only those who are born of the Spirit (i.e. reborn, spiritual birth) can enter the Kingdom of God. It is because of the Original Sin that all humans are born sinners, and we will die sinners, outside of the Kingdom of Heaven unless we allow God to give us the new life, the eternal life, the one which we can never lose.

Baptism (with water) is a symbol of the second birth.
I see, so this rebirth, with or without an actual water ritual, is required to cleanse the soul of original sin.

Animism contains no concept of original sin, no concept of separation from god, no concept that the world went wrong somewhere. According to animism, there is no pre-existing stain on human souls that must be cleansed in order to get back to a better state. There is no better state to get back to.

This statement was made in the context of obeying the Jewish Law. But Jesus points out that even the experts in that area did not obey the law well enough to earn the right to enter the Kingdom of heaven. (Kingdom of Heaven is not a specific location but wherever and whenever the will of God is embraced wholeheartedly, the place where one can celebrate communion with God.) This means that even the best efforts of man are not enough to enter the Kingdom of Heaven--our attempts at righteousness fall far short of the basic requirement. Thus there had to be another way. In another passage, Jesus explains that the other way through which we can enter the Kingdom of Heaven is through being born again, in which his spirit lives within us. Thus we receive his righteous status, and thus gain entry to the Kingdom of Heaven.

Thus the law is no longer necessary in order to follow God, because we are close friends with the Judge, and the Law giver. The law itself only points to the fact that we need God to save us, and that we couldn't save ourselves. But when we have God living within, as a type of perpetual guest, we need only follow his guidance and rely on his strength to do his will. Thus the Bible should not be viewed as a bunch of rules, but as a help from which we learn more about God, since it will always point to Him.

The ultimatum, then, is to come to him for help, on his terms, rather than trying to obey the law on our own strength, since our attempts to enter the Kingdom of God without his help will always be inadequate.
In other words, "Don't listen to them, listen to me." Well, like I said, if you think you need to do something to improve your spiritual state, then yes, you should listen to a god who offers a way to do that. The basic disconnect between animism and Chrisitianity seems to be on the question of the condition of the human soul. Animism says it's fine as is. Christianity says it needs fixing.

Sorry to be so wordy.
Wordiness is not always avoidable if we really want to explain ourselves.

Muravyets

21-04-2006, 19:02

OK, here's the deal. I acknowledge that you do not consider shamans to be any kind of religious leader, at any level, within animism. I, on the other hand, although not being an animist, have read around enough to know that shamans are considered leaders, even by people within animism. Thus, I propose that you and I will have to agree to disagree. That being said, we can now leave it and move on.
Thanks for offering a deal, but I'm going to reject it. As you say, you are not an animist. It is not up to you to define how animist religions are organized or who plays what role within it. In the words of the great (;) ) US senator Pat Moynihan: "We can all have our own opinions, but we can't all have our own facts." I will not permit you to distort and misuse facts and hide behind a claim that it's nothing but your opinion.

Does that mean that any comment that casts animism in a negative light will be considered slander by you?
Don't be dense. If you want to say that you think animism is a false religion that does not lead people to salvation through Christ and a relationship with god, go right ahead. It's totally true that animism does not do those things, and it is your opinion that that's makes it bad.

But that is not what you have been saying. What you have been saying is that animism promotes fear, abuse and oppression and that shamans abuse and oppress people. You have made specific accusations about animism being the cause of war crimes and the deaths of children, and you even cited a biased source (Gospel Outreach) that accused animism of causing alcoholism and suicide -- all without the least bit of evidence to back up you up. These are not opinions. These are accusations, they are false, and they are slander and defamation. Kindly retract these statements at this time.

Here is another link that does not seem to be Christian. The opening statement is:

''The religion is Animism and consists in fear of the evil spirits of the wood, the sea, disease and ancestors and in avoidance of acts traditionally displeasing to them.''

http://www.webindia123.com/territories/andaman/people/religion.htm

IT'S A TRAVEL AGENCY SITE!! Now we're supposed to take the word of travel agents as authorities about world religions? Give me a freaking break.

And in Laos, there is a form of animism where ''Animist believers also fear wild spirits of the forests.'' This sounds like 'believing' is quite related to 'fearing'.

http://countrystudies.us/laos/59.htm

Uh...no. That's you forging a connection that does not exist between ideas that are not even both in the article.

Christians who believe that Satan exits also fear him, right? Does this mean that Christianity is a religion of fear?

And here is yet another interesting source:

''Probably spirits and ghosts were originally of an evil kind. Sir John Lubbock ('The Origin of Civilisation') says: 'The baying of the dog to the moon is as much an act of worship as some ceremonies which have been so described by travellers.' I think he would admit that fear is the origin of the worship. In his essay on 'Superstition,' Hume writes: 'Weakness, fear, melancholy, together with ignorance, are the true sources of superstition.' Also 'in such a state of mind, infinite unknown evils are dreaded from unknown agents.'
Man's impotence to resist the forces of nature, and their terrible ability to injure him, would inspire a sense of terror; which in turn would give rise to the twofold notion of omnipotence and malignity. The savage of the present day lives in perpetual fear of evil spirits; and the superstitious dread, which I and most others have suffered, is inherited from our savage ancestry. How much further back we must seek it may be left to the sage philosophers of the future.''
http://www.worldwideschool.org/library/books/hst/biography/TracksofaRollingStone/chap6.html

You must be joking. Here is the Preface to this book, in its entirety:

"THE First Edition of this book was written, from beginning to end, in the short space of five months, without the aid of diary or notes, beyond those cited as such from a former work.

The Author, having no expectation that his reminiscences would be received with the kind indulgence of which this Second Edition is the proof, with diffidence ventured to tell so many tales connected with his own unimportant life as he has done. Emboldened by the reception his 'Tracks' have met with, he now adds a few stories which he trusts may further amuse its readers.

June 1905."

If it is a religion to those who believe it 'works', then who are you or I to say that it isn't a valid religion, even if we think it nonesense? Wouldn't that be slander against their beliefs?

Which brings us back to the definition of the word 'religion'.

A religion obviously doesn't need a church or a temple or a holiday. The rituals could be practices that make it 'work', even if that includes getting out of bed in a particular way every morning, and its spiritual beliefs are the principles on which the believer trusts in to make sense of his world.
I asked you a question. You have not answered it. If astrology is a religion, show me the form of it and its beliefs. You cannot do so because astrology is not a religion any more than horse racing is a religion or any more than a preferred method for brewing coffee is a religion.

You don't fear evil people? Interesting. Perhaps you would if you were in their control.
I take precautions to avoid getting into their control. I'll bet you do, too.

I agree that people tend to have a good deal of fear, regardless of their religion. That would be fear that occurs in spite of the religion. But would you claim that animism does not teach people to fear evil spirits?
I have been saying that through this entire argument. Have you not been paying attention? I've also been saying, and I say again here, that this question is nothing but a repeat of your unfounded and slanderous accusations against my religion based on nothing but your personal prejudice against it.

And can you say that you personally have no fear of evil spirits?
Of course. I am not a fearful person.

Rather, I feel like I am poking and probing in order to understand animism, but that you don't like some of my probing. I have been saying all along that I will abandon my negative impression of animism, providing you satisfy me with sensible reasons, although I cannot say what sort of reasons I will find 'satisfying', thus I cannot make any promises about that.
You have been given facts and analyses. You simply refuse to consider any of them. You even went so far as to suggest I was fabricating evidence. You refuse to reconsider your position. The fault is not mine.

In addition, explain to me how you could possibly change your negative views when you have already told us that, in your mind, if other religions are valid, then what would be the point of Christ's sacrifice. You have made it clear that, if any other religions are seen as okay, that would be a de facto rejection of your own religion. So why would anybody think you would change your mind about my religion?

I don't want you to change your mind. I only want you to change your speech. You have made specific slanderous statements. I want those retracted. You may continue to think anything you like about animists or animism, but I will not allow you to spread lies about us in public.

Not false accusations, but an attempt to encourage you to defend animism with reasoned arguments. We both know that terrorism is bad, and thus the version of Islam that supports the use of terror to be bad. But we both probably think that this version of Islam is not a good representation of the best version of Islam. It would be a misuse of true Islam. The question before us now is whether animism in general is bad, or if my negative impression of animism is more because of a misrepresentation of true animism. There is no false accusations in this, but an invitation to for you and I to discuss like sensible adults, and avoiding an emotional cat-fight.
I don't need to defend anything. Animism was not even in this debate before you threw out that insulting crack about "poor chaps in jungles." If you don't like the way the argument is going, blame yourself for starting it and continuing it. Your claims have been refuted. Your sources have been debunked. I think it's pretty clear that your negative impression of animism is based on a misrepresentation of animism. It's up to you to acknowledge this, retract the statements that are slanderous, and end the argument -- or continue to spread those slanders and continue our fight.

DubyaGoat

21-04-2006, 19:23

As to fossils, I know of fossils in the range of ten thousands of years old, not millions nor hundreds. But I also know that fossils can be manufactured through the petrifaction process in months via mineral water filtration. That’s neither here nor there though I suppose, just a little ‘middle-ground’ voice to bring the fossil extreme examples brought into context of real knowledge.

As to the John Quote though…

That's the English translation.

The Koine suggests much more strongly that this is a reference to vicarious substitution... that none can 'come to the father' except BECAUSE OF me.

Let’s see how many other translators agree with that statement:

John 14:6

NIV: Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

(NIV says about themselves: We used the best and oldest copies of the Hebrew and Greek. Some of the first English Bible could not use those copies because they had not yet been found. But today we can check copies that are closer in time to the ones the first Bible writers wrote. We wanted to make sure we were giving you the actual Word of God.)

NASB: Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.

(NASB says about themselves: While preserving the literal accuracy of the 1901 ASV, the NASB has sought to render grammar and terminology in contemporary English. Special attention has been given to the rendering of verb tenses to give the English reader a rendering as close as possible to the sense of the original Greek and Hebrew texts. In 1995, the text of the NASB was updated for greater understanding and smoother reading.)

NLT: Jesus told him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one can come to the Father except through me.

(NLT says about themselves: The goal of any Bible translation is to convey the meaning of the ancient Hebrew and Greek texts as accurately as possible to the modern reader. The New Living Translation is based on the most recent scholarship in the theory of translation. The challenge for the translators was to create a text that would make the same impact in the life of modern readers that the original text had for the original readers. In the New Living Translation, this is accomplished by translating entire thoughts [rather than just words] into natural, everyday English. The end result is a translation that is easy to read and understand and that accurately communicates the meaning of the original text.)

CEV: "I am the way, the truth, and the life!" Jesus answered. "Without me, no one can go to the Father.

(CEV says about themselves: Uncompromising simplicity marked the American Bible Society's translation of the Contemporary English Version Bible that was first published in 1995. The text is easily read by grade schoolers, second language readers, and those who prefer the more contemporized form. The CEV is not a paraphrase. It is an accurate and faithful translation of the original manuscripts.)

ASV: 6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, and the truth, and the life: no one cometh unto the Father, but by me.

(American Standard Version is Public Domain, published originally in 1901)

NRSV: Jesus said to him, ‘I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

(NRSV says about themselves: http://www.ncccusa.org/newbtu/reader.html)

KJV: 6Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

(KJV: published in 1611)

Darby: 6Jesus says to him, I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father unless by me.

(Darby Published an English, French and German Translations, English in 1890)

Wycliffe: 6 Jhesus seith to hym, Y am weie, treuthe, and lijf; no man cometh to the fadir, but bi me.

Wycliffe new translation: 6 Jesus saith to him, I am way, truth, and life; no man cometh to the Father, but by me.

(Wycliffe originated as the handwritten version 1382, preceding the KJV by more than two hundred years):

The Message: 6Jesus said, "I am the Road, also the Truth, also the Life. No one gets to the Father apart from me.

(The Message: Eugene Peterson’s translations of the NT in 1992, bringing into English the rhythms and idioms of the original ancient Greek—writing straight out of the Greek text without looking at other English translations, additional info here; http://www.navpress.com/BibleProducts/HistoryAndFaqs/ )

And in the end, I don’t really see understand what you think the big difference would be if it did say “because of me” instead of, “through me.” How would that change the meaning in any significant way? But regardless, your translation doesn't seem to have many allies.

Grave_n_idle

22-04-2006, 08:53

As to fossils, I know of fossils in the range of ten thousands of years old, not millions nor hundreds. But I also know that fossils can be manufactured through the petrifaction process in months via mineral water filtration. That’s neither here nor there though I suppose, just a little ‘middle-ground’ voice to bring the fossil extreme examples brought into context of real knowledge.

What you are talking about... these 'fossils' supposedly 'produced in months', are something that I had hoped was beneath you. I thought we were discussing 'science'... but you seem to be pulling up fairytales and deliberate deceptions.

Oh yes - I've seen evidence of a fossil formed in only about 30 years. It was a role of barbed-wire, and it was like 'stone'.

Of course - what it ACTUALLY was, was barbed-wire left in the sea near a limestone face, which had gained accretions of calcium carbonate.

THAT is not a fossil, that is just a build-up of calcium carbonate... just like the limescale in a kettle.

But, the 'Creationist' pseudo-scientists HAPPILY paraded it around as a 'young fossil'.

And, yes - I've seen 'fossilised wood' made in a laboratory.. in just a matter of days. Wood, with a silicate material 'built-into' it, through mineral water leeching.

But again, it's a Creationist deception. The wood is still there, it is not replaced by the silicate... it is just 'reinforced' by it, like a laminate.

And, yes - I've seen 'fossilised' flour bags. Again, in only a few days or weeks, the flour bags become hard, with a stone-consistency.

Another deception, of course - the flour in those bags was still flour... it hadn't been replaced. And, the stone-consistency was, again, accretion of Calcium Carbonate. It settles VERY quickly in this 'hoax' (as opposed to the barbedwire, which took years) because of the small particle size, and thus great surface area, of flour.

ACTUAL fossilisation is NOT something that takes place in a lifetime... and it is dishonest to pretend it is.

But - again - I can understand why SOME people might HAVE TO cling to that kind of thing. If a fossil takes hundreds of thousands... even millions... of years to form, it makes something of a liar of the dates claimed in Genesis.

And in the end, I don’t really see understand what you think the big difference would be if it did say “because of me” instead of, “through me.” How would that change the meaning in any significant way? But regardless, your translation doesn't seem to have many allies.

Believe it or not, I've actually encountered the translations you offered, before.

YOu seem to be under the impression that 'allies' have something to do with 'truth'... like, the side which has most supporters MUST be 'more true' than the side with fewer.

Feel free to approach the matter that way, just bear in mind that THAT logic cuts both ways... and, since more people are NOT Christian that ARE Christian... if you are relly going to attach weight to that argument, you have to admit that the Bible is likely to be false, yes?

The problem with ALL of our modern translations, is that they KNOW what they THINK the text means. We have a 'received' version of what the text SHOULD say if we translate it correctly... which is illogical, of course. How can one HONESTLY translate a text that one already feels sure of the 'correct' tranlsation for?

As to the difference between 'through me' and 'because of me'... the difference is ALL the difference in the world. 'Through me', makes Jesus a window or door, through which one must pass. 'Because of me' makes Jesus' sacrifice a 'justification' for salvation.... 'because of' doesn't actually even ask faith.

Tropical Sands

22-04-2006, 11:43

John 3
5Jesus replied, "The truth is, no one can enter the Kingdom of God without being born of water and the Spirit.[b] 6Humans can reproduce only human life, but the Holy Spirit gives new life from heaven.

The ritual of baptism?

Every human is born of water (natural birth), but only those who are born of the Spirit (i.e. reborn, spiritual birth) can enter the Kingdom of God. It is because of the Original Sin that all humans are born sinners, and we will die sinners, outside of the Kingdom of Heaven unless we allow God to give us the new life, the eternal life, the one which we can never lose.

Baptism (with water) is a symbol of the second birth.

This is actually a modern interpretation of this verse. Early Christians interpreted humans being born of water to be about baptism, not natural birth. Reading the text alone it would seem that it could refer to natural birth, so I can see where the modern interpetation as such came from. I just thought I would point out that, historically, it was never seen to refer to what you've called "natural birth" but rather 100% to baptism. For example, Iraneaus:

"As we are lepers in sin, we are made clean from our old transgressions by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord. We are thus spiritually regenerated as newborn infants, even as the Lord has declared: 'Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven."

Christians later began to interpet it as refering to natural birth rather than baptism because they developed the doctrine that baptism wasn't necessary for salvation (early Christians believed that it was necessary, and there was no salvation without it). Thus, they had to reinterpret verses to fit their new doctrine.

Matthew 5
So if you break the smallest commandment and teach others to do the same, you will be the least in the Kingdom of Heaven. But anyone who obeys God's laws and teaches them will be great in the Kingdom of Heaven.
20"But I warn you--unless you obey God better than the teachers of religious law and the Pharisees do, you can't enter the Kingdom of Heaven at all!

But this doesn't tell me what rules I'm supposed to follow.

I'm sorry, but these do not tell me what Christianity's goals are for its followers or how it expects its followers to attain those goals.

This statement was made in the context of obeying the Jewish Law. But Jesus points out that even the experts in that area did not obey the law well enough to earn the right to enter the Kingdom of heaven. (Kingdom of Heaven is not a specific location but wherever and whenever the will of God is embraced wholeheartedly, the place where one can celebrate communion with God.) This means that even the best efforts of man are not enough to enter the Kingdom of Heaven--our attempts at righteousness fall far short of the basic requirement. Thus there had to be another way. In another passage, Jesus explains that the other way through which we can enter the Kingdom of Heaven is through being born again, in which his spirit lives within us. Thus we receive his righteous status, and thus gain entry to the Kingdom of Heaven.

Thus the law is no longer necessary in order to follow God, because we are close friends with the Judge, and the Law giver. The law itself only points to the fact that we need God to save us, and that we couldn't save ourselves. But when we have God living within, as a type of perpetual guest, we need only follow his guidance and rely on his strength to do his will. Thus the Bible should not be viewed as a bunch of rules, but as a help from which we learn more about God, since it will always point to Him.

The ultimatum, then, is to come to him for help, on his terms, rather than trying to obey the law on our own strength, since our attempts to enter the Kingdom of God without his help will always be inadequate.

Sorry to be so wordy.

You're right to say that this was originally in the context of following the Jewish Law. All throughout the Gospels, Jesus affirms that you need to keep the law. Sayings attribued to Jesus are mostly those that were invented by Pharisees that predate him, like the two greatest commandments (Hillel) or the laws on adultery (Shammai).

Now, you're mistaken when you say that Jesus points out that no one followed the law well enough to go to "heaven." Jesus simply isn't quoted as saying that in this verse. What Jesus did say is that you must follow the law to go to heaven, and that you must follow it to a higher standard than the current teachers of the law - "unless you obey God better than the teachers of religious law and the Pharisees do, you can't enter the Kingdom of Heaven at all!"

The idea that one sin damns you, and that the law is no longer applicable, all comes from Paul. Those are not things that can be found in the teachings of the Gospels or attributed to Jesus. Because the Jesus myth was developed borowing the teachings of Rabbinic Judaism, its far more pro-Law than the Epistles of Paul, since Paul was more than likely a Hellenized Jew who had no real knowledge of the Law (as his comments on it in his Epistles demonstrate).

But the fact that this verse states "if you break the smallest commandment and teach others to do the same, you will be the least in the kingdom of heaven" singlehandled refutes the idea that one sin alone damns you too. This states that those who sin, and teach others to sin, will simply have the least position in heaven. Thats a far cry from saying that sinners do get into heaven. And its a lot more on par with what Judaism actually taught than what we see later in Paul's Epistles.

This verse also demonstrates how Jesus did not teach that the "law is no longer necssary." Jesus taught the contrary, that you must follow the law. Not only in these verses, but in other places as well, like Matt 19:17, "If you want to enter life, obey the commandments." But like I stated above, the whole anti-Law slant was developed by Paul.

Thus, Christians who read Paul went back and attempted to read Paul's teachings into the Gospels. Which is exactly what you've done here.

Abroad

22-04-2006, 11:52

"I will establish his kingdom forever" makes more sense as referring to descendants, as a kingdom consists of the descendants of the king. However, "If you forsake him" seems to be personal and excluded to the "you." Forever occurs in both, but forever is applying to the kingdom in the first whereas forever is applied only to the person being spoken to ("you") in the second.

To me it just seems like an either/or situation. "I will establish his kingdom forever, if he is steadfast..." Was he steadfast? No. Then God wouldn't establish his kingdom forever.

Tropical Sands

22-04-2006, 12:00

To me it just seems like an either/or situation. "I will establish his kingdom forever, if he is steadfast..." Was he steadfast? No. Then God wouldn't establish his kingdom forever.

Solomon is seen as being quite righteous. Remember, in Judaism we don't have a standard of perfection or sinlesness. Even people who commit horrible sins can be considered to be steadfast or righteous. Furthermore, Isaiah states that wicked men who repent are as if they had never been sinful or wicked to begin with. Solomon repented from his sins.

Abroad

22-04-2006, 13:47

That's the English translation.

The Koine suggests much more strongly that this is a reference to vicarious substitution... that none can 'come to the father' except BECAUSE OF me.

I'm not sure i follow you here. Are you saying that Jesus said: "I am the truth, the way and the life, everyone can come to the Father because of me (implicit:even if they deny me)"?

What do you think about these quotes?:

For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved. "He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

For this reason the Jews persecuted Jesus, and sought to kill Him, because He had done these things on the Sabbath. But Jesus answered them, "My Father has been working until now, and I have been working."
Therefore the Jews sought all the more to kill Him, because He not only broke the Sabbath, but also said that God was His Father, making Himself equal with God. Then Jesus answered and said to them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He sees the Father do; for whatever He does, the Son also does in like manner. For the Father loves the Son, and shows Him all things that He Himself does; and He will show Him greater works than these, that you may marvel. For as the Father raises the dead and gives life to them, even so the Son gives life to whom He will. For the Father judges no one, but has committed all judgment to the Son, that all should honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him.

"Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life. Most assuredly, I say to you, the hour is coming, and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God; and those who hear will live. For as the Father has life in Himself, so He has granted the Son to have life in Himself, and has given Him authority to execute judgment also, because He is the Son of Man. Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming in which all who are in the graves will hear His voice and come forth--those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation. I can of Myself do nothing. As I hear, I judge; and My judgment is righteous, because I do not seek My own will but the will of the Father who sent Me.

"Therefore whoever confesses Me before men, him I will also confess before My Father who is in heaven. But whoever denies Me before men, him I will also deny before My Father who is in heaven.

"Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword. For I have come to 'set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law'; and 'a man's enemies will be those of his own household.' He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for My sake will find it.

"Hear another parable: There was a certain landowner who planted a vineyard and set a hedge around it, dug a winepress in it and built a tower. And he leased it to vinedressers and went into a far country. Now when vintage-time drew near, he sent his servants to the vinedressers, that they might receive its fruit. And the vinedressers took his servants, beat one, killed one, and stoned another. Again he sent other servants, more than the first, and they did likewise to them. Then last of all he sent his son to them, saying, 'They will respect my son.' But when the vinedressers saw the son, they said among themselves, 'This is the heir. Come, let us kill him and seize his inheritance.' So they took him and cast him out of the vineyard and killed him.
"Therefore, when the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those vinedressers?"
They said to Him, "He will destroy those wicked men miserably, and lease his vineyard to other vinedressers who will render to him the fruits in their seasons."
Jesus said to them, "Have you never read in the Scriptures:

'The stone which the builders rejected
Has become the chief cornerstone.
This was the Lord's doing,
And it is marvelous in our eyes'?*

"Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to a nation bearing the fruits of it. And whoever falls on this stone will be broken; but on whomever it falls, it will grind him to powder."
Now when the chief priests and Pharisees heard His parables, they perceived that He was speaking of them. But when they sought to lay hands on Him, they feared the multitudes, because they took Him for a prophet.

Muravyets

22-04-2006, 16:38

This is actually a modern interpretation of this verse. <snip = examination of quotes from pov of judaism>
Interesting. Thanks. I appreciate the added perspective.

Muravyets

22-04-2006, 16:49

What you are talking about... these 'fossils' supposedly 'produced in months', are something that I had hoped was beneath you. I thought we were discussing 'science'... but you seem to be pulling up fairytales and deliberate deceptions.

Oh yes - I've seen evidence of a fossil formed in only about 30 years. It was a role of barbed-wire, and it was like 'stone'.

Of course - what it ACTUALLY was, was barbed-wire left in the sea near a limestone face, which had gained accretions of calcium carbonate.

THAT is not a fossil, that is just a build-up of calcium carbonate... just like the limescale in a kettle.

But, the 'Creationist' pseudo-scientists HAPPILY paraded it around as a 'young fossil'.

And, yes - I've seen 'fossilised wood' made in a laboratory.. in just a matter of days. Wood, with a silicate material 'built-into' it, through mineral water leeching.

But again, it's a Creationist deception. The wood is still there, it is not replaced by the silicate... it is just 'reinforced' by it, like a laminate.

And, yes - I've seen 'fossilised' flour bags. Again, in only a few days or weeks, the flour bags become hard, with a stone-consistency.

Another deception, of course - the flour in those bags was still flour... it hadn't been replaced. And, the stone-consistency was, again, accretion of Calcium Carbonate. It settles VERY quickly in this 'hoax' (as opposed to the barbedwire, which took years) because of the small particle size, and thus great surface area, of flour.

ACTUAL fossilisation is NOT something that takes place in a lifetime... and it is dishonest to pretend it is.

But - again - I can understand why SOME people might HAVE TO cling to that kind of thing. If a fossil takes hundreds of thousands... even millions... of years to form, it makes something of a liar of the dates claimed in Genesis.
Sounds like a fun science project for kids. Somebody should package and sell calcium fake fossil kits, just like those kits to grow your own crystals.

Believe it or not, I've actually encountered the translations you offered, before.

YOu seem to be under the impression that 'allies' have something to do with 'truth'... like, the side which has most supporters MUST be 'more true' than the side with fewer.

Feel free to approach the matter that way, just bear in mind that THAT logic cuts both ways... and, since more people are NOT Christian that ARE Christian... if you are relly going to attach weight to that argument, you have to admit that the Bible is likely to be false, yes?

The problem with ALL of our modern translations, is that they KNOW what they THINK the text means. We have a 'received' version of what the text SHOULD say if we translate it correctly... which is illogical, of course. How can one HONESTLY translate a text that one already feels sure of the 'correct' tranlsation for?

As to the difference between 'through me' and 'because of me'... the difference is ALL the difference in the world. 'Through me', makes Jesus a window or door, through which one must pass. 'Because of me' makes Jesus' sacrifice a 'justification' for salvation.... 'because of' doesn't actually even ask faith.
So if I follow you correctly, "because of me" would say that Jesus's sacrifice reopened a connection to god that had been closed. Before that, all the attempts at atonement/repentence were for naught because god wasn't hearing them, but after it -- as a massive act of contrition performed by Jesus out of compassion for all those lost souls -- people could atone for their sins and be heard by god. Is that right?

DubyaGoat

23-04-2006, 04:12

Grave_n_idle

23-04-2006, 16:08

Sounds like a fun science project for kids. Somebody should package and sell calcium fake fossil kits, just like those kits to grow your own crystals.

So if I follow you correctly, "because of me" would say that Jesus's sacrifice reopened a connection to god that had been closed. Before that, all the attempts at atonement/repentence were for naught because god wasn't hearing them, but after it -- as a massive act of contrition performed by Jesus out of compassion for all those lost souls -- people could atone for their sins and be heard by god. Is that right?

It's a thorny one.

If Jesus DOES have the capacity to ameliorate the judgement of the God of Israel, it makes a liar of God. God cannot tolerate the presence of sin, and yet he has to come in to the presence of sin to sacrifice himself.

But, that is what you have to accept, if you accept the version Christianity sells - that we were 'separated' from God.

And, if you DO accept that - then you can start to debate the relative merits of wording. Like - entering into the kingdom of heaven BECAUSE of Jesus, would mean that the 'sacrificial blood' has already been spilled.

Which is another problem , of course... giving the 'sin sacrifice' BEFORE the sin just doesn't 'fit'.

Plus - of course, you have to accept the protestation that the 'door was closed'... but, again... this is a Christian assertion.

It's snake-oil. "Here is this unforgivable sin you have commited - although there is no way to prove it unforgivable except MY word - and here is the 'cure' - although there is no way to prove it cures anything, except MY word".

To answer the question, though - accepting inconsistency - yes, that is about what it would mean. Not that you MUST follow one given path, but that the 'door' is now open.

Grave_n_idle

23-04-2006, 16:26

Mineralization (permineralization)- Mineral matter strengthening of the hard parts by filling in the pore space before the organ mater is completely rotted out. Petrification - The complete replacement of the original organic hard parts by mineral water. Usually the mineral matter is silica or Calcite, Dolomite or Pyrite.

But because you are semi-ignorant of how the mineral water petrification process takes to work (organic mater can be encouraged to rot out leaving the fossilized shape in mineral alone, the process takes only as long as it takes for the organic mater to be either rotted completely or washed out in molecular sized chunks) and because you confuse calcification with mineralization and petrification, you accuse me of being dishonest. Nice. :rolleyes:

http://www.alaska.edu/opa/eInfo/index.xml?StoryID=19

And, again - I accuse you of dishonesty. Where did I confuse calcification? My reference to calcification was entirely referring to processes that 'creationist scientists' have claimed was fossilisation.

And, where did I say 'petrification'? I talked about things being pushed as 'fossilised wood'. Petrification, of the 'negative image' type you describe (when the organic material dissolves out completely, leaving only the minerals that were in the 'gaps') is NOT 'fossilisation'. That's the point - what is PUSHED as a 'quick fossil' is not a 'fossil' at all.

Muravyets

23-04-2006, 19:39

And, again - I accuse you of dishonesty. Where did I confuse calcification? My reference to calcification was entirely referring to processes that 'creationist scientists' have claimed was fossilisation.

And, where did I say 'petrification'? I talked about things being pushed as 'fossilised wood'. Petrification, of the 'negative image' type you describe (when the organic material dissolves out completely, leaving only the minerals that were in the 'gaps') is NOT 'fossilisation'. That's the point - what is PUSHED as a 'quick fossil' is not a 'fossil' at all.
The pushing of fake fossils depends entirely on the lay public not really understanding what a fossil is. If you have an interest in making the Biblical stories appear true, then you somehow have to overcome the natural questions of people when they are presented with physical evidence that contradicts the Bible. The process of fossilization and the time it takes is not easy to comprehend for people who don't study it. Creationists use that ignorance to promote a time frame and supposed process that are easier to comprehend with less effort.

Like I said before, none of this would be necessary if the Bible were allowed to be metaphor, rather than history. I still do not understand why some Christians need it to be literally true.

DubyaGoat

23-04-2006, 19:48

Willamena

23-04-2006, 19:54

"I" said petrification. Petrified wood will last millions of years. Petrified wood can be made in less than five years, as the link showed you. And you call me a liar.

Nice.

What color is the sky in your world?
Now you're just butting heads over generalizations. Either pick a specific example and talk about it, or admit that you're lumping rapid permineralization and fossilization together.

DubyaGoat

23-04-2006, 20:17

Now you're just butting heads over generalizations. Either pick a specific example and talk about it, or admit that you're lumping rapid permineralization and fossilization together.

Unlike what GnI tends to think, mineralization IS fossilization. And my specific example was already given.

There are different types of fossils, and permineralization is one of the ways they are made...

Fossil
Mineralized dead organisms:
What is a fossil? A fossil is some remain of a dead organism preserved in rock.
This remain either represents part of the organism itself or some imprintation made by the organism's body.
Often the remains of preserved organisms are not of the organism itself but instead of minerals deposited where, especially, hard parts of the organism previously existed. Thus, a fossil femur (a kind of bone) is a three dimensional "depiction" of a bone but consisting all or in part of not bone-like material.
http://www.mansfield.ohio-state.edu/~sabedon/biol1520.htm

Or here:
4. Permineralization. Skeletal material can be quite porous. If the pores are filled in by foreign minerals that precipitate out of solution, the fossil is said to be permineralized. Petrified wood is an example of wood that has been permineralized by silica.
http://www.geo.arizona.edu/geo3xx/geo308_fall2002/1fossil&taph&ichno.htm

Muravyets

23-04-2006, 20:37

It's a thorny one.

If Jesus DOES have the capacity to ameliorate the judgement of the God of Israel, it makes a liar of God. God cannot tolerate the presence of sin, and yet he has to come in to the presence of sin to sacrifice himself.

But, that is what you have to accept, if you accept the version Christianity sells - that we were 'separated' from God.

And, if you DO accept that - then you can start to debate the relative merits of wording. Like - entering into the kingdom of heaven BECAUSE of Jesus, would mean that the 'sacrificial blood' has already been spilled.

Which is another problem , of course... giving the 'sin sacrifice' BEFORE the sin just doesn't 'fit'.

Plus - of course, you have to accept the protestation that the 'door was closed'... but, again... this is a Christian assertion.

It's snake-oil. "Here is this unforgivable sin you have commited - although there is no way to prove it unforgivable except MY word - and here is the 'cure' - although there is no way to prove it cures anything, except MY word".

To answer the question, though - accepting inconsistency - yes, that is about what it would mean. Not that you MUST follow one given path, but that the 'door' is now open.
It makes a little more sense when you consider two things: (A) how sacrifice was supposed to work, especially in pagan traditions, and (B) the possible Buddhist influences on Christianity.

I was discussing this with a friend last night. I don't necessarily buy the idea that Jesus himself ever studied Buddhism, but there is no question that some form of those teachings existed at his time, and that they developed and spread since that time, and that there were extensive interactions between Buddhist regions and the west. If Jesus was not influenced by those ideas, it is likely that later gospel writers and commentators were. My friend and I were talking about the early Roman church and the codification of the gospels. She pointed out that many of the rejected books showed strong Buddhistic leanings as well as pagan ones. For instance, the Infant Gospel of Thomas, telling boyhood stories of Jesus, is nearly identical to boyhood stories that had been told about Siddartha for centuries -- the pushing the friend off the roof, the animating the toy birds, all that stuff. The early Roman church leaders, being educated citizens of the Roman Empire, would probably have know perfectly well what kinds of stories were not authentic to the Jesus history. As my friend put it, speaking for the ancient bishops, "We're not putting that Indian stuff into our Bible, dammit. (cue fistfight)"

Her point was that, in codifying the Christian Bible, a deliberate effort was made to excise obvious and identifiable influences from other religions as much as possible.

If this is so, then it would seem to have left holes in the story.

If we look at the crucifixion sacrifice from a Buddhist-type perspective, it starts to make sense. Many Buddhist sects (especially those that follow tantric paths) have some apocalyptic concepts that say that the world can get too saturated with evil because people lose their way spiritually and don't keep to the path that leads to spiritual salvation/liberation. When this happens, in order to free people from the endless cycle of suffering, they say the whole world needs to be periodically cleansed of sin, i.e. healed. It is taught that a Buddha or a Bodhisattva can take within himself the ills of humanity and by purging/purifying himself, purify the whole world. It is thought that this wipes the slate clean, as it were, leaving everyone in the world equally purified and ready to start over again. Buddhas/Bodhisattvas do this as an act of compassion.

I think we see this influence in versions of the Jesus story that talk about Jesus dying for humanity's sins and/or taking the sins of the world on himself. In this sense, the "door" is reopened in that, when he underwent that torment and death, his suffering/atonement cleansed the whole world at the same time it cleansed him. I always thought this was the symbolism of the carrying of the cross -- the cross symbolizing sin and suffering.

Then when we turn to pagan influences, we see why the sacrifice had to involve death (as opposed to the Buddhist versions). In pagan traditions, birth/death is the passage (two ways) through the veil that separates the physical and spiritual worlds. You cannot pass through that veil in your physical body, only as a spirit. In animism, shamans do it by leaving their bodies temporarily. In all pagan beliefs, we do it permanently when we die.

Most sacrifices were meant just as gifts to the gods -- the best of the herd or crop, for instance. But in very special cases, as when the society was in trouble, the sacrificial animals or, in such cases, people were supposed to be emissaries from this world to the other. They were literally being sent to the gods with messages to deliver from us to them or to plead humanity's case in person. Interestingly, such propitiatory sacrifices typically end with the sacrificed animal -- or even person -- being at least partially eaten by the people who sacrificed it, thus completing the direct, living line of connection between the worlds -- the sacrifice lives in the spirit world and continues to live in this world, through our bodies, becoming both a god and our kin.

For how many years had the ancient Jews made gift-sacrifices to their god? To those who believed this was no longer enough and that their god was no longer listening to them, a large-scale, propitiatory, emissary sacrifice would have been the order of the day. Since, the Old Testament apparently outlawed human sacrifice (which was the most dramatic form of propitiation among the pagan cultures of the day), this would have been a radical idea, indeed.

It seems to me, that the Jesus sacrifice story follows both the Buddhist compassionate sacrifice in intent/content and the pagan propitiatory sacrifice in context/form.

Muravyets

23-04-2006, 20:57

Unlike what GnI tends to think, mineralization IS fossilization. And my specific example was already given.

There are different types of fossils, and permineralization is one of the ways they are made...

Fossil
Mineralized dead organisms:
What is a fossil? A fossil is some remain of a dead organism preserved in rock.
This remain either represents part of the organism itself or some imprintation made by the organism's body.
Often the remains of preserved organisms are not of the organism itself but instead of minerals deposited where, especially, hard parts of the organism previously existed. Thus, a fossil femur (a kind of bone) is a three dimensional "depiction" of a bone but consisting all or in part of not bone-like material.
http://www.mansfield.ohio-state.edu/~sabedon/biol1520.htm

Or here:
4. Permineralization. Skeletal material can be quite porous. If the pores are filled in by foreign minerals that precipitate out of solution, the fossil is said to be permineralized. Petrified wood is an example of wood that has been permineralized by silica.
http://www.geo.arizona.edu/geo3xx/geo308_fall2002/1fossil&taph&ichno.htm
I saw nothing in either of these sources that contradicts what GnI is saying except that petrification can be a form of fossilization. Neither source talks specifics about fossil dating, only about the process of carbon dating, so neither speaks to your claims about how young a fossil can be.

Also, there is another issue here. Fossilization by petrification is only mentioned in connection with woody plant matter. Are you trying to say that bone can be fossilized in the same manner and the same time frame? These sources do not say that. They say nothing to contradict GnI's point that such fossils are millions of years old and not any younger.

Let's say for the sake of argument that you are both right. The existence of younger fossils in no way changes the age of older ones. Therefore, if fossils can be produced quickly, that does not in any away mean that fossils that have been dated as millions of years old are not actually millions of years old.

Straughn

24-04-2006, 08:25

Originally Posted by DubyaGoat
And in the end, I don’t really see understand what you think the big difference would be if it did say “because of me” instead of, “through me.” How would that change the meaning in any significant way? But regardless, your translation doesn't seem to have many allies.

Believe it or not, I've actually encountered the translations you offered, before.

YOu seem to be under the impression that 'allies' have something to do with 'truth'... like, the side which has most supporters MUST be 'more true' than the side with fewer.

Feel free to approach the matter that way, just bear in mind that THAT logic cuts both ways... and, since more people are NOT Christian that ARE Christian... if you are relly going to attach weight to that argument, you have to admit that the Bible is likely to be false, yes?

The problem with ALL of our modern translations, is that they KNOW what they THINK the text means. We have a 'received' version of what the text SHOULD say if we translate it correctly... which is illogical, of course. How can one HONESTLY translate a text that one already feels sure of the 'correct' tranlsation for?

As to the difference between 'through me' and 'because of me'... the difference is ALL the difference in the world. 'Through me', makes Jesus a window or door, through which one must pass. 'Because of me' makes Jesus' sacrifice a 'justification' for salvation.... 'because of' doesn't actually even ask faith.
WooHoo!!!!
THIS certainly strikes a chord, don't it? :D

Now the only poster left to chime in here would be Smunkeeville, eh?

BTW, great discussion, folks. *bows*

Bruarong

24-04-2006, 13:20

What you are talking about... these 'fossils' supposedly 'produced in months', are something that I had hoped was beneath you. I thought we were discussing 'science'... but you seem to be pulling up fairytales and deliberate deceptions.

Oh yes - I've seen evidence of a fossil formed in only about 30 years. It was a role of barbed-wire, and it was like 'stone'.

Of course - what it ACTUALLY was, was barbed-wire left in the sea near a limestone face, which had gained accretions of calcium carbonate.

THAT is not a fossil, that is just a build-up of calcium carbonate... just like the limescale in a kettle.

But, the 'Creationist' pseudo-scientists HAPPILY paraded it around as a 'young fossil'.

And, yes - I've seen 'fossilised wood' made in a laboratory.. in just a matter of days. Wood, with a silicate material 'built-into' it, through mineral water leeching.

But again, it's a Creationist deception. The wood is still there, it is not replaced by the silicate... it is just 'reinforced' by it, like a laminate.

And, yes - I've seen 'fossilised' flour bags. Again, in only a few days or weeks, the flour bags become hard, with a stone-consistency.

Another deception, of course - the flour in those bags was still flour... it hadn't been replaced. And, the stone-consistency was, again, accretion of Calcium Carbonate. It settles VERY quickly in this 'hoax' (as opposed to the barbedwire, which took years) because of the small particle size, and thus great surface area, of flour.

ACTUAL fossilisation is NOT something that takes place in a lifetime... and it is dishonest to pretend it is.

But - again - I can understand why SOME people might HAVE TO cling to that kind of thing. If a fossil takes hundreds of thousands... even millions... of years to form, it makes something of a liar of the dates claimed in Genesis.

It occurred to me, Grave, that you like to think you know exactly what fossilisation is not, but you have not yet offered some sort of basis for what a fossil really is, nor do you seem to recognise that there is no way to demonstrate that a fossil could not be formed in a relatively shorter period than hundreds of thousands of years. What exactly is the difference between calcification and fossilization? If it is that the original material must be completely degraded, why would that take even thousands of years? And surely you must know that there are a variety of fossils, so that it becomes rather difficult to distinguish between fossils and almost-fossils and on-the-way fossils.

Neither have you explained why some people think that fossils must be so old, or that some people might want the fossils to be old in order to rule out any sort of 'religious spin'. As if the science community was somehow objective about the issue, while the religious community are the only biased people around. I don't think you are that gullible.

Believe it or not, I've actually encountered the translations you offered, before.

YOu seem to be under the impression that 'allies' have something to do with 'truth'... like, the side which has most supporters MUST be 'more true' than the side with fewer.

You seem to be the only one coming up with that particular interpretation, so it does indeed look like a 'Grave' type of spin.

Feel free to approach the matter that way, just bear in mind that THAT logic cuts both ways... and, since more people are NOT Christian that ARE Christian... if you are relly going to attach weight to that argument, you have to admit that the Bible is likely to be false, yes?

But most people don't read the Bible. You would have to limit the interpretation to those who do read the Bible, and then i think you might find that the majority of those who read the Bible interpret it in the way that modern Christians generally interpret it. Possibly because that's the way it fits in best with all the other quoted sayings of Jesus.

The problem with ALL of our modern translations, is that they KNOW what they THINK the text means. We have a 'received' version of what the text SHOULD say if we translate it correctly... which is illogical, of course. How can one HONESTLY translate a text that one already feels sure of the 'correct' tranlsation for?

You are not doing the same thing, of course, in thinking that you know what the text means. Maybe you are the only logical soul that reads the Bible?

As to the difference between 'through me' and 'because of me'... the difference is ALL the difference in the world. 'Through me', makes Jesus a window or door, through which one must pass. 'Because of me' makes Jesus' sacrifice a 'justification' for salvation.... 'because of' doesn't actually even ask faith.

Then how do you explain the parts of the Bible where Jesus says things like
'"Anyone who isn't helping me opposes me, and anyone who isn't working with me is actually working against me.'' Luke 10:23

Your spins, Grave, just don't fit.

Bruarong

24-04-2006, 14:00

This is actually a modern interpretation of this verse. Early Christians interpreted humans being born of water to be about baptism, not natural birth. Reading the text alone it would seem that it could refer to natural birth, so I can see where the modern interpetation as such came from. I just thought I would point out that, historically, it was never seen to refer to what you've called "natural birth" but rather 100% to baptism. For example, Iraneaus:

"As we are lepers in sin, we are made clean from our old transgressions by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord. We are thus spiritually regenerated as newborn infants, even as the Lord has declared: 'Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven."

Iraneaus was not the only Christian of his day.

I suggest Jesus was never saying that the baptism with water was what does the 'saving', since Jesus himself was baptised. Obviously not in order to be saved, but to lead us to God, i.e., to show us the way. I doubt that Christ thought that salvation had anything to do with literal water. Rather baptism was a symbol of salvation, an outward sign of an inner change.

That many Christians thought that baptism with water was the act by which people were saved (leading to infant baptism) rather than a confession of faith in God by which God gives us salvation testifys to the number of errors that arose within Christian circles.

Christians later began to interpet it as refering to natural birth rather than baptism because they developed the doctrine that baptism wasn't necessary for salvation (early Christians believed that it was necessary, and there was no salvation without it). Thus, they had to reinterpret verses to fit their new doctrine.

Wrong. The early Christians were taught that Abraham received salvation because of his faith in God, and that his circumcision was an outward sign of the inner condition of his trust in God. Baptism was seen in the same way. Physical baptism was an outward sign of the spiritual baptism--death and rebirth.

You're right to say that this was originally in the context of following the Jewish Law. All throughout the Gospels, Jesus affirms that you need to keep the law. Sayings attribued to Jesus are mostly those that were invented by Pharisees that predate him, like the two greatest commandments (Hillel) or the laws on adultery (Shammai).

So you are saying that Jesus never really said those words, but that others have attributed them to him. You are accusing the Gospels of being false, the authors of lying.

Now, you're mistaken when you say that Jesus points out that no one followed the law well enough to go to "heaven." Jesus simply isn't quoted as saying that in this verse. What Jesus did say is that you must follow the law to go to heaven, and that you must follow it to a higher standard than the current teachers of the law - "unless you obey God better than the teachers of religious law and the Pharisees do, you can't enter the Kingdom of Heaven at all!"

The Pharisees represented the section of the community that excelled at keeping the Law, even to the point of closing their eyes when walking in order to avoid looking at a young lady (and consequently ending up with scars on their foreheads). If Jesus really meant that everyone was to 'put their act together and be better than their teachers', that would not be good news at all, but a death sentence to all those who had ever committed adultery or any other serious crime of the past. Rather, the Gospel is called Good News, because even the most guilty could place their faith in God and expect salvation. It must have been because their faith in God meant that God gave them his own righteousness, which would then make more sense that this was the righteousness that exceeded even those of the Pharisees.

The idea that one sin damns you, and that the law is no longer applicable, all comes from Paul. Those are not things that can be found in the teachings of the Gospels or attributed to Jesus. Because the Jesus myth was developed borowing the teachings of Rabbinic Judaism, its far more pro-Law than the Epistles of Paul, since Paul was more than likely a Hellenized Jew who had no real knowledge of the Law (as his comments on it in his Epistles demonstrate).

There certainly was parts of the Law that were to result in death if broken. For example, a generally good woman only had to be 'caught in the act of adultery' in order to receive the death sentence. Paul, who was trained as a Pharisee (which contradicts your idea that he had 'no real knowledge of the Law') then went on to explain just how the curse of sin applies, how everyone is bound to death because of that curse, and how Christ came to fulfil the Law, and offer His righteousness to us to free us from the curse. Thus Paul explains Christ in the context of the Law. Paul was not rejecting the Law, but explaining the only way that we can fulfill it--by faith in God, through Christ.

But the fact that this verse states "if you break the smallest commandment and teach others to do the same, you will be the least in the kingdom of heaven" singlehandled refutes the idea that one sin alone damns you too. This states that those who sin, and teach others to sin, will simply have the least position in heaven. Thats a far cry from saying that sinners do get into heaven. And its a lot more on par with what Judaism actually taught than what we see later in Paul's Epistles.

It is possible to be a sinner and still have faith in God, and thus receive His salvation. It is also possible to teach others to sin, and still have faith in God. Obviously, though, teaching others to sin is even worse than being guilty of committing the sin itself. This seems to be the point that Jesus was making.

This verse also demonstrates how Jesus did not teach that the "law is no longer necssary." Jesus taught the contrary, that you must follow the law. Not only in these verses, but in other places as well, like Matt 19:17, "If you want to enter life, obey the commandments." But like I stated above, the whole anti-Law slant was developed by Paul.

Jesus also taught that we must follow Him, but this was not part of the Law. Jesus did not insist that his disciples wash before they ate, which was also part of the Law. Jesus' mission was not to bind us to the Law, but to bring us to himself.

It's true that Jesus taught us to obey the commandments, but not necessarily as the basis for salvation, but as the way to salvation. Paul himself says that the Law was to bring us to Christ. Thus when Jesus told a stranger to follow the commandments, he knew that a sincere attempt to keep the Law would only result in the person failing to keep the Law perfectly, realizing that their own efforts were not enough, and then turning to God in an expression of faith, and eventually finding Christ, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the whole world.

Thus, Paul was simply putting into plain words what Christ was actually doing while on earth--drawing all people unto himself. With some people, he pointed them to obeying the Law, because of where they were at. With other people, he pointed them to himself as the Son of God, the basis of salvation.

The Law was not the basis of salvation, but the school master that pointed us to Christ, as Paul explains.

Thus, Christians who read Paul went back and attempted to read Paul's teachings into the Gospels. Which is exactly what you've done here.

I am grateful for Paul's teachings, because they have helped me much sense of much of what Christ said. It is the consistency between Paul and Christ that makes a convincing argument for Christianity, even though Paul probably wrote without the help of the Gospels, and even though Paul was not one of the Twelve who had a lot of contact with Christ (before the ascension of Christ). Thus, it would seem as though Paul was really inspired by the Spirit of Christ.

Bruarong

24-04-2006, 14:19

Myth doesn't happen in the details; myth is in the motifs of meaning.

I think you mean that myth doesn't *necessarily* happen in the details. But I'm not sure that I agree with that. For there will always be details that cannot be changed without changing the meaning. In fact, this whole debate is about the meaning of the stories in the Bible. While the debate does focus on the details, it is really in the wider context of what does it mean when the details are interpreted this way, or that way. Thus the meaning is indeed tightly bound to the details. Perhaps you don't see this, because you are coming from a position which already means that the details have little meaning, or no relevent meaning. But because these stories mean something else to me, I cannot just accept that the details have little relevancy. They become important for my search for truth and meaning.

It is the myth that was copied. Whether adopted by animals (Mowgli) or by Egyptians (Moses), the story told is the same. It is one telling of the start of the Hero's Journey. The child of distinguished parents (king, divine, faithful to the one true way, etc.) who is destined to be the hero or the salvation of his people... The parents have difficulties; a prophecy of doom, and danger for the child; his destiny too important to selfishly hang onto him, so the river goddess is entrusted to carry the child to safety in her bosom... Baby is saved, either by animals who nurse it, or by animals and then entrusted to a human nurse, or by a nurse herself who raises him...

That is because these elements of birth, death, and salvation are well grounded in humanity. We have created many myths with these elements because somehow these elements are part of us. Part of our desire for salvation. A hint that not all is as it should be, that we desire the eternal happiness that is offered to us in the Scriptures. Why? Because the same God who offers eternal salvation is the one who created us. He put those desires in us, so that we might desire Him and His salvation. So when we hear the story of God's great love for us, we might embrace Him. And that is the story of the Bible--God's great love for humanity.

The Scriptures say that God ''...has made everything beautiful in its time. He has also set eternity in the hearts of men; yet they cannot fathom what God has done from beginning to end.'' (Ecclesiastes 3:11). I suppose one take on that is that we have within us the desire for eternal happiness, or some concept or awareness of it (leading to the creation of mythical stories which contain that concept).

Obviously, I draw a distinction between general myths and Biblical myths. General myths are not necessarily literally true, while Biblical myths are based on literal events, but from a human (subjective) view point and have not (obviously) been written down in scientific format. I also consider the writers to have been under inspiration from the Spirit of God.

The details may vary, but it is the mythic elements that translate the meaning of the story from culture to culture. Mythology suggests that it is a necessary step that circumstances separate the child from his parents, because the metaphor is in the contrast of fate with destiny. Destiny is the path that the hero makes for himself, and in doing so he fulfills a goal we (the audience) knew all along was his.

Or you could say that our love of a great fairy tale is the result of God making us that way, in His image. That we shall never be satisfied until we have embraced our estranged parent, our Heavenly Father, as Jesus taught us to call God. The fact that this love of fairy tales is found in every culture only supports the notion that every person either is or can be a child of God.

We are both looking at the same effect and attributing different causes.

Tropical Sands

24-04-2006, 15:06

Iraneaus was not the only Christian of his day.

I suggest Jesus was never saying that the baptism with water was what does the 'saving', since Jesus himself was baptised. Obviously not in order to be saved, but to lead us to God, i.e., to show us the way. I doubt that Christ thought that salvation had anything to do with literal water. Rather baptism was a symbol of salvation, an outward sign of an inner change.

That many Christians thought that baptism with water was the act by which people were saved (leading to infant baptism) rather than a confession of faith in God by which God gives us salvation testifys to the number of errors that arose within Christian circles.

I guess no one had it right until around the 19th century. Even the Protestant Reformers taught that baptism was neccessary for salvation. Among early Christians who were "Orthodox", it wasn't just that "many" Christians thought baptism saved you, they all did. There was no such thing as being saved by a belief in Jesus all by itself until the last 200 years or so.

If you're confused about baptism saving you, you should read 1 Peter 3:21 too - "this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also."

Wrong. The early Christians were taught that Abraham received salvation because of his faith in God, and that his circumcision was an outward sign of the inner condition of his trust in God. Baptism was seen in the same way. Physical baptism was an outward sign of the spiritual baptism--death and rebirth.

They taught that Abraham and the patriarchs were saved, yes. They didn't teach anything about baptism like you're claiming though. You're assuming from your own personal interpretation of early Christian beliefs on the patriarchs that early Christians believed that faith saved anyone. They didn't, and there isn't a shred of evidence in early Christian history that demonstrates anything except that they adhered to observance of the sacraments in addition to faith for salvation.

So you are saying that Jesus never really said those words, but that others have attributed them to him. You are accusing the Gospels of being false, the authors of lying.

Most of the words attributed to Jesus we know he didn't say. Things like "forgive them, they know not what they do" were taken directly from pagan texts, word for word (The Bacchae). All of his parables, in addition to the teachings I've mentioned in previous posts (plus more), were developed by Rabbis that predate him. Very little of what is attributed to him is original, and in the tone of "lives" works of that time period, we know he probably didn't say them. Attributing famous teachings or false miracles to mundane people in an attempt to push up their status was very common.

Of course, Jesus could have run around quoting pagan sources and previous rabbis and never saying anything original.

The Pharisees represented the section of the community that excelled at keeping the Law, even to the point of closing their eyes when walking in order to avoid looking at a young lady (and consequently ending up with scars on their foreheads). If Jesus really meant that everyone was to 'put their act together and be better than their teachers', that would not be good news at all, but a death sentence to all those who had ever committed adultery or any other serious crime of the past. Rather, the Gospel is called Good News, because even the most guilty could place their faith in God and expect salvation. It must have been because their faith in God meant that God gave them his own righteousness, which would then make more sense that this was the righteousness that exceeded even those of the Pharisees.

This is a nice, modern interpretation. It isn't what the early Christians believed, though. You seem to be plagued with the curse of eisegesis. You simply can't understand the meaning of the scriptures unless you read them in their historical context. The Gospels were developed independently of Paul. They reflect a period of Christianity with heavy emphasis on legal observance, as did all forms of Christianity at that time.

Pharisees never developed scars on their foreheads from closing their eyes to look at young women. In fact, there is no prohibition on looking at a woman. What you're referring to was a parable in a baraita that classified seven types of Pharisees. Six out of seven types of Pharisee are depicted as caraictures to demonstrate how to be the good seventh Pharisee. Of course, none of these six types of Pharisees were actually real. This was a parable, and they were caraictures.

There certainly was parts of the Law that were to result in death if broken. For example, a generally good woman only had to be 'caught in the act of adultery' in order to receive the death sentence. Paul, who was trained as a Pharisee (which contradicts your idea that he had 'no real knowledge of the Law') then went on to explain just how the curse of sin applies, how everyone is bound to death because of that curse, and how Christ came to fulfil the Law, and offer His righteousness to us to free us from the curse. Thus Paul explains Christ in the context of the Law. Paul was not rejecting the Law, but explaining the only way that we can fulfill it--by faith in God, through Christ.

You mangle the Law. There are parts that call for death as a maximum punishment. However, a Sanhedrin that executed one person in 70 years was called "bloody." Jews were rarely executed under the Law since the Hasmonean dynasty and the development of a strong Rabbinic base.

And no, Paul wasn't a Pharisee. He simply claimed to be. We know that his claim is false, because of where Paul was from (Tarsus) and what Paul claimed he did. There was no Pharasaic community in Tarsus, and Pharisees never executed or persecuted Christians. Paul claimed to have been from Tarsus and done the later, so his claim that he was also a Pharisee was inconsistent. Little things like this all throughout his Epistles demonstrate that he had a severe lack of understanding regarding Pharisees and the Law. In fact, the idea that Paul was honest with all of his claims regarding his Jewish heritage is hotly disputed in modern scholarship. Hyam Maccoby does a wonderful job of demonstrating how Paul was ignorant of the Pharisees and the Law in "The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity." In short, Paul simply claimed to be a Pharisee to attempt to reach out to the Jewish population. "Oh, look at me, I was a Pharisee but I found Jesus." Pfft. This is the same MO that Christians use today "I was an Atheist, but now I'm a Christian." Its an apologetic tactic, and Paul's lack of legal understanding and inconsistent, self-contradictory claims prove it.

Ironically, something you've mentioned here demonstrates that Paul had no knowledge of the Law too. The idea of a "curse of sin" is similiar to the "curse of sin" that the Gnostics believed in. Being from Tarsus, with a strong pre-Christian Gnostic base, Paul would have been familiar with this term. However, there is no "curse of sin" in Judaism or the Law. Most of Paul's comments on the Law can't be supported with any Jewish sources, and are simply fabricated. However, they bare a striking resemblence (because they were stolen from) pagan teachings.

It is possible to be a sinner and still have faith in God, and thus receive His salvation. It is also possible to teach others to sin, and still have faith in God. Obviously, though, teaching others to sin is even worse than being guilty of committing the sin itself. This seems to be the point that Jesus was making.

Not according to early Christians, and even texts like 1 John.

No one who lives in him keeps on sinning. No one who continues to sin has either seen him or known him. (1 John 3:6)

If we do things displeasing to God, we obtain no further forgiveness of sins, but be shut out from His kingdom. (Irenaeus, Against Heresies.)

For do not many afterward fall out of (grace)? is not this gift taken away from many? (Tertullian, On Repentance.)

Once again, you're giving a modern, unhistorical interpretation. Early Christians believed and taught that to be saved, you had to repent and stop sinning. If you started sinning again, you lost your potential for salvation, and you had to repent and "get back on the wagon" so to speak.

Of course, Christians today want feel-good Christianity. Of course they want to believe they can sin all the want and be saved. Its easy to see why anyone would want that. Its really a non-issue when discussing Christianity, however, because early Christians rejected it.

It's true that Jesus taught us to obey the commandments, but not necessarily as the basis for salvation, but as the way to salvation. Paul himself says that the Law was to bring us to Christ. Thus when Jesus told a stranger to follow the commandments, he knew that a sincere attempt to keep the Law would only result in the person failing to keep the Law perfectly, realizing that their own efforts were not enough, and then turning to God in an expression of faith, and eventually finding Christ, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the whole world.

What part of "if you want to enter into life, obey the commandments" (Matt 19:17) was unclear? This is just more wishful thinking on your part. You, as a Christian, want to believe that Jesus taught what you believe, instead of believing what Jesus suppossedly taught. This is another common plague in modern Christianity. The fact of the matter is, the Gospels don't teach what you believe. You believe what has been developed in Christianity over the last two centuries. Early Christians didn't believe or teach what you believe here, nor did Catholics, or Protestants in the Reformation. The beliefs that you adhere to were developed by Christians in the New World.

They believed you did have to adhere to the commandments, and this was later adapted to mean that you had to adhere to the Christian sacraments to be saved. In either case, you had to follow a form of law and ritual for salvation.

I am grateful for Paul's teachings, because they have helped me much sense of much of what Christ said. It is the consistency between Paul and Christ that makes a convincing argument for Christianity, even though Paul probably wrote without the help of the Gospels, and even though Paul was not one of the Twelve who had a lot of contact with Christ (before the ascension of Christ). Thus, it would seem as though Paul was really inspired by the Spirit of Christ.

Considering that Paul makes up the majority of Christian teachings, and not Jesus, it would make sense that you're grateful for Paul. When the Scriptures were canonized, Catholics were grateful for Paul too, because they could interpret his writings to support the doctrines that they developed. Likewise, Paul is often ambiguous and easily interpreted to fit every modern doctrine out there. Its no wonder you're grateful for Paul.

Bruarong

24-04-2006, 15:50

If Moses even existed... you've yet to show ANY evidence.

(Incidentally, there IS archeological evidence for a 'Moses' character - but he lived about 500 years before the Bible claims... about 500 years earlier than the alleged 'exodus'.)

I've read somewhere that one reason why there isn't that much evidence for Moses is that the Egyptian rulers didn't like to record such embarrassing defeats. It did nothing for their self image, I suppose.

Again, though... you should really look into your history. Egyptian 'princes' were not educated to read or write.

They certainly would NOT have been educated in a 'heathen tongue'.

This site has something to say about how widespread their writing was.
http://www.touregypt.net/historicalessays/discwriting.htm
''Hieroglyphic writing made its debut remarkably early, in the First Dynasty (3100-2900 BC). It was used extensively, with relatively little change in form, not only in Egypt itself, but also throughout Near Eastern territories under Egyptian influence or control for some 3,000 years, though few papyri have survived outside the dry climate of Egypt.''

''...the scribe in ancient Egypt belonged to a specialized and privileged profession and underwent a long and arduous training. Literacy was limited.''

I don't see why Moses could not have been educated as a scribe, although perhaps that would have to have been an exceptional case, considering that one's father usually had to be a scribe in order to be eligible.

Alternatively, Moses could have been educated during the time of the foreign Hyksos rulers, who perhaps have different ideas of who could and could not be educated.

The Talmud is evidence that the Hebrews kept 'oral tradition' even after they had 'written' scripture.

I don't deny that the Hebrews kept an oral tradition. But identity of ancient Hebrew alphabets, dating back to as early as the arrival of the Hebrews in Caanan, suggests that they also had written scriptures back then. That certainly fits in with the story of the Ten Commandments written on stone.

Regarding your 'agricultural' settlement, it could have been an academic outpost, and thus NOT typical (more Egyptian history for you - research "The Place of Truth")... or the alphabet tablet(s) could have been left there by strangers, no?

Sure, that's all possible. We are only speculating.

Why don't you START by learning the languages in which your 'god' is alleged to have written his word?

That's GOT TO BE better than always taking someone else's word for it, surely?

Surely one can review the various attempts at translations by people much better at translation than myself, to arrive at some sort of consensus. Wouldn't this be even better than doing your own personal translation and accepting it simply because it is your own, despite the fact that it contradicts all the others?

Not accusations of lies. How about 'doubt'? Those who attributed the words to Moses might have BELIEVED 'Moses' wrote them, no?

Their claims don't leave much room for doubt. Like Jesus said:

Mark 12:26
Now about the dead rising—have you not read in the book of Moses, in the account of the bush, how God said to him, 'I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob' ?

and John 5:46
'' If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me.''

In fact, the book(s) of Moses was referred to in the Gospels no less than 25 times, frequently by Jesus Himself. Do you think Jesus would have gotten it wrong?

But, if you are honest about your research, you'll see that scripture is claimed as being written by a LOT of people.... from Enoch to Mary of Magdala... do you accept ALL those scriptures as being written by who they claim?

I don't select the books of the Bible, I discover the books that God inspired when He speaks to me through them.

You call me a liar?

If you claim that your conclusions are not biased, you are either lying or deceived, for there is no human opinion that is free from subjectivity. But I didn't suggest that you were lying, only gullible or deceived if you think that. Based on such little information that we have of the ancient world, you seem to have concluded that the Bible is full of constructions and inventions that are not supportable by evidence.

My 'fall from grace' has been discussed a number of times on this forum... long before I ever encountered your argument. What would I stand to gain from lying about my loss of faith?

I doubt that you have come to your conclusions about the Bible simply because of my arguments. Rather, your conclusions over the Bible are directly related to your 'fall from grace', and I suggest they began at approximately the same time.

At the moment, all you call me on, is anything that doesn't quite fit your comfortable world view.

I try to use logic to support my point of view.

I can understand why - because you'd have to accept scripture as a 'mortal creation'... and then you'd have to be skeptical, at least.

And if the scripture was shown to be accurate, then your 'fall from grace' would look like it was a fall from truth.

But, it is dishonest to claim my 'skepticism' doesn't 'hold water'... when my conflicts have been introduced by hard evidences, anf your 'assurance' is based on a book you've never even READ in the language it was written in.

It's not your skepticism that doesn't hold water, but some of your arguments that you use to prop up your skepticism. The conflicts of hard evidences are there, I acknowledge, but unlike you, I do not feel that they are sufficient grounds for rejecting the claims of the book that has been translated into English by reputable professionals (in contrast to your personal translations).

Willamena

24-04-2006, 15:57

I think you mean that myth doesn't *necessarily* happen in the details. But I'm not sure that I agree with that. For there will always be details that cannot be changed without changing the meaning. In fact, this whole debate is about the meaning of the stories in the Bible. While the debate does focus on the details, it is really in the wider context of what does it mean when the details are interpreted this way, or that way. Thus the meaning is indeed tightly bound to the details. Perhaps you don't see this, because you are coming from a position which already means that the details have little meaning, or no relevent meaning. But because these stories mean something else to me, I cannot just accept that the details have little relevancy. They become important for my search for truth and meaning.
I didn't mean to suggest that the details have little or no importance. In fact, they are necessary, as you say, to carry the literal meaning of the story. They paint mythic images. What I am trying to say that those literal details that form the story are not where we find the myth; the myth is the non-literal meaning that accompanies the story. Whether it's a story of Noah or Atrahasis or Utnapishtim, the myth is the part behind the words, the part that speaks directly to the spirit. The audience comes to the myth (becomes it) through participating in the myth, through being it.

When you hear the story of Noah and how he saved the animals and his family to restore life to the flooded Earth, and then you plan your next vacation to Mt. Ararat to go find the Ark for yourself --that's not participation in the myth. That's participation in the details, in the literal story. But if you hear the story and from it know that God gives the blessing of love and will save the righteous, and it makes you more righteous and pious to hold that story in your hand, then you're participating in the myth.

That is the part that gets copied, and the details that form the mythic images come along for the ride. The flood was a common motif of the great destruction, because floods were common. Did such a flood actually happen? It doesn't matter, because it's just a vehicle of the meaning of the myth.

That is because these elements of birth, death, and salvation are well grounded in humanity. We have created many myths with these elements because somehow these elements are part of us. Part of our desire for salvation. A hint that not all is as it should be, that we desire the eternal happiness that is offered to us in the Scriptures. Why? Because the same God who offers eternal salvation is the one who created us. He put those desires in us, so that we might desire Him and His salvation. So when we hear the story of God's great love for us, we might embrace Him. And that is the story of the Bible--God's great love for humanity.
Right. That meaning, then, is the part that speaks to you.

The Scriptures say that God ''...has made everything beautiful in its time. He has also set eternity in the hearts of men; yet they cannot fathom what God has done from beginning to end.'' (Ecclesiastes 3:11). I suppose one take on that is that we have within us the desire for eternal happiness, or some concept or awareness of it (leading to the creation of mythical stories which contain that concept).

Obviously, I draw a distinction between general myths and Biblical myths. General myths are not necessarily literally true, while Biblical myths are based on literal events, but from a human (subjective) view point and have not (obviously) been written down in scientific format. I also consider the writers to have been under inspiration from the Spirit of God.

Or you could say that our love of a great fairy tale is the result of God making us that way, in His image. That we shall never be satisfied until we have embraced our estranged parent, our Heavenly Father, as Jesus taught us to call God. The fact that this love of fairy tales is found in every culture only supports the notion that every person either is or can be a child of God.

We are both looking at the same effect and attributing different causes.
That's a very nice interpretation. And it's okay that each and everyone who reads it reads something personal into it.

Grave_n_idle

24-04-2006, 16:05

The pushing of fake fossils depends entirely on the lay public not really understanding what a fossil is. If you have an interest in making the Biblical stories appear true, then you somehow have to overcome the natural questions of people when they are presented with physical evidence that contradicts the Bible. The process of fossilization and the time it takes is not easy to comprehend for people who don't study it. Creationists use that ignorance to promote a time frame and supposed process that are easier to comprehend with less effort.

Like I said before, none of this would be necessary if the Bible were allowed to be metaphor, rather than history. I still do not understand why some Christians need it to be literally true.

I have a friend who is very divided over this issue... he is very much the 'young-earth-creationist' type... but he is skeptical, also.

His opinion is that, while he DOES believe the Genesis account to be literally true... he doesn't NEED to believe it. He describes it as being able to realise something might be 'spiritually true' while not being 'historically true'.

I can't relate at all, to his conviction that the world is only a few thousand years old... but I can certainly applaud his sentiment on being able to relise there can be a difference between types of 'truth'.

It always astonishes me, that those who MOST argue FOR 'god' as omnipotent, eternal, and huge in scope and majesty... are the same group that argues 'God made us all out of mud, a few hundred years ago'...

Grave_n_idle

24-04-2006, 16:37

It occurred to me, Grave, that you like to think you know exactly what fossilisation is not, but you have not yet offered some sort of basis for what a fossil really is, nor do you seem to recognise that there is no way to demonstrate that a fossil could not be formed in a relatively shorter period than hundreds of thousands of years. What exactly is the difference between calcification and fossilization? If it is that the original material must be completely degraded, why would that take even thousands of years? And surely you must know that there are a variety of fossils, so that it becomes rather difficult to distinguish between fossils and almost-fossils and on-the-way fossils.

Neither have you explained why some people think that fossils must be so old, or that some people might want the fossils to be old in order to rule out any sort of 'religious spin'. As if the science community was somehow objective about the issue, while the religious community are the only biased people around. I don't think you are that gullible.

I already explained roughly what calcification is - it is where material is calcified - like scale on a kettle. Is my kettle a fossil? No - because the material OF the kettle is unaffected by the propostion... much less, removed in molecular drifts.

What is all this about subjectivity? Is science ALWAYS objective? Probably not... THAT is the reason for peer-review. Science SHOULD be objective.

I don't think 'fossils must be old'... I'm just following the evidence. And, if the evidence shows that fossils ARE old, it would make me a poor scientist to accept hearsay as a more important source.

You seem to be the only one coming up with that particular interpretation, so it does indeed look like a 'Grave' type of spin.

I wonder if you did any research? Or just read the forewords in a few bibles... maybe checked a christian site...

But most people don't read the Bible. You would have to limit the interpretation to those who do read the Bible, and then i think you might find that the majority of those who read the Bible interpret it in the way that modern Christians generally interpret it. Possibly because that's the way it fits in best with all the other quoted sayings of Jesus.

Most Christians I have ever met, have failed to read the entire Bible, so I question your premise.

Also - as I said, if we are going to accept 'majority must be right', then your bible MUST be a fairytale - by your own logic.

You are not doing the same thing, of course, in thinking that you know what the text means. Maybe you are the only logical soul that reads the Bible?

Not at all. I certainly didn't make that claim.

However - if you approach the text already KNOWING what you are going to find, it is likely to colour your perspective.

I was a Christian when I first read the Bible, and I became more and more skeptical as I read it. Eventually - I was so confused by contradictions, etc.. that I figured I HAD TO check the translation. Thus - my translation attempts were motivated NOT by my belief, but by my skepticism.

In comparison, then... MY reading is the more honest - because I wasn't looking to see the received translation fulfilled... but JUST to find out what 'god's literal word' was.

Personally - I am confused by the 'faith' of anyone who accepts a translation on such an IMPORTANT matter, rather than reading the 'original word;.

Then how do you explain the parts of the Bible where Jesus says things like
'"Anyone who isn't helping me opposes me, and anyone who isn't working with me is actually working against me.'' Luke 10:23

Your spins, Grave, just don't fit.

I don't explain them. Luke never met Jesus. And, even if he had - you are adding a spiritual slant (there) to a line that doesn't require one.

Tropical Sands

24-04-2006, 16:47

But most people don't read the Bible. You would have to limit the interpretation to those who do read the Bible, and then i think you might find that the majority of those who read the Bible interpret it in the way that modern Christians generally interpret it. Possibly because that's the way it fits in best with all the other quoted sayings of Jesus.

I just saw this and it stuck out to me.

The way modern Christians interpret the Bible is probably the least consistent and the least accurate. To begin, we have more sects today in Christianity than ever before (religioustolerance.org cites some 36,000), and more than any other religion. Modern Christians interpret it in the way that these new sects interpret it. They also interpret it as the trend in modern Christianity, pop-culture Christianity, tells them to.

A proper interpretation would follow along the lines of exegesis in context. This includes the cultural and historical context. So instead of seeing how modern Christians interpret it, it is important to see how early Christians interpreted it, and how it must be interpreted to be historically consistent.

Grave_n_idle

24-04-2006, 17:23

I've read somewhere that one reason why there isn't that much evidence for Moses is that the Egyptian rulers didn't like to record such embarrassing defeats. It did nothing for their self image, I suppose.

A typical Christian response. And yet, they DID account the 'invasion' by the Hyksos, that left their Empire shattered. A few runaway slaves seems like it would be a tiny thing to describe, in comparison.

A better explanation, perhaps - would be that the Hebrews WERE the Hyksos invaders.... and that the 'let my people go' speech, was actually the Hyksos pharaohs finally getting their asses handed to them... just written in revisionist historical slant.

This site has something to say about how widespread their writing was.
http://www.touregypt.net/historicalessays/discwriting.htm
''Hieroglyphic writing made its debut remarkably early, in the First Dynasty (3100-2900 BC). It was used extensively, with relatively little change in form, not only in Egypt itself, but also throughout Near Eastern territories under Egyptian influence or control for some 3,000 years, though few papyri have survived outside the dry climate of Egypt.''

''...the scribe in ancient Egypt belonged to a specialized and privileged profession and underwent a long and arduous training. Literacy was limited.''

I don't see why Moses could not have been educated as a scribe, although perhaps that would have to have been an exceptional case, considering that one's father usually had to be a scribe in order to be eligible.

Alternatively, Moses could have been educated during the time of the foreign Hyksos rulers, who perhaps have different ideas of who could and could not be educated.

There is no evidence the Hyksos HAD a written language. They destroyed monuments, they didn't make them. (Another parallel with the Hebrews).

The source you posted actually supports my argument, though - it shows one 'school' ("The House of Life"), and a 'scribe' class.

I don't deny that the Hebrews kept an oral tradition. But identity of ancient Hebrew alphabets, dating back to as early as the arrival of the Hebrews in Caanan, suggests that they also had written scriptures back then. That certainly fits in with the story of the Ten Commandments written on stone.

You make unbased assertions. The presence of an alphabet does NOT 'suggest' they had written scripture, at all.

It says they maybe COULD have had.... it doesn't 'suggest' they DID.

More likely, given the similarities between Hebrew and Ugaritic - the 'alphabet' you discuss was copied from an Ugaritic one... after all, there is no evidence of written language PRE-Caanan.

Sure, that's all possible. We are only speculating.

And yet, you seem to be sticking with your 'educated peasant' speculation, no?

Surely one can review the various attempts at translations by people much better at translation than myself, to arrive at some sort of consensus. Wouldn't this be even better than doing your own personal translation and accepting it simply because it is your own, despite the fact that it contradicts all the others?

No.

It would mean you were a pawn to whatever someone else decided the text means.

I have no respect for the argument that you can rely more on "people much better at translation than myself". Firstly - because you claim that God guides your understanding of scripture (so, no one could possibly 'translate it better', or your argument of guidance is hollow), and secondly - because the ONLY reason other people can 'translate it better' than you, is because they have learned the language... something you COULD also do, if you were genuine about caring.

Their claims don't leave much room for doubt. Like Jesus said:

Mark 12:26
Now about the dead rising—have you not read in the book of Moses, in the account of the bush, how God said to him, 'I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob' ?

and John 5:46
'' If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me.''

In fact, the book(s) of Moses was referred to in the Gospels no less than 25 times, frequently by Jesus Himself. Do you think Jesus would have gotten it wrong?

And, you honestly believe we are talking about a 'book'?

Or, that they are referencing a text physically written by Moses?

And, me, you call gullible?

I don't select the books of the Bible, I discover the books that God inspired when He speaks to me through them.

So, you've read the book of Enoch?

If you claim that your conclusions are not biased, you are either lying or deceived, for there is no human opinion that is free from subjectivity. But I didn't suggest that you were lying, only gullible or deceived if you think that. Based on such little information that we have of the ancient world, you seem to have concluded that the Bible is full of constructions and inventions that are not supportable by evidence.

I don't claim to be perfectly without bias... but I WAS about as unbiased as one could be. I wasn't looking for proof or denial. Just data.

The simple fact is - there is a huge world of evidence out there that is NOT in the source you choose to read with 'special exception'. I have taken the time to look at that other evidence - and so my skepticism is based on facts.

You have chosen NOT to look at that other evidence, indeed - where it disagrees with your 'preferred' source, you will question any amount of other evidence. Thus, you 'lack of skepticism' is based on a dishonest approach, and a deliberate policy of embracing ignorance.

I doubt that you have come to your conclusions about the Bible simply because of my arguments. Rather, your conclusions over the Bible are directly related to your 'fall from grace', and I suggest they began at approximately the same time.

I already said they did. I was confused, so I read the whole book. Then, I was skeptical, so I read it in it's actual language.

Once I READ it in the native tongue - I could no longer 'believe'.

You aren't witness to some 'revelation' here... it's something I've said myself, several times.

I try to use logic to support my point of view.

I'm still waiting for evidence on that one... indeed, you seem to consistently choose "I know" (Because the Bible told me) over logic, every time the two compete.

And if the scripture was shown to be accurate, then your 'fall from grace' would look like it was a fall from truth.

Sure. If the scripture was shown to be 'accurate'.

But, that's not going to happen.

There are so many inconsistencies, the text literally COULD NOT be 'true' IN ENTIRETY.

It's not your skepticism that doesn't hold water, but some of your arguments that you use to prop up your skepticism.

I don't need to 'prop' skepticism... what kind of idea is that?

The 'skepticism' is what is there when the props below alleged certainty are removed.

The conflicts of hard evidences are there... but... I do not feel that they are sufficient grounds for rejecting the claims of the book...

And there it is, in a nutshell.

By your own admission - you will chose a 'book' OVER evidence.

My argument rests.

Ashmoria

24-04-2006, 18:30

i dont understand why we are discussing fossils. surely they are irrelevant to any religious topic.

bruarong at least indicated that he thought that the great flood of genesis was referring to a huge but local flood in the middle east. surely you werent dissembling and really believe in a literal worldwide flood?

and in that light, i would like to ask if any of our debaters are debating from the point of view that the bible is the literal inerrant word of god--that humanity was begun 6000ish years ago in the garden of eden, that it was all but wiped out in a god made world wide flood, that god stopped the sun for joshua, etc.

Muravyets

24-04-2006, 18:47

<snip>

''...the scribe in ancient Egypt belonged to a specialized and privileged profession and underwent a long and arduous training. Literacy was limited.''

I don't see why Moses could not have been educated as a scribe, although perhaps that would have to have been an exceptional case, considering that one's father usually had to be a scribe in order to be eligible.

Alternatively, Moses could have been educated during the time of the foreign Hyksos rulers, who perhaps have different ideas of who could and could not be educated.

<snip>
Within your own speculation, you tell us why it did not happen. Scribe was a family profession. It was a specialty that required intensive training. It was a good paying job of the middle class and upper working class of Egyptian society. If Moses was raised as a "prince of Egypt", i.e. part of the royal household, there is no way he would have been trained in a trade. He already had a function to perform in society. Members of the royal household typically dealt with the military, management level government administration, and civil project organization (planning all those building projects). They didn't have time to learn how to be scribes, or lawyers, or accountants, or any of that support staff stuff. They may have learned to read heiratic, but, just like executives of today, they much more likely dictated all their correspondence.

Muravyets

24-04-2006, 19:00

I have a friend who is very divided over this issue... he is very much the 'young-earth-creationist' type... but he is skeptical, also.

His opinion is that, while he DOES believe the Genesis account to be literally true... he doesn't NEED to believe it. He describes it as being able to realise something might be 'spiritually true' while not being 'historically true'.

I can't relate at all, to his conviction that the world is only a few thousand years old... but I can certainly applaud his sentiment on being able to relise there can be a difference between types of 'truth'.

It always astonishes me, that those who MOST argue FOR 'god' as omnipotent, eternal, and huge in scope and majesty... are the same group that argues 'God made us all out of mud, a few hundred years ago'...
The way I see it, history/science and religion/spirituality are two completely different things -- two different systems of thought serving two different needs in life. They cannot do each other's jobs. Trying to make religion/spirituality do the job of history/science is like trying to trying to make your computer brew coffee and your coffeemaker print documents.

And what astonishes me is that, out of all those Bible literalists, creationists, and what have you, not one of them has ever tried to answer my question of why it has to be literally true. So many of them are working like mad to make their scriptures be the law of the land and the curriculum of every school, but they won't answer that one basic question. Why can't it be metaphor?

Grave_n_idle

24-04-2006, 19:02

Grave_n_idle

24-04-2006, 19:14

The way I see it, history/science and religion/spirituality are two completely different things -- two different systems of thought serving two different needs in life. They cannot do each other's jobs. Trying to make religion/spirituality do the job of history/science is like trying to trying to make your computer brew coffee and your coffeemaker print documents.

And what astonishes me is that, out of all those Bible literalists, creationists, and what have you, not one of them has ever tried to answer my question of why it has to be literally true. So many of them are working like mad to make their scriptures be the law of the land and the curriculum of every school, but they won't answer that one basic question. Why can't it be metaphor?

This is a very similar point-of-view to one of the other posters, I believe: (Willamena).

I agree with what you say, entirely. It seems likely that the earliest scriptures are an 'origin myth'... which is a staple of literate societies... heck, our culture even has 'origin myths' for where elephants came from, etc.

Thus - the Genesis account was probably never INTENDED to be taken as the LITERAL truth... more a 'cultural truth'.... this is what makes THIS people, this people.

The original 'strength' of the Hebrew god - was that it could not be defined... and, yet - as the scriptures continued to appear, God becomes more and more anthropomorphic - probably because the oral traditions were collected 'folk stories, and the 'god' character becomes 'humanised' in the vernacular. Christianity takes it one step further - and takes 'god' from being 'manlike' to being 'man'... a final keystone that concretises a 'god' story that is both literal AND metaphorical - into an unchangable 'true history'.

The whole approach... knowing WITHOUT asking... is anathema to progress, and especially to science.

Which is probably why so many of the 'religious' are so keen to get 'science' redefined... because it is a school of thought that rejects 'assurances' and personal 'revelation'.

Muravyets

24-04-2006, 19:31

Especially when you consider the importance Egyptians based on the power of language. Especially 'recorded' langauge.

It frustrates me when you watch 'biblical' movies, and you see the poor Jewish slaves being forced to carve Heathen symbols into monuments.

There is NO WAY the Egyptians scribes/religious orders would have allowed it to happen... their written language was sacred.

Similar significance was given to the WHOLE institution of writing. According to Egyptian belief, 'eternal life' was guaranteed 'as long as the name was remembered'... which is why some later pharaohs made a point of going around and scraping their predecessor's names off of things - they were effectively 'killing' their predecessor by so doing.... by FORCING the name to be forgotten.

So - writing in Egyptian culture was much MORE important that in it now... much more 'significant'. It wasn't something you set about casually.
Oh, absolutely. That's also why there were two different forms of writing, one for formal, ritualized and/or sacred presentation and another for communication. In addition, it was hard to do, and expensive. You didn't just chip at walls or scratch away on papyrus. There were specialist heiroglyphic stone carvers, specialist heiroglyphic mural painters, scribes who specialized in heiroglyphics, and scribes who specialized in heiratic. There were scribes who took down dictation and the equivalent of minutes on cheap clay shards, and scribes who copied some of those tablets onto expensive paper to make formal documents. Do people nowadays understand that the majority of even literate ancient Egyptians couldn't understand the heiroglyphics emblazoned on the walls of their own public buildings? That was the language of the gods. It was sacred. You didn't hand it off to slaves to copy from notes.

We see similar things in the Hebrew scripture...the 'name of God' being too holy to be written, for example. The same reason many Jewish people write "G_d" or some other parallel, if they are discussing 'god'.

Moses would have been out-of-luck, basically. The scripture strongly suggests he had such a pronounced speech-impediment that he had to have someone (his brother) speak for him, and he was supposed to have been raised in a culture that would almost certainly not have allowed him to write.

And yet, we are supposed to accept 'as Gospel' that this character is the literal author - or at least, dictator - of the first five books of the Bible.

(Even the one that details his death and funeral, apparently).
Now that's inspiration. :p

I'm interested in this speech impediment. I hadn't heard of this before. What does the scripture say about it?

Grave_n_idle

24-04-2006, 19:56

I'm interested in this speech impediment. I hadn't heard of this before. What does the scripture say about it?

Exodus 4:10 says "And Moses said unto the LORD, O my Lord, I am not
eloquent, neither heretofore, nor since thou hast spoken unto
thy servant: but I am slow of speech, and of a slow tongue"...

(I've also seen the translation "...heavy of mouth and tongue...")

Exodus 4:14-6 "And the anger of the LORD was kindled against Moses, and he said, Is not Aaron the Levite thy brother? I know that he can speak well. And also, behold, he cometh forth to meet thee: and when he seeth thee, he will be glad in his heart. And thou shalt speak unto him, and put words in his mouth: and I will be with thy mouth, and with his mouth, and will teach you what ye shall do. And he shall be thy spokesman unto the people: and he shall be, even he shall be to thee instead of a mouth, and thou shalt be to him instead of God".

So - Moses is, in some fashion, incapable of coherent speech. He obviously CAN talk - because God is having a conversation with him - but there is something 'wrong' with his speech.

If one reads around the subject - there are several opinions as to what '...heavy of mouth and tongue..' might mean.

Some argue a stutter, some argue he spoke slowly... some that he just wasn't a very good public speaker.

Some argue something else:

"The book of Exodus says that Moses was "heavy of mouth and tongue." When I was a youngster, I heard a popular Jewish legend that told how Moses, when he was an infant, burned his tongue on a hot coal and was left with a speech impediment... When I was in graduate school and studying Babylonian literature, I came upon a medical text entitled, "If a man's mouth is heavy..." I had never imagined that I'd find anything useful for Biblical studies in a Babylonian medical text, but the phrase jumped out at me because it was the same one that described Moses. Since medical texts didn't deal with people's problems in public speaking, I realized that the idiom must indeed refer to a speech impediment. What kind of impediment was another question. I eventually found several texts which dealt with the same symptom and, after I came to Penn, I took them to a friend who taught oral pathology at Penn's Dental School. He said that some of the texts seemed to be referring to a cleft palate."

http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~jtigay/intrlect.html

Muravyets

24-04-2006, 20:16

This is a very similar point-of-view to one of the other posters, I believe: (Willamena).

I agree with what you say, entirely. It seems likely that the earliest scriptures are an 'origin myth'... which is a staple of literate societies... heck, our culture even has 'origin myths' for where elephants came from, etc.

Thus - the Genesis account was probably never INTENDED to be taken as the LITERAL truth... more a 'cultural truth'.... this is what makes THIS people, this people.
There seem to be two basic kinds of creation myths -- creation of the world and creation of people. Most cultures use both as separate stories. Genesis combines them into one.

World creation stories are always about something coming out of nothing. We begin with a featureless void (ocean, darkness, or both) that becomes turbulent by some force of intent from something within it or looking at it or by itself awakening as it were. The turbulence creates a chaos which then becomes order as objects and beings take shape out of its churning patterns. Outside of Christianity, I don't know of a culture that actually uses these stories as a vital part of their religion, i.e. a detail that matters. They seem mostly to be art -- the introductory prologue to a sacred narrative.

People creation stories are the ones that matter, and of this kind there are also at least two types -- creation of people and creation of the people, i.e. the ones telling the story. There are some myths that account for the existence of different kinds of people, and others that account for just one kind. Interestingly, myths that only account for the creation of one group of people still bring other people into the mix. Inuit tales, for instance, talk about first heroes and first couples, who travel the brand new world and run into all kinds of other people for whose existence no explanation is offered. There's the classic Bible question of, if Adam and Eve were the first people in the world, where did their sons' wives come from? We can't ignore the part of the story that has Cain traveling to Nod, the land east of Eden, where there is an entire other society already in existence, from which Cain gets a wife. Taking the tales at face value, we can easily conclude that Genesis is only accounting for the creation of the Hebrew people, not all of humanity.

Also, different cultures as they were Christianized, put their own spin on the story of Genesis, retranslating it back into their own cultural traditions, i.e. making it be about themselves, a product of their own culture. My personal favorites are some Bulgarian creation folk-myths that have God and Satan as brothers working together or in rivalry with each other to create the earth out of the ocean, to name the animals, to create people, etc.

The original 'strength' of the Hebrew god - was that it could not be defined... and, yet - as the scriptures continued to appear, God becomes more and more anthropomorphic - probably because the oral traditions were collected 'folk stories, and the 'god' character becomes 'humanised' in the vernacular. Christianity takes it one step further - and takes 'god' from being 'manlike' to being 'man'... a final keystone that concretises a 'god' story that is both literal AND metaphorical - into an unchangable 'true history'.

The whole approach... knowing WITHOUT asking... is anathema to progress, and especially to science.

Which is probably why so many of the 'religious' are so keen to get 'science' redefined... because it is a school of thought that rejects 'assurances' and personal 'revelation'.
Interesting. I was aware of this evolution of god (if they'll pardon the expression), but I still couldn't make the cognitive leap from "this is what we believe" to "if someone else tells a different story, that creates a problem for us." I will have to think about it as you've laid it out here and see if I can wrap my brain around this at all.

Gelfland

24-04-2006, 20:18

My appologies if this point has been discussed already, 37 pages and dialup do not mix well.

I think we are all well aware of how the Romans assimilated the religions of the people they conquored into their own, and that, at least in europe, the dominant christian sect was, for centuries the ROMAN catholic church.
so, although there might not be pagan influences in the gospels themselves, there are in just about everything else.
(jesus allegedly born a few days after solstice,
Easter being observed on the Sunday after the first full moon on or after the day of the vernal equinox, you get the picture)

Grave_n_idle

24-04-2006, 20:41

There seem to be two basic kinds of creation myths -- creation of the world and creation of people. Most cultures use both as separate stories. Genesis combines them into one.

World creation stories are always about something coming out of nothing. We begin with a featureless void (ocean, darkness, or both) that becomes turbulent by some force of intent from something within it or looking at it or by itself awakening as it were. The turbulence creates a chaos which then becomes order as objects and beings take shape out of its churning patterns. Outside of Christianity, I don't know of a culture that actually uses these stories as a vital part of their religion, i.e. a detail that matters. They seem mostly to be art -- the introductory prologue to a sacred narrative.

People creation stories are the ones that matter, and of this kind there are also at least two types -- creation of people and creation of the people, i.e. the ones telling the story. There are some myths that account for the existence of different kinds of people, and others that account for just one kind. Interestingly, myths that only account for the creation of one group of people still bring other people into the mix. Inuit tales, for instance, talk about first heroes and first couples, who travel the brand new world and run into all kinds of other people for whose existence no explanation is offered. There's the classic Bible question of, if Adam and Eve were the first people in the world, where did their sons' wives come from? We can't ignore the part of the story that has Cain traveling to Nod, the land east of Eden, where there is an entire other society already in existence, from which Cain gets a wife. Taking the tales at face value, we can easily conclude that Genesis is only accounting for the creation of the Hebrew people, not all of humanity.

Also, different cultures as they were Christianized, put their own spin on the story of Genesis, retranslating it back into their own cultural traditions, i.e. making it be about themselves, a product of their own culture. My personal favorites are some Bulgarian creation folk-myths that have God and Satan as brothers working together or in rivalry with each other to create the earth out of the ocean, to name the animals, to create people, etc.

My favourite creation story has to be either: the Egyptian creation of the world - where our goddess character manually assists our god character to 'ejaculate' the world into existence, or a Japanese one I encountered, where the world was defecated into existence.

Like I always said - this Judeo-Christian 'shaped by hand, from the clay' is so lacking in imagery, so ordinary. Hard to reconcile with the unknowableness and majesty of 'god'...

Interesting. I was aware of this evolution of god (if they'll pardon the expression), but I still couldn't make the cognitive leap from "this is what we believe" to "if someone else tells a different story, that creates a problem for us." I will have to think about it as you've laid it out here and see if I can wrap my brain around this at all.

I am all about the 'wrapping of brains'. :) It's a lost art, this 'thinking' of which you speak.

Muravyets

24-04-2006, 20:52

Exodus 4:10 says "And Moses said unto the LORD, O my Lord, I am not
eloquent, neither heretofore, nor since thou hast spoken unto
thy servant: but I am slow of speech, and of a slow tongue"...

(I've also seen the translation "...heavy of mouth and tongue...")

Exodus 4:14-6 "And the anger of the LORD was kindled against Moses, and he said, Is not Aaron the Levite thy brother? I know that he can speak well. And also, behold, he cometh forth to meet thee: and when he seeth thee, he will be glad in his heart. And thou shalt speak unto him, and put words in his mouth: and I will be with thy mouth, and with his mouth, and will teach you what ye shall do. And he shall be thy spokesman unto the people: and he shall be, even he shall be to thee instead of a mouth, and thou shalt be to him instead of God".

So - Moses is, in some fashion, incapable of coherent speech. He obviously CAN talk - because God is having a conversation with him - but there is something 'wrong' with his speech.

If one reads around the subject - there are several opinions as to what '...heavy of mouth and tongue..' might mean.

Some argue a stutter, some argue he spoke slowly... some that he just wasn't a very good public speaker.

Some argue something else:

Originally Posted by Opening Lecture by Jeffrey H. Tigay, from University of Pennsylvania's "Introduction to the Bible" course
"The book of Exodus says that Moses was "heavy of mouth and tongue." When I was a youngster, I heard a popular Jewish legend that told how Moses, when he was an infant, burned his tongue on a hot coal and was left with a speech impediment... When I was in graduate school and studying Babylonian literature, I came upon a medical text entitled, "If a man's mouth is heavy..." I had never imagined that I'd find anything useful for Biblical studies in a Babylonian medical text, but the phrase jumped out at me because it was the same one that described Moses. Since medical texts didn't deal with people's problems in public speaking, I realized that the idiom must indeed refer to a speech impediment. What kind of impediment was another question. I eventually found several texts which dealt with the same symptom and, after I came to Penn, I took them to a friend who taught oral pathology at Penn's Dental School. He said that some of the texts seemed to be referring to a cleft palate."

http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~jtigay/intrlect.html
Fascinating.

I wonder, though, if there might be another interpretation. This is the thought that came to me and why I asked for details.

If we see Moses as a culture hero, the speech impediment can be recognized as a typical mark of a hero. Many culture heroes are somehow abnormal at the beginning of their stories -- they are antisocial in some way or, especially, they lack some vital ability such as mastery of speech. It's a symptom of being "god-marked," part of the widespread traditional belief that people born within the community who are different from their fellows are special in some way. Just recently, there have been incidents (rather common) in India of babies born with tails (fleshy extensions from the base of the spine) being revered as blessed incarnations of the monkey god Hannuman. Their parents will certainly have the tails removed surgically, but that will not remove their "specialness" in the eyes of their communities.

A person who could not speak clearly might have been seen as equipped to converse with the spirit world more than with people. Even if it was not true about a historical Moses, such a feature could easily have been added by later writers of the legend.

Alternatively, or additionally, Moses's inability to directly communicate his vision and his need to have his brother translate, could have been a function of his visionary experience. Many visionary oracles spoke in tongues or in weird, trance-induced symbolic imageries. The oracle of Delphi, for instance, used translators who interpreted the speech of the oracle, which in its raw form may have been "channeled" communications or else just descriptions of what the oracle was "seeing." The translators would have to take this and make it understandable to the lay person who was receiving the message.

If Moses spent weeks and months at a time fasting on a mountaintop, staring into a bright light and listening directly to god, I think it likely that, when he came back down, the story he had to tell was going to come out a bit disjointed and bizarre. A blissed-out, sun-baked, dehydrated visionary is not going to be in a position to explain himself to an ordinary, pragmatic citizen who just wants to know what he is being asked to do. You need someone intelligent, educated in the religion, and skilled at communicating complex ideas -- i.e. a good rabbi -- to interpret the vision for the rest of us.

Grave_n_idle

24-04-2006, 21:02

Fascinating.

I wonder, though, if there might be another interpretation. This is the thought that came to me and why I asked for details.

If we see Moses as a culture hero, the speech impediment can be recognized as a typical mark of a hero. Many culture heroes are somehow abnormal at the beginning of their stories -- they are antisocial in some way or, especially, they lack some vital ability such as mastery of speech. It's a symptom of being "god-marked," part of the widespread traditional belief that people born within the community who are different from their fellows are special in some way. Just recently, there have been incidents (rather common) in India of babies born with tails (fleshy extensions from the base of the spine) being revered as blessed incarnations of the monkey god Hannuman. Their parents will certainly have the tails removed surgically, but that will not remove their "specialness" in the eyes of their communities.

A person who could not speak clearly might have been seen as equipped to converse with the spirit world more than with people. Even if it was not true about a historical Moses, such a feature could easily have been added by later writers of the legend.

Alternatively, or additionally, Moses's inability to directly communicate his vision and his need to have his brother translate, could have been a function of his visionary experience. Many visionary oracles spoke in tongues or in weird, trance-induced symbolic imageries. The oracle of Delphi, for instance, used translators who interpreted the speech of the oracle, which in its raw form may have been "channeled" communications or else just descriptions of what the oracle was "seeing." The translators would have to take this and make it understandable to the lay person who was receiving the message.

If Moses spent weeks and months at a time fasting on a mountaintop, staring into a bright light and listening directly to god, I think it likely that, when he came back down, the story he had to tell was going to come out a bit disjointed and bizarre. A blissed-out, sun-baked, dehydrated visionary is not going to be in a position to explain himself to an ordinary, pragmatic citizen who just wants to know what he is being asked to do. You need someone intelligent, educated in the religion, and skilled at communicating complex ideas -- i.e. a good rabbi -- to interpret the vision for the rest of us.

Ah - the 'Hero' defined by his 'tragic flaw'.

It's eminently possible that the 'flaw' was added at a later date, especialyl since it is SO hard to verify the literal existence of a 'Moses' figure.

I spent some time, once, trying to track a historical Moses from Egyptian sources... and came up with a relatively close match (A 'Mousos', seems to be the implication - although Egyptian vowel use doesn't necesarily match our own)... but this figure is a half-millenium too early, and was a central figure in leading Egyptian soldiers against Cushites, I believe. There is nothing in the story about beign an orphan, or a Hebrew... and nothing about leading a slave revolt.

Possibly the same character... 'Mousos' was alleged to be a son of Pharoah.

Actually - the very name 'Moses' makes me question the story... although it IS explained in terms of a Hebrew meaning for the name, that makes no sense if that is what the Egyptians called him. And, the problem with it as an Egyptian name, is that it would be roughly equivalent to 'born'... as Ramses is Ra-m'ses = (something like) born-of-Ra.

Why would an adoptive family name a son 'born'?

Ah well - enough digression... :)

Muravyets

24-04-2006, 21:11

My favourite creation story has to be either: the Egyptian creation of the world - where our goddess character manually assists our god character to 'ejaculate' the world into existence, or a Japanese one I encountered, where the world was defecated into existence.
Those Egyptians apparently enjoyed their sex quite a lot. There was hardly a feature of the natural world they couldn't describe in terms of some emitted and/or shared bodily fluid.

That Japanese story is a good one. The version I have is of the creation of foodstuffs through the killing of the earth deity whose body nevertheless continues to produce food. The sun goddess sent her brother the moon god to ask the earth goddess to make food for people to eat. The goddess did so by extruding all the foods of the world from her body -- shit, piss, sweat, urine, puss, zits, etc. The moon god was so digusted by this (apparently, he didn't know that was how food got made) that in his outrage, he killed her.

This is a typical story from a shamanism-based tradition. It's interesting that shamanic visions and the tales that are made out of them often involve conceptual inversions -- clean-ness from filth, life from death, growth from rot, fresh stuff from waste -- and along with that a tendency towards an almost satirical inversion and undermining of social norms, conventions, and expectations. It's one of the things that makes shamanistic stories so memorable and so difficult to understand.

Like I always said - this Judeo-Christian 'shaped by hand, from the clay' is so lacking in imagery, so ordinary. Hard to reconcile with the unknowableness and majesty of 'god'...
It's also very Greek and pagan. Didn't the Titan Epimetheus make human beings out of clay?

I am all about the 'wrapping of brains'. :) It's a lost art, this 'thinking' of which you speak.
It is getting to be a rather lonely hobby.

Muravyets

24-04-2006, 21:18

Ah - the 'Hero' defined by his 'tragic flaw'.

It's eminently possible that the 'flaw' was added at a later date, especialyl since it is SO hard to verify the literal existence of a 'Moses' figure.

I spent some time, once, trying to track a historical Moses from Egyptian sources... and came up with a relatively close match (A 'Mousos', seems to be the implication - although Egyptian vowel use doesn't necesarily match our own)... but this figure is a half-millenium too early, and was a central figure in leading Egyptian soldiers against Cushites, I believe. There is nothing in the story about beign an orphan, or a Hebrew... and nothing about leading a slave revolt.

Possibly the same character... 'Mousos' was alleged to be a son of Pharoah.

Actually - the very name 'Moses' makes me question the story... although it IS explained in terms of a Hebrew meaning for the name, that makes no sense if that is what the Egyptians called him. And, the problem with it as an Egyptian name, is that it would be roughly equivalent to 'born'... as Ramses is Ra-m'ses = (something like) born-of-Ra.

Why would an adoptive family name a son 'born'?

Ah well - enough digression... :)
Born of something other than the family, perhaps?

I'm of the school of thought that the "grain of truth" behind all legends is usually an amalgamation of phenomena, events, and/or people, occurring over long periods of time and remembered by other people over other long periods of time for different reasons/purposes. The characters of the legends are just that -- characters. Even if there was one historical person being referred to in the Moses legend, it is unlikely that his life was similar to the story at all.

Grave_n_idle

24-04-2006, 21:34

Those Egyptians apparently enjoyed their sex quite a lot. There was hardly a feature of the natural world they couldn't describe in terms of some emitted and/or shared bodily fluid.

That Japanese story is a good one. The version I have is of the creation of foodstuffs through the killing of the earth deity whose body nevertheless continues to produce food. The sun goddess sent her brother the moon god to ask the earth goddess to make food for people to eat. The goddess did so by extruding all the foods of the world from her body -- shit, piss, sweat, urine, puss, zits, etc. The moon god was so digusted by this (apparently, he didn't know that was how food got made) that in his outrage, he killed her.

Kind of reminds me of one of the 'midrash' stories of the Creation. One of the midrash versions gives Eve as, not first... but third of Adam's wives.

Lilith was the first, created as an equal - but who insisted on ACTING as an equal. Some stories specify that her 'sin' was wanting to be the dominant partner in sex. Thus - she is exiled from heaven/Eden and goes on to spawn the Lilim, some type of demon.

The second 'bride' is never named - she is made specifically for Adam, but he is repulsed when he sees her being put together... all the human juices and squidgy bits revealed. Thus, she is supplanted... I don't recall it ever being quite clear WHAT happened to this 'unnamed bride'.

Eve is made while Adam is unconscious - thus avoiding the problems of the second bride, and she is made from Adam's own flesh... making her forever beholden to Adam... thus avoiding the problems of the first.

This is a typical story from a shamanism-based tradition. It's interesting that shamanic visions and the tales that are made out of them often involve conceptual inversions -- clean-ness from filth, life from death, growth from rot, fresh stuff from waste -- and along with that a tendency towards an almost satirical inversion and undermining of social norms, conventions, and expectations. It's one of the things that makes shamanistic stories so memorable and so difficult to understand.

That's because shamanic principles tend to be based on observation. An 'acquired' knowledge, not a 'revealed' one. Crops DO grow better in the fields where the animals are allowed to expel their waste, the decay of a body DOES lead to other 'life'.

If one bears in mind that we live in a system, that everything goes 'around'... it isn't too difficult to see the 'shaman' approach as actually fairly obvious.

It's also very Greek and pagan. Didn't the Titan Epimetheus make human beings out of clay?

I'm not sure.... Titan means 'clay men' ('white clay men', maybe) doesn't it?

Much like 'Adam' is so called because he is made of 'red clay'...

It is getting to be a rather lonely hobby.

That's what the forum is for. :) Hidden among the abundance of "Chuck Norris is better than Bush" threads, there are the occassional glimmers of worthwhile thought... ;)

Grave_n_idle

24-04-2006, 21:40

Born of something other than the family, perhaps?

I'm of the school of thought that the "grain of truth" behind all legends is usually an amalgamation of phenomena, events, and/or people, occurring over long periods of time and remembered by other people over other long periods of time for different reasons/purposes. The characters of the legends are just that -- characters. Even if there was one historical person being referred to in the Moses legend, it is unlikely that his life was similar to the story at all.

Agreed. One only has to look at the King Arthur stories to see just exactly this...

Doubtless there was an original monarch on whom the initial story was based... but how many times was that tale told before the first 'wise man' became added (Welsh: Myrddyn, I believe - we now say 'Merlin')... and how many more times before the Goddess/Fury/Fairy "The Morrigan" had been devolved to the incestuous/rapist 'Morgana le Fey'?

BY the time our 'received' version of the story was born, one has to wonder just how much of the story had ANY connection to one real king, how much was conflated from other stories, and how much was sheer fancy.

Bruarong

25-04-2006, 13:14

I guess no one had it right until around the 19th century. Even the Protestant Reformers taught that baptism was neccessary for salvation. Among early Christians who were "Orthodox", it wasn't just that "many" Christians thought baptism saved you, they all did. There was no such thing as being saved by a belief in Jesus all by itself until the last 200 years or so.

Baptism is the process by which we are saved, but the water baptism is only a symbol of the spiritual one. The water baptism has no power at all to save the newly born child. That the Protestants taught salvation through a water baptism doesn't make it right. It was always the spiritual baptism through which our salvation came.

In Romans 6, Paul mentions how in our baptism we died. He is not talking about a physical death here, but the death of the old nature. That should give us clear indication that the baptism that he referred to was the spiritual baptism.

''Well then, should we keep on sinning so that God can show us more and more kindness and forgiveness? 2Of course not! Since we have died to sin, how can we continue to live in it? 3Or have you forgotten that when we became Christians and were baptized to become one with Christ Jesus, we died with him? 4For we died and were buried with Christ by baptism. And just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glorious power of the Father, now we also may live new lives.''

If you're confused about baptism saving you, you should read 1 Peter 3:21 too - "this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also."

I Peter 3

19So he went and preached to the spirits in prison-- 20those who disobeyed God long ago when God waited patiently while Noah was building his boat. Only eight people were saved from drowning in that terrible flood.[c] 21And this is a picture of baptism, which now saves you by the power of Jesus Christ's resurrection. Baptism is not a removal of dirt from your body; it is an appeal to God from[d] a clean conscience.

Noah's flood was a *picture* (involving water) of the more *real* spiritual baptism, the process by which we are saved. Obviously, we don't all need to survive a great flood in order to be saved. But we do need to experience the spiritual death and resurrection, the same process that Jesus went through on a spiritual level (as opposed to a physical one), in order to be saved.

He even goes further to say that there is nothing about a physical washing that saves us, but it is the seeking of God from or for a clean conscience.

They taught that Abraham and the patriarchs were saved, yes. They didn't teach anything about baptism like you're claiming though. You're assuming from your own personal interpretation of early Christian beliefs on the patriarchs that early Christians believed that faith saved anyone. They didn't, and there isn't a shred of evidence in early Christian history that demonstrates anything except that they adhered to observance of the sacraments in addition to faith for salvation.

On the contrary, the scripture is full of references to the spiritual baptism, which in the eyes of the writers of the NT was more real than a physical baptism involving water.

My personal interpretation might be at odds with your personal interpretation, but though you can claim all you like to know the beliefs of the early Christians, it just comes down to you personal interpretations and opinions versus mine.

Consider the first verse of II Peter
''This letter is from Simon[a] Peter, a slave and apostle of Jesus Christ.
I am writing to all of you who share the same precious faith we have, faith given to us by Jesus Christ, our God and Savior, who makes us right with God.''

Clearly, here is yet another emphasis on faith, and that on the basis of this faith we are made right with God. Thus, you are right to say that faith never saved anyone. It is God that saves us, on the condition of our faith in Him. This was a very prevalent message throughout the NT, beginning with Jesus, and ending with John.

For another example, consider this from Acts 13

'' 38"Brothers, listen! In this man Jesus there is forgiveness for your sins. 39Everyone who believes in him is freed from all guilt and declared right with God--something the Jewish law could never do.''

Most of the words attributed to Jesus we know he didn't say. Things like "forgive them, they know not what they do" were taken directly from pagan texts, word for word (The Bacchae). All of his parables, in addition to the teachings I've mentioned in previous posts (plus more), were developed by Rabbis that predate him. Very little of what is attributed to him is original, and in the tone of "lives" works of that time period, we know he probably didn't say them. Attributing famous teachings or false miracles to mundane people in an attempt to push up their status was very common.

Of course, Jesus could have run around quoting pagan sources and previous rabbis and never saying anything original.

So as long as it had been said before Jesus' time, it could not have been said by Jesus. That's very presumptious of you. Not at all careful scholarship. That means if I happen to articulate a truth that Hinduism had discovered 3 thousand years ago, I *must* have been reading Hindu literature. As it happens, I have read some Hindu literature, and I have found some things there that I agreed with, but it does not necessarily follow that I learned my ideas from Hinduism.
And if Jesus was to go around quoting pagans and rabbis, does that explain why the rabbis wanted him dead? Didn't they kill him because he posed a threat to their control of the people? And wasn't their excuse to kill him on the basis that he admitted that he was God? It is because he was an original that they wanted him dead.
I consider your expressed opinion here a clear example of your bias.

This is a nice, modern interpretation. It isn't what the early Christians believed, though. You seem to be plagued with the curse of eisegesis. You simply can't understand the meaning of the scriptures unless you read them in their historical context. The Gospels were developed independently of Paul. They reflect a period of Christianity with heavy emphasis on legal observance, as did all forms of Christianity at that time.

I thought I made it clear to you that the Gospels were not about a heavy emphasis on legal observance.
For example, Luke 4

''16When he came to the village of Nazareth, his boyhood home, he went as usual to the synagogue on the Sabbath and stood up to read the Scriptures. 17The scroll containing the messages of Isaiah the prophet was handed to him, and he unrolled the scroll to the place where it says:

18
"The Spirit of the Lord is upon me,
for he has appointed me to preach Good News to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim
that captives will be released,
that the blind will see,
that the downtrodden will be freed from their oppressors,

19 and that the time of the Lord's favor has come.[e]"
20He rolled up the scroll, handed it back to the attendant, and sat down. Everyone in the synagogue stared at him intently. 21Then he said, "This Scripture has come true today before your very eyes!"
22All who were there spoke well of him and were amazed by the gracious words that fell from his lips. "How can this be?" they asked. "Isn't this Joseph's son?"

Thus, the Gospels were an emphasis on the Good News of the Lord's favour. If, on the other hand, Jesus was stirring people up to become better Law keepers, it would not have been good news for them, nor gracious words from his lips.

Rather, it was a proclaimation that meant that God had provided a way to His favour that did not involve a meticulous observance of the Law, a hopeless prospect for most of the population. It is easy to reach this conclusion independently of what Paul wrote, considering how Jesus spent most of his time with the masses of poor and hungry and sick people, and reserved his harshest criticisms for those who were the leading experts on the Law.

Pharisees never developed scars on their foreheads from closing their eyes to look at young women. In fact, there is no prohibition on looking at a woman. What you're referring to was a parable in a baraita that classified seven types of Pharisees. Six out of seven types of Pharisee are depicted as caraictures to demonstrate how to be the good seventh Pharisee. Of course, none of these six types of Pharisees were actually real. This was a parable, and they were caraictures.

Perhaps, it was only a parable, but at any rate my point was that the Pharisees were the experts at Law keeping, and Jesus said clearly that our righteousness was to exceed theirs, otherwise we could not enter the Kingdom of God. That clearly points to another way (other than observance of the Law) as the process of salvation. The way was the the spiritual baptism. When John the Baptist preached, it was to bring about repentence among the people, and a focus on doing God's will. The physical baptism was a means to this end.

This site has more about the Pharisees:
http://mb-soft.com/believe/txc/pharisee.htm
''The Pharisees were strongly committed to the daily application and observance of the law. This means they accepted the traditional elaborations of the law which made daily application possible. They believed, moreover, in the existence of spirits and angels, the resurrection, and the coming of a Messiah. They also maintained that the human will enjoyed a limited freedom within the sovereign plan of God.
Yet there is little evidence to suggest that these were distinctively Pharisaic beliefs. To the best of our knowledge these beliefs were the common heritage of most Jews. To some scholars this fact is proof that the Pharisees were the dominant religious force in Judaism; to others it is only another indication that the Pharisees' distinguishing mark was nothing but the scrupulous observance of purity and tithing laws.''

You mangle the Law. There are parts that call for death as a maximum punishment. However, a Sanhedrin that executed one person in 70 years was called "bloody." Jews were rarely executed under the Law since the Hasmonean dynasty and the development of a strong Rabbinic base.

No, I was not altering the Law. And I think it amusing that you would demonstrate my 'mangling' by mentioning the customs of the Sanhedrin (probably a Pharisee invention) when in fact that Law was given much earlier. Futhermore, the Pharisees seem to be quite ready to take life in order to fulfill the Law. For example, the woman caught in the act of adultery was almost stoned to death, and Stephen was stoned to death for blasphemy.

And no, Paul wasn't a Pharisee. He simply claimed to be. We know that his claim is false, because of where Paul was from (Tarsus) and what Paul claimed he did. There was no Pharasaic community in Tarsus, and Pharisees never executed or persecuted Christians. Paul claimed to have been from Tarsus and done the later, so his claim that he was also a Pharisee was inconsistent. Little things like this all throughout his Epistles demonstrate that he had a severe lack of understanding regarding Pharisees and the Law. In fact, the idea that Paul was honest with all of his claims regarding his Jewish heritage is hotly disputed in modern scholarship. Hyam Maccoby does a wonderful job of demonstrating how Paul was ignorant of the Pharisees and the Law in "The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity." In short, Paul simply claimed to be a Pharisee to attempt to reach out to the Jewish population. "Oh, look at me, I was a Pharisee but I found Jesus." Pfft. This is the same MO that Christians use today "I was an Atheist, but now I'm a Christian." Its an apologetic tactic, and Paul's lack of legal understanding and inconsistent, self-contradictory claims prove it.

Paul was presumeably trained in Jerusalem, not in Tarsus.
Acts 5:34
''But a Pharisee named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law, who was honored by all the people, stood up in the Sanhedrin and ordered that the men be put outside for a little while.''

Acts 22:33
''Then Paul said: "I am a Jew, born in Tarsus of Cilicia, but brought up in this city. Under Gamaliel I was thoroughly trained in the law of our fathers and was just as zealous for God as any of you are today.''

As for your claim that Pharisees never persecuted any Christians, that's a rather blatant assertion. (You have yet to provide a good reason for it.) There is the stoning of Stephen, and the Christians must have fled from Jerusalem (to spread throughout the Roman Empire) for some reason. Of course many of the Pharisees actually became Christians themselves, but it does appear that whoever persecuted the early Christians were most likely those who had Jesus put to death (a faction within the Pharisees, including the High Priest). It also explains why King Herod became very popular with the Jews when he killed James.

Ironically, something you've mentioned here demonstrates that Paul had no knowledge of the Law too. The idea of a "curse of sin" is similiar to the "curse of sin" that the Gnostics believed in. Being from Tarsus, with a strong pre-Christian Gnostic base, Paul would have been familiar with this term. However, there is no "curse of sin" in Judaism or the Law. Most of Paul's comments on the Law can't be supported with any Jewish sources, and are simply fabricated. However, they bare a striking resemblence (because they were stolen from) pagan teachings.

No curse of sin within Judaism!!?? Then how do you explain this:

Genesis 3:14
So the LORD God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this, "Cursed are you above all the livestock and all the wild animals! You will crawl on your belly and you will eat dust all the days of your life.
Genesis 3:17
To Adam he said, "Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, 'You must not eat of it,' "Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life.
Genesis 4:11
Now you are under a curse and driven from the ground, which opened its mouth to receive your brother's blood from your hand.
Genesis 5:29
He named him Noah and said, "He will comfort us in the labor and painful toil of our hands caused by the ground the LORD has cursed."
Genesis 8:21
The LORD smelled the pleasing aroma and said in his heart: "Never again will I curse the ground because of man, even though every inclination of his heart is evil from childhood. And never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done.

Not according to early Christians, and even texts like 1 John.

No one who lives in him keeps on sinning. No one who continues to sin has either seen him or known him. (1 John 3:6)

If we do things displeasing to God, we obtain no further forgiveness of sins, but be shut out from His kingdom. (Irenaeus, Against Heresies.)

For do not many afterward fall out of (grace)? is not this gift taken away from many? (Tertullian, On Repentance.)

Once again, you're giving a modern, unhistorical interpretation. Early Christians believed and taught that to be saved, you had to repent and stop sinning. If you started sinning again, you lost your potential for salvation, and you had to repent and "get back on the wagon" so to speak.

You forgot to include these verses from I John:

''If we say we have no sin, we are only fooling ourselves and refusing to accept the truth. 9But if we confess our sins to him, he is faithful and just to forgive us and to cleanse us from every wrong. ''

This is a clear reference to the concept that we are sinless because we are forgiven, not because we are good at obeying the Law. And that cleansing from sin requires our repentance. It does not mean that we no longer will commit sin, but that we no longer need to sin, that we can be free from the slavery to sin, and that if we do sin, there is a way to be freed from it again. And yes, when we sin, we need to repent of it. All sin needs to be treated that way. Sin that is left unrepented for creates a separation between us and God. God is constantly at work in us to bring us back to repentance. The words of John suggest that the Christian needs to view repentance as a frequent thing (as frequent as one sins, he needs to repent of that sin), rather than a once only event.

John even goes on to say:
I John 2
''My dear children, I am writing this to you so that you will not sin. But if you do sin, there is someone to plead for you before the Father. He is Jesus Christ, the one who pleases God completely.[a] 2He is the sacrifice for our sins. He takes away not only our sins but the sins of all the world.''

Here he is saying clearly that IF you do sin, there is a way to be free from it again, through Jesus. He obviously did not think that Christians do not sin. What he meant is that one cannot continue to deliberately do the same sinful practice and still believe that he is following God. Genuine repentance means a genuine intention to avoid the same sin in the future. Failure to see this would mean a person has never really known God in the first place.

Of course, Christians today want feel-good Christianity. Of course they want to believe they can sin all the want and be saved. Its easy to see why anyone would want that. Its really a non-issue when discussing Christianity, however, because early Christians rejected it.

Apostle Paul addresses this issue here (and other places)
Romans 6
Well then, should we keep on sinning so that God can show us more and more kindness and forgiveness? 2Of course not! Since we have died to sin, how can we continue to live in it? 3Or have you forgotten that when we became Christians and were baptized to become one with Christ Jesus, we died with him? 4For we died and were buried with Christ by baptism. And just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glorious power of the Father, now we also may live new lives.

Here he is obviously showing that being a Christian means that one doesn't want to sin.
It isn't a matter of sinning all you want and still being saved. It is about how God's gracious gift of salvation is bigger than our tendency to sin, his way of saving us far stronger than our attempts (and failures) to obey Him--thank God for that!

What part of "if you want to enter into life, obey the commandments" (Matt 19:17) was unclear? This is just more wishful thinking on your part. You, as a Christian, want to believe that Jesus taught what you believe, instead of believing what Jesus suppossedly taught. This is another common plague in modern Christianity. The fact of the matter is, the Gospels don't teach what you believe. You believe what has been developed in Christianity over the last two centuries. Early Christians didn't believe or teach what you believe here, nor did Catholics, or Protestants in the Reformation. The beliefs that you adhere to were developed by Christians in the New World.

I have been trying to argue that if the message of Jesus was simply that eternal life was offered to those who were successful in obeying the commandments, it could not have been called good news. The Good News is not an invention by modern Christians, but was called Good News by Jesus himself. Thus, when Jesus was pointing to the commandments as the way of life, he was really telling people that they are not capable of finding life until they come to the giver of the commandments, Jesus himself. Contrary to your claims, I argue that this is not a modern Christian spin, but the whole basis of Christianity in the first place. Otherwise the first Christians would have been in the same position as the Jews, striving to keep the Law--something that Paul spent a lot of time talking about.

They believed you did have to adhere to the commandments, and this was later adapted to mean that you had to adhere to the Christian sacraments to be saved. In either case, you had to follow a form of law and ritual for salvation.

I would argue that the Christians who taught that were deviating from the original teachings of the Apostles and Prophets, since even Abraham did not rely on the ritual of circumcision for salvation, but was considered righteous before he was circumcised. Thus the ritual was a sign of salvation, not the grounds for salvation.

Considering that Paul makes up the majority of Christian teachings, and not Jesus, it would make sense that you're grateful for Paul. When the Scriptures were canonized, Catholics were grateful for Paul too, because they could interpret his writings to support the doctrines that they developed. Likewise, Paul is often ambiguous and easily interpreted to fit every modern doctrine out there. Its no wonder you're grateful for Paul.

I agree that the writings of Paul can easily be misinterpreted (something which you appear to be doing with ease). The Christians are promised the Holy Spirit to guide us into truth as we search the Scriptures for the voice of God.

I disagree that Paul makes up the majority of Christian teaching. Personally, I have always preferred to read the Gospels over the Epistles, thus for me, I spend most of my Bible reading time in the Gospels. Therefore, as far as I am concerned, the Gospels occupy far more of my thoughts and contemplations than the Epistles. I see the writings of the Apostles as a development of the original material--the life of Christ.

Bruarong

25-04-2006, 14:24

Within your own speculation, you tell us why it did not happen. Scribe was a family profession. It was a specialty that required intensive training. It was a good paying job of the middle class and upper working class of Egyptian society. If Moses was raised as a "prince of Egypt", i.e. part of the royal household, there is no way he would have been trained in a trade. He already had a function to perform in society. Members of the royal household typically dealt with the military, management level government administration, and civil project organization (planning all those building projects). They didn't have time to learn how to be scribes, or lawyers, or accountants, or any of that support staff stuff. They may have learned to read heiratic, but, just like executives of today, they much more likely dictated all their correspondence.

Yes, I had realized that argument before when I said that it was unlikely that Moses was trained as an Egyptian scribe. That is why I mentioned that if he was, it would have been an exceptional situation. But what we need to keep in mind is that much of the Biblical story involves miracles and exceptional situation. Indeed, the Hebrews took them to mean that God was at work in the world, either through common natural causes (one reaps what he sows, typically thought to be because of the way God created the world) or unusual natural causes (e.g. a series of plagues on the land of Egypt) or through miracles (events where the laws of nature are clearly suspended or reverse, e.g. broken).

Thus it may have been that Moses was educated to read Egyptian writing. On the other hand, his understanding of hieroglyphs was not necessary to the story, since while the claim is that he wrote the law, there was no mention of him writing it in hieroglyphs. The Hebrews appeared to have their own alphabet, as did many other cultures, at that time. It is more likely, perhaps, that he wrote the Law in Hebrew.

The way I see it, history/science and religion/spirituality are two completely different things -- two different systems of thought serving two different needs in life. They cannot do each other's jobs. Trying to make religion/spirituality do the job of history/science is like trying to trying to make your computer brew coffee and your coffeemaker print documents.

And what astonishes me is that, out of all those Bible literalists, creationists, and what have you, not one of them has ever tried to answer my question of why it has to be literally true. So many of them are working like mad to make their scriptures be the law of the land and the curriculum of every school, but they won't answer that one basic question. Why can't it be metaphor?

You ought to direct your question to a Christian if you want an answer from one of them.

Firstly, you need to understand the Good News of the Gospel in order to understand why it is thought to be more of a metaphor by some.
Let's take the resurrection of Christ as an example. Some say that the scriptures meant his resurrection as only a metaphor, or at least that we should think of his resurrection as only a metaphor, while others insist that Christ was indeed literally God and that he literally rose from the dead.

There is a passage of Scripture that deals with this exact issue.

I Corinthians 15 Apostle Paul writes:

''12But tell me this--since we preach that Christ rose from the dead, why are some of you saying there will be no resurrection of the dead? 13For if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised either. 14And if Christ was not raised, then all our preaching is useless, and your trust in God is useless. 15And we apostles would all be lying about God, for we have said that God raised Christ from the grave, but that can't be true if there is no resurrection of the dead. 16If there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised. 17And if Christ has not been raised, then your faith is useless, and you are still under condemnation for your sins. 18In that case, all who have died believing in Christ have perished! 19And if we have hope in Christ only for this life, we are the most miserable people in the world.''

In other words, Christ claimed to be able to forgive the sins of men, and his resurrection demonstrates that the sin is indeed forgiven. If this is literally true, then we can indeed be forgiven. If his claim cannot be taken literally, then we cannot be literally forgiven, since his lack of a resurrection would demonstrate that he was a man like any other, unable to take away the sins of the world.

It is the incredible claims of Christ that gives us hope. We know guilt. We recognise the state of our sin and shame and our shortcomings, and we also acknowledge the state of the absolute righteousness of God. These two states are eternally separated, except for those fantastic claims of Jesus Christ. If those claims are not literal, we Christians are indeed the most miserably mistaken people, for we have hoped where others have not, and we have thus lost where others have not. We dared to believe, and the risk is that it all might be false. Thankfully, though, we follow a God who gives us more faith and holds our hand (in a spiritual sense, which is in one sense more real than a physical sense) along the journey. He has not left us blunder along in the dark, but he gives us his spirit as a confirmation of our choosing to believe.

Bruarong

25-04-2006, 15:49

I didn't mean to suggest that the details have little or no importance. In fact, they are necessary, as you say, to carry the literal meaning of the story. They paint mythic images. What I am trying to say that those literal details that form the story are not where we find the myth; the myth is the non-literal meaning that accompanies the story. Whether it's a story of Noah or Atrahasis or Utnapishtim, the myth is the part behind the words, the part that speaks directly to the spirit. The audience comes to the myth (becomes it) through participating in the myth, through being it.

I can't find anything I disagree with there.

When you hear the story of Noah and how he saved the animals and his family to restore life to the flooded Earth, and then you plan your next vacation to Mt. Ararat to go find the Ark for yourself --that's not participation in the myth. That's participation in the details, in the literal story. But if you hear the story and from it know that God gives the blessing of love and will save the righteous, and it makes you more righteous and pious to hold that story in your hand, then you're participating in the myth.

That is the part that gets copied, and the details that form the mythic images come along for the ride. The flood was a common motif of the great destruction, because floods were common. Did such a flood actually happen? It doesn't matter, because it's just a vehicle of the meaning of the myth.

But when the story is presented as an explanation for e.g. the current state of affairs that the world is in, one needs to be very careful to attribute a story to myth only status. I have no problem accepting that Noah's flood was a myth, but I not ready to accept that it was the sort of myth that had no literal basis (without some rather obvious evidence -- by that I mean more than the speculations that are sometimes passed for evidence).

In other words, I hold that the story of Noah's flood is literally true unless we have an adequate way of proving otherwise. As you said, the truth in the story is important, perhaps more important than the event itself, I can't really say, but the truth of the story is the basis for which I accept the truth of the meaning. If the story of Noah is not literally true, then the truth that comes in the meaning of the story may also not be literally true. In other words, since the story of Noah was about God's mercy contrasted with his sense of justice, if the story was not true, then how do we know that God's mercy and God's justice has any 'realness' about it. If one only believes in the stories as myths, what is to prevent one thinking that God himself is not literal? If that is the case, then God was my invention, rather than me being His invention. That places me in the center of reality, and God's existence in my thoughts. That is, perhaps, precisely the difference between your belief in God, and mine. And it is my firm conviction that my life has indeed been changed by meeting a literal God, and that we are all creations of his. For we came from his heart, and we are on his mind, and we are very dear to him (regardless of how good or bad we are).

However, if it was true that God is 'only' an invention, an explanation, I would be the most mistaken person I know, since my whole life revolves around a personal knowledge of my heavenly Father, the most beloved person in my life.

For this reason, Willamena, I can recognise your viewpoint on myths, but I don't seriously entertain the idea that they (the Bible stories) may only be myths, particular in the absence of any convincing evidence to the contrary. Sure there are difficulties and apparent conflicts in the stories, but we also know that there are some pretty hefty difficulties with modern stories also, even ones we know to be true. Lack of information is simply not evidence for anything than a lack of information. While, I have plenty of personal evidence that God is real and that he and I commune every day.

The Most High Bob Dole

25-04-2006, 15:59

The life of Jesus is essentially the life of Ferdinand the warrior-goat staring a pacifist Jew instead of a mighty warrior-goat.

Muravyets

25-04-2006, 17:08

Kind of reminds me of one of the 'midrash' stories of the Creation. One of the midrash versions gives Eve as, not first... but third of Adam's wives.

Lilith was the first, created as an equal - but who insisted on ACTING as an equal. Some stories specify that her 'sin' was wanting to be the dominant partner in sex. Thus - she is exiled from heaven/Eden and goes on to spawn the Lilim, some type of demon.

The second 'bride' is never named - she is made specifically for Adam, but he is repulsed when he sees her being put together... all the human juices and squidgy bits revealed. Thus, she is supplanted... I don't recall it ever being quite clear WHAT happened to this 'unnamed bride'.

Eve is made while Adam is unconscious - thus avoiding the problems of the second bride, and she is made from Adam's own flesh... making her forever beholden to Adam... thus avoiding the problems of the first.
I hadn't heard a detailed version of the second wife story before. Interesting. One wonders just how many versions of their own creation story were floating around among the ancient Hebrews -- or even the not so ancient Hebrews, as they spread through the world into other traditions as well. One wonders if all these wives of Adam were actually Jewish to begin with. You'll notice that the Bulgarian (sorta-)Christian myths that I mentioned also give two versions -- God and Satan as a team and God and Satan as rivals for the credit (in fact, the rivals version has Satan doing most of the work of creation and God taking the credit for it -- satire, anyone?). All these stories start out being told by people around the campfire, as it were, and every storyteller puts his own spin on it, using his own dreams, visions, social attitudes, and stories told by tellers before him.

That's because shamanic principles tend to be based on observation. An 'acquired' knowledge, not a 'revealed' one. Crops DO grow better in the fields where the animals are allowed to expel their waste, the decay of a body DOES lead to other 'life'.

If one bears in mind that we live in a system, that everything goes 'around'... it isn't too difficult to see the 'shaman' approach as actually fairly obvious.
True. As pure description of the natural world, shamanistic tales are quite reasonable. But they become difficult in two ways.

First, shamans formulate their approach while fasting on mountaintops, staring into a bright light for weeks on end, sometimes while ingesting hallucinogens or (more commonly) stimulants. That makes for some vivid descriptions, let me tell you. You want to get into some serious tripping, read Russian folktales -- those dudes were smoking some shit, man. Woo!

Second, the stories aren't just description. There are subtle admonitions in them as well, about the difference between the way the world is and the way people might wish it to be. People don't like to think about the messy physical processes of life, including death and decay. They especially don't like to think about their own deaths or the uncontrollable permanent changes our bodies go through as we live. We don't like to think of ourselves as impermanent or as just part of the process. That's normal, but if it doesn't get a reality check now and then, it turns into an egotism that starts to think the rules of life shouldn't apply to us. I read so many of these stories, and in many of them I see a kind of edginess, as if the storyteller is deliberately trying to make his audience uncomfortable by challenging their ideas of how the world should be ordered. The message seems to be that, if you're freaked out by stuff like this, you can't be happy or free in life, so you have to look at it, you have to think about it, whether you like it or not. Reading interviews with shamans from various parts of the world, I sometimes see a certain impatience with people who are freaked out by such things, a kind of "when are they going to grow up" attitude.

I'm not sure.... Titan means 'clay men' ('white clay men', maybe) doesn't it?

Much like 'Adam' is so called because he is made of 'red clay'...
Another interesting detail. According to my collection of Greek myths, the Titans Epimetheus and Prometheus, acting as artisans, made human beings. Epimetheus molded them out of clay, and Prometheus breathed life into them. This is almost certainly a pre-Hellenistic myth, but in the surviving versions, they did this at the behest of the Olympian gods. Later, of course, Prometheus felt the gods were neglecting or oppressing human beings, so he stole the power of the gods -- mastery of fire -- and gave it to human beings, thus freeing them of total control by the gods. We all know how he was punished for that. I have some versions of this story that talk about Epimetheus making the different races of men out of different colors of clay, implying that it is one of the few creation myths that try to account for all of humanity. This is possibly a later twist, as the Greeks spread their influence through the ancient world, meeting up with different kinds of people.

That's what the forum is for. :) Hidden among the abundance of "Chuck Norris is better than Bush" threads, there are the occassional glimmers of worthwhile thought... ;)
That's why I spend so much time here. I'm generally quite impressed with the quality of thinking that goes on here. We dig diamonds out of the dirt, as a shaman might say. ;)

Muravyets

25-04-2006, 17:26

Agreed. One only has to look at the King Arthur stories to see just exactly this...

Doubtless there was an original monarch on whom the initial story was based... but how many times was that tale told before the first 'wise man' became added (Welsh: Myrddyn, I believe - we now say 'Merlin')... and how many more times before the Goddess/Fury/Fairy "The Morrigan" had been devolved to the incestuous/rapist 'Morgana le Fey'?

BY the time our 'received' version of the story was born, one has to wonder just how much of the story had ANY connection to one real king, how much was conflated from other stories, and how much was sheer fancy.
Celtic legends are especially good examples of this, as are the grand legends of Scandanavian and Slavic cultures -- pretty much the north/northeastern edges of the Roman Empire. The more you analyze these tales to pick out the pagan from the Christian and the ancient from the less ancient, the more features you find that can only be accounted for as pure art -- individual authors taking artistic liberties to make cobbled-together stories work better and in the process, creating new works. I don't think any of those beautiful sagas can be used to trace cultural traditions anymore. You get better results with the less crafted folklore tales and customs.

Muravyets

25-04-2006, 18:22

Yes, I had realized that argument before when I said that it was unlikely that Moses was trained as an Egyptian scribe. That is why I mentioned that if he was, it would have been an exceptional situation. But what we need to keep in mind is that much of the Biblical story involves miracles and exceptional situation. Indeed, the Hebrews took them to mean that God was at work in the world, either through common natural causes (one reaps what he sows, typically thought to be because of the way God created the world) or unusual natural causes (e.g. a series of plagues on the land of Egypt) or through miracles (events where the laws of nature are clearly suspended or reverse, e.g. broken).

Thus it may have been that Moses was educated to read Egyptian writing. On the other hand, his understanding of hieroglyphs was not necessary to the story, since while the claim is that he wrote the law, there was no mention of him writing it in hieroglyphs. The Hebrews appeared to have their own alphabet, as did many other cultures, at that time. It is more likely, perhaps, that he wrote the Law in Hebrew.
All I get from this is that, if Moses wrote the books attributed to him, it would have been a miracle.

You appear to accept that Moses was raised in the Pharaoh's household. You appear to accept that, historically, it is unlikely that he would have been taught to read and write there. Yet rather than consider that someone else might have written the story of his life, you insist that he still did learn to read and write and wrote it himself (including the part where he died?).

But tell me this then: If Moses learned to read and write in the house of an Egyptian Pharoah, wouldn't he have been taught the Egyptian language? So how, then, did he write the Law in Hebrew? And when did he learn to write Hebrew? It sure wasn't while he was living with those Egyptian aristocrats, and I highly doubt it was while he was laboring with the Hebrew slaves.

Oh, I know, while he was up on Sinai, God miraculously taught him how to read and write Hebrew. It's the only possible answer.

But if that is the case, why are you insisting he had to learn to read and write while he was in Egypt?

You ought to direct your question to a Christian if you want an answer from one of them.
Because this isn't a public forum where anyone can read a question and answer it, no matter who it is directed to -- the way you just did?

BTW, I have directed this question to Christians before. In fact, I directed very specific questions to you about the promise of eternal life and the life of the soul, which you have not yet addressed.

Firstly, you need to understand the Good News of the Gospel in order to understand why it is thought to be more of a metaphor by some.
Let's take the resurrection of Christ as an example. Some say that the scriptures meant his resurrection as only a metaphor, or at least that we should think of his resurrection as only a metaphor, while others insist that Christ was indeed literally God and that he literally rose from the dead.

There is a passage of Scripture that deals with this exact issue.

I Corinthians 15 Apostle Paul writes:

''12But tell me this--since we preach that Christ rose from the dead, why are some of you saying there will be no resurrection of the dead? 13For if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised either. 14And if Christ was not raised, then all our preaching is useless, and your trust in God is useless. 15And we apostles would all be lying about God, for we have said that God raised Christ from the grave, but that can't be true if there is no resurrection of the dead. 16If there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised. 17And if Christ has not been raised, then your faith is useless, and you are still under condemnation for your sins. 18In that case, all who have died believing in Christ have perished! 19And if we have hope in Christ only for this life, we are the most miserable people in the world.''

In other words, Christ claimed to be able to forgive the sins of men, and his resurrection demonstrates that the sin is indeed forgiven. If this is literally true, then we can indeed be forgiven. If his claim cannot be taken literally, then we cannot be literally forgiven, since his lack of a resurrection would demonstrate that he was a man like any other, unable to take away the sins of the world.

It is the incredible claims of Christ that gives us hope. We know guilt. We recognise the state of our sin and shame and our shortcomings, and we also acknowledge the state of the absolute righteousness of God. These two states are eternally separated, except for those fantastic claims of Jesus Christ. If those claims are not literal, we Christians are indeed the most miserably mistaken people, for we have hoped where others have not, and we have thus lost where others have not. We dared to believe, and the risk is that it all might be false. Thankfully, though, we follow a God who gives us more faith and holds our hand (in a spiritual sense, which is in one sense more real than a physical sense) along the journey. He has not left us blunder along in the dark, but he gives us his spirit as a confirmation of our choosing to believe.
I'm sorry, this doesn't really make much sense to me.

FIRST, you are only talking about the resurrection. I was asking about why the whole Bible and all its stories have to be treated as history. I was also asking why some Christians seem to have a problem with other people telling different stories, as if this somehow affects what they believe. You're not addressing that at all.

SECOND, you start out saying that some people say its metaphor and others say it's literal, but you don't tell me which is supposedly right. Is there a general consensus among Christians and, if so, which view is most common? And where do you fall on this spectrum? All you do is describe the literalist viewpoint without addressing the why of it.

THIRD, you seem to be saying that, according to the literalist view of the resurrection, if it is a metaphor, then you all would have been wasting your time being Christians. That right there is my big mental disconnect with this issue. I just start exploding with questions and objections.

Try to understand how this looks to an outsider. I am left wondering: Are you expecting some kind of pay-off for not sinning? Isn't virtue it's own reward? Or is Christ's promise a quid pro quo deal? Are you saying that if God doesn't come through with some future payment for your efforts, then he's a liar who wasted your time? Are you saying that, by choosing to become a Christian, you've put God under some obligation to you -- that God owes you, in other words?

Also, do you expect to be literally raised from the grave as a physical person some day? What will you be doing in the meantime, from when you die till when you come back? Won't you be in heaven with God? Why would you need or want to come back from that? For what purpose are the dead going to be raised in their physical bodies? To go to heaven on the Judgment Day? But why do they need bodies in heaven? And does this mean that Christians don't go to heaven when they die? Do they have to sit and wait in their graves? I never met a Christian who believed that before. Certainly none of the people who have tried to convert me over the years ever said such a thing. It's not much of a selling point -- but were they deliberately lying to me?

FOURTH, I'm not satisfied with your quote from Corinthians. This is just describing the objections of skeptics. What is its answer to these objections? Does it go on to say that literalists are not understanding the meaning of the stories, or does it assure them that it's all true, God does owe them a resurrection, and they can trust that he's good for it?

FIFTH, if this really is the way literalists view their religion, it leaves me wondering why they took it up at all. They don't seem to enjoy being virtuous -- or else why would they want to a future pay-off for doing it? And despite what they say, it doesn't seem as if they really feel a personal connection to their god during their lives. They are still waiting for something more to happen. I don't get it. I just don't.

Grave_n_idle

26-04-2006, 00:03

I hadn't heard a detailed version of the second wife story before. Interesting. One wonders just how many versions of their own creation story were floating around among the ancient Hebrews -- or even the not so ancient Hebrews, as they spread through the world into other traditions as well. One wonders if all these wives of Adam were actually Jewish to begin with. You'll notice that the Bulgarian (sorta-)Christian myths that I mentioned also give two versions -- God and Satan as a team and God and Satan as rivals for the credit (in fact, the rivals version has Satan doing most of the work of creation and God taking the credit for it -- satire, anyone?). All these stories start out being told by people around the campfire, as it were, and every storyteller puts his own spin on it, using his own dreams, visions, social attitudes, and stories told by tellers before him.

I think the Bulgarian version is probably more in the Gnostic vein... I have heard of 'gnostic' teachings that involved Jesus and Satan as 'twin sons' of God, for example - and I have heard of versions that teach that the character that dictated 'the Bible' was actually Satan, and the character we all shun is the true god.

Actually - that's one of the things that kind of offends me about common Christianity - and one of (what I perceive as) the major weaknesses it has against Judaism and some Christian schools of thought, and even Islam.

Christianity takes a peculiarly 'finished' view of their scripture - and yet, they play all kinds of fast-and-loose with it.

Islam takes a similar 'permanent' view - but avoids much of the debate and fuss, by the simple precedent that a translated Koran, just is not the same as a 'real' one in the native script.

Judaism, collectively, seems to revel in dissecting the text, fine-tuning the understanding of the material. The Jehovah's Witnesses are the only Christian sect I can think of that put the SAME sort of effort into the analysis of the scripture.

Christianity, on the other hand - is somewhere between complacent (most Christians know little or no Hebrew, Greek or Aramiac - DESPITE those being the languages their scripture was orginally written in) and willfully ignorant. The scripture itself warns against 'thinking too much' for ourselves (Colossians 2:8 "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.") and many Christians seem to have taken it as license to accept whatever they are told at face value.

Tropical Sands

26-04-2006, 00:14

Baptism is the process by which we are saved, but the water baptism is only a symbol of the spiritual one. The water baptism has no power at all to save the newly born child. That the Protestants taught salvation through a water baptism doesn't make it right. It was always the spiritual baptism through which our salvation came.

You seem to be missing it. Your interpretation is modern, it didn't exist before the 19th century or so. Water baptism being a necessary criteria for salvation was taught by early Christians, as I've demonstrated with Tertullian, Iraneaus, and I could go on and on with Polycarp, Eusebius, etc. It continued being taught as necessary for salvation by the Catholic church, Orthodox sects, and even Protestants up through the reformation. No, the fact that they taught it doesn't make it "right." It simply means that it is the historical teaching of the subject. Your interpretation is the unhistorical, modern, pop-culture version.

In Romans 6, Paul mentions how in our baptism we died. He is not talking about a physical death here, but the death of the old nature. That should give us clear indication that the baptism that he referred to was the spiritual baptism.

There is no logical principle of exegesis that would demonstrate that because Paul was talking about a death of the old nature, that the baptism didn't refer to baptism by water. If you break this down in syllogistic form, I think you'll find that you've committed the fallacy of the undistributed middle.

I Peter 3

19So he went and preached to the spirits in prison-- 20those who disobeyed God long ago when God waited patiently while Noah was building his boat. Only eight people were saved from drowning in that terrible flood.[c] 21And this is a picture of baptism, which now saves you by the power of Jesus Christ's resurrection. Baptism is not a removal of dirt from your body; it is an appeal to God from[d] a clean conscience.

Noah's flood was a *picture* (involving water) of the more *real* spiritual baptism, the process by which we are saved. Obviously, we don't all need to survive a great flood in order to be saved. But we do need to experience the spiritual death and resurrection, the same process that Jesus went through on a spiritual level (as opposed to a physical one), in order to be saved.

He even goes further to say that there is nothing about a physical washing that saves us, but it is the seeking of God from or for a clean conscience.

It doesn't say that a physical washing doesn't save you. It states that baptism is not a removal of dirt from your body. It clearly states that baptism does save you. And unless it states that baptism means something other than the literal meaning of the word (which it doesnt) then the only proper exegsis of this verse is to interpret it as it states.

This is a perfect example of the modern, pop-culture Christianity interpretation of these types of verses. When it states something about baptism, it is common to insert the word "spiritual" so that the moden pop-culture Christians can claim it doesnt refer to what it literally states, but a metaphorical spiritual baptism. Once again, sound exegsis would prohibit this practice, as it states "baptism" and nothing about "spiritual baptism" - when in fact the NT is clear between the two, and the former is used here alone.

On the contrary, the scripture is full of references to the spiritual baptism, which in the eyes of the writers of the NT was more real than a physical baptism involving water.

Yes, it does refer to spiritual baptism. It states that baptism by water is spiritual. Nowhere does it refer to a "spiritual baptism" aside from a baptism by water. Nor does it state that it is "more real."

My personal interpretation might be at odds with your personal interpretation, but though you can claim all you like to know the beliefs of the early Christians, it just comes down to you personal interpretations and opinions versus mine.

No, it doesn't. You've slipped into the fallacy of subjectivity here. The fact is, early Christians did objectively believe things. And those things are as I've cited, and proven, using the writings and interpretations of early Christians. When Iraneaus gives a long commentary on how to properly baptize someone, and quotes the verses I've used as support, in addition to the fact that baptism being necessary for salvation has always been a key Christian doctrine until about 200 years ago, its pretty clear what early Christians thought.

Consider the first verse of II Peter
''This letter is from Simon[a] Peter, a slave and apostle of Jesus Christ.
I am writing to all of you who share the same precious faith we have, faith given to us by Jesus Christ, our God and Savior, who makes us right with God.''

Clearly, here is yet another emphasis on faith, and that on the basis of this faith we are made right with God. Thus, you are right to say that faith never saved anyone. It is God that saves us, on the condition of our faith in Him. This was a very prevalent message throughout the NT, beginning with Jesus, and ending with John.

Sure, there are lots of emphasis' on faith in the NT. And once again, coming from the modern pop-culture POV, you seem to think that an emphasis on faith removes emphasis from other acts necessary for salvation, like baptism and communion. However, they don't. It does not state that faith is all that saves you, or that God is all that saves you. It simply states "It is God that saves us." This does not state "It is God alone that saves us" or any other exclusive, objective statement. In short, this is why early Christians and the NT taught multiple criteria for salvation.

For another example, consider this from Acts 13

'' 38"Brothers, listen! In this man Jesus there is forgiveness for your sins. 39Everyone who believes in him is freed from all guilt and declared right with God--something the Jewish law could never do.''

And once again, nowhere does this say that Jesus is all that forgives sins. It simply states that in Jesus there is forgiveness for sins. This does not demonstrate in any way that baptism, eucharist, etc. are not necessary as well. If it did, we would have had early Christian sects that taught that all you had to do was believe; none existed.

This verse is also a good example of how we know Paul was not a Pharisee or expert in the Law. If he had been, he would know that according to the Jewish Law anyone who makes tehsuva is "freed from all guilt and declared right with God." Halacha is quite clear on this fact, and so is Isaiah 43. No one truly familiar with the Law can take anything Paul says seriously.

That is why there were so few Jewish converts to Christianity, and why Goyim bought the Jesus myth wholesale.

So as long as it had been said before Jesus' time, it could not have been said by Jesus. That's very presumptious of you. Not at all careful scholarship. That means if I happen to articulate a truth that Hinduism had discovered 3 thousand years ago, I *must* have been reading Hindu literature. As it happens, I have read some Hindu literature, and I have found some things there that I agreed with, but it does not necessarily follow that I learned my ideas from Hinduism.
And if Jesus was to go around quoting pagans and rabbis, does that explain why the rabbis wanted him dead? Didn't they kill him because he posed a threat to their control of the people? And wasn't their excuse to kill him on the basis that he admitted that he was God? It is because he was an original that they wanted him dead.
I consider your expressed opinion here a clear example of your bias.

Perhaps you misunderstand. Jesus didn't simply "articulate a truth." The Gospel authors quoted, word for word, pagan texts. If this was done today, it would be called plagerism or literary theft. It isn't that there are just vague remnants of pagan teachings, we find entire passages "cut and pasted" out of pagan texts.

In addition, no rabbis killed Jesus. The Gospels don't claim that they did, either. The whole "the rabbis wanted him dead" is part of the Gospel polemic against the Jews. You have to keep in mind that the Gospels were written by Goyim for a Roman audience. The Jews were thus demonized, while Pilate was put in a less guilty light.

The fact of the matter is, persecuting Jesus would have been against Jewish Law, so would the method of execution, etc. Pilate was known to persecuted and crucify rebel and messiah figures, at one time killing near 500. There are very few records of the Sanhedrin executing people, as I've stated before. A Sanhedrin that executed one person in 70 years was considered to be reckless and irresponsible. And there is no real account of any perseuction of this Jesus figure outside of these religious polemics against Jews.

I would also keep in mind that the rabbis didn't hold any power over people during this time period. The power in Judea was weilded by Sadducees, who didn't have rabbis, not Pharisees.

Those of us who are familiar with the history of the time period tend to reject the Gospel account of Jesus' discourses with Jews in full. Generally, only believers of the Jesus myth take any interactions between Jesus and the Jews to have any historical basis. Modern scholarship has recognized it for what it is - anti-Semitic polemic.

I thought I made it clear to you that the Gospels were not about a heavy emphasis on legal observance.
For example, Luke 4

''16When he came to the village of Nazareth, his boyhood home, he went as usual to the synagogue on the Sabbath and stood up to read the Scriptures. 17The scroll containing the messages of Isaiah the prophet was handed to him, and he unrolled the scroll to the place where it says:

18
"The Spirit of the Lord is upon me,
for he has appointed me to preach Good News to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim
that captives will be released,
that the blind will see,
that the downtrodden will be freed from their oppressors,

19 and that the time of the Lord's favor has come.[e]"
20He rolled up the scroll, handed it back to the attendant, and sat down. Everyone in the synagogue stared at him intently. 21Then he said, "This Scripture has come true today before your very eyes!"
22All who were there spoke well of him and were amazed by the gracious words that fell from his lips. "How can this be?" they asked. "Isn't this Joseph's son?"

Thus, the Gospels were an emphasis on the Good News of the Lord's favour. If, on the other hand, Jesus was stirring people up to become better Law keepers, it would not have been good news for them, nor gracious words from his lips.

You've drawn a false dichotomy between "legal observance" and "good news" here. The latter really has nothing to do with the former, nor does anything in the verses you've quoted demonstrate anything about the Law. Rather, we see Pharsaic Law attributed to Jesus - laws on adultery of Shammai, for example. A lack of emphasis on the Law developed as Christianity switched from a Jewish fringe group to a Goy religion. And even then, like I stated, early Christians, on through the Catholic church, early Reformers, etc. all placed heavy emphasis on their own Christianized version of the Law.

Perhaps, it was only a parable, but at any rate my point was that the Pharisees were the experts at Law keeping, and Jesus said clearly that our righteousness was to exceed theirs, otherwise we could not enter the Kingdom of God. That clearly points to another way (other than observance of the Law) as the process of salvation. The way was the the spiritual baptism. When John the Baptist preached, it was to bring about repentence among the people, and a focus on doing God's will. The physical baptism was a means to this end.

It is impossible to logically draw the conclusion that from having to exceed the righteousness of the Pharisees there is another way aside from this. In fact, you're committing the fallacy of denying the consequent.

No, I was not altering the Law. And I think it amusing that you would demonstrate my 'mangling' by mentioning the customs of the Sanhedrin (probably a Pharisee invention) when in fact that Law was given much earlier. Futhermore, the Pharisees seem to be quite ready to take life in order to fulfill the Law. For example, the woman caught in the act of adultery was almost stoned to death, and Stephen was stoned to death for blasphemy.

You were, you simply aren't familiar with Halacha. Its okay, most Christians aren't (I've never met one who is). And as I stated before, when we have Christian accounts of "evil Jews" doing things like trying to stone people, we reject them, because they are inconsistent with what we know to be historical fact. They are just remnants of the Christian polemics against Jews. You wont find a shred of serious scholarship that supports the claims of the Gospels or Paul regarding the Pharisees. The only persons that believe these things to be true are those adherents to the Jesus myth.

As for your claim that Pharisees never persecuted any Christians, that's a rather blatant assertion. (You have yet to provide a good reason for it.) There is the stoning of Stephen, and the Christians must have fled from Jerusalem (to spread throughout the Roman Empire) for some reason. Of course many of the Pharisees actually became Christians themselves, but it does appear that whoever persecuted the early Christians were most likely those who had Jesus put to death (a faction within the Pharisees, including the High Priest). It also explains why King Herod became very popular with the Jews when he killed James.

1. There is no record of Pharisees persecuting Christians outside of Christian polemics against Jews, today rejected by modern scholarship.
2. Persecution of Christians would have violated Jewish Law; thus, the claim that Pharisees were strict adherents and yet ran around persecuting Christians is inconsistent.

Its from these facts that we know Pharisees didn't persecute Christians, and that the spurious claims from Christians that they did are typical polemics.

I guess I should also clue you in - Herod wasn't a Pharisee. Neither was the High Priest. Nor is there record of "many Pharisees" becoming Christians. Paul's claim to be a Pharisee, once again, is rejected by modern scholarship and believed only by those who take the texts as true a priori and adhere to the Jesus myth.

No curse of sin within Judaism!!?? Then how do you explain this:

Genesis 3:14
So the LORD God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this, "Cursed are you above all the livestock and all the wild animals! You will crawl on your belly and you will eat dust all the days of your life.
Genesis 3:17
To Adam he said, "Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, 'You must not eat of it,' "Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life.
Genesis 4:11
Now you are under a curse and driven from the ground, which opened its mouth to receive your brother's blood from your hand.
Genesis 5:29
He named him Noah and said, "He will comfort us in the labor and painful toil of our hands caused by the ground the LORD has cursed."
Genesis 8:21
The LORD smelled the pleasing aroma and said in his heart: "Never again will I curse the ground because of man, even though every inclination of his heart is evil from childhood. And never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done.

Well forget what a Jew is telling you about Judaism. I guess your modern Christian interpretation of Jewish scriptures lets you know what Judaism believes about sin better than a Jew telling you.

Nowhere in those verses does it talk about a "curse of sin." Nor do we believe in one. You seem to be under a curse, though, the curse of ethnocentrism. You assume that your ethnocentric interpretation of our scriptures is going to tell you something about our religion. Get a clue.

You forgot to include these verses from I John:

''If we say we have no sin, we are only fooling ourselves and refusing to accept the truth. 9But if we confess our sins to him, he is faithful and just to forgive us and to cleanse us from every wrong. ''

This is a clear reference to the concept that we are sinless because we are forgiven, not because we are good at obeying the Law. And that cleansing from sin requires our repentance. It does not mean that we no longer will commit sin, but that we no longer need to sin, that we can be free from the slavery to sin, and that if we do sin, there is a way to be freed from it again. And yes, when we sin, we need to repent of it. All sin needs to be treated that way. Sin that is left unrepented for creates a separation between us and God. God is constantly at work in us to bring us back to repentance. The words of John suggest that the Christian needs to view repentance as a frequent thing (as frequent as one sins, he needs to repent of that sin), rather than a once only event.

It doesn't state that you're sinless because you're forgiven. It states that it cleanses you from every wrong. Now, perhaps you don't know what sin is, but sin is in fact a verb, not an adjective. You don't "have" sin, you commit sin. If you were truly saved, this verse just reinforces what 1 John states, it would cleanse you from sinning. That is, you would no longer commit sins anymore.

And as I've demonstrated with the early Christian texts from Tertullian and Iraneaus, early Christians agreed. They believed that if you sinned after you were "saved" you were either never really saved, or you had to go get back on the wagon. That is why salvation was never totally assured.

The idea that you can be 100% sure of your salvation, once again, is a belief about 200 years old.

John even goes on to say:
I John 2
''My dear children, I am writing this to you so that you will not sin. But if you do sin, there is someone to plead for you before the Father. He is Jesus Christ, the one who pleases God completely.[a] 2He is the sacrifice for our sins. He takes away not only our sins but the sins of all the world.''

Here he is saying clearly that IF you do sin, there is a way to be free from it again, through Jesus. He obviously did not think that Christians do not sin. What he meant is that one cannot continue to deliberately do the same sinful practice and still believe that he is following God. Genuine repentance means a genuine intention to avoid the same sin in the future. Failure to see this would mean a person has never really known God in the first place.

This verse doesn't state that you're saved if you sin. It simply states that if you do sin, you can repent. It doesn't say that those who are truly saved still sin anywhere.

Apostle Paul addresses this issue here (and other places)
Romans 6
Well then, should we keep on sinning so that God can show us more and more kindness and forgiveness? 2Of course not! Since we have died to sin, how can we continue to live in it? 3Or have you forgotten that when we became Christians and were baptized to become one with Christ Jesus, we died with him? 4For we died and were buried with Christ by baptism. And just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glorious power of the Father, now we also may live new lives.

Here he is obviously showing that being a Christian means that one doesn't want to sin.
It isn't a matter of sinning all you want and still being saved. It is about how God's gracious gift of salvation is bigger than our tendency to sin, his way of saving us far stronger than our attempts (and failures) to obey Him--thank God for that!

Where does it state anything about "wanting to sin?" It states "since we have died to sin, how can we live in it." It doesn't actually state anything you've claimed. Reading it literally, without a modern pop-culture interpretation, it doesn't support your point at all.

I have been trying to argue that if the message of Jesus was simply that eternal life was offered to those who were successful in obeying the commandments, it could not have been called good news. The Good News is not an invention by modern Christians, but was called Good News by Jesus himself. Thus, when Jesus was pointing to the commandments as the way of life, he was really telling people that they are not capable of finding life until they come to the giver of the commandments, Jesus himself. Contrary to your claims, I argue that this is not a modern Christian spin, but the whole basis of Christianity in the first place. Otherwise the first Christians would have been in the same position as the Jews, striving to keep the Law--something that Paul spent a lot of time talking about.

Oh I see, so when Jesus said "if you want to enter life, obey the commandments" he didn't actually mean it. He really meant something that had nothing to do with the commandments. That makes a ton of sense.

And if you claim this isn't a modern interpretation, support it with early Christian sources. I have with all of my claims. If you can't, be honest and admit that it is modern.

I would argue that the Christians who taught that were deviating from the original teachings of the Apostles and Prophets, since even Abraham did not rely on the ritual of circumcision for salvation, but was considered righteous before he was circumcised. Thus the ritual was a sign of salvation, not the grounds for salvation.

Ssince most of your interpretations and beliefs originate in New World Protestantism, to argue that the Christians who taught that were deviating would be to argue that no form of Christianity was correct until about 200 years ago. Of course, like most Christians, you believe that your interpretation and version is correct while the centuries of Christians before you had it all wrong.

This is why Christianity is the most divided religion in the world, with near 40,000 sects, and has the least coherency of any religion. Because Christians can interpret it any way they want, and pretend that their brand new interpretation is the way it was all along.

Tropical Sands

26-04-2006, 00:30

Thus it may have been that Moses was educated to read Egyptian writing. On the other hand, his understanding of hieroglyphs was not necessary to the story, since while the claim is that he wrote the law, there was no mention of him writing it in hieroglyphs. The Hebrews appeared to have their own alphabet, as did many other cultures, at that time. It is more likely, perhaps, that he wrote the Law in Hebrew.

Hebrew didn't exist during this time period. The Hebrew language and alphabet was developed later and was based on the Phoenician alphabet. The Hebrew people didn't begin using it until around two and a half centuries minimum after the date when Moses would have existed.

Firstly, you need to understand the Good News of the Gospel in order to understand why it is thought to be more of a metaphor by some.
Let's take the resurrection of Christ as an example. Some say that the scriptures meant his resurrection as only a metaphor, or at least that we should think of his resurrection as only a metaphor, while others insist that Christ was indeed literally God and that he literally rose from the dead.

There is a passage of Scripture that deals with this exact issue.

I Corinthians 15 Apostle Paul writes:

''12But tell me this--since we preach that Christ rose from the dead, why are some of you saying there will be no resurrection of the dead? 13For if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised either. 14And if Christ was not raised, then all our preaching is useless, and your trust in God is useless. 15And we apostles would all be lying about God, for we have said that God raised Christ from the grave, but that can't be true if there is no resurrection of the dead. 16If there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised. 17And if Christ has not been raised, then your faith is useless, and you are still under condemnation for your sins. 18In that case, all who have died believing in Christ have perished! 19And if we have hope in Christ only for this life, we are the most miserable people in the world.''

In other words, Christ claimed to be able to forgive the sins of men, and his resurrection demonstrates that the sin is indeed forgiven. If this is literally true, then we can indeed be forgiven. If his claim cannot be taken literally, then we cannot be literally forgiven, since his lack of a resurrection would demonstrate that he was a man like any other, unable to take away the sins of the world.

The only belief system that that passage refers to was the dispute on a resurrection of the dead. Certain groups (such as Sadducees) did not believe in a resurrection of the dead, while others (Pharisees) believed it was a cornerstone. Even today, part of our 13 principles of faith is a belief in the resurrection of the dead.

The above passage, however, says nothing about if Jesus' resurrection was a literal physical one, or a metaphorical spiritual one.

The fact that early Christian groups in the first century did not believe that Jesus literally rose from the dead is a wonderful piece of evidence that the resurrection of Jesus is a myth. If this were a historical, literal event, then there would not have been Christiain groups in the same time period and area that disputed it.

Ashmoria

26-04-2006, 01:55

The fact that early Christian groups in the first century did not believe that Jesus literally rose from the dead is a wonderful piece of evidence that the resurrection of Jesus is a myth. If this were a historical, literal event, then there would not have been Christiain groups in the same time period and area that disputed it.
so tropical, since you know stuff...

now ive come to wonder not so much about the pagan influences in christianity, but the jewish influences on chrisitianity.

you seem to be saying that religious jews would have had nothing to do with jesus (if he existed at all), and that jesus and the original disciples didnt seem to have much of a grasp of judaism. i read, for example, that they quote the old testament incorrectly in several places.

do you see christianity as coming from hellenized jews who were taking their sketchy understanding of their cultural relligion and updating it with pagan ideas so as to "fit in"?

or do you think it was more that certain pagans/gnostics came upon judaism and loved its ideas but warped it with their own pagan notions ( and reistance to what might be required if they signed on for real)

does the question make sense?

is it hellenized judaism or judafied paganism?

Tropical Sands

26-04-2006, 02:56

do you see christianity as coming from hellenized jews who were taking their sketchy understanding of their cultural relligion and updating it with pagan ideas so as to "fit in"?

or do you think it was more that certain pagans/gnostics came upon judaism and loved its ideas but warped it with their own pagan notions ( and reistance to what might be required if they signed on for real)

does the question make sense?

is it hellenized judaism or judafied paganism?

I think Christianity was more the result of pagans/gnostics that came upon Judaism and then developed the Jesus myth as a result. Of course, there is definately some elements that demonstrate it was the result of Hellenized Judaism as well. For example, the extensive quoting of the Septuagint. And while I think it is mostly the former, the work of non-Jews who came upon Judaism, there is definately the element within that was the result of Hellenized Jews as well. So it would be both, in part, rather than a pure either/or.

In addition, the two can overlap. For example, in the beginning of the Gospel of John it talks about the word, or logos. That the logos was God, etc. This was borrowed from Philo's philosophy, who was a Hellenized Jew. Philo got the original concept of the logos in this fashion from Plato, who was a pagan non-Jew. So we see borrowing back and forth. And that was the case with Hellenized Judaism as well; it was essentially Jews who borrowed pagan concepts.

While the Gospel of John demonstrates something from Hellenism (the logos, as above), in many of Paul's writings we can see a distinctly pagan outlook that doesn't have much of a parallel in Hellenized Judaism. For example, Paul's commentary on salvation and the resurrection is similiar to that of adherents in what we call "mystery religions" (not because they are a mystery to us, but because they are mystical in nature). From this POV, Paul interprets Judaism, the Law, etc. in a mystery religion context. Ironically, Paul claimed to be a Jew and a Pharisee (both claims being highly suspect in scholarship today), when even a Hellenized Jew would demonstrate a more thorough knowledge of Judaism and the Law than Paul did. So when it comes to the Epistles, it would seem we have a more strict pagan spin than a Hellenized Jewish spin.

Probably the best evidence that it is more Judaified Paganism rather than Paganized Judaism would be the amount of material copied from pagan sources in the Gospels vs the amount of material copied from Jewish sources. Although virtually all of Jesus' parables, many of his teachings, and sayings are copied from rabbinical sources, the vast body of the Gospels, the plot, character forms, etc. are borrowed from pagan sources. His entire birth story is unoriginal (it parallels the story of Zoroaster's birth), the miracles he ran around doing are unoriginal (healings previously done by Aesclapeus, water into wine by Dionysus, demons into pigs by Eluseus, walking on water by Orion, Osiris, Pythagoras, etc), the resurrection is the core belief of mystery religions, and can be found in a dozen different forms in the Judea of that time period. So since the plot is pagan and the storyline and events are pagan, I would have to say that it was mostly a pagan creation rather than a jewish one. It was simply given a Jewish flare and put into a Jewish setting.

Bruarong

26-04-2006, 12:34

All I get from this is that, if Moses wrote the books attributed to him, it would have been a miracle.

Not a miracle, but an exceptional situation. Alexander the Great conquered his world (at least a good deal of it) by the age of 30, or so we are told, but presumeably not because of a miracle. It was an exceptional situation.

You appear to accept that Moses was raised in the Pharaoh's household. You appear to accept that, historically, it is unlikely that he would have been taught to read and write there. Yet rather than consider that someone else might have written the story of his life, you insist that he still did learn to read and write and wrote it himself (including the part where he died?).

Moses was over 80 years old, according to the story, by the time he got to write the law. It is possible that he learned how to read and write within those 80 years. My old Grandad could barely read or write when he first picked up a Bible around the age of 40. By the time he died, less than 30 years later, he was a sort of self-educated scholar and preacher.

As for the part where it describes the death of Moses, that could have easily be written by someone like Joshua or one of Moses' other personal assistants, who could have learned a good deal from Moses, including his own writing style. Indeed, Moses himself apparently gave the written Law to the Levites, who could have easily expanded on the original material to include the death of Moses, the alotment of land to the 12 tribes, the conquest of Caanan, etc.

But tell me this then: If Moses learned to read and write in the house of an Egyptian Pharoah, wouldn't he have been taught the Egyptian language? So how, then, did he write the Law in Hebrew? And when did he learn to write Hebrew? It sure wasn't while he was living with those Egyptian aristocrats, and I highly doubt it was while he was laboring with the Hebrew slaves.

As far as I have read, Moses was never a slave. One account (Josephus) has it that he was an army commander in the war against Ethiopia and won great renown with his exploits. Even if that was an invention, having a prince status in Egypt would probably mean that you had enough time to do what you liked, including learning the language of your forefathers (something people still do today).

Oh, I know, while he was up on Sinai, God miraculously taught him how to read and write Hebrew. It's the only possible answer.

That's unnecessary.

But if that is the case, why are you insisting he had to learn to read and write while he was in Egypt?

I don't insist this. He could have even learned to read and write from his father-in-law, Jethro, during his 40 years shepherding in the desert (although that is probably less likely).

Because this isn't a public forum where anyone can read a question and answer it, no matter who it is directed to -- the way you just did?

BTW, I have directed this question to Christians before. In fact, I directed very specific questions to you about the promise of eternal life and the life of the soul, which you have not yet addressed.

OK, I was not aware that you were waiting for specific answers from me, nor that you had asked me or any of the other Christians why they have a tendency to take the Bible stories literally.

I'm sorry, this doesn't really make much sense to me.

FIRST, you are only talking about the resurrection. I was asking about why the whole Bible and all its stories have to be treated as history. I was also asking why some Christians seem to have a problem with other people telling different stories, as if this somehow affects what they believe. You're not addressing that at all.

I was using the resurrection as an example. I suppose many Christians might say that it is unnecessary to take the whole of the Bible stories as literal stories, in order to believe in Christ. I would tend to agree with that. It is unnecessary to consider all of them literal. On the other hand, there obviously are some things in the Bible are intended to be literal, like the resurrection, in the view of most Christians.

Personally, I don't mind if you take the Bible stories and read different meanings into them, or if you have different stories for the creation of the world, etc. It's a free world after all. You are right to point out that what you personally choose to believe is your right, and the only extent that it affects me is where I think it may be either good or damaging to you. Either way, your beliefs have no more bearing on me than that.

SECOND, you start out saying that some people say its metaphor and others say it's literal, but you don't tell me which is supposedly right. Is there a general consensus among Christians and, if so, which view is most common? And where do you fall on this spectrum? All you do is describe the literalist viewpoint without addressing the why of it.

I simply believe in the claims of Christ. That does not bind me to an literalist viewpoint *only*, but I am quite ready to argue that many of the stories could easily be literally true, considering that I believe in a God that is capable of miracles like the resurrection of Christ.

I can't say which view point is most common. Depends on the country. Most Christians that I meet generally agree with my viewpoint, but I suppose I am more likely to meet such Christians because I tend to go to churches (not always) that believe in a literal Christ who was literally resurrected.

THIRD, you seem to be saying that, according to the literalist view of the resurrection, if it is a metaphor, then you all would have been wasting your time being Christians. That right there is my big mental disconnect with this issue. I just start exploding with questions and objections.

Right. What I was trying to point out is that within Christianity, there is a connection between a literal Christ and the literal state of being forgiven by God, of being literally loved by God, and of course the existence of a literal God that is right now observing the thoughts of every individual, including yours and mine. Thus, ruling out a literal Christ would mean that God probably does not literally love us, forgive us, etc, right here in the 21st century.

Try to understand how this looks to an outsider. I am left wondering: Are you expecting some kind of pay-off for not sinning? Isn't virtue it's own reward? Or is Christ's promise a quid pro quo deal? Are you saying that if God doesn't come through with some future payment for your efforts, then he's a liar who wasted your time? Are you saying that, by choosing to become a Christian, you've put God under some obligation to you -- that God owes you, in other words?

I was once an outsider too. But the point of Christianity is that the reward is knowing God, of loving Love, of receiving the status of a child of God. That is the pay right there. Any form of Christianity that is motivated by any other desire for wealth, status, or even special rights in heaven is missing the point. It is to know God and be known by him--the point of Christ coming to earth to win us to himself.

No, God does not owe me anything. Being the creator, he is free to do anything that is according to his nature, not according to my concept of right and wrong. But because God is righteous, then what he does defines righteousness. That may look way too dangerous to you, but the proof lies in the fruits. The result of embracing God's righteousness is such fruits as love, joy, peace, patience, long-suffering, kindness, forgiveness, mercy, etc., against such there is no law.

Also, do you expect to be literally raised from the grave as a physical person some day? What will you be doing in the meantime, from when you die till when you come back? Won't you be in heaven with God? Why would you need or want to come back from that? For what purpose are the dead going to be raised in their physical bodies? To go to heaven on the Judgment Day? But why do they need bodies in heaven? And does this mean that Christians don't go to heaven when they die? Do they have to sit and wait in their graves? I never met a Christian who believed that before. Certainly none of the people who have tried to convert me over the years ever said such a thing. It's not much of a selling point -- but were they deliberately lying to me?

So many questions, M. Actually, I'm not that clear one what is the exact process after death. And the hints that we get from scripture tend to point towards some complexity that is not easily understood by humans (on this side of death). At any rate, although the answers to these questions are important, they are not as important as your earlier questions about whether we should take the stories literally or not.

Some hints about the afterlife are:
Luke 16:19-31 the story of Lazarus.
I Thessalonians 4:13-18

FOURTH, I'm not satisfied with your quote from Corinthians. This is just describing the objections of skeptics. What is its answer to these objections? Does it go on to say that literalists are not understanding the meaning of the stories, or does it assure them that it's all true, God does owe them a resurrection, and they can trust that he's good for it?

I think Paul's point was that when you start removing some parts of the stories (e.g., the resurrection, because they are too 'hard' to believe in) you end up actually changing the meaning. Paul was saying the the meaning of a lack of a literal resurrection of Christ was that Christians are miserably deceived, since it would mean that while they believed that their sins were forgiven and that they have God's favour, it would not be literally so.

FIFTH, if this really is the way literalists view their religion, it leaves me wondering why they took it up at all. They don't seem to enjoy being virtuous -- or else why would they want to a future pay-off for doing it? And despite what they say, it doesn't seem as if they really feel a personal connection to their god during their lives. They are still waiting for something more to happen. I don't get it. I just don't.

It isn't virtue that made me want to be follow Christ. Virtue is not my reward. And one doesn't get virtue by chasing it. For example, it has been said that humility is such a fragile flower, that is withers the moment it sees itself in a mirror. Rather, Christianity is about the personal connection with God. And while this is emphasised, I know that there are plenty of cases of Christians who don't seem to have much personal connection to God but are nonetheless constantly talking about it. We are told that we are known by our acts (humility, love, kindness, etc.) and not necessarily by what we say.

My deepest desire is simply to be friends with God. That is my reward. So that I can say as Job did, though He slay me, yet will I love Him. Perhaps you can begin to see that when the world is viewed through the eyes of such a love, it becomes a very difference place indeed.

Grave_n_idle

26-04-2006, 13:04

Not a miracle, but an exceptional situation. Alexander the Great conquered his world (at least a good deal of it) by the age of 30, or so we are told, but presumeably not because of a miracle. It was an exceptional situation.

Yes... his father was a military genius, and handed him a unified military 'base', and a wealth of exceptional tactics.

So - not really all THAT 'exceptional' when you look at it.

As for the part where it describes the death of Moses, that could have easily be written by someone like Joshua or one of Moses' other personal assistants, who could have learned a good deal from Moses, including his own writing style. Indeed, Moses himself apparently gave the written Law to the Levites, who could have easily expanded on the original material to include the death of Moses, the alotment of land to the 12 tribes, the conquest of Caanan, etc.

So - you are admitting that the Pentatauch is not the work of one author, then... yes?

As far as I have read, Moses was never a slave. One account (Josephus) has it that he was an army commander in the war against Ethiopia and won great renown with his exploits. Even if that was an invention, having a prince status in Egypt would probably mean that you had enough time to do what you liked, including learning the language of your forefathers (something people still do today).

Likely, Josephus is referring to a real history. However - if it IS the history of the real 'Moses'... then he had nothing to do with Exodus or freeing Hebrew slaves, because he was already dead half a millenium BEFORE those events are alleged to have taken place. (Josephus was probably referring to the recorded 'Mousos').

You really aren't paying attention, are you?

You are once again using ignorance as an answer: "having a prince status in Egypt would probably mean that you had enough time to do what you liked..." Based on what? This is idle speculation. You have no idea what a 'prince' in Egypt would have been required to do, right?

"...including learning the language of your forefathers..." HOW would this happen? The Pharaoh's didn't raise their children to do menial tasks like reading and writing.

On the other hand, there obviously are some things in the Bible are intended to be literal, like the resurrection, in the view of most Christians.

How is that 'obvious'?

It's hypocrisy. Christians will wave away certain inexcusable parts of the text with 'oh, it's OBVIOUSLY a metaphor'... but then they expect you to swallow a literal resurrection as being equally 'obviously' true.

Bruarong

26-04-2006, 13:27

Yes... his father was a military genius, and handed him a unified military 'base', and a wealth of exceptional tactics.

So - not really all THAT 'exceptional' when you look at it.

Plenty of people have clever military leaders as fathers. But Alexander conquering so much by the age of thirty? Sounds more like a myth than a literal story to me.

So - you are admitting that the Pentatauch is not the work of one author, then... yes?

Moses *could* have authored the most important parts, with others adding on later bits, updating names, etc. Short answer. Yes.

Likely, Josephus is referring to a real history. However - if it IS the history of the real 'Moses'... then he had nothing to do with Exodus or freeing Hebrew slaves, because he was already dead half a millenium BEFORE those events are alleged to have taken place. (Josephus was probably referring to the recorded 'Mousos').

You really aren't paying attention, are you?

It is only speculation that Moses (or this 'Mousos' you keep mentioning, even if it was the same person) was already dead 500 years before. In fact, I seem to have read several opinions which differ on the exact time of Moses. Speculation doesn't rule much out, or shouldn't anyway. And does Josephus mention 'Mousos' instead of Moses? I doubt it, but feel free to correct me if you know better. And if that is the case, speculate all you like, Grave, but it would hardly be sensible of you to think that your speculation means that the story of Moses *must* not have been that way.

You are once again using ignorance as an answer: "having a prince status in Egypt would probably mean that you had enough time to do what you liked..." Based on what? This is idle speculation. You have no idea what a 'prince' in Egypt would have been required to do, right?

I've read what the royalty got to do. It is similar in every culture, although there are always the exceptions. Virtually what they liked. Why is that so hard to believe suddenly, just because we are talking about Moses instead of Alexander?

"...including learning the language of your forefathers..." HOW would this happen? The Pharaoh's didn't raise their children to do menial tasks like reading and writing.

Moses was 40 by the time he fled from Egypt. Hardly a child.

How is that 'obvious'?

It's hypocrisy. Christians will wave away certain inexcusable parts of the text with 'oh, it's OBVIOUSLY a metaphor'... but then they expect you to swallow a literal resurrection as being equally 'obviously' true.

It is an attempt to limit the interpretations of the scriptures in a consistent fashion, consistent with the relevation of God, not consistent to a literal or non-literal interpretation.

Willamena

26-04-2006, 13:53

I can't find anything I disagree with there.

But when the story is presented as an explanation for e.g. the current state of affairs that the world is in, one needs to be very careful to attribute a story to myth only status. I have no problem accepting that Noah's flood was a myth, but I not ready to accept that it was the sort of myth that had no literal basis (without some rather obvious evidence -- by that I mean more than the speculations that are sometimes passed for evidence).

In other words, I hold that the story of Noah's flood is literally true unless we have an adequate way of proving otherwise. As you said, the truth in the story is important, perhaps more important than the event itself, I can't really say, but the truth of the story is the basis for which I accept the truth of the meaning. If the story of Noah is not literally true, then the truth that comes in the meaning of the story may also not be literally true. In other words, since the story of Noah was about God's mercy contrasted with his sense of justice, if the story was not true, then how do we know that God's mercy and God's justice has any 'realness' about it. If one only believes in the stories as myths, what is to prevent one thinking that God himself is not literal? If that is the case, then God was my invention, rather than me being His invention. That places me in the center of reality, and God's existence in my thoughts. That is, perhaps, precisely the difference between your belief in God, and mine. And it is my firm conviction that my life has indeed been changed by meeting a literal God, and that we are all creations of his. For we came from his heart, and we are on his mind, and we are very dear to him (regardless of how good or bad we are).

However, if it was true that God is 'only' an invention, an explanation, I would be the most mistaken person I know, since my whole life revolves around a personal knowledge of my heavenly Father, the most beloved person in my life.

For this reason, Willamena, I can recognise your viewpoint on myths, but I don't seriously entertain the idea that they (the Bible stories) may only be myths, particular in the absence of any convincing evidence to the contrary. Sure there are difficulties and apparent conflicts in the stories, but we also know that there are some pretty hefty difficulties with modern stories also, even ones we know to be true. Lack of information is simply not evidence for anything than a lack of information. While, I have plenty of personal evidence that God is real and that he and I commune every day.
When the story is presented as myth, especially religious myth, it is not presented as explanation. Quite simply, to read a myth literally is to read it incorrectly, because the robs it of any spiritual value. Since the myth is the non-literal part, there is no possibility of the myth being "based" in the literal. When you read a myth literally, you turn it from a myth into a literal story narrative (which is what necessarily casts doubt on its veracity).

Let me repeat: Even if the flood actually happened, it is irrelevant to the story as myth. The myth has no "basis" in the literal.

The myth, through motifs of image, both written and verbally portrayed in the poetry of song, is what is transmitted from culture to culture.

"If the story of Noah is not literally true, then the truth that comes in the meaning of the story may also not be literally true."
Reading the story literally eliminates the meaning behind the story, like the example stated earlier, because you are looking only at the literal, not the non-literal. The literal reading has no impact at all on the non-literal, or on whether it is true, only whether it is literally true, which we have already stated it is not --not literal, that is.

I explained how the myth is the non-literal part. Whether or not the story of Noah is literally true, it can be a myth if it is read non-literally; if it is read as literally true, then it is not a myth and has no spiritual value (i.e. there nothing to get non-literally from it). In other words, as soon as you switch to looking at the spiritual value behind the story, you are taking the non-literal approach.

God too can be understood and believed in literally or non-literally, either way as truth.

Grave_n_idle

26-04-2006, 14:14

Plenty of people have clever military leaders as fathers. But Alexander conquering so much by the age of thirty? Sounds more like a myth than a literal story to me.

Why? If you have a big army, and a pretty good battle plan, a series of victories isn't that hard. Chinggis Khaan managed with nothing but nomads on horseback... Hitler used much the same technique.

The difference between the success of Hitler and Alexander, is likely entirely down to the speed of communication.

Moses *could* have authored the most important parts, with others adding on later bits, updating names, etc. Short answer. Yes.

This is good. This means you are not willing to automatically accept Bible books as being written by the characters CLAIMED as the authors.

It is only speculation that Moses (or this 'Mousos' you keep mentioning, even if it was the same person) was already dead 500 years before. In fact, I seem to have read several opinions which differ on the exact time of Moses. Speculation doesn't rule much out, or shouldn't anyway. And does Josephus mention 'Mousos' instead of Moses? I doubt it, but feel free to correct me if you know better. And if that is the case, speculate all you like, Grave, but it would hardly be sensible of you to think that your speculation means that the story of Moses *must* not have been that way.

First - if the historical 'Mousos' is NOT the alleged Hebrew 'Moses'... then there is no record of this 'Moses'. You seem to be arguing AGAINST evidence that the Hebrew myths might be based on real people.

Second - Opinion does differ on when the Exodus is supposed to have taken place... because even Egypt has no record of this sudden population loss. It is probably MOST logical to assume 'exodus' is a total fiction.

Third - since there are no other records AT ALL of either Moses OR his alleged exodus, your side of the argument is hardly in a strong position to dictate to ME what is 'sensible' to 'speculate'.

Fourth - Josephus actually used "Môsei"... make of that what you will. But, the fact that he relates the Biblical Moses to an Egyptian involved in the Cushite (Ethiopian) war, strongly suggests he was referring to the same 'mousos' that I'm referring to, no?

I've read what the royalty got to do. It is similar in every culture, although there are always the exceptions. Virtually what they liked. Why is that so hard to believe suddenly, just because we are talking about Moses instead of Alexander?

Who said Alexander had it easy? You think he learned to fight on lunch-break, just before his first battle?

How can you say something as ignorant as "It is similar in every culture"...? That's not even worth dignifying, and you know it.

Moses was 40 by the time he fled from Egypt. Hardly a child.

And his adult life would have been spent at war... perhaps not the most conducive learning atmosphere.

Irrelevent, anyway - If Moses WAS going to learn to read or write, they would have started while he was a child, and he would have learned well into his maturity. Not the job for a prince.

It is an attempt to limit the interpretations of the scriptures in a consistent fashion, consistent with the relevation of God, not consistent to a literal or non-literal interpretation.

I'd say that it was an excuse to safeguard the obvious mumbojumbo you LIKE while excising the mumbojumbo that offends even you.

Bottle

26-04-2006, 14:34

I really really really don't understand my fellow humans sometimes.

Are there seriously this many people who cannot grasp the concept of a fable? Have so many people flunked English 101 that we have an entire population incapable of understanding metaphor?

Aesop's fable of the sour grapes carries a valuable lesson, and one can take away that lesson without needing to believe in the literal existence of talking foxes. Why should the Bible be any different?

Grave_n_idle

26-04-2006, 14:40

Ratislovia

26-04-2006, 14:45

I beleve that that there are many gods and they all got to gether to create the world and all the animals in it then when it came time to create man the each took a area of the world and created man in there own way and all but the jewish god allowed there people to enter mingle then the serpent did hid deal in the garden and the jewish god had to alow his people to mix with the others how else could 3 people populate the world 2 of wich were by the way men and as i recall god is not to keen on incest

Cerny:D

Bottle

26-04-2006, 14:45

But, but... it SAYS on my book, that the fox could talk!

So - there MUST have been at least one talking fox!

Prove there wasn't!
Um, well MY book says it was a talking jackal, not a fox.

Foxes are known to be evil and sinful, while the proud jackal clearly was the one sent down to teach humanity the wisdom of the Sour Grapes.

That's probably why you people get the story wrong, anyhow. You idiots think it's about not eating sour grapes, when it is clearly telling us that ALL grapes should be avoided.

Pfft, talking foxes. Really, that's just plain silly.

Ashmoria

26-04-2006, 15:04

Bruarong

26-04-2006, 15:12

You seem to be missing it. Your interpretation is modern, it didn't exist before the 19th century or so. Water baptism being a necessary criteria for salvation was taught by early Christians, as I've demonstrated with Tertullian, Iraneaus, and I could go on and on with Polycarp, Eusebius, etc. It continued being taught as necessary for salvation by the Catholic church, Orthodox sects, and even Protestants up through the reformation. No, the fact that they taught it doesn't make it "right." It simply means that it is the historical teaching of the subject. Your interpretation is the unhistorical, modern, pop-culture version.

And I've shown you that you cannot get any support for a literal water baptism as a ritual that saves us from the books of the New Testament. Unless you think that the New Testament was written by modern Christians, you can quote all of the early church fathers you like, but you cannot support your idea that the early Christians relied on a literal physical baptism for salvation, and therefore that the modern concept of baptism belongs only to the modern Christians. The scriptures, as they read now, would go against your theory. Thus my interpretation is as historical as the NT.

There is no logical principle of exegesis that would demonstrate that because Paul was talking about a death of the old nature, that the baptism didn't refer to baptism by water. If you break this down in syllogistic form, I think you'll find that you've committed the fallacy of the undistributed middle.

So you think that you can label my argument as some fallacy of this sort or another and contradict it? I don't even consider that arguing. I made a clear point and you refute it by calling it a fallacy. Come back with some serious arguments.

It doesn't say that a physical washing doesn't save you. It states that baptism is not a removal of dirt from your body. It clearly states that baptism does save you. And unless it states that baptism means something other than the literal meaning of the word (which it doesnt) then the only proper exegsis of this verse is to interpret it as it states.

It means that we are not saved by removing dirt from the body. Simple as that. It means, then, that physical washing does not save us. That means that when you are trying to say that a physical washing does save us, you are seriously confused. Or, it could be that he is saying that a physical baptism is not the same as washing dirt from our bodies. If that was true, the Apostle Peter would be a bit dim. Rather, you have got yourself into a spot of bother with that one.

This is a perfect example of the modern, pop-culture Christianity interpretation of these types of verses. When it states something about baptism, it is common to insert the word "spiritual" so that the moden pop-culture Christians can claim it doesnt refer to what it literally states, but a metaphorical spiritual baptism. Once again, sound exegsis would prohibit this practice, as it states "baptism" and nothing about "spiritual baptism" - when in fact the NT is clear between the two, and the former is used here alone.

So do you think that whoever wrote down the words of Jesus regarding 'eating his flesh and drinking his blood' (John 6:53) would have frowned on anyone putting a spiritual interpretation on that? The way to interpret a passage is to take the interpretation that is consistent with the whole message of the Bible. If you can't do that with your particular interpretation, there is something wrong with it.

Yes, it does refer to spiritual baptism. It states that baptism by water is spiritual. Nowhere does it refer to a "spiritual baptism" aside from a baptism by water. Nor does it state that it is "more real."

Now you are saying that a physical baptism *is* a spiritual baptism. Are you confused about that?

And when Paul writes that we have died and risen with Christ, does that mean we are committed to a literal physical death and physical resurrection in that interpretation, even though he doesn't mention that he meant it in a spiritual sense?

Futhermore, wasn't there a thief on a cross who went to paradise? How did he get baptised?

As for which is more real, Jesus Himself said:
John 6:55
''For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.''

He was either pointing to the spiritual food and spiritual drink as being as real (if not more) than the physical, or he was encouraging cannibalism.

No, it doesn't. You've slipped into the fallacy of subjectivity here. The fact is, early Christians did objectively believe things. And those things are as I've cited, and proven, using the writings and interpretations of early Christians. When Iraneaus gives a long commentary on how to properly baptize someone, and quotes the verses I've used as support, in addition to the fact that baptism being necessary for salvation has always been a key Christian doctrine until about 200 years ago, its pretty clear what early Christians thought.

You have a long way to go before you can prove any of your ideas, I suggest. You seem to be relying on speculation, and some chap called Iraneaus, who probably was no more relevant to the Christians of his time than the Pope is to modern Christians when he insists that we should not use pregnancy preventions.

I would say that it is pretty clear that the early Christians thought the following:

'' 9For if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10For it is by believing in your heart that you are made right with God, and it is by confessing with your mouth that you are saved. 11As the Scriptures tell us, "Anyone who believes in him will not be disappointed.[e]" 12Jew and Gentile are the same in this respect. They all have the same Lord, who generously gives his riches to all who ask for them. 13For "Anyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."
Romans 10

I find no reference to baptism here. Do you?

Sure, there are lots of emphasis' on faith in the NT. And once again, coming from the modern pop-culture POV, you seem to think that an emphasis on faith removes emphasis from other acts necessary for salvation, like baptism and communion. However, they don't. It does not state that faith is all that saves you, or that God is all that saves you. It simply states "It is God that saves us." This does not state "It is God alone that saves us" or any other exclusive, objective statement. In short, this is why early Christians and the NT taught multiple criteria for salvation.

I also accept that salvation requires multiple criteria. IMO, the one word that sums up all the criteria is faith. In faith, there are the elements of trust, integrity, repentance, surrender, etc., all criteria for salvation.

And once again, nowhere does this say that Jesus is all that forgives sins. It simply states that in Jesus there is forgiveness for sins. This does not demonstrate in any way that baptism, eucharist, etc. are not necessary as well. If it did, we would have had early Christian sects that taught that all you had to do was believe; none existed.

The verse from Romans that I quoted above flatly contradicts you, old chap.

This verse is also a good example of how we know Paul was not a Pharisee or expert in the Law. If he had been, he would know that according to the Jewish Law anyone who makes tehsuva is "freed from all guilt and declared right with God." Halacha is quite clear on this fact, and so is Isaiah 43. No one truly familiar with the Law can take anything Paul says seriously.

So now you are claiming to be more familiar with the Jewish Law than Paul. Would that be arrogance? Or do you have a decent argument for that?

And apparently, Isaiah 43 was all about the sacrifice of God, according to the Apostle Phillip.

http://www.jewfaq.org/halakhah.htm

''Halakhah is made up of mitzvot from the Torah as well as laws instituted by the rabbis and long-standing customs. All of these have the status of Jewish law and all are equally binding. The only difference is that the penalties for violating laws and customs instituted by the rabbis are less severe than the penalties for violating Torah law, and laws instituted by the rabbis can be changed by the rabbis in rare, appropriate circumstances.''

Paul explains that the freedom from guilt and declaration of righteousness before God that was possible within Judaism depended on the ultimate sacrifice of God in Christ Jesus, i.e., that Judaism looked forward to the provision of God. As Abraham said to Isaac, God Himself will provide an offering.

That is why there were so few Jewish converts to Christianity, and why Goyim bought the Jesus myth wholesale.

The number of converts has almost always been a minority, both among the Jews and the Gentiles. Many Jews who converted would probably have ceased trying to observe the Law, and eventually their children would have have no longer been considered Jews.

Perhaps you misunderstand. Jesus didn't simply "articulate a truth." The Gospel authors quoted, word for word, pagan texts. If this was done today, it would be called plagerism or literary theft. It isn't that there are just vague remnants of pagan teachings, we find entire passages "cut and pasted" out of pagan texts.

This assertion of yours requires evidence. I'm curious to learn which parts you might think are word for word. To do so, I suggest you provide both the Pagan source and the Biblical source, just so I can see for myself.

In addition, no rabbis killed Jesus. The Gospels don't claim that they did, either. The whole "the rabbis wanted him dead" is part of the Gospel polemic against the Jews. You have to keep in mind that the Gospels were written by Goyim for a Roman audience. The Jews were thus demonized, while Pilate was put in a less guilty light.

Make up your mind. You start by saying that the Gospels do not claim that the Jewish rabbis wanted Jesus dead, and then you end by saying that the Gospel were written by the Gentiles who wrote them in an attempt to 'demonize' the Jews and thus invvented the animosity between Jesus and the Jews. That seriously looks like a contradiction in your own post.

Anyway, you can interpret the Gospels as being an invention of the Gentiles, but as far as I can see, it is another of your speculations that you are not likely to provide much evidence for. But you are welcome to prove me wrong.

Paul writes in Romans 11:
''28Many of the Jews are now enemies of the Good News. But this has been to your benefit, for God has given his gifts to you Gentiles. Yet the Jews are still his chosen people because of his promises to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.''

Note that the Jews are still considered the 'chosen people' in the Christian scriptures. This is not consistent with your claim of 'demonizing' the Jews.

The fact of the matter is, persecuting Jesus would have been against Jewish Law, so would the method of execution, etc. Pilate was known to persecuted and crucify rebel and messiah figures, at one time killing near 500. There are very few records of the Sanhedrin executing people, as I've stated before. A Sanhedrin that executed one person in 70 years was considered to be reckless and irresponsible. And there is no real account of any perseuction of this Jesus figure outside of these religious polemics against Jews.

A Sanhedrin council meeting (such as the one that found Jesus guilty) was also apparently against the Jewish Law, since it met in secret and during nighttime. The Gospels go as far to say that they broke their own Laws in order to find Jesus guilty of breaking the Law.
And obviously you would know that it was not the Jews that killed Jesus, but only that they demanded that the Romans kill him.

I would also keep in mind that the rabbis didn't hold any power over people during this time period. The power in Judea was weilded by Sadducees, who didn't have rabbis, not Pharisees.

The Sadducees certainly did have the political power, but because of their affiliation with the royalty. The Pharisees, on the other hand, were by far the more popular, and had more power at the 'grass-roots' level.

Those of us who are familiar with the history of the time period tend to reject the Gospel account of Jesus' discourses with Jews in full. Generally, only believers of the Jesus myth take any interactions between Jesus and the Jews to have any historical basis. Modern scholarship has recognized it for what it is - anti-Semitic polemic.

What a silly thing to say! As if all modern scholars hold your particular point of view. Or as if anyone who believe 'the Jesus myth' could not possibly be a modern scholar.

You've drawn a false dichotomy between "legal observance" and "good news" here. The latter really has nothing to do with the former, nor does anything in the verses you've quoted demonstrate anything about the Law. Rather, we see Pharsaic Law attributed to Jesus - laws on adultery of Shammai, for example. A lack of emphasis on the Law developed as Christianity switched from a Jewish fringe group to a Goy religion. And even then, like I stated, early Christians, on through the Catholic church, early Reformers, etc. all placed heavy emphasis on their own Christianized version of the Law.

If the Gospels were invented and written by the Gentiles, why would they want to protray Jesus as emphasising the Law? Don't you see a contradiction there?

It is impossible to logically draw the conclusion that from having to exceed the righteousness of the Pharisees there is another way aside from this. In fact, you're committing the fallacy of denying the consequent.

Rather than impossible, I find it rather obvious. It is true that the way to life was to obey the Law. That is a perfectly true statement and I agree with it wholeheartedly. However, since only Jesus was without sin, He is the only one who obeyed the Law. The rest of us have broken it. It's not that I am denying the consequent, but that I am recognising that Jesus did not explain many of his comments, and that we are meant to look for the meaning of them. Such were His parables.

You were, you simply aren't familiar with Halacha. Its okay, most Christians aren't (I've never met one who is). And as I stated before, when we have Christian accounts of "evil Jews" doing things like trying to stone people, we reject them, because they are inconsistent with what we know to be historical fact. They are just remnants of the Christian polemics against Jews. You wont find a shred of serious scholarship that supports the claims of the Gospels or Paul regarding the Pharisees. The only persons that believe these things to be true are those adherents to the Jesus myth.

A shred of serious scholarship.....is that another way of saying that anyone who disagrees with you cannot be a serious scholar?

If I claim that at the heart of your conclusions about the Bible is a loathing for the adherents of the Jesus myth, would you be able to prove otherwise?

1. There is no record of Pharisees persecuting Christians outside of Christian polemics against Jews, today rejected by modern scholarship.
2. Persecution of Christians would have violated Jewish Law; thus, the claim that Pharisees were strict adherents and yet ran around persecuting Christians is inconsistent.

The Gospels describe the Jews as breaking the Jewish Law. So it is your word against the Gospels.

Its from these facts that we know Pharisees didn't persecute Christians, and that the spurious claims from Christians that they did are typical polemics.

That's simply one point of view. Hardly facts. And it goes against virtually all of the Gospels and the Acts and the letters by Paul. You would have to describe the whole of the NT as an invention. And then you have the gall to assert that modern scholars--no, serious modern scholars all take your point of view. Do you really think that?

I guess I should also clue you in - Herod wasn't a Pharisee. Neither was the High Priest. Nor is there record of "many Pharisees" becoming Christians. Paul's claim to be a Pharisee, once again, is rejected by modern scholarship and believed only by those who take the texts as true a priori and adhere to the Jesus myth.

Rereading my posts, I see that it does indeed look like I could have though Herod was a Pharisee, and that the High Priest was also a Pharisee. You are right, neither of them were Pharisees, but the Pharisees and the Sadducees, normally enemies, were united in their efforts to destroy Jesus, initially with public arguments, and finally through deception (Judas) and threats (against Pilate).

Well forget what a Jew is telling you about Judaism. I guess your modern Christian interpretation of Jewish scriptures lets you know what Judaism believes about sin better than a Jew telling you.

Nowhere in those verses does it talk about a "curse of sin." Nor do we believe in one. You seem to be under a curse, though, the curse of ethnocentrism. You assume that your ethnocentric interpretation of our scriptures is going to tell you something about our religion. Get a clue.

You seem pretty adamant that the curses that I listed from Genesis were not due to sin. Perhaps, then, you might like to provide a reason for why those curses came about, rather than accusing me of ethnocentrism.

It doesn't state that you're sinless because you're forgiven. It states that it cleanses you from every wrong. Now, perhaps you don't know what sin is, but sin is in fact a verb, not an adjective. You don't "have" sin, you commit sin. If you were truly saved, this verse just reinforces what 1 John states, it would cleanse you from sinning. That is, you would no longer commit sins anymore.

The Bible talks of sin as a noun and a verb ('sinful' would be the adjective). In the same way, 'love' can also be a noun or a verb.

The fact that John is writing to his 'dear children' suggests that they were Christians.
And he writes to them: ''But if you do sin,....'' suggesting that it is possible that these people might sin. The sin that he refers to is future sin, not only the sin of the past.

And as I've demonstrated with the early Christian texts from Tertullian and Iraneaus, early Christians agreed. They believed that if you sinned after you were "saved" you were either never really saved, or you had to go get back on the wagon. That is why salvation was never totally assured.

Why would you take the texts of Tertullian or Iraneaus as more representative of the early Christians than the writings of Paul? Because they happen to be readable in such a way as to support your position? I would think that Paul's writings had far more influence than either of those chaps. And Paul wrote in Romans 8:
''15So you should not be like cowering, fearful slaves. You should behave instead like God's very own children, adopted into his family[h]--calling him "Father, dear Father." 16For his Holy Spirit speaks to us deep in our hearts and tells us that we are God's children. ''

The idea that you can be 100% sure of your salvation, once again, is a belief about 200 years old.

This is still very much an issue within Christian circles. Paul writes in Romans 11
''19"Well," you may say, "those branches were broken off to make room for me." 20Yes, but remember--those branches, the Jews, were broken off because they didn't believe God, and you are there because you do believe. Don't think highly of yourself, but fear what could happen. 21For if God did not spare the branches he put there in the first place, he won't spare you either.
22Notice how God is both kind and severe. He is severe to those who disobeyed, but kind to you as you continue to trust in his kindness. But if you stop trusting, you also will be cut off. 23And if the Jews turn from their unbelief, God will graft them back into the tree again. He has the power to do it.''

Oh I see, so when Jesus said "if you want to enter life, obey the commandments" he didn't actually mean it. He [I]really meant something that had nothing to do with the commandments. That makes a ton of sense.

And if you claim this isn't a modern interpretation, support it with early Christian sources. I have with all of my claims. If you can't, be honest and admit that it is modern.

I have supported my interpretation based on the scriptures. I have shown you how we can obey the Law--through faith in Jesus. I am not arguing that Jesus didn't mean what he said, only that he didn't mean what you take it to mean, i.e., the notion that obedience to the Law was possible without faith in God. Even Abraham was considered righteous because of his faith in God, not by his attempts to keep the Law, because there was no Law for him to keep. If you can't understand that, you have basically missed the whole point of the NT.

Willamena

26-04-2006, 15:29

Bruarong

26-04-2006, 15:31

Willamena

26-04-2006, 15:36

And it is my firm conviction that my life has indeed been changed by meeting a literal God, and that we are all creations of his. For we came from his heart, and we are on his mind, and we are very dear to him (regardless of how good or bad we are).
That second sentence is what you get non-literally from your understanding of God regardless of whether God is actual or 'literally true', regardless of whether you meet him in person or only indirectly through omen-reading.

God can exist and be understood as truth non-literally because the non-literal interpretation doesn't eliminate the literal, it is REGARDLESS of the literal, so it says NOTHING about the literal existence of God at all.

Willamena

26-04-2006, 15:38

Because the Bible contains a message that can radically change your life, in a way that Aesop's Fables never can.
Yes; that's what separates a myth from a fable.

Bottle

26-04-2006, 15:39

Because the Bible contains a message that can radically change your life, in a way that Aesop's Fables never can.
Um, like what? "Be nice to other people, try not to fuck each other over if at all possible, and don't cuss at your mother"?

The Bible carries some very basic, fundamental, and generally well-meaning principles for human interactions. These principles are mixed in with a bunch of cultural hoo-hah about eating certain foods and wearing certain clothes and hating certain skin colors, but that crap is as irrelevant as would be the color of the grapes in Aesop's stories. All the muck-a-muck about God and spirits and magical powers is as irrelevant as the existence of talking foxes.

Hell, I think the really meaningful parts of the Bible get totally destroyed the moment you start believing in the talking foxes. The whole point is to teach people to just quick being jackasses already, and instead people get all distracted by arguing over whether some hippy carpenter came back from the dead or not. People start talking about how you have to believe in the RIGHT KIND OF TALKING FOX if you want to be a good person, and spend more time debating the color of the talking fox's fur than they spend talking about the real messages.

I don't care if you think they were grapes or cherries or coconuts, the point of the story is the same fucking thing.

Bottle

26-04-2006, 15:42

Yes; that's what separates a myth from a fable.
Um, not so much. My life has been changed by fables at least as much as by myths.

Willamena

26-04-2006, 15:56

Um, not so much. My life has been changed by fables at least as much as by myths.
Of that I have no doubt. :)

But that doesn't counter what I said. Because you never got the spiritual message of the Bible, it has the same value as a fable to you.

Bottle

26-04-2006, 16:00

Of that I have no doubt. :)

But that doesn't counter what I said.
*Bottle's eyes cross with confusion*

You said that what separates a myth from a fable is that "the Bible contains a message that can radically change your life, in a way that Aesop's Fables never can."

I am assuming that you are not claiming Aesop's Fables are myths rather than fables.

Since you agreed with the poster's original statement, I am also assuming that you are saying that a myth carries a message that can radically change one's life, while a fable cannot.

I stated that fables contain messages that have radically changed my life.

And hence my eye crossing.

What am I missing, here?

EDIT: In view of your edit to your post, it appears that you are not, in fact, saying that the difference between a myth and a fable is the presence of a life-changing message. Instead, it appears that the difference relies on the presence of a "spiritual" element. Is that right?

Willamena

26-04-2006, 16:18

EDIT: In view of your edit to your post, it appears that you are not, in fact, saying that the difference between a myth and a fable is the presence of a life-changing message. Instead, it appears that the difference relies on the presence of a "spiritual" element. Is that right?
A "spiritual element" in the form of a message would be life-changing, as it would speak directly to who you are.

Bottle

26-04-2006, 16:22

A "spiritual element" in the form of a message would be life-changing, as it would speak directly to who you are.
If you say so. I find that spiritual elements reduce the import of messages (for me). Instead, I find non-"spiritual" messages to be far more likely to speak directly to me as an individual.

So, again, are you sticking with your original assertion that the difference between a myth and a fable is the presence of a life-changing message, or are you saying that the difference is that a myth contains a "spiritual" element and fable does not?

Willamena

26-04-2006, 16:37

If you say so. I find that spiritual elements reduce the import of messages (for me). Instead, I find non-"spiritual" messages to be far more likely to speak directly to me as an individual.

So, again, are you sticking with your original assertion that the difference between a myth and a fable is the presence of a life-changing message, or are you saying that the difference is that a myth contains a "spiritual" element and fable does not?
Different strokes for different folks.

A "spiritual" thing is immaterial. The "spiritual" element, in this case, the case of myth, is the message. It is a non-verbal, non-literal message, one that speaks to your inner being, i.e. your spirit. Yes, some folks are more comfortable with the verbal messages; that's okay.

The difference between the message of the fable and the myth is in how it shapes the spirit. When you hear the moral of a fable (for instance, "be nice to people and they'll be nice to you") you either identify with it or you don't, because it is either already a part of you and it confirms who you are, or it doesn't. That is not life-changing. Nothing has changed, the spirit remains the same after the story as before. The most you might get out of it, or even put into it, is a wise nod.

If you get a spiritual message and it is "life-changing" that means it changes who you are on the inside; then you are looking at a myth. This could happen by virtue of adopting it ("buying into it" wholeheartedly, if you like, or "living the myth") like an ideology, or in it "moving" you to advance your understanding of yourself in relation to the world. In our English vernacular we would say the message of the story made you into a new person right then and there. You are shaped from the inside ("informed") by the myth.

Muravyets

26-04-2006, 16:44

I think Christianity was more the result of pagans/gnostics that came upon Judaism and then developed the Jesus myth as a result. Of course, there is definately some elements that demonstrate it was the result of Hellenized Judaism as well. For example, the extensive quoting of the Septuagint. And while I think it is mostly the former, the work of non-Jews who came upon Judaism, there is definately the element within that was the result of Hellenized Jews as well. So it would be both, in part, rather than a pure either/or.

In addition, the two can overlap. For example, in the beginning of the Gospel of John it talks about the word, or logos. That the logos was God, etc. This was borrowed from Philo's philosophy, who was a Hellenized Jew. Philo got the original concept of the logos in this fashion from Plato, who was a pagan non-Jew. So we see borrowing back and forth. And that was the case with Hellenized Judaism as well; it was essentially Jews who borrowed pagan concepts.

While the Gospel of John demonstrates something from Hellenism (the logos, as above), in many of Paul's writings we can see a distinctly pagan outlook that doesn't have much of a parallel in Hellenized Judaism. For example, Paul's commentary on salvation and the resurrection is similiar to that of adherents in what we call "mystery religions" (not because they are a mystery to us, but because they are mystical in nature). From this POV, Paul interprets Judaism, the Law, etc. in a mystery religion context. Ironically, Paul claimed to be a Jew and a Pharisee (both claims being highly suspect in scholarship today), when even a Hellenized Jew would demonstrate a more thorough knowledge of Judaism and the Law than Paul did. So when it comes to the Epistles, it would seem we have a more strict pagan spin than a Hellenized Jewish spin.

Probably the best evidence that it is more Judaified Paganism rather than Paganized Judaism would be the amount of material copied from pagan sources in the Gospels vs the amount of material copied from Jewish sources. Although virtually all of Jesus' parables, many of his teachings, and sayings are copied from rabbinical sources, the vast body of the Gospels, the plot, character forms, etc. are borrowed from pagan sources. His entire birth story is unoriginal (it parallels the story of Zoroaster's birth), the miracles he ran around doing are unoriginal (healings previously done by Aesclapeus, water into wine by Dionysus, demons into pigs by Eluseus, walking on water by Orion, Osiris, Pythagoras, etc), the resurrection is the core belief of mystery religions, and can be found in a dozen different forms in the Judea of that time period. So since the plot is pagan and the storyline and events are pagan, I would have to say that it was mostly a pagan creation rather than a jewish one. It was simply given a Jewish flare and put into a Jewish setting.
Very good analysis, thanks. Some further thoughts:

If the development of Christianity followed the general pattern of new religions, then what we probably had was a group coming together from many different societies and social strata, attracted by the fundamental idea, and, over time, developing a story line that spoke to all of them by combining and reconciling ideas that were meaningful to all of them. Over such a long period of time, and with so many groups getting involved (as Christianity spread), it becomes pretty well impossible to pick out one source from another.

One thing we must keep in mind is that we really do not know, in detail, how the religion was practiced during its first century, and frankly, we don't have all that much evidence on how people across Europe experienced it during its first millennium. We know what the church leaders said people should do, but except for a few isolated records here and there, we don't have much info on what they actually did. Therefore, we can't say with absolute certainty when this or that pagan influence came in or precisely where it came from.

The one thing we do know for certain is that the Jews did not take up the new religion, but the pagan Romans did and carried it out to other pagan regions across Europe.

So, regardless of whether it was Judaified pagans or Hellenized Jews who first established the religion, it is clear that pagan influences dominated very early and continued to develop the form of the religion throughout its first period of expansion as the official religion of Rome.

Bottle

26-04-2006, 16:47

Different strokes for different folks.

A "spiritual" thing is immaterial. The "spiritual" element, in this case, the case of myth, is the message. It is a non-verbal, non-literal message, one that speaks to your inner being, i.e. your spirit. Yes, some folks are more comfortable with the verbal messages; that's okay.

The difference between the message of the fable and the myth is in how it shapes the spirit. When you hear the moral of a fable (for instance, "be nice to people and they'll be nice to you") you either identify with it or you don't, because it is either already a part of you and it confirms who you are, or it doesn't. That is not life-changing. Nothing has changed, the spirit remains the same after the story as before. The most you might get out of it, or even put into it, is a wise nod.

So what you are saying is that, for people like me, Aesop's fables are myths and the Biblical myths are fables? That seems like a cumbersome way to define "myth" and "fable."

I'd sooner use the dictionary definitions, myself. The primary distinction between a myth and a fable is length; a myth is "a traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people," while a fable is "a usually short narrative making an edifying or cautionary point and often employing as characters animals that speak and act like humans." Some people find themselves taking away more "life-changing" messages from fables, while other people find more signficant messages in myths.

DubyaGoat

26-04-2006, 16:54

The hypothetical ‘history’ discussed and thrown around in this thread is appalling sometimes. I'm not trying to revive a dead aspect of the discussion, but simply because it went away and the average reader will have the 'wrong' impression if that's all they read, I'll set the record straight as to the actual condition of royal Egyptian education in regards to reading and writing etc., and whether or not they actually did have to learn how to read and write...

As to where the posters in this thread got the idea that Egyptian royalty and nobles couldn’t read I don't know, perhaps too many bad movies? But in truth, there are numerous recordings of royal children being educated in various fields. Including Ramesses II below...

http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f293/DubyaGoat/SetiIandhissoonRamesses.jpg

This stela shows King Seti I (second from left) and his son, later Ramesses II ("The Great"), who stands behind him. Ramesses wears his hair in a side ponytail, a style characteristic of a youth or of a special type of priest, and he carries a slender fan that was a sign of rank.

Though we have no information about the location or organization of schools prior to the Middle Kingdom, we can tell that after that time they were attached to some administrative offices, temples (specifically the Ramesseum and the Temple of Mut), and the palace. In addition to "public" schooling, groups of nobles also hired private tutors to teach their children.

http://fathom.lib.uchicago.edu/2/21701778/

And in regards to how Ramesses II treated his own children:

Most of the sons were probably give the opportunity to prove themselves in battle, but some appear to have not taken to this way of life, such as Khaemwaset, his forth son. His talents seem to have been of a more intellectual nature, so he was allowed, as others, and even encouraged, to purse a career as a priest. In this, he excelled becoming famous as a sage and as the creator of the Serapaeum at Saqqara. Merenptah, the 13th son of Ramesses II who would be lucky enough to eventually outlived his older brothers and become king, was initially responsible for administration of the Delta region as far south as Memphis. While he may not have been recognized officially as a co-regent of his father, he was probably responsible for the kingdoms stewardship during the final twelve years of his father's long life.
http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/ramesses2children.htm

Or this one:

The one which appears to be the oldest is by the celebrated, vizier, architect and physician to the 3rd-dynasty pharaoh Djoser.

This text has not survived, but is mentioned in the Harper's Song in the tomb of King lnyotef. Another is the Instruction Compiled by the Noble and Royal Prince Hordjedef for His Son.
http://www.touregypt.net/historicalessays/lifeinEgypt7.htm

Which obviously begs the question, how could the Royal Prince Hordjedef compile a book and then think that his son would read it IF he thought that his son would be illiterate?

No, the royal children of the Pharaohs were most certainly taught to read and write and have a profession (especially the lesser children which would apply to adopted children like what Moses was said to have been). It would have been a great honor and privilege to be raised with tutors and to learn a profession, either warrior or priestly, like the examples I’ve given above. Even Ramesses II was raised to perform priestly duties (as shown by his dress and hair style during youth) and Egyptian Doctors and Priests were taught as scribes first and then their specific fields (like a master’s degree compares to a today bachelor’s degree [scribe equivalent]).

And this should put the final nail in the coffin of any such thinking for future discussion…
The king was the only one who did not personally tutor his children. Senenmut, the vizier and royal architect for Hatshepsut, and a man named Idu at Abusir, were such royal tutors. The princes and princesses learned literature, mathematics, writing, and grammar
http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/educate.htm

Willamena

26-04-2006, 16:58

So what you are saying is that, for people like me, Aesop's fables are myths and the Biblical myths are fables? That seems like a cumbersome way to define "myth" and "fable."
I don't know about "people like you," but it is clear to me from prior posts that you yourself haven't been moved by the messages of religion, as some have.

If I appeared to say what you said above, I'm sorry, I didn't mean to. I honestly thought I emphasized that the difference is in how the non-literal message moves the reader, not in who writes the stories or how we label them.

I'd sooner use the dictionary definitions, myself. The primary distinction between a myth and a fable is length; a myth is "a traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people," while a fable is "a usually short narrative making an edifying or cautionary point and often employing as characters animals that speak and act like humans." Some people find themselves taking away more "life-changing" messages from fables, while other people find more signficant messages in myths.
The difference, then, between dictionary definitions is the "fundamental worldview", and that speaks directly from the subjective perspective, i.e. who you (or the group) are.

Ashmoria

26-04-2006, 17:03

there is one more factor that must have had some influence on the development of christianity.

probably

maybe

its the destruction of pompeii in 79ad.

pompeii was a posh town. the people living there had all the best of roman life society and culture. it was utterly destroyed. no one survived it. good/bad, rich/poor, male/female, master/slave, righteous/sinner. all died. the ash blotted out the sun all over the eastern mediterranean. crops failed.

no one living in the eastern mediterranean area, including rome, jerusalem, alexandria, athens, would have been unaffected. how long it took to learn of the eruption of vesuvius and the destruction of pompeii and herculaneum, i dont know but it must have been a terrifying story. there was a good description of it by pliny the younger who witnessed it with his uncle pliny the elder. so the story of it went around.

so, since i dont know stuff, what im THINKING is that it created an opening for a new religion. the older beliefs obviously didnt help anyone in pompeii. no sacrifice, no purity, no religious belief saved any of those people. it must have struck many of the big thinkers that someone must have gotten something wrong and that it was time to take another look. and maybe a non roman based religion like judaism seemed worth that second look.

79ad sure does seem to be a time of great religious thought with the rise of many christian and gnostic groups.

Muravyets

26-04-2006, 17:15

I think the Bulgarian version is probably more in the Gnostic vein... I have heard of 'gnostic' teachings that involved Jesus and Satan as 'twin sons' of God, for example - and I have heard of versions that teach that the character that dictated 'the Bible' was actually Satan, and the character we all shun is the true god.

Actually - that's one of the things that kind of offends me about common Christianity - and one of (what I perceive as) the major weaknesses it has against Judaism and some Christian schools of thought, and even Islam.

Christianity takes a peculiarly 'finished' view of their scripture - and yet, they play all kinds of fast-and-loose with it.

Islam takes a similar 'permanent' view - but avoids much of the debate and fuss, by the simple precedent that a translated Koran, just is not the same as a 'real' one in the native script.

Judaism, collectively, seems to revel in dissecting the text, fine-tuning the understanding of the material. The Jehovah's Witnesses are the only Christian sect I can think of that put the SAME sort of effort into the analysis of the scripture.

Christianity, on the other hand - is somewhere between complacent (most Christians know little or no Hebrew, Greek or Aramiac - DESPITE those being the languages their scripture was orginally written in) and willfully ignorant. The scripture itself warns against 'thinking too much' for ourselves (Colossians 2:8 "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.") and many Christians seem to have taken it as license to accept whatever they are told at face value.
I confess that I also have a knee-jerk reaction against people who choose not to think about things. The interesting thing is that, when you apply thought to the Christian religion, you find much wisdom and insight in it. But the religion seems to be dominated by an authoritarian attitude, both of those who want authority over others and those who want to follow an authority rather than do for themselves. I personally believe it's possible to have both attitudes in the same religion (not easy, but possible), but that doesn't seem to be the way it's going. I'm still not convinced enough to say definitively that this is what Christianity is about. Didn't Tropical Sands say something about 36,000 Christian sects? Their letterheads can't be the only difference between them. Maybe I just don't want to think of people this way because it's so close to my heart.

As for those Bulgarians, you'd need to read the stories. They're pretty strange. I have copies from an out-of-print book. If you want, I'll scan them and send them to you. Yes, it is entirely possible that they are a Gnostic tradition, or on the other hand, those stories could be a survival of ancient Indo-Aryan dualistic paganism -- or maybe not. You tell me what these people are thinking:

Springtime in Bulgaria :D :
http://www.eliznik.org.uk/Bulgaria/photos/Sop_kukeri-14-25-95.JPG
http://www.eliznik.org.uk/Bulgaria/photos/Sop-7-12-95.JPG
http://www.eliznik.org.uk/Bulgaria/photos/ETrakia_kukeri-13-36-91.JPG
http://www.eliznik.org.uk/Bulgaria/photos/ETrakia_kukeri-4-30-91.JPG

My kinda party. :D

Muravyets

26-04-2006, 17:36

DubyaGoat

26-04-2006, 17:46

*snip*

There was no Hebrew writing of any kind during that time, anything that anyone would want to write down from the spoken Hebrew language would have to be written in a new linguistic style, in other words, it would have to be invented to be a written language, which we all know that it WAS invented, but not until later. Whoever would want to write it down would have to set out to invent it on purpose, likely by someone that already knew how to write in a different language and tradition. Like a royal prince who would be familiar with Phoenician alphabet and Egyptian alphabet would be. A Moses type figure would be a perfect example of someone with the knowledge of writing and the desire to make a new one and the know how of how to do it.

Muravyets

26-04-2006, 17:52

<snip>
Well forget what a Jew is telling you about Judaism. I guess your modern Christian interpretation of Jewish scriptures lets you know what Judaism believes about sin better than a Jew telling you.

Nowhere in those verses does it talk about a "curse of sin." Nor do we believe in one. You seem to be under a curse, though, the curse of ethnocentrism. You assume that your ethnocentric interpretation of our scriptures is going to tell you something about our religion. Get a clue.
<snip>
Welcome to the same club I got put into against my will and have been trying to claw my way out of all through this thread. Some people have a lot of nerve, that's all I have to say about it.

Muravyets

26-04-2006, 17:55

There was no Hebrew writing of any kind during that time, anything that anyone would want to write down from the spoken Hebrew language would have to be written in a new linguistic style, in other words, it would have to be invented to be a written language, which we all know that it WAS invented, but not until later. Whoever would want to write it down would have to set out to invent it on purpose, likely by someone that already knew how to write in a different language and tradition. Like a royal prince who would be familiar with Phoenician alphabet and Egyptian alphabet would be. A Moses type figure would be a perfect example of someone with the knowledge of writing and the desire to make a new one and the know how of how to do it.
Wait, so now you're saying that Moses invented Hebrew so he could write in it? And what do you base this on?

I'm sorry, the speculation has just gotten totally crazy at this point and just goes to show the foolishness of insisting on the historical literalness of the Bible.

DubyaGoat

26-04-2006, 18:06

Wait, so now you're saying that Moses invented Hebrew so he could write in it? And what do you base this on?

I'm sorry, the speculation has just gotten totally crazy at this point and just goes to show the foolishness of insisting on the historical literalness of the Bible.

You invented the idea that the royalty weren't likely to be good at reading and writing (out of the blue and pure speculation on your part which turns out to be baseless and without merit), and then you said that Moses couldn't have learned to write in the slave language, which is true, but not for the reason you submitted. IF Moses wrote anything down it could NOT have been in Hebrew unless he invented the written form of Hebrew, much like other educated people have tried to invent a written form for an older verbal language from time to time (some Indian tribes in the southern states tried to invent a written version of their native language as well when the need arose for contractual and legal purposes).

Your incredulousness is telling.

Tropical Sands

26-04-2006, 18:36

And I've shown you that you cannot get any support for a literal water baptism as a ritual that saves us from the books of the New Testament. Unless you think that the New Testament was written by modern Christians, you can quote all of the early church fathers you like, but you cannot support your idea that the early Christians relied on a literal physical baptism for salvation, and therefore that the modern concept of baptism belongs only to the modern Christians. The scriptures, as they read now, would go against your theory. Thus my interpretation is as historical as the NT.

No, you've just given personal interpretation of scriptures that says "there is no support." Now, when I quote early Christians who comment extensively on the fact that baptism in water is necessary for salvation, that is plenty of support for the idea that early Christians relied on a literal, physical baptism for salvation. The fact that we have writings from early Christians that distinctly say that, and records of early Christians doing it, is quite clear.

And no, your interpretation is not as historical as the NT. You are just putting a modern spin on the NT. Unless you can demonstrate that your interpretation existed in early Christianity, then you can't claim it is as historical as any early Christian texts. Once again, you seem to be confusing your modern interpretation with what the NT actually says.

So you think that you can label my argument as some fallacy of this sort or another and contradict it? I don't even consider that arguing. I made a clear point and you refute it by calling it a fallacy. Come back with some serious arguments.

Well lets see. Logic is a science. Fallacies are facts and principles of logic. If you commit a fallacy, then it makes your argument invalid and illogical, by definition. If you reject that, there is not much point discussing anything with you, since you reject logical discussion. You committed a fallacy, and thus you were illogical and your "point" was logically invalid. There really is no way around it.

It means that we are not saved by removing dirt from the body. Simple as that. It means, then, that physical washing does not save us. That means that when you are trying to say that a physical washing does save us, you are seriously confused. Or, it could be that he is saying that a physical baptism is not the same as washing dirt from our bodies. If that was true, the Apostle Peter would be a bit dim. Rather, you have got yourself into a spot of bother with that one.

It draws a clear dichotomy between baptism and washing. Early Christians, and those groups of Christianity today that can actually trace their existence to some early roots (like Roman Catholicism and forms of Orthodoxy), were quite clear and still are clear today that baptism is necessary for salvation.

So do you think that whoever wrote down the words of Jesus regarding 'eating his flesh and drinking his blood' (John 6:53) would have frowned on anyone putting a spiritual interpretation on that? The way to interpret a passage is to take the interpretation that is consistent with the whole message of the Bible. If you can't do that with your particular interpretation, there is something wrong with it.

It doesn't sound like you're very familiar with common Christian theology. The predominate Christian belief regarding the Eucharist is that of transubstination. That it literally becomes the body and blood of Jesus, that it isn't "spiritual" "metaphorical" or "symbolic", rather, quite literal. In fact, the ritual of communion, eating your god, is one of those pagan influences in the Jesus myth.

Now you are saying that a physical baptism *is* a spiritual baptism. Are you confused about that?

You've drawn a false dichotomy based on your modern misunderstanding between spiritual baptism and "physical baptism." The fact is, for early Christians who believed that baptism was necessary for salvation, it was both a physical and spiritual act. You will find no dichotomy of the sort you propose in early Christianity.

And when Paul writes that we have died and risen with Christ, does that mean we are committed to a literal physical death and physical resurrection in that interpretation, even though he doesn't mention that he meant it in a spiritual sense?

This all goes back to your fallacy of the undistributed middle. Of course, since you reject logic, there is no point in me pointing out when you violate logical laws by committing formal fallacies.

You have a long way to go before you can prove any of your ideas, I suggest. You seem to be relying on speculation, and some chap called Iraneaus, who probably was no more relevant to the Christians of his time than the Pope is to modern Christians when he insists that we should not use pregnancy preventions.

The majority of Christians worldwide are Catholics, so the Pope is quite relevant. During the time of Iraneaus, Orthodox leaders were even more relevent, because there was no Protestant Reformation or various Orthodox schisms yet. The only deviations were various gnostic "heresies." Once again, you seem to be trying to draw conclusions on early Christianity based on modern pop-culture Christianity, without a real base of knowledge in the former.

I would say that it is pretty clear that the early Christians thought the following:

'' 9For if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10For it is by believing in your heart that you are made right with God, and it is by confessing with your mouth that you are saved. 11As the Scriptures tell us, "Anyone who believes in him will not be disappointed.[e]" 12Jew and Gentile are the same in this respect. They all have the same Lord, who generously gives his riches to all who ask for them. 13For "Anyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."
Romans 10

I find no reference to baptism here. Do you?

No, there doesn't need to be. Because there are refernes alsewhere. It does not make an exclusive statement regarding salvation. If you argue that this means that all you have to do is "call on the name of the Lord" alone, then you're committing the fallacy of the argument from absence. This is because you assume that it excludes baptism (and there is an absuence of such a statement), when it does not say that this is the only criteria necessary. The fact that this criteria and baptism were both necessary are not mutually exclusive, nor does any place in the NT imply such a thing.

The verse from Romans that I quoted above flatly contradicts you, old chap.

No, just your personal, pop-culture interpreatation of it. You, like most modern Christians, seem to confuse personal interpretation with what the literal meaning is. Unless you can support your interpretation from a historical basis, rather than a modern one, then it doesn't hold much weight.

So now you are claiming to be more familiar with the Jewish Law than Paul. Would that be arrogance? Or do you have a decent argument for that?

Of course I'm more familiar with the Jewish Law than Paul. Most Jews today are, considering that Paul was a Hellenizer from Tarsus, who demonstrated a serious lack of legal knowledge in the Epistles, and an apostate (who, according to Halacha, can't be an "expert" on the law).

Paul explains that the freedom from guilt and declaration of righteousness before God that was possible within Judaism depended on the ultimate sacrifice of God in Christ Jesus, i.e., that Judaism looked forward to the provision of God. As Abraham said to Isaac, God Himself will provide an offering.

Well, then Paul was wrong. That isn't what Judaism teaches. The freedom from guilt and declaration of righteousness in Judaism is attained through teshuvah. There is no need for a pagan man-god sacrifice. Of course, since Paul was essentally a legal infant, and wrote to Goy audiences, he could say virtually anything he wants about Halacha and fool people.

Thats why Christianity died out as a Jewish sect and was accepted by Goyim who knew nothing about the Law. That is why, today, the vast majority of Christians continue to be people who know nothing about the Law. Like yourself.

The number of converts has almost always been a minority, both among the Jews and the Gentiles. Many Jews who converted would probably have ceased trying to observe the Law, and eventually their children would have have no longer been considered Jews.

This doesn't even make sense. If you have two groups, Jew and Goy, then they can't both be a minority. Every dichotomy has one majority and one minority, or both groups are equal. The fact of it is, most early Christians were not Jewish, but were non-Jews. In addition, so were most converts all throughout history. Jews have virtually all rejected Christianity because it is inconsistent with the Jewish scriptures and Law. Only the Goyim who didn't know any better bought it.

This assertion of yours requires evidence. I'm curious to learn which parts you might think are word for word. To do so, I suggest you provide both the Pagan source and the Biblical source, just so I can see for myself.

I am pretty sure I already have, in previous posts. But here goes:

Luke 23:24 "Forgive them, they know not what they do."
Euripides' The Bacchae, fourth episode "Forgive them, they know not what they do"

Matthew 22:14 "Many are called, but few are chosen."
Plato's Phaedo "Many are called, but few are chosen."

It is also important to note that both of these references, in Plato and in the Bacchae, regard the Dionysaic mystery religion.

Make up your mind. You start by saying that the Gospels do not claim that the Jewish rabbis wanted Jesus dead, and then you end by saying that the Gospel were written by the Gentiles who wrote them in an attempt to 'demonize' the Jews and thus invvented the animosity between Jesus and the Jews. That seriously looks like a contradiction in your own post.

No, you're mincing my words now. I stated that the Gospels do not say that rabbis killed Jesus. And the Gospels were written by Goyim in an attempt to demonize the Jews.

Anyway, you can interpret the Gospels as being an invention of the Gentiles, but as far as I can see, it is another of your speculations that you are not likely to provide much evidence for. But you are welcome to prove me wrong.

Lets see. They were written as pseudoepigraphica, a hallmark of Goyim. They were written in Greek, a language common among Goyim in Judea. They were written with a distinct Roman bias, and as polemic against Jews. They quote the Seputagint, a predominately Goy usage, rather than Jewish versions of scripture. They quote texts that were far more common among Goyim. The vast majority of early MSS are found in areas populated by Goyim, not Jews. There is a vast body of evidence that they were written by Goyim, but not a shred of evidence that they were written by Jews aside from Christian tradition.

Paul writes in Romans 11:
''28Many of the Jews are now enemies of the Good News. But this has been to your benefit, for God has given his gifts to you Gentiles. Yet the Jews are still his chosen people because of his promises to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.''

Note that the Jews are still considered the 'chosen people' in the Christian scriptures. This is not consistent with your claim of 'demonizing' the Jews.

For one, I stated that the Gospels were written as polemics against Jews that demonize them, not Paul's Epistles. Trying to prove something about the Gospels based on an interpretation of Paul is like trying to prove something about the Epistles of Paul using the Book of Mormon. You've slipped into a fallacy of relevence.

In addition, the NT is inconsistent. Thus, it isn't shocking to see some praise for Jews mixed in with distinct anti-Semitic sentiment.

A Sanhedrin council meeting (such as the one that found Jesus guilty) was also apparently against the Jewish Law, since it met in secret and during nighttime. The Gospels go as far to say that they broke their own Laws in order to find Jesus guilty of breaking the Law.
And obviously you would know that it was not the Jews that killed Jesus, but only that they demanded that the Romans kill him.

Yes, this is how we know that the Gospels were written as polemic and are inaccurate. The fact that they go out of their way to paint a picture of Jews as being corrupt, violating their own laws, etc. when the historical record has no such account and paints an entirely different picture.

What a silly thing to say! As if all modern scholars hold your particular point of view. Or as if anyone who believe 'the Jesus myth' could not possibly be a modern scholar.

You're working backwards. Not all modern scholars hold my POV. But there is no serious scholarship to support anything you've claimed. As I've stated, your opinions tend to be those of modern pop-culture Christianity, and modern pop-culture Christianity has a brand of pseudo-scholars who are essentially half-rate apologists.

If the Gospels were invented and written by the Gentiles, why would they want to protray Jesus as emphasising the Law? Don't you see a contradiction there?

The Goyim who wrote the Gospels werent any more familiar with the Law than Paul was. However, they did paint a legalistic picture due to the vast ammount of stolen Rabbinical material they included. I don't think they realized that they did portray Jesus as emphasizing the Law, because as Goyim they weren't familiar with the fact that the popular teachings they attributed to Jesus (like the golden rule, two greatest commandments, etc.) were part of Halacha.

A shred of serious scholarship.....is that another way of saying that anyone who disagrees with you cannot be a serious scholar?

No, its a way of saying exactly what I said. There is not a shred of serious scholarship to support your point. While many serious scholars disagree with one another, none of them believe that the pop-culture Christianity you espouse has any historical basis.

The Gospels describe the Jews as breaking the Jewish Law. So it is your word against the Gospels.

Its my word and history against the Gospels. As I stated before, we have no historical record of anything the Gospels claim regarding the Jews. In addition, we have historical record regarding the Jews that teaches us things contrary to what the Gospels claim. The Gospels stand alone, teaching something contrary to what the historical record and modern scholarship accepts as true. And since we know the Gospels were written as polemic, they become even more questionable sources, due to their goal and bias in mind.

That's simply one point of view. Hardly facts. And it goes against virtually all of the Gospels and the Acts and the letters by Paul. You would have to describe the whole of the NT as an invention. And then you have the gall to assert that modern scholars--no, serious modern scholars all take your point of view. Do you really think that?

Technically as a religious studies grad student, I am a "serious modern scholar." And my viewpoint is what you'll find if you ever go to school and take a class regarding anything I've mentioned. Modern scholarship is quite oppossed to what Christians believe by faith, and what pop-culture Christianity teaches.

Rereading my posts, I see that it does indeed look like I could have though Herod was a Pharisee, and that the High Priest was also a Pharisee. You are right, neither of them were Pharisees, but the Pharisees and the Sadducees, normally enemies, were united in their efforts to destroy Jesus, initially with public arguments, and finally through deception (Judas) and threats (against Pilate).

Oh yes, the vast Jewish conspiracy. The two enemy sects united because they hated Jesus soooo much. And you still don't think that there is a Christian polemic against Jews in the Gospels?

You seem pretty adamant that the curses that I listed from Genesis were not due to sin. Perhaps, then, you might like to provide a reason for why those curses came about, rather than accusing me of ethnocentrism.

For one, you didn't say anything about curses due to sin. You stated "the curse of sin." And as I've stated, there is nothing in Genesis that talks about such a thing. Things like the "curse of sin" and "original sin" and all of that were Christian inventions. The fact that Jews never believed in such things demonstrates how when Goyim go back and try to reinterpret Jewish scriptures its ethnocentrism.

The Bible talks of sin as a noun and a verb ('sinful' would be the adjective). In the same way, 'love' can also be a noun or a verb.

No, sin is always a verb. It appears to be a noun if you're reading an English translation, but if you go back and read it in Hebrew, the words pesha, avon, and chet are always going to be verbs. Each refers to the action of violating a law, they never refer to an object, person, place, or thing.

Why would you take the texts of Tertullian or Iraneaus as more representative of the early Christians than the writings of Paul? Because they happen to be readable in such a way as to support your position? I would think that Paul's writings had far more influence than either of those chaps. And Paul wrote in Romans 8:
''15So you should not be like cowering, fearful slaves. You should behave instead like God's very own children, adopted into his family[h]--calling him "Father, dear Father."[i] 16For his Holy Spirit speaks to us deep in our hearts and tells us that we are God's children. ''

The fact of it is, the things Paul wrote doesn't support your point. You're confusing "the writings of Paul" with "my own personal interpretation of the writings of Paul." If you want to give me something Paul literally wrote, without interpretation, that is fine. But everything you've cited by Paul is accompanied by your own personal interpretation of what Paul meant, a personal interpretation that is rooted in modern pop-culture Christianity.

So, I've cited the commentaries of early Christians on the same issues to demonstrate that early Christianity does not agree with modern pop-culture Christianity.

I have supported my interpretation based on the scriptures. I have shown you how we can obey the Law--through faith in Jesus. I am not arguing that Jesus didn't mean what he said, only that he didn't mean what you take it to mean, i.e., the notion that obedience to the Law was possible without faith in God. Even Abraham was considered righteous because of his faith in God, not by his attempts to keep the Law, because there was no Law for him to keep. If you can't understand that, you have basically missed the whole point of the NT.

This is the fallacy of circular reasoning. Yes, you've supported your interpretation of scriptures based on your own personal interpretation of scriptures. It is from this fallacious form of reasoning that Christianity has become the most divided religion in the world. Christians can't even agree on who God is. Some say Jesus is God, some say Jesus isn't God. And they all support these things based on their own personal interpretation of the scriptures, and claim that the scriptures support their own personal interpretation (the fallacy of circular reasoning you've just demonstrated).

This is why I've cited the interpretation of early Christians, and thus stated it is how early Christians believed and read the scriptures. Whereas, you've given an interpretation that hasn't existed before 200 years ago, and claimed that Christians 1900 years ago believed it.

I'm going to go ahead and give some more early Christian beliefs on baptism:

Justin Martyr believed baptism in water was necessary for salvation:

"As many as are persuaded and believe that what we teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, are instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins that are past, we praying and fasting with them. Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, 'Except ye be born again, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven." (First Apology)

"He that, out of contempt, will not be baptized, shall be condemned as an unbeliever, and shall be reproached as ungrateful and foolish. For the Lord says: 'Except a man be baptized of water and of the Spirit, he shall by no means enter into the kingdom of heaven.' And again: 'He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved but he that believeth not shall be damned." (Constitutions of the Holy Apostles)

"They then receive the washing with water in the name of God (the Father and Lord of the universe) and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit. For Christ said, 'Unless you are born again, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven" (First Apology)

Clement believed baptism was necessary for salvation:

"If we do the will of Christ, we shall find rest; but if otherwise, then nothing shall deliver us from eternal punishment, if we should disobey His commandments. . . . [W]ith what confidence shall we, if we keep not our baptism pure and undefiled, enter into the kingdom of God? Or who shall be our advocate, unless we be found having holy and righteous works?" (2 Clement)

Iraneaus:

"As we are lepers in sin, we are made clean from our old transgressions by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord. We are thus spiritually regenerated as newborn infants, even as the Lord has declared: 'Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven."

Tertullian wrote a whole commentary on baptism, called "On Baptism":

"After the world had been hereupon set in order through its elements, when inhabitants were given it, 'the waters' were the first to receive the precept 'to bring forth living creatures.' Water was the first to produce that which had life, that it might be no wonder in baptism if waters know how to give life."

""Baptism itself is a corporal act by which we are plunged into the water, while its effect is spiritual, in that we are freed from our sins"

""Happy is our sacrament of water, in that, by washing away the sins of our early blindness, we are set free and admitted into eternal life!"

"How mighty is the grace of water, in the sight of God and His Christ, for the confirmation of baptism! Never is Christ without water: if, that is, He is Himself baptized in water; inaugurates in water the first rudimentary displays of his power, when invited to the wedding; invites the thirsty, when He makes a discourse, to Himself being living water; approves, when teaching concerning love, among works of charity, the cup of water offered to a poor child; recruits His strength at a well; walks over the water; willingly crosses the sea; ministers water to his disciples. Onward even to the passion does the witness of baptism last: while He is being surrendered to the cross, water intervenes; witness Pilate's hands: when He is wounded, forth from His side bursts water; witness the soldier's lance!... True and stable faith is baptized with water, unto salvation; pretended and weak faith is baptized with fire, unto judgment."

"The prescript is laid down that 'without baptism, salvation is attainable by none' chiefly on the ground of that declaration of the Lord, who says, 'Unless one be born of water, he hath not life.'"

The Shepherd of Hermas:

"And I said, 'I heard, sir, some teachers maintain that there is no other repentance than that which takes place, when we descended into the water and received remission of our former sin.' He said to me, 'That was sound doctrine which you heard; for that is really the case.'" (The Shepherd)

During the Seventh Council of Carthage, 200ad

"Marcellus of Zama said: Since sins are not remitted saved in the baptism of the Church, he who does not baptize a heretic holds communion with a sinner."

St. Basil:

"This then is what it means to be `born again of water and Spirit': Just as our dying is effected in the water, our living is wrought through the Spirit. In three immersions and an equal number of invocations the great mystery of baptism is completed in such a way that the type of death may be shown figuratively, and that by the handing on of divine knowledge the souls of the baptized may be illuminated. If, therefore, there is any grace in the water, it is not from the nature of water, but from the Spirit's presence there" (The Holy Spirit)

St. Ambrose:

"No one ascends into the kingdom of heaven except through the sacrament of baptism." (On Abraham)

"You have read, therefore, that the three witnesses in baptism are one: water, blood, and the Spirit: And if you withdraw any one of these, the sacrament of baptism is not valid. For what is the water without the cross of Christ? A common element with no sacramental effect. Nor on the other hand is there any mystery of regeneration without water, for `unless a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God'" (The Mysteries)

John Crysotom:

"None can enter into the kingdom of Heaven except he be regenerate through water and the Spirit" (The Priesthood)

And I could go on and on. Augustine commented on it, it was ruled on in various Orthodox councils, etc. Hopefully this gives you a good sample of what early Christians believed regarding baptism, as oppossed to the modern pop-culture views on baptism.

Ashmoria

26-04-2006, 18:55

Originally Posted by Bruarong
And I've shown you that you cannot get any support for a literal water baptism as a ritual that saves us from the books of the New Testament. Unless you think that the New Testament was written by modern Christians, you can quote all of the early church fathers you like, but you cannot support your idea that the early Christians relied on a literal physical baptism for salvation, and therefore that the modern concept of baptism belongs only to the modern Christians. The scriptures, as they read now, would go against your theory. Thus my interpretation is as historical as the NT.

No, you've just given personal interpretation of scriptures that says "there is no support." Now, when I quote early Christians who comment extensively on the fact that baptism in water is necessary for salvation, that is plenty of support for the idea that early Christians relied on a literal, physical baptism for salvation. The fact that we have writings from early Christians that distinctly say that, and records of early Christians doing it, is quite clear.

And no, your interpretation is not as historical as the NT. You are just putting a modern spin on the NT. Unless you can demonstrate that your interpretation existed in early Christianity, then you can't claim it is as historical as any early Christian texts. Once again, you seem to be confusing your modern interpretation with what the NT actually says.

just to jump into this part for a moment.....

braurong, you have one big problem with your stance against tropical sands

as you say, tropical's opinion is just opinion and is pretty much equal to yours

but

in order to say that your interpretation of the new testment is correct you dont have to show that tropical sands is wrong

you have to show that iraneaus is wrong

you have to show that st augustine is wrong

you have to show that st thomas aquinas is wrong

you have to show that martin luther is wrong

you have to show that john calvin is wrong

you have to show that EVERY great christian thinker of the past 2000 years (excluding the past 200 years) is wrong in his interpretation of the new testment

when you can show that you have a better grasp of christian theology than st thomas aquinas or martin luther, you can say that tropical sands is wrong.

Muravyets

26-04-2006, 18:57

Not a miracle, but an exceptional situation. Alexander the Great conquered his world (at least a good deal of it) by the age of 30, or so we are told, but presumeably not because of a miracle. It was an exceptional situation.
Which is not essential to the story, and for which there is not one shred of evidence, thus undermining your claims to historical accuracy.

And, as GnI pointed out, Alexander may have been an exceptional person, but there was nothing very exceptional about the situation he started out from. You do know that people started their careers much younger in the ancient world than they do today, right? Life spans being what they were, and all. 30 was middle-aged in those days. And you do know that Phllip of Macedon was himself a reknowned military man, so there's nothing surprising at all in the idea that his son would have followed in his footsteps and even wanted to out-do him, right?

Moses was over 80 years old, according to the story, by the time he got to write the law. It is possible that he learned how to read and write within those 80 years. My old Grandad could barely read or write when he first picked up a Bible around the age of 40. By the time he died, less than 30 years later, he was a sort of self-educated scholar and preacher.

As for the part where it describes the death of Moses, that could have easily be written by someone like Joshua or one of Moses' other personal assistants, who could have learned a good deal from Moses, including his own writing style. Indeed, Moses himself apparently gave the written Law to the Levites, who could have easily expanded on the original material to include the death of Moses, the alotment of land to the 12 tribes, the conquest of Caanan, etc.
So you are saying that other people wrote the story of Moses's life. Why couldn't they have gotten some it wrong then?

As far as I have read, Moses was never a slave. One account (Josephus) has it that he was an army commander in the war against Ethiopia and won great renown with his exploits. Even if that was an invention, having a prince status in Egypt would probably mean that you had enough time to do what you liked, including learning the language of your forefathers (something people still do today).
You are using your own assumptions again, and contradicting yourself to do it -- again. If Moses was an army commander, then he had a job, right? You are aware that Egypt prosecuted many small wars against its neighbors in order to dominate them, force tribute payments and get slaves, right? So army commanders were not armchair generals -- they had work to do -- out of town work at that. So where is all this aristocratic free time then?

Also, I'd like you to point out a single real instance in all the history of humanity in which aristocrats have embraced a lower class heritage. Your idea that Moses learned the language of his forefathers depends on several wildly unlikely things: (1) that the people raising him knew where he came from and, thus, that he knew where he came from while he lived among them; (2) that if they did know he was a Hebrew, they would have adopted and raised him; (3) that there were any teachers of the Hebrew language, which some here are saying didn't even exist at that time; (4) that army commander Moses spent his time out on the battlefield studying a foreign language that was spoken by a slave population.

This just doesn't wash, B.

That's unnecessary.
I meant it seriously in figuring out the story. If Moses learned to read and write the Hebrew language, and if there was no opportunity for him to do so in his regular life, then why could it not have been revealed along with the rest of the vision and wisdom he received from God? Mysticism, of many religions, is full of such miraculous access to information -- there are countless heroes and visionaries of legend who are magically or miraculously granted understanding of languages and the ability to communicate them.

For people who believe such things really happen, then it could have really happened for Moses on Sinai.

For people who don't believe such things really happen, it is still a legitimate literary device for the tellers of the Moses story, if the story is understood as myth in which the spiritual meaning is more important than the events of the plot.

I don't insist this. He could have even learned to read and write from his father-in-law, Jethro, during his 40 years shepherding in the desert (although that is probably less likely).
Why would it be less likely? In fact, as likely or unlikely as it may be, it strikes me as more likely than Moses learning Hebrew among the Egyptians.

OK, I was not aware that you were waiting for specific answers from me, nor that you had asked me or any of the other Christians why they have a tendency to take the Bible stories literally.
Well, perhaps you should actually read the thread. The questions have been asked, and they are clear and answerable, i.e. not rhetorical.

I was using the resurrection as an example. I suppose many Christians might say that it is unnecessary to take the whole of the Bible stories as literal stories, in order to believe in Christ. I would tend to agree with that. It is unnecessary to consider all of them literal. On the other hand, there obviously are some things in the Bible are intended to be literal, like the resurrection, in the view of most Christians.
How is it obvious?

Personally, I don't mind if you take the Bible stories and read different meanings into them, or if you have different stories for the creation of the world, etc. It's a free world after all. You are right to point out that what you personally choose to believe is your right, and the only extent that it affects me is where I think it may be either good or damaging to you. Either way, your beliefs have no more bearing on me than that.
So then, you would disagree with those who wish to make civil law conform to scripture in order to have an entire society follow their religion's rules, even if their fellow citizens do not belong to that religion -- as some are trying to do here in the US? This is the part of what I do not understand that I am the most concerned with. I am personally curious to understand other people's beliefs, but if I can't grasp it entirely, that doesn't bother me so much. But I feel more motivated to try and understand it if I am caught in a conflict over it that I want to resolve.

I simply believe in the claims of Christ. That does not bind me to an literalist viewpoint *only*, but I am quite ready to argue that many of the stories could easily be literally true, considering that I believe in a God that is capable of miracles like the resurrection of Christ.

I can't say which view point is most common. Depends on the country. Most Christians that I meet generally agree with my viewpoint, but I suppose I am more likely to meet such Christians because I tend to go to churches (not always) that believe in a literal Christ who was literally resurrected.
That could account for it.

Right. What I was trying to point out is that within Christianity, there is a connection between a literal Christ and the literal state of being forgiven by God, of being literally loved by God, and of course the existence of a literal God that is right now observing the thoughts of every individual, including yours and mine. Thus, ruling out a literal Christ would mean that God probably does not literally love us, forgive us, etc, right here in the 21st century.
Okay, if that's the way you see it, although it seems to me like an enormous logical leap to make. I do not see that one necessarily follows the other.

I was once an outsider too. But the point of Christianity is that the reward is knowing God, of loving Love, of receiving the status of a child of God. That is the pay right there. Any form of Christianity that is motivated by any other desire for wealth, status, or even special rights in heaven is missing the point. It is to know God and be known by him--the point of Christ coming to earth to win us to himself.

No, God does not owe me anything. Being the creator, he is free to do anything that is according to his nature, not according to my concept of right and wrong. But because God is righteous, then what he does defines righteousness. That may look way too dangerous to you, but the proof lies in the fruits. The result of embracing God's righteousness is such fruits as love, joy, peace, patience, long-suffering, kindness, forgiveness, mercy, etc., against such there is no law.
Then why would you assume that, if the story -- even the revealed truth, if you will -- is in the form of metaphor or symbol, it means that it's not true? It seems as if, by requiring the story to be literal fact, you are limiting the ways in which your god is allowed to teach you things. That's what it looks like.

So many questions, M. Actually, I'm not that clear one what is the exact process after death. And the hints that we get from scripture tend to point towards some complexity that is not easily understood by humans (on this side of death). At any rate, although the answers to these questions are important, they are not as important as your earlier questions about whether we should take the stories literally or not.
Why? Christianity talks about saving souls. Saving them from what, for what? Christianity talks about a final judgment of souls. What will be the result of that judgment? What will be done with, to or about the judged souls? What is the soul, in Christian teaching?

You've claimed several times to be interested in understanding animist beliefs (in between bouts of accusing us of horrible abuses, which I'm still waiting for retractions of -- just to let you know I haven't forgotten). Well, the core of animism is the belief in souls. We're all about souls. This seems like another good point on which to contrast our two religions.

I think Paul's point was that when you start removing some parts of the stories (e.g., the resurrection, because they are too 'hard' to believe in) you end up actually changing the meaning. Paul was saying the the meaning of a lack of a literal resurrection of Christ was that Christians are miserably deceived, since it would mean that while they believed that their sins were forgiven and that they have God's favour, it would not be literally so.
Again, I don't see the logic of this. Metaphor and symbol are not lies or falsehoods. They are methods of describing things that are otherwise not describable or comprehensible directly.

It isn't virtue that made me want to be follow Christ. Virtue is not my reward. And one doesn't get virtue by chasing it. For example, it has been said that humility is such a fragile flower, that is withers the moment it sees itself in a mirror. Rather, Christianity is about the personal connection with God. And while this is emphasised, I know that there are plenty of cases of Christians who don't seem to have much personal connection to God but are nonetheless constantly talking about it. We are told that we are known by our acts (humility, love, kindness, etc.) and not necessarily by what we say.
I thought that virtue is something you do -- i.e. an act by which you will be known -- not something you chase or acquire. I thought it is something that you put into the world, not something you take out of it; something you give to god, not something god gives to you.

My deepest desire is simply to be friends with God. That is my reward. So that I can say as Job did, though He slay me, yet will I love Him. Perhaps you can begin to see that when the world is viewed through the eyes of such a love, it becomes a very difference place indeed.
Yes, obviously, I can see that things would appear different, if you had originally had the idea that you were not friends with god.

Muravyets

26-04-2006, 19:13

You invented the idea that the royalty weren't likely to be good at reading and writing (out of the blue and pure speculation on your part which turns out to be baseless and without merit), and then you said that Moses couldn't have learned to write in the slave language, which is true, but not for the reason you submitted. IF Moses wrote anything down it could NOT have been in Hebrew unless he invented the written form of Hebrew, much like other educated people have tried to invent a written form for an older verbal language from time to time (some Indian tribes in the southern states tried to invent a written version of their native language as well when the need arose for contractual and legal purposes).

Your incredulousness is telling.
I did no such thing. I base my description of Egyptian society on its own written records -- the existence of which is a strong indicator that literacy was not so uncommon, even though writing was a specialized profession, and which give many detailed accounts of how the Egyptians lived. And there is nothing in the Egyptian records that describes the lifestyle you are insisting on. Nobles were not expected to be more literate than any other Egyptian outside the profession of scribe -- and scribe was not a noble profession, i.e. a job for aristocrats. There is no evidence that most Egyptian nobles even wrote their own personal correspondence, as opposed to dictating to scribes the way most common people did. Were they barred from learning those skills? No, they were not, and some did. But it was rare for them to do so because (a) they had other things to do and (b) it was outside their class.

This whole debate is about the idea that every detail of the Moses story has to be literally true. This one detail is, historically speaking, extremely unlikely to be true, plus it isn't even necessary to the story. Even Bruarong, with whom I agree on almost nothing, offers a solution -- that Moses learned to read and write the language of the Hebrews while living with his Hebrew in-laws. That makes sense, but would you reject it because it doesn't fit with your interpretation of the story, which has Moses learning to read and write in Egypt? Is this Egyptian literacy detail even in the Bible? I've lost track at this point.

Finally, my incredulousness is telling of what?

Muravyets

26-04-2006, 19:28

<snip>
Originally posted by Bruarong
Rereading my posts, I see that it does indeed look like I could have though Herod was a Pharisee, and that the High Priest was also a Pharisee. You are right, neither of them were Pharisees, but the Pharisees and the Sadducees, normally enemies, were united in their efforts to destroy Jesus, initially with public arguments, and finally through deception (Judas) and threats (against Pilate).

Oh yes, the vast Jewish conspiracy. The two enemy sects united because they hated Jesus soooo much. And you still don't think that there is a Christian polemic against Jews in the Gospels?

I wonder what the newly discovered Gospel of Judas has to say about this, if anything?

Tropical Sands

26-04-2006, 20:06

Oh hm, I got a telegram about this thread, I thought I'd post it up here and respond:

I saw the thread you created. I would like to know what myths predate Christiandom. Since Christiandom starts at the beginning. Of the world that is. It also began in a place thousands of miles from Greece and England. England is of course where the Pagans come from. The Greeks are Gentiles. Let's get that straight.

1. Christiandom is about 2000 years old. There is no evidence for it existing earlier than that.
2. Christian texts do not even claim that Christiandom started at the beginning of the world, so who knows where you got this idea.
3. England is not the only place pagans come from. When we use the term "pagan" it designates any non-Jewish, non-Islamic, or non-Christian group. Since the latter two did not exist, in this case it would designate any non-Jewish group. Pagans existed all over the world - Egypt, China, the Middle East, even side by side in Judah with Jews.
4. Not all Greeks are gentiles, and not all gentiles are Greeks. The words are not synonymous. Any non-Jew is a gentile, regardless of where they are from.

Muravyets

27-04-2006, 00:06

Oh hm, I got a telegram about this thread, I thought I'd post it up here and respond:
Originally Posted by Merrickania
I saw the thread you created. I would like to know what myths predate Christiandom. Since Christiandom starts at the beginning. Of the world that is. It also began in a place thousands of miles from Greece and England. England is of course where the Pagans come from. The Greeks are Gentiles. Let's get that straight.
1. Christiandom is about 2000 years old. There is no evidence for it existing earlier than that.
2. Christian texts do not even claim that Christiandom started at the beginning of the world, so who knows where you got this idea.
3. England is not the only place pagans come from. When we use the term "pagan" it designates any non-Jewish, non-Islamic, or non-Christian group. Since the latter two did not exist, in this case it would designate any non-Jewish group. Pagans existed all over the world - Egypt, China, the Middle East, even side by side in Judah with Jews.
4. Not all Greeks are gentiles, and not all gentiles are Greeks. The words are not synonymous. Any non-Jew is a gentile, regardless of where they are from.
Wow. This makes me feel slightly less as if I'm beating my head against the wall arguing with Bruarong. This person is of the opinion that there is only the Holy Land, Greece and England? No such place as Africa, or China, or the Americas, or Australia... I have a horrible fear that this person is an American. :D

DubyaGoat

27-04-2006, 00:15

I did no such thing. I base my description of Egyptian society on its own written records -- the existence of which is a strong indicator that literacy was not so uncommon, even though writing was a specialized profession, and which give many detailed accounts of how the Egyptians lived. And there is nothing in the Egyptian records that describes the lifestyle you are insisting on. Nobles were not expected to be more literate than any other Egyptian outside the profession of scribe -- and scribe was not a noble profession, i.e. a job for aristocrats. There is no evidence that most Egyptian nobles even wrote their own personal correspondence, as opposed to dictating to scribes the way most common people did. Were they barred from learning those skills? No, they were not, and some did. But it was rare for them to do so because (a) they had other things to do and (b) it was outside their class.

Unbelievable. Simply unbelievable. You claim literacy wasn't a valued commodity in Ancient Egypt and you say there is not proof of nobles being able to write to each other. Obvoiusly this is NOT your field of expertise.

I supported my statement with links so you could see it for yourself, you refuse to be corrected so you don't read them.

I also noticed that you don't provide any links that support your erroneous hypothesis...

Finally, my incredulousness is telling of what?

It is telling that you don't really know what you are talking about when it comes to literacy in Ancient Egypt and the education given to the nobles of that age.

Muravyets

27-04-2006, 00:40

Unbelievable. Simply unbelievable. You claim literacy wasn't a valued commodity in Ancient Egypt and you say there is not proof of nobles being able to write to each other. Obvoiusly this is NOT your field of expertise.

I supported my statement with links so you could see it for yourself, you refuse to be corrected so you don't read them.

I also noticed that you don't provide any links that support your erroneous hypothesis...

It is telling that you don't really know what you are talking about when it comes to literacy in Ancient Egypt and the education given to the nobles of that age.
How many times do I have to say that literacy was present in Egyptian society for you to stop claiming that I'm not saying it? I even pointed out that there were poets and historians among the ancient Egyptian nobles. All I'm objecting to is the assumption that, if Moses was raised as an Egyptian noble, then it necessarily follows that he was literate enough to write his own books -- and that he did so in the language of a subjugated population. Even in the modern western world, which values universal literacy -- an extremely modern viewpoint, btw -- there are differing levels of literacy. In the ancient world, where literacy was not necessary to success in life, it is too wild a conjecture to base an entire historical argument on the assumption that a particular person was literate. It is even more wild to conjecture that he achieved a high level of literacy in a foreign, lower class language.

Second, I notice that, in your denunciation of me, you do not answer my question. Does the Bible claim that Moses learned to read and write while living among the Egyptians? If so, then historians can hash this out. If not, then all we're really arguing about here is where Arthur found the cocoanuts.

Third, I didn't provide links because it's not my assertion. I'm just commenting on an argument presented by others. I don't remember whether any of the historians here presented links or not. It's been so long.

Fourth, have you ever been a secretary or an executive in a busy office -- corporate or government? I worked in such offices for over 12 years. I'm here to tell you that, even now in the 21st century, there are high ranking executives who don't know how to use a computer. Yet they are extremely sucessful in their careers. They rely on support staff to do that work for them. I was merely saying that the evidence that exists about life in Egypt makes it appear very likely that nobles who had a lot to do would also rely on "support staff." We have already established that Egypt had professional scribes. They also had lawyers and accountants. These professions existed then for the exact same reason they exist today -- so that people could avoid doing that work themselves. If Moses did live in the royal household, and if he was an army commander, then, even if he did learn to read and write Egyptian, it is likely that he would seldom have done it himself, and instead have used scribes to take his dictation, which is what the scribes were for. Why is that such an unreasonable suggestion?

And finally, why is it so unreasonable of me to suggest that Moses's literacy or lack thereof in the Egyptian language is irrelevant to his abilities in the Hebrew language?

Grave_n_idle

27-04-2006, 03:51

I confess that I also have a knee-jerk reaction against people who choose not to think about things. The interesting thing is that, when you apply thought to the Christian religion, you find much wisdom and insight in it. But the religion seems to be dominated by an authoritarian attitude, both of those who want authority over others and those who want to follow an authority rather than do for themselves. I personally believe it's possible to have both attitudes in the same religion (not easy, but possible), but that doesn't seem to be the way it's going. I'm still not convinced enough to say definitively that this is what Christianity is about. Didn't Tropical Sands say something about 36,000 Christian sects? Their letterheads can't be the only difference between them. Maybe I just don't want to think of people this way because it's so close to my heart.

As for those Bulgarians, you'd need to read the stories. They're pretty strange. I have copies from an out-of-print book. If you want, I'll scan them and send them to you. Yes, it is entirely possible that they are a Gnostic tradition, or on the other hand, those stories could be a survival of ancient Indo-Aryan dualistic paganism -- or maybe not. You tell me what these people are thinking:

Springtime in Bulgaria :D :
http://www.eliznik.org.uk/Bulgaria/photos/Sop_kukeri-14-25-95.JPG
http://www.eliznik.org.uk/Bulgaria/photos/Sop-7-12-95.JPG
http://www.eliznik.org.uk/Bulgaria/photos/ETrakia_kukeri-13-36-91.JPG
http://www.eliznik.org.uk/Bulgaria/photos/ETrakia_kukeri-4-30-91.JPG

My kinda party. :D

I'm actually something of a 'collector' of stories... at the moment I am reading an old collection I found of translated Tang dynasty folk stories, and a (proclaimed serious) book about how the pyramids are evidence of an Irish religion that dates back millenia... As you can see, second-hand stores are my friend... and 'bizarre' is right up my street. :)

I'd quite like to see this Bulgarian text of which you speak, I'll see if I can 'telegram' you an email address - unless you have 'webspace' somewhere that you can scan it to.

Looking at the pictures - I'm suspecting a 'syncretism'... their version of Christianity looks like it has 'absorbed' a native tradition, and effectively done little more than renaming their masks.

Grave_n_idle

27-04-2006, 03:54

Grave_n_idle

27-04-2006, 03:58

Unbelievable. Simply unbelievable. You claim literacy wasn't a valued commodity in Ancient Egypt and you say there is not proof of nobles being able to write to each other. Obvoiusly this is NOT your field of expertise.

Strawman.

Literacy would have been a valued commodity... but it was a commodity you got OTHER people to do for you, because of it's nature, the amount of 'training' it required, and the special significance of the written word.

Muravyets

27-04-2006, 04:50

I'm actually something of a 'collector' of stories... at the moment I am reading an old collection I found of translated Tang dynasty folk stories, and a (proclaimed serious) book about how the pyramids are evidence of an Irish religion that dates back millenia... As you can see, second-hand stores are my friend... and 'bizarre' is right up my street. :)

I'd quite like to see this Bulgarian text of which you speak, I'll see if I can 'telegram' you an email address - unless you have 'webspace' somewhere that you can scan it to.

Looking at the pictures - I'm suspecting a 'syncretism'... their version of Christianity looks like it has 'absorbed' a native tradition, and effectively done little more than renaming their masks.
No convenient webspace. It may take me a while to find where I stashed the stories. TG me an email address -- a yahoo throw away will do, and I'll send you either jpegs of the pages or word docs. I think these stories are worth the effort. Sounds like our reading habits are pretty similar. :)

And there's nothing Christian at all about those masks and dancers. That's the Kukeri festival, every March, when the mountain spirits come down and chase the winter spirits away -- and wake up the spring spirits -- with their extremely noisy dancing. That's what the big bells are for. That's how they welcome spring in Bulgaria. In Switzerland, just this week, they burned winter out with a huge bonfire. And in the Czech Republic -- my personal favoriite -- they celebrate spring with public spankings on Easter Monday. They braid special willow whips for the purpose, and the guys get liquored up and go out and spank every woman they can find with the whips. They're not supposed to let up until they either get a drink or a painted egg. It's a fertility ritual -- apparently, if a woman doesn't get her annual flogging, she'll "dry up" and that would be a sad thing. (There is a naughty and disrepectful pun to be made about that, but I'm a-scared of the others on this thread.)

The point is, there isn't even an attempt to meld these festivals with Christianity. The Christians doing them know perfectly well that they are pagan rituals, and they not only have no problem with that, they love these festivals as part of their ancient cultural identities. And fun parties. The syncretism of the type in which two distinct spiritual views exist side by side within the same people because the two views are not seen to compete or conflict with each other.

DubyaGoat

27-04-2006, 05:15

Actually - I was the person who first raised the issue of Moses' likely education - and I stand by it.

...

In that case, then the strawman is yours. There was no ‘written’ slave language to be learned during the New Kingdom (1540BCE – 1070BCE) age of Ancient Egypt, there was simply “middle Egyptian.’ There could be no princes, or scribes for that matter, that could or would need to write in a language that had no writing. IF Moses, or anyone else at that time (New Kingdom Egypt) was writing they were likely be using Hieroglyphs (high language, temple walls etc.,), Hieratic (priestly script cursive shortcuts) or Demotic script (administrative common usage), if they wanted to write in the language of the Hebrews they would have had to invent it as it wasn’t done anywhere yet.. If the Moses person actually lived and was a prince (even an adopted one of a lesser wife) then he most certainly was taught to read and write and likely learned another one or two professions as well.

Simply put, the nobility were literate, you ‘standing by it’ is irrelevant because you are simply wrong. Pharaoh Tutankhamen had writing equipment among the necessities he had with him for his afterlife, and he became a ruler at a very young age and still, even he was literate. Literacy then, like now, is only magical to the illiterate.

The nobility was literate too, even many women among them, but they were prone to have political agendas of their own and pursue them, above all when central government was weak. Still, many high state functionaries were drawn from the nobility, often from the pharaoh's own family. Occasionally working class commoners knew how to read and write, but administrative positions were generally filled with scribes who had inherited their status from their fathers.
http://nefertiti.iwebland.com/people/social_classes.htm

DubyaGoat

27-04-2006, 05:41

Muravyets

27-04-2006, 06:14

As to the topic of could Moses of known the language of the Hebrews, how could he have not? The story has it that Miriam, Moses' older sister was following and waited until the Princess found the baby Moses and then she went up and asked if she needed a wet nurse to feed the child. The Princess agreed and she hired Moses' own mother and paid her to nurse her own child. Wet nursing then, unlike now, went on for a much longer period of time, whatever language the Princess spoke AND his wet-nurse spoke, he would have learned like a toddler today in a dual language home (say Spanish and English). It's a silly objection to pretend that the Moses character couldn't have known the language his wet-nurse/mother spoke.
For both this and your immediately preceding post:

How, then, did Moses write the books attributed to him, or even just the Law he received from God, if there was no written language for him to use? (And what about hieratic?)

This whole hissy-fit has been about the insistence that Moses is the author of both the Law and the books and that's why there can't be any mistakes in them.

Oh, and what about my question? Does the Bible itself say that Moses wrote things?

Freefoundland

27-04-2006, 06:24

Accordingly, no matter who you are or what you do or how you believe (Muslim, Christian, Atheist, etc), you *are* Hindu. Neat, eh?

Very Neat :)

DubyaGoat

27-04-2006, 06:37

...
Oh, and what about my question? Does the Bible itself say that Moses wrote things?

My conclusion from my limited study is that the Bible is very clear that God revealed His laws to Moses who taught those lessons to the Hebrew people during the exodus from Egypt (during the forty years in the desert). This means to me that the laws contained in Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy are Mosaic. As to whether or not Moses wrote every single word of the Pentateuch (Torah), I don’t know, I don’t think so, but you should ask TS or B about their beliefs. I will help defend the belief IF you and GnI keep coming up with illegitimate objections (like Moses couldn’t write or didn’t know Hebrew, etc.,) because invalid arguments can not prove that Moses did NOT write the Pentateuch.

If Moses did not write anything about the Torah, it was not because a prince from the New Kingdom age of ancient Egypt didn’t know how to write OR because he couldn’t have known the Hebrew language ~ if he existed, then he would have known Hebrew and he would have known how to write AND, he would have known how to administrate authority and delegate responsibilities to get things done… Like having the new Laws recorded for posterity, resulting in what we know today as the Pentateuch.

Muravyets

27-04-2006, 07:13

My conclusion from my limited study is that the Bible is very clear that God revealed His laws to Moses who taught those lessons to the Hebrew people during the exodus from Egypt (during the forty years in the desert). This means to me that the laws contained in Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy are Mosaic. As to whether or not Moses wrote every single word of the Pentateuch (Torah), I don’t know, I don’t think so, but you should ask TS or B about their beliefs. I will help defend the belief IF you and GnI keep coming up with illegitimate objections (like Moses couldn’t write or didn’t know Hebrew, etc.,) because invalid arguments can not prove that Moses did NOT write the Pentateuch.

If Moses did not write anything about the Torah, it was not because a prince from the New Kingdom age of ancient Egypt didn’t know how to write OR because he couldn’t have known the Hebrew language ~ if he existed, then he would have known Hebrew and he would have known how to write AND, he would have known how to administrate authority and delegate responsibilities to get things done… Like having the new Laws recorded for posterity, resulting in what we know today as the Pentateuch.
DG, your post does not make sense. In your first paragraph, you agree with me that the entire thing could have been mystically revealed to Moses -- which means he didn't need any prior skills in any kind of language so there is no need to argue over whether he had such skills or not. (If you read back over the thread, you'll see Buarong took offense at this suggestion from me.) Yet, despite that this is precisely what I was saying, you still say that our statements about the literacy of Egyptian aristocrats are not legitimate ways to prove that Moses didn't write the books. But, again, if you read the earlier posts, you will see that I never argued any such thing. What I was arguing was that this one specific scenario of how Moses could have written the books is not believable, and there are at least two different scenarios that make more sense -- realistically, that he learned Hebrew while living with Jethro, and literarily/spiritually, that it was revealed direct from god, so he didn't need advance training. So in paragraph #1, you both agree and disagree with me.

In paragraph #2, you're still insisting that Moses had all these skills because of his Egypt years, not because of his mystic years. And you also claim both that he was fully equipped to write the books himself AND that he got others to do it for him. Well, which is it? DIY or delegate? What does the story actually say?

Bruarong

27-04-2006, 11:19

Hebrew didn't exist during this time period. The Hebrew language and alphabet was developed later and was based on the Phoenician alphabet. The Hebrew people didn't begin using it until around two and a half centuries minimum after the date when Moses would have existed.

http://www.crystalinks.com/hebrew.html
''Early Hebrew was the alphabet used by the Jewish nation in the period before the Babylonian Exile--i.e., prior to the 6th century BC--although some inscriptions in this alphabet may be of a later date. Several hundred inscriptions exist. As is usual in early alphabets, Early Hebrew exists in a variety of local variants and also shows development over time; the oldest example of Early Hebrew writing, the Gezer Calendar, dates from the 10th century BC, and the writing used varies little from the earliest North Semitic alphabets.''

Looks like the earliest piece of writing *to be found* was about the time of King David, which does not rule out the existence of written Hebrew a long time before then.

Early Hebrew was supposed to be based on Canaanite, (or at least more similar to Canaanite than Egyptian) the common ancestor of Hebrew and Phoenician, and Canaanite was apparently present in Canaan before the Hebrew invasion. In fact, the Hebrews were originally from Caanan (before Abraham came out of Ur), which means that they possibly took their language with them from Canaan into Egypt.

The only belief system that that passage refers to was the dispute on a resurrection of the dead. Certain groups (such as Sadducees) did not believe in a resurrection of the dead, while others (Pharisees) believed it was a cornerstone. Even today, part of our 13 principles of faith is a belief in the resurrection of the dead.

The above passage, however, says nothing about if Jesus' resurrection was a literal physical one, or a metaphorical spiritual one.

The fact that early Christian groups in the first century did not believe that Jesus literally rose from the dead is a wonderful piece of evidence that the resurrection of Jesus is a myth. If this were a historical, literal event, then there would not have been Christiain groups in the same time period and area that disputed it.

But the Gospels indicate that the soldiers guarding the tomb were bribed to lie about the resurrection of Jesus, a clear indication that there was controversy over the resurrection of Jesus. What is more, Paul actually raises the issue in 2 Corinthians, as if there was controversy over the resurrection of Jesus. So how can you assert that there was no Christian groups of that time period that disputed it? The only way around it, I think, is to assert that these Scriptures came from a much later period, i.e., that Paul did not live and write in the 1st century, and thus that it was an invention.

Bruarong

27-04-2006, 15:15

And, as GnI pointed out, Alexander may have been an exceptional person, but there was nothing very exceptional about the situation he started out from. You do know that people started their careers much younger in the ancient world than they do today, right? Life spans being what they were, and all. 30 was middle-aged in those days. And you do know that Phllip of Macedon was himself a reknowned military man, so there's nothing surprising at all in the idea that his son would have followed in his footsteps and even wanted to out-do him, right?

The point is that no man has ever matched Alexander's achievements. Don't you find his achievements exceptional? I do, and I think that such exceptions do not require miracles. At any rate, history is full of exceptional people and exceptions. It's partly what makes it so fascination for me to read up on it. And Moses too would have been an exceptional person, although your argument seems to be that he probably didn't exist or didn't write the book because that would have required an exceptional person.

So you are saying that other people wrote the story of Moses's life. Why couldn't they have gotten some it wrong then?

My 'hunch' is that Moses was the major contributor to the first five books of the Bible, but that his successors and the Hebrew scribes were also minor contributors. It is possible that they got things wrong, but most likely not errors of a large scale, IMO. They had far too much respect for Moses and God to have ever changed the story to suit themselves. We see that even in the modern Jews.

You are using your own assumptions again, and contradicting yourself to do it -- again. If Moses was an army commander, then he had a job, right? You are aware that Egypt prosecuted many small wars against its neighbors in order to dominate them, force tribute payments and get slaves, right? So army commanders were not armchair generals -- they had work to do -- out of town work at that. So where is all this aristocratic free time then?

So your idea of being a prince in Egypt is to go hammer and tong at war with never a moment of rest or leisure? 40 years is a long time. Why would that be a contradiction?

Also, I'd like you to point out a single real instance in all the history of humanity in which aristocrats have embraced a lower class heritage. Your idea that Moses learned the language of his forefathers depends on several wildly unlikely things: (1) that the people raising him knew where he came from and, thus, that he knew where he came from while he lived among them; (2) that if they did know he was a Hebrew, they would have adopted and raised him; (3) that there were any teachers of the Hebrew language, which some here are saying didn't even exist at that time; (4) that army commander Moses spent his time out on the battlefield studying a foreign language that was spoken by a slave population.

This just doesn't wash, B.

Like Dubyagoat pointed out, although Moses was raised as an Egyptian, the story has it that he knew who his own people were, possible through his wet nurse/birth mother. There really isn't that much wild speculation about it. Hardly even exception at that point.

The Hebrews probably would have had their own language (as distinct from Egyptian). They were Semites and the Semite languages certainly existed at that time. It came from Canaanite, the language spoken in Canaan, which dates back at least as far as 1500 BC.

So then, you would disagree with those who wish to make civil law conform to scripture in order to have an entire society follow their religion's rules, even if their fellow citizens do not belong to that religion -- as some are trying to do here in the US? This is the part of what I do not understand that I am the most concerned with. I am personally curious to understand other people's beliefs, but if I can't grasp it entirely, that doesn't bother me so much. But I feel more motivated to try and understand it if I am caught in a conflict over it that I want to resolve.

I'm not American, and never have been. The most I know of your 'cultural wars' seems to be a power struggle for a control of politics (which is definitely an improvement on the way such battles were fought in the past, I might add), judging my what I see on TV and in the newspapers.

Personally, I don't see Jesus as a political figure. And I am sympathetic mostly to those who want to preserve their liberties, on both sides of the battle. I see politicians using the cultural wars as leverage in their campaigns, e.g. calling themselves Christians in order to get more votes. And I can understand why people like you get so upset by the word 'Christianity'. It has become a dirty word because it is associated with dirty tactics and an ugly fight. For me, though, it has a totally different meaning. And I do not associate Christ with civil law. If I was American, I probably would not be involved in all the fuss, so long as I did not think that a particular law was downright wrong. My idea of a good Government is one that allows me to practice my religion, so long as my religion does not *harm* anyone else, either within or without my religion. Short answer. I suppose I would be fairly neutral or moderate about your civil law wars, and not terribly interested in them. The real enemy of the human race is evil, for it is destroying us.

Why? Christianity talks about saving souls. Saving them from what, for what? Christianity talks about a final judgment of souls. What will be the result of that judgment? What will be done with, to or about the judged souls? What is the soul, in Christian teaching?

Christianity it a good deal more than evangelism. It is about a relationship with God. When people insist on choosing their own way over God, they get their choice, existence without God, which is what we call Hell. So the battle is about God trying to win to himself every individual, to convince them that He does have their best interests at heart. We get to be a part of that battle at God's invitation. Unfortunately, many people (especially Christians) tend to think that if they are aggressively evangelising, that would make them good Christians. I hear that message coming out of America quite often, and it is quite distressing, to be honest. You can't make a horse to drink by whipping it.

As for what God does with those souls that manage to resist or ignore His invitation, that is not for me to judge, or even know exactly. I do have a hint from the Bible, though, that to exist in the place reserved for God's judgement (Hell is a place of judgement for fallen angels) is quite miserable. I would gladly help any of my fellow humans avoid it. But human choice is supreme in that regard, and not even God Himself will override the choice that He gives us.

In Christian teaching, the soul is the real you, the eternal part. The physical body is described a temporary dwelling. It consists of chemical reactions, but the real person is living within.
I have often wondered why we need new bodies, after death, and I don't know the answer to that. But I do have an inkling that our souls need some housing. Why? Now sure right now, but I may understand that one day.

You've claimed several times to be interested in understanding animist beliefs (in between bouts of accusing us of horrible abuses, which I'm still waiting for retractions of -- just to let you know I haven't forgotten). Well, the core of animism is the belief in souls. We're all about souls. This seems like another good point on which to contrast our two religions.

Interestingly enough, due to our little discussion on animism, I thought I would take your advice and get more aquainted with animism. I bought a book about a South American tribe living in animism. It is written by a Christian, but he does give lots of checkable sources, and his main source of information was an anthropologist. Anyway, just to let you know that I have not forgotten our discussion. If I ever think that those 'poor chaps living in animism in the jungles of South America' were not so poor after all, I will mentally acknowledge that you were right, and I might even let you know, providing that happens before we 'lose touch'.

Anyway, I would say that is one of the major similarities between your version of animism and my version of Christianity--emphasis on the soul.

Again, I don't see the logic of this. Metaphor and symbol are not lies or falsehoods. They are methods of describing things that are otherwise not describable or comprehensible directly.

My personal experience of God fits with a literal interpretation of the Bible stories, and with the mythical interpretation of the Bible truths. I believe both in a God of miracles and a God who is far more real than the Bible stories, if you know what I mean. The Bible stories don't even do justice to who God really is. They only capture a small part of Him. However, that small part is enough for us to be His friends, the whole point of Christianity. The God that I believe in is far bigger than my little mind can understand. Thus, I accept the metaphor and symbol, and I believe the miracles. They all speak of the power of God.

Tropical Sands

27-04-2006, 17:18

http://www.crystalinks.com/hebrew.html
''Early Hebrew was the alphabet used by the Jewish nation in the period before the Babylonian Exile--i.e., prior to the 6th century BC--although some inscriptions in this alphabet may be of a later date. Several hundred inscriptions exist. As is usual in early alphabets, Early Hebrew exists in a variety of local variants and also shows development over time; the oldest example of Early Hebrew writing, the Gezer Calendar, dates from the 10th century BC, and the writing used varies little from the earliest North Semitic alphabets.''

OMG, are you getting your information from crystalinks? Don't you check out your sources first? This is one of the most insane, new age websites out there. The 10th century BC is also hundreds of years after the date attributed to Moses, so this doesn't exactly refute what I said. Rather, it enforces it.

But since you go to crystalinks for your information, I'm sure you believe what the host of the site (Ellie) states here too, in her biography on the website:

Two entities came from the ship - a male who called himself Zoroaster, and a female who said nothing, but smiled in knowing approval. He spoke telepathically.

I next remember being aboard the 'ship' and sitting on a bench next to a boy who was about my age.

I was shown a future in which I would help shape the destiny of this planet - another cliche in time - as all enlightened souls seek to help humanity evolve.

My work would be linked to pyramids, time, a book and film, and Zoroaster, who would guide me from that time on. I would call him Z.

I remember viewing a circular screen in which endless images were shown. It was as if messages were encoded that I would one day understand.

The boy and I would meet again one day to complete this project as we shared a common destiny.

I next remember being on the ground and 'right-time' resuming.

Yes, Ellie believes she was abducted by a UFO and contacted by Zoroaster. She also espouses virtually every occult and New Age doctrine out there, including the existence of Atlantis and Lemuria.

Looks like the earliest piece of writing *to be found* was about the time of King David, which does not rule out the existence of written Hebrew a long time before then.

Its quite simple. No one worth their salt in this realm believes that Hebrew existed during the time of Moses. There is no evidence to support such a thing, and evidence to the contrary (such as scholarly concensus on the issue). Of course, there is the *possibility* that it existed, in the same respect that there is the *possibility* that the author of the New Age website you consult for your sources was abduced by a UFO and contacted by Zoroaster, as she claims.

But the Gospels indicate that the soldiers guarding the tomb were bribed to lie about the resurrection of Jesus, a clear indication that there was controversy over the resurrection of Jesus. What is more, Paul actually raises the issue in 2 Corinthians, as if there was controversy over the resurrection of Jesus. So how can you assert that there was no Christian groups of that time period that disputed it? The only way around it, I think, is to assert that these Scriptures came from a much later period, i.e., that Paul did not live and write in the 1st century, and thus that it was an invention.

I didn't say that there were no Christian groups that disputed it. Perhaps you should go back an reread what I stated:

The fact that early Christian groups in the first century did not believe that Jesus literally rose from the dead is a wonderful piece of evidence that the resurrection of Jesus is a myth. If this were a historical, literal event, then there would not have been Christiain groups in the same time period and area that disputed it.

I stated that groups did dispute it. And if it were a real, literal event, there would not have been Christian groups that believed it was a metaphorical, mystical thing like the resurrection of Osiris, Mithras, and Dionysus.

The idea that soldiers were sent to guard the tomb is another piece of Gospel myth, too. There are no historical records of Roman soldiers ever being sent to do such a thing, and due to the number of people Pilate executed (in the thousands), if soldiers were sent to guard the tomb of every religious leader or rebel, he would have had legions standing out in the desert guarding caves. Its really quite absurd, when viewed in a historical light, and not taking the Jesus myth at face value.

There are also texts that give contrary accounts to the Gospel myths, such as the Toledoth Yeshu and Origen's Against Celsus, where Celsus' polemics against Christianity were recorded. Not to mention the dozens of Gnostic accounts.

Tropical Sands

27-04-2006, 17:35

My conclusion from my limited study is that the Bible is very clear that God revealed His laws to Moses who taught those lessons to the Hebrew people during the exodus from Egypt (during the forty years in the desert). This means to me that the laws contained in Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy are Mosaic. As to whether or not Moses wrote every single word of the Pentateuch (Torah), I don’t know, I don’t think so, but you should ask TS or B about their beliefs. I will help defend the belief IF you and GnI keep coming up with illegitimate objections (like Moses couldn’t write or didn’t know Hebrew, etc.,) because invalid arguments can not prove that Moses did NOT write the Pentateuch.

Well, I'll tell you what we're taught regarding the Torah, or at least what I remember off the top of my head. One is either that it was given in full to Moses, and that Moses thus recorded it in written form in full, even the part about his own death. Another is that it was given in part to Moses, and the parts regarding his death were written by Joshua. Moses Maimonides' 13 tenants of faith would have us state that the Torah is divine in origin, and that it is immutable and unchanged since Moses received it from God.

Judaism, particularly if you look into mystical forms, teaches that Hebrew was the first language, existed before the creation of the world, and was actually used in the creation of the world, etc. Of course, these are the mystical beliefs of many Jews, but not all Jews believe this.

Historically, on the other hand, we know that Hebrew did not exist when Moses was alive. The date when Moses would have existed predates Hebrew by at least two and a half centuries, and that is if we give Hebrew its earliest date possible. If Moses wrote the Torah, it wasn't in Hebrew, because no one was writing Hebrew during the time of Moses.

This is one of those places where religion/tradition/Bible conflicts with history. People can approach it by accepting what we know to be historically true, or accepting the Bible as being true regardless of historical inaccuracy. In any case, and as much as apologists love to try, we can't fit the square peg of the Bible into the round hole of history all of the time. Honest people would admit the limitations of the Bible and stop pretending that its perfect.

Muravyets

27-04-2006, 18:37

The point is that no man has ever matched Alexander's achievements. Don't you find his achievements exceptional? I do, and I think that such exceptions do not require miracles. At any rate, history is full of exceptional people and exceptions. It's partly what makes it so fascination for me to read up on it. And Moses too would have been an exceptional person, although your argument seems to be that he probably didn't exist or didn't write the book because that would have required an exceptional person.
In the history of the world, was Alexander all that exceptional? No, not that much, imo. After all, what did he really do other than travel a great distance -- while drunk and angry? What is the legacy of Alexander? Nothing but stories. What impact did he have on the world? Not much compared to the impact of the Roman Empire. The Romans did more to spread Greek culture than he ever did. He didn't even leave physical marks on the world -- cities or monuments -- the way others did. The only thing he accomplished of any worth was increasing the information available to mapmakers. Beyond that, Alexander is nothing but a cool story about an exciting dude who some people see as a personal role model. In my opinion, the same can be said of many of the characters of the Bible.

Beyond that opinion, I'm expressing only the slightest degree of opinion about Moses or any of the content of the Bible. My opinion is that, if the Bible is to perform the legitimate function of myth, which is to help open the spiritual awareness of its readers and give them insight into the spiritual universe it is describing, then details of historicity are irrelevant and to focus on them is to miss the point of the book. That is based on my understanding of what myths and sacred writings are and what they are for.

In this Moses brouhaha, I have been commenting on GnI's approach which is showing that the Bible is, in fact, not historically accurate. His purpose is not to claim that the Bible is false but, rather, that it is not meant to be history. Therefore, its authors were not concerned with being accurate.

As for what it would take to write such a book -- no, I don't think an exceptional person would be required to do it. There have been thousands upon thousands of amazing stories written throughout human history. How many exceptional authors do there have to be before they stop being exceptions?

My 'hunch' is that Moses was the major contributor to the first five books of the Bible, but that his successors and the Hebrew scribes were also minor contributors. It is possible that they got things wrong, but most likely not errors of a large scale, IMO. They had far too much respect for Moses and God to have ever changed the story to suit themselves. We see that even in the modern Jews.
Well, my problem with this whole side argument is that it's all just hunches. Fine, if we can debate hunches knowing that's what we are doing and knowing it's going to accomplish nothing, but some people here (Dubyagoat, I'm looking at you) seem bound and determined to prove it ain't no hunch. I described this elsewhere as arguing over where Arthur found the cocoanuts -- from the opening scene of "Monty Python & The Holy Grail," if you recall.

So your idea of being a prince in Egypt is to go hammer and tong at war with never a moment of rest or leisure? 40 years is a long time. Why would that be a contradiction?
I have made it clear my argument/question is -- just from the viewpoint of telling a story -- why do we have to use this less believable scenario of Moses learning and becoming literate in the Hebrew language while still living among the Egyptians, when there are other, more believable scenarios? From the mystical/literary pov, the miraculous revelation scenario works just fine. From the realistic plotting pov, your own learning-it-while-living-with-Jethro's-people scenario makes the most sense of all. Why must we insist on this Egyptian scenario at all? Especially, as this entire argument has made clear, it can only be made to work by twisting the history in order to fit an individualistic situation that goes against the grain of the cultural history. The other two scenarios do not require this much fiddling and twisting and it-could-happen argumentation.

I am still waiting, by the way, to be told where in the Bible it says precisely where Moses learned his languages. Does the Bible actually say he learned Hebrew in Egypt, or doesn't it?

Like Dubyagoat pointed out, although Moses was raised as an Egyptian, the story has it that he knew who his own people were, possible through his wet nurse/birth mother. There really isn't that much wild speculation about it. Hardly even exception at that point.

The Hebrews probably would have had their own language (as distinct from Egyptian). They were Semites and the Semite languages certainly existed at that time. It came from Canaanite, the language spoken in Canaan, which dates back at least as far as 1500 BC.
Possible. Could have. Maybe. We suppose. It could happen.

Is any of this really the point of the Moses story in the first place?

GnI is taking on Dubyagoat's claim that it all really happened and it really had to happen just this way and no other.

My only question in all of this is, who cares? What difference does it make to the freaking story? AAGH! You're making me nuts with this obsession over every miniscule detail of this sewn-together stack of paper called a book.

I'm not American, and never have been. The most I know of your 'cultural wars' seems to be a power struggle for a control of politics (which is definitely an improvement on the way such battles were fought in the past, I might add), judging my what I see on TV and in the newspapers.

Personally, I don't see Jesus as a political figure. And I am sympathetic mostly to those who want to preserve their liberties, on both sides of the battle. I see politicians using the cultural wars as leverage in their campaigns, e.g. calling themselves Christians in order to get more votes. And I can understand why people like you get so upset by the word 'Christianity'. It has become a dirty word because it is associated with dirty tactics and an ugly fight. For me, though, it has a totally different meaning. And I do not associate Christ with civil law. If I was American, I probably would not be involved in all the fuss, so long as I did not think that a particular law was downright wrong. My idea of a good Government is one that allows me to practice my religion, so long as my religion does not *harm* anyone else, either within or without my religion. Short answer. I suppose I would be fairly neutral or moderate about your civil law wars, and not terribly interested in them. The real enemy of the human race is evil, for it is destroying us.
Good. This seems to imply that you have no problem sharing the world with other religions. But why, then, have you spent so much time here denigrating other religions, especially mine?

Christianity it a good deal more than evangelism. It is about a relationship with God. When people insist on choosing their own way over God, they get their choice, existence without God, which is what we call Hell. So the battle is about God trying to win to himself every individual, to convince them that He does have their best interests at heart. We get to be a part of that battle at God's invitation. Unfortunately, many people (especially Christians) tend to think that if they are aggressively evangelising, that would make them good Christians. I hear that message coming out of America quite often, and it is quite distressing, to be honest. You can't make a horse to drink by whipping it.
Then why have you relied so heavily on evangelical sources for your information about other religions?

As for what God does with those souls that manage to resist or ignore His invitation, that is not for me to judge, or even know exactly. I do have a hint from the Bible, though, that to exist in the place reserved for God's judgement (Hell is a place of judgement for fallen angels) is quite miserable. I would gladly help any of my fellow humans avoid it. But human choice is supreme in that regard, and not even God Himself will override the choice that He gives us.

In Christian teaching, the soul is the real you, the eternal part. The physical body is described a temporary dwelling. It consists of chemical reactions, but the real person is living within.
I have often wondered why we need new bodies, after death, and I don't know the answer to that. But I do have an inkling that our souls need some housing. Why? Now sure right now, but I may understand that one day.
So then, do you think that the dead are stuck in their graves until Judgment Day? I'm not challenging you; I'm just curious. You don't have to pursue this, if you don't want to.

Interestingly enough, due to our little discussion on animism, I thought I would take your advice and get more aquainted with animism. I bought a book about a South American tribe living in animism. It is written by a Christian, but he does give lots of checkable sources, and his main source of information was an anthropologist. Anyway, just to let you know that I have not forgotten our discussion. If I ever think that those 'poor chaps living in animism in the jungles of South America' were not so poor after all, I will mentally acknowledge that you were right, and I might even let you know, providing that happens before we 'lose touch'.
"Mentally acknowledge" -- yeah, whatever. :rolleyes: Sorry, but I decline to be satisfied with this limp promise. You made specific accusations for which you have no evidence whatsoever. Because those statements are accusations of specific abuses and crimes, I want them retracted at this time. I do not intend to back down from this until I get what I want.

Anyway, I would say that is one of the major similarities between your version of animism and my version of Christianity--emphasis on the soul.
And what effect does this have, if any, on your opinion of animism? Or do you hold to the philosophy that if you can't say something nasty, you should say nothing at all?

My personal experience of God fits with a literal interpretation of the Bible stories, and with the mythical interpretation of the Bible truths. I believe both in a God of miracles and a God who is far more real than the Bible stories, if you know what I mean. The Bible stories don't even do justice to who God really is. They only capture a small part of Him. However, that small part is enough for us to be His friends, the whole point of Christianity. The God that I believe in is far bigger than my little mind can understand. Thus, I accept the metaphor and symbol, and I believe the miracles. They all speak of the power of God.
Noted.

Kristonnia

27-04-2006, 18:55

Muravyets

27-04-2006, 18:55

OMG, are you getting your information from crystalinks? Don't you check out your sources first?
I'm afraid he doesn't. I've been trying to make sense of the sources Bruarong has linked to here, and I fear that, if he is looking for something other than an evangelical Christian source, he just searches for keywords and posts anything that contains a sentence that agrees with what he wants to say, regardless of the context or authorship. I mean, he used India123.com, for crying out loud. It's a travel guide, like City Guides. But we should cut him a little slack, perhaps (or perhaps not). He started out saying he was against backing up his arguments with sources at all, and I think he is only doing it because I berated him about it. At least he's trying, but he clearly has no idea how to go about it.

Muravyets

27-04-2006, 19:09

Someone may have already pointed this out, but all you have to do is look at Christianity's two most prominent holidays to see the pagan influences. Christmas lies not on Jesus's birthday (which is really sometime in the spring), but on what used to be the winter solstice. And the main symbol of Easter is a Bunny that lays eggs. Does this have anything to do with the resurrection of Christ? No, it is a symbol of fidelity, a prominent symbols for Pagans.
Which tradition is it that says the bunny is laying the eggs? I keep hearing this, and I'm like, what, huh?

Rabbits are a fertility symbol -- for obvious reasons. Eggs are another fertility symbol -- also for obvious reasons. I've never before heard anything, though, about rabbits laying eggs. Is this an actual myth from somewhere?

The European pagan spring festivals are all about life returning from death. (Unnecessary hint: that's why they moved Easter to coincide with them.) The earth thaws and "comes back to life." Things emerge from it. The days lengthen, and people and animals get more active. Lots of sex is had -- it's mating season. Plus, the boundaries that separate the physical and spirit worlds are temporarily erased. The spring festivals were a second set of dates when the dead were believed to come home to visit. Hence the association with the symbolism of Easter and the resurrection.

Grave_n_idle

27-04-2006, 19:36

GnI is taking on Dubyagoat's claim that it all really happened and it really had to happen just this way and no other.

No... I'm done. I don't quite understand the 'why'... but DG seems so keen to score a point on me, that he's launching incomplete, often conflicting attacks... just (it seems) to get something to stick.

I've tried approaching what he (she?) posts... but I just get the same things regurgitated at me... like sweeping generalisations and baseless assertions get MORE 'true' if you just keep repeating them.

So - I'm done. Whatever he (she?) said... it's right. (Even the bits that LOOK like they'd be exclusive...)

Willamena

27-04-2006, 21:13

Which tradition is it that says the bunny is laying the eggs? I keep hearing this, and I'm like, what, huh?
Ahhh, that'd be the tradition of St. Cadbury's.

Rabbits are a fertility symbol -- for obvious reasons. Eggs are another fertility symbol -- also for obvious reasons. I've never before heard anything, though, about rabbits laying eggs. Is this an actual myth from somewhere?
Yup. Don't know how old it is. "One delightful legend associated with Eostre was that she found an injured bird on the ground one winter. To save its life, she transformed it into a hare. But 'the transformation was not a complete one. The bird took the appearance of a hare but retained the ability to lay eggs. ..the hare would decorate these eggs and leave them as gifts to Eostre.'"
http://www.religioustolerance.org/spring_equinox.htm

The egg, bird and snake were common motifs used in Europe since Neolithic times as symbols to decorate pottery and personal items. It was posited by archaeologist Marija Gimbutas that the female- and egg-shaped pots decorated with these symbols, uncovered over Europe, Africa and Asia indicate " the possibility of a primordial egg creation myth" associated with an early wide-spread religion of a Great Goddess represented variously as a bird figure and various land animals, and later as the 'monster' Tiamat who encircled the earth. She spent a good portion of her life trying to demonstrate how later Bronze and Iron age goddess descend from this one primordial 'Mother Earth', and convincing evidence that modern religions (both the pagan and monotheistic being discussed here) have a common origin can be found in the evolution of myths that involve goddesses from the earliest writings in Sumeria to more 'modern' Classical Greece myths(really good book (http://www.amazon.ca/exec/obidos/ASIN/0140192921/qid=1146168600/sr=8-5/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i5_xgl14/702-1418534-9100019)).

EDIT: I seem to remember another tradition of planting painted eggs in the ground to fertize crops. I'll see if I can find it.

Muravyets

28-04-2006, 02:54

Ahhh, that'd be the tradition of St. Cadbury's.
:D :D :D

Yup. Don't know how old it is. "One delightful legend associated with Eostre was that she found an injured bird on the ground one winter. To save its life, she transformed it into a hare. But 'the transformation was not a complete one. The bird took the appearance of a hare but retained the ability to lay eggs. ..the hare would decorate these eggs and leave them as gifts to Eostre.'"
http://www.religioustolerance.org/spring_equinox.htm

Saxons! Those freaking Saxons, at it again! I am definitely going to have research this. A million thanks for cluing me to it.

The egg, bird and snake were common motifs used in Europe since Neolithic times as symbols to decorate pottery and personal items. It was posited by archaeologist Marija Gimbutas that the female- and egg-shaped pots decorated with these symbols, uncovered over Europe, Africa and Asia indicate " the possibility of a primordial egg creation myth" associated with an early wide-spread religion of a Great Goddess represented variously as a bird figure and various land animals, and later as the 'monster' Tiamat who encircled the earth. She spent a good portion of her life trying to demonstrate how later Bronze and Iron age goddess descend from this one primordial 'Mother Earth', and convincing evidence that modern religions (both the pagan and monotheistic being discussed here) have a common origin can be found in the evolution of myths that involve goddesses from the earliest writings in Sumeria to more 'modern' Classical Greece myths(really good book (http://www.amazon.ca/exec/obidos/ASIN/0140192921/qid=1146168600/sr=8-5/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i5_xgl14/702-1418534-9100019)).

EDIT: I seem to remember another tradition of planting painted eggs in the ground to fertize crops. I'll see if I can find it.
I am not an enormous fan of Mary Gimbutas. She did remarkable work, of course, but I tend to look to her only for factual data as I find her analyses a little too politically slanted for my taste. I even think that her primordial goddess theory is a little too simplistic. She's definitely in my library, but not my #1 source.

Muravyets

28-04-2006, 02:58

No... I'm done. I don't quite understand the 'why'... but DG seems so keen to score a point on me, that he's launching incomplete, often conflicting attacks... just (it seems) to get something to stick.

I've tried approaching what he (she?) posts... but I just get the same things regurgitated at me... like sweeping generalisations and baseless assertions get MORE 'true' if you just keep repeating them.

So - I'm done. Whatever he (she?) said... it's right. (Even the bits that LOOK like they'd be exclusive...)
Bored already? And it's only been, what, 6 years that we've been stuck on this merry-go-round with him? ;)

DubyaGoat

28-04-2006, 05:12

GnI is taking on Dubyagoat's claim that it all really happened and it really had to happen just this way and no other.

When did I supposedly make that claim? All I've done is debunk a few erroneous arguments and statements from time to time. If you are going to prove anything, positive or negative, you at least have to maintain a factual footing.

The arguments that Moses couldn't have known how to write, or couldn't have known how to speak Hebrew etc., are falsehoods based on misdirected hypothesis and thus can't be used as evidences at all because they are erroneous. And equally, me showing that the person who 'could' have existed, as the story posits, does meet the requirements to fulfill the roll of the character in the story, does not in itself prove that the character did in fact actually exist exactly as the story holds.

But in the end, the requirement of proof has to come from the naysayer’s side ~ if an argument is made that there was never any Moses, then who invented him and when, and what historical evidences are there for such an argument to be made and taken seriously?

Bruarong

28-04-2006, 12:19

No, you've just given personal interpretation of scriptures that says "there is no support." Now, when I quote early Christians who comment extensively on the fact that baptism in water is necessary for salvation, that is plenty of support for the idea that early Christians relied on a literal, physical baptism for salvation. The fact that we have writings from early Christians that distinctly say that, and records of early Christians doing it, is quite clear.

You have appeared to select a few comments from early Christians which you have interpreted to support your concept that they believed that a physical baptism is necessary for salvation.

However, I would argue that they held such a point of view, that any person refusing baptism is an indication that they are not a Christian (currently an issue in many Christian circles), and might face being turned out of that circle. However, these same people are not necessarily believing that baptism does the saving, but rather seeing it as necessary outward sign of genuine belief in God (which of course does not guarantee genuine belief).

And no, your interpretation is not as historical as the NT. You are just putting a modern spin on the NT. Unless you can demonstrate that your interpretation existed in early Christianity, then you can't claim it is as historical as any early Christian texts. Once again, you seem to be confusing your modern interpretation with what the NT actually says.

So you claim. I can, however, look up several modern translations of the original text and find a consensus. So long as there is no conspiracy between all of the modern translations, I would say that my interpretations are fairly consistent with the original meaning. I'm not in a position to prove this, of course, but neither are you in a position to prove me wrong, I suggest. At least my argument is that we should look for interpretations that are consistent with the basic theme of the scriptures. You, however, seem to look for interpretations that make the scriptures appear contradictory.

Well lets see. Logic is a science. Fallacies are facts and principles of logic. If you commit a fallacy, then it makes your argument invalid and illogical, by definition. If you reject that, there is not much point discussing anything with you, since you reject logical discussion. You committed a fallacy, and thus you were illogical and your "point" was logically invalid. There really is no way around it.

I was objection to your labelling of my argument as a fallacy, without making any attempt to show *why* it was a fallacy. No reasons, no arguments, just a label. I don't call that arguing.

It draws a clear dichotomy between baptism and washing. Early Christians, and those groups of Christianity today that can actually trace their existence to some early roots (like Roman Catholicism and forms of Orthodoxy), were quite clear and still are clear today that baptism is necessary for salvation.

Do you mean necessary for us to determine whether someone is a Christian, or necessary for God to determine whether that someone is a Christian?

It doesn't sound like you're very familiar with common Christian theology. The predominate Christian belief regarding the Eucharist is that of transubstination. That it literally becomes the body and blood of Jesus, that it isn't "spiritual" "metaphorical" or "symbolic", rather, quite literal. In fact, the ritual of communion, eating your god, is one of those pagan influences in the Jesus myth.

Before the concept of transubstination, the Apostles apparently drank wine and ate bread (a fully meal, in fact) with Christ. They kept this practice, enjoying communal meals. It wasn't until later that the Catholic Church developed the concept of transubstination, which was not accepted by all Christians.

But anyway, my point was that there are references in the Gospels where Jesus talks in a way that is obviously not meant to be taken literally. For example, most Christians didn't think that we should be pulling out our eyes and cutting off our hands, but rather rejecting the part of us that desires to sin. Nor were we to literally hate our family members, but put our love of God supreme to all competing loves.

You've drawn a false dichotomy based on your modern misunderstanding between spiritual baptism and "physical baptism." The fact is, for early Christians who believed that baptism was necessary for salvation, it was both a physical and spiritual act. You will find no dichotomy of the sort you propose in early Christianity.

I find it in the scriptures. They obviously distinguished between a physical death and a spiritual one, between physical life and eternal life. Even the passing of the children of Israel through the Red Sea was called a baptism.

The majority of Christians worldwide are Catholics, so the Pope is quite relevant. During the time of Iraneaus, Orthodox leaders were even more relevent, because there was no Protestant Reformation or various Orthodox schisms yet. The only deviations were various gnostic "heresies." Once again, you seem to be trying to draw conclusions on early Christianity based on modern pop-culture Christianity, without a real base of knowledge in the former.

Yes, the Pope is relevant, but his position on marriage, pregnancy prevention, and abortion doesn't seem to be so relevant to the majority young Catholics.

No, there doesn't need to be. Because there are refernes alsewhere. It does not make an exclusive statement regarding salvation. If you argue that this means that all you have to do is "call on the name of the Lord" alone, then you're committing the fallacy of the argument from absence. This is because you assume that it excludes baptism (and there is an absuence of such a statement), when it does not say that this is the only criteria necessary. The fact that this criteria and baptism were both necessary are not mutually exclusive, nor does any place in the NT imply such a thing.

It looks as though Paul meant that if you are in the position of ''calling on the name of the Lord'', all the other criteria necessary were fulfilled (in order for a person to reach that position). Certainly, in his arguments about Abraham, there was no baptism there. However, Abraham was considered a friend of God, and considered righteous.

Of course I'm more familiar with the Jewish Law than Paul. Most Jews today are, considering that Paul was a Hellenizer from Tarsus, who demonstrated a serious lack of legal knowledge in the Epistles, and an apostate (who, according to Halacha, can't be an "expert" on the law).

So I'm more familiar with politics that George Bush, because I disagree with his politics. That seems to be the logic you are using.

Thats why Christianity died out as a Jewish sect and was accepted by Goyim who knew nothing about the Law. That is why, today, the vast majority of Christians continue to be people who know nothing about the Law. Like yourself.

The Jews who converted became Christians, and eventually would have lost their Jewish heritage, and not been considered Jews by their non-converted relatives. Thus Christianity consisted of Gentiles and ex-Jews, but not Jews that were Christians.

This doesn't even make sense. If you have two groups, Jew and Goy, then they can't both be a minority. Every dichotomy has one majority and one minority, or both groups are equal. The fact of it is, most early Christians were not Jewish, but were non-Jews. In addition, so were most converts all throughout history. Jews have virtually all rejected Christianity because it is inconsistent with the Jewish scriptures and Law. Only the Goyim who didn't know any better bought it.

I meant that of the converts among the Jews, they were a minority. Like you said, most Jews did not convert. As with the Gentiles, most Gentiles did not convert. So the converts, then, were the minority. It was when Constantine made Christianity the official religion that people began to call themselves Christians without facing persecution.

Luke 23:24 "Forgive them, they know not what they do."
Euripides' The Bacchae, fourth episode "Forgive them, they know not what they do"

Matthew 22:14 "Many are called, but few are chosen."
Plato's Phaedo "Many are called, but few are chosen."

It is also important to note that both of these references, in Plato and in the Bacchae, regard the Dionysaic mystery religion.

Two references!! And you claim this is plagiarism? You must be joking? If anything, this has convinced me that you are really clutching at straws with that point. It is possible that both of these references happened to be similar by coincidence. Or it could have been common sayings at that time that became very meaningful because of the context in which it was said. In neither of these cases is this plagiarism.

Lets see. They were written as pseudoepigraphica, a hallmark of Goyim. They were written in Greek, a language common among Goyim in Judea. They were written with a distinct Roman bias, and as polemic against Jews. They quote the Seputagint, a predominately Goy usage, rather than Jewish versions of scripture. They quote texts that were far more common among Goyim. The vast majority of early MSS are found in areas populated by Goyim, not Jews. There is a vast body of evidence that they were written by Goyim, but not a shred of evidence that they were written by Jews aside from Christian tradition.

The Jews of that time all spoke Greek, I thought, like the Gentiles. What sort of evidence would you need to show that any part of the NT was written by Jews?

And if they were written as polemic against the Jews, why is it that many modern Christians still love the Jews? Obviously it didn't work then. Sure, there is a long history of institutionalized Christianity persecuting the Jews, but perhaps they are the ones that did so in spite of the scriptures, not because of them, while modern Christians are now loving the Jews because of the scriptures.

For one, I stated that the Gospels were written as polemics against Jews that demonize them, not Paul's Epistles. Trying to prove something about the Gospels based on an interpretation of Paul is like trying to prove something about the Epistles of Paul using the Book of Mormon. You've slipped into a fallacy of relevence.

Luke was apparently both a companion of Paul and a writer of the book of Luke and the Acts, which gives us a lot of information about Paul. I see a very strong connection between Luke and Paul.

In addition, the NT is inconsistent. Thus, it isn't shocking to see some praise for Jews mixed in with distinct anti-Semitic sentiment.

Depends how you read it. I personally don't read any anti-Semitic sentiment into it. Indeed, I have Jews among my personal friends.

Yes, this is how we know that the Gospels were written as polemic and are inaccurate. The fact that they go out of their way to paint a picture of Jews as being corrupt, violating their own laws, etc. when the historical record has no such account and paints an entirely different picture.

We would hardly expect to find records made by the Jews about Jews breaking their own laws. That would not be evidence for the inaccuracy of the Gospels, would it?

You're working backwards. Not all modern scholars hold my POV. But there is no serious scholarship to support anything you've claimed. As I've stated, your opinions tend to be those of modern pop-culture Christianity, and modern pop-culture Christianity has a brand of pseudo-scholars who are essentially half-rate apologists.

There you go again. Christian scholars are pseudo-scholars. Why? Because they disagree with you?

The Goyim who wrote the Gospels werent any more familiar with the Law than Paul was. However, they did paint a legalistic picture due to the vast ammount of stolen Rabbinical material they included. I don't think they realized that they did portray Jesus as emphasizing the Law, because as Goyim they weren't familiar with the fact that the popular teachings they attributed to Jesus (like the golden rule, two greatest commandments, etc.) were part of Halacha.

So the Gentiles were clever enough to construct a story about Jesus that seemed to fulfill the Jewish prophecies, and foolish enough to paint Jesus as contradiction their own claims that He is the only way to fulfill the law. You still have a contradiction there.

No, its a way of saying exactly what I said. There is not a shred of serious scholarship to support your point. While many serious scholars disagree with one another, none of them believe that the pop-culture Christianity you espouse has any historical basis.

And you are still defining 'serious scholars' as those who don't have the same version of Christianity that I have. I don't call that a serious argument. That's just labelling.

Its my word and history against the Gospels. As I stated before, we have no historical record of anything the Gospels claim regarding the Jews. In addition, we have historical record regarding the Jews that teaches us things contrary to what the Gospels claim. The Gospels stand alone, teaching something contrary to what the historical record and modern scholarship accepts as true. And since we know the Gospels were written as polemic, they become even more questionable sources, due to their goal and bias in mind.

It's your word and your interpretation of history against the Gospels, I think you mean. Or if you are claiming to be the authority on the interpretation of history, well, I think your opinion of yourself is too big for this forum.

But out of interest, what exactly is the conflict between what the Gospels teach and what the Jews were supposed to have taught? Is this another 'two quote' assertion?

Technically as a religious studies grad student, I am a "serious modern scholar." And my viewpoint is what you'll find if you ever go to school and take a class regarding anything I've mentioned. Modern scholarship is quite oppossed to what Christians believe by faith, and what pop-culture Christianity teaches.

Many modern scholars are Christians. Your assertion might be true in your little school, but I doubt that modern scholarship in general is opposed to Christianity, unless you are still defining scholars as those who aren't Christians.

Oh yes, the vast Jewish conspiracy. The two enemy sects united because they hated Jesus soooo much. And you still don't think that there is a Christian polemic against Jews in the Gospels?

Is that so hard to believe? Even the two Muslim factions (who hate one another) are now tending to uniting against the greater enemy, USA and Israel.

And, no, I don't think that the Gospels are a Christian polemic against the Jews. Jesus and his Apostles were all Jews, and Jesus the Jew is the Lord of all the earth. Our Master happens to be a Jew.

For one, you didn't say anything about curses due to sin. You stated "the curse of sin." And as I've stated, there is nothing in Genesis that talks about such a thing. Things like the "curse of sin" and "original sin" and all of that were Christian inventions. The fact that Jews never believed in such things demonstrates how when Goyim go back and try to reinterpret Jewish scriptures its ethnocentrism.

But it is as plain as daylight that the curse came about through the sin that man did. This is what Paul refers to.

No, sin is always a verb. It appears to be a noun if you're reading an English translation, but if you go back and read it in Hebrew, the words pesha, avon, and chet are always going to be verbs. Each refers to the action of violating a law, they never refer to an object, person, place, or thing.

Sin is not an object or a place or a thing. It is the consequence of an action or a thought based on a motive. The consequence, then, is a noun. Not that complicated, really.

The fact of it is, the things Paul wrote doesn't support your point. You're confusing "the writings of Paul" with "my own personal interpretation of the writings of Paul." If you want to give me something Paul literally wrote, without interpretation, that is fine. But everything you've cited by Paul is accompanied by your own personal interpretation of what Paul meant, a personal interpretation that is rooted in modern pop-culture Christianity.

It is necessary to interpret everything, silly. You even have to interpret my posts. Neither you or I can avoid having a personal interpretation on just about everything we have an opinion on.

What would be the point of quoting scripture if I didn't tell you what I thought it meant, and why? That would be the end of our debate.

So, I've cited the commentaries of early Christians on the same issues to demonstrate that early Christianity does not agree with modern pop-culture Christianity.

I've no doubt that there are differences. But since there is quite a variety of opinion among modern Christians, there would have also been a variety among the early Christians. Some right, some wrong.

This is the fallacy of circular reasoning. Yes, you've supported your interpretation of scriptures based on your own personal interpretation of scriptures. It is from this fallacious form of reasoning that Christianity has become the most divided religion in the world. Christians can't even agree on who God is. Some say Jesus is God, some say Jesus isn't God. And they all support these things based on their own personal interpretation of the scriptures, and claim that the scriptures support their own personal interpretation (the fallacy of circular reasoning you've just demonstrated).

In order to take any meaning from the scriptures, there needs to be some basic rules regarding interpretation. That isn't necessarily circular reasoning, but simply being consistent.

Sure, there is a great variety of interpretations within Christianity, but I suggest that this is not peculiar to Christianity, but can be attributed to human nature, since it is found in virtually every major religion.

This is why I've cited the interpretation of early Christians, and thus stated it is how early Christians believed and read the scriptures. Whereas, you've given an interpretation that hasn't existed before 200 years ago, and claimed that Christians 1900 years ago believed it.

I'm going to go ahead and give some more early Christian beliefs on baptism:

Justin Martyr believed baptism in water was necessary for salvation:

"As many as are persuaded and believe that what we teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, are instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins that are past, we praying and fasting with them. Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, 'Except ye be born again, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven." (First Apology)

"He that, out of contempt, will not be baptized, shall be condemned as an unbeliever, and shall be reproached as ungrateful and foolish. For the Lord says: 'Except a man be baptized of water and of the Spirit, he shall by no means enter into the kingdom of heaven.' And again: 'He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved but he that believeth not shall be damned." (Constitutions of the Holy Apostles)

"They then receive the washing with water in the name of God (the Father and Lord of the universe) and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit. For Christ said, 'Unless you are born again, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven" (First Apology)

This chap seems to be focussing on the conditions of salvation, and what to do with the new converts. Nowhere is he saying that baptism is what saves a person, but that it serves as an indication of salvation. Note the quote '''He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved but he that believeth not shall be damned." He does not say that he that believes, but is not baptised, will be damned. The reason for that, perhaps, is that anyone who read the Gospels would have observed that Jesus promised paradise to a man who was not baptised, namely the thief crucified beside Jesus.

Clement believed baptism was necessary for salvation:

"If we do the will of Christ, we shall find rest; but if otherwise, then nothing shall deliver us from eternal punishment, if we should disobey His commandments. . . . [W]ith what confidence shall we, if we keep not our baptism pure and undefiled, enter into the kingdom of God? Or who shall be our advocate, unless we be found having holy and righteous works?" (2 Clement)

Yes, baptism is important, both the spiritual baptism and the physical baptism which is a symbol of the spiritual, and an indication of a genuine spiritual baptism.

Iraneaus:

"As we are lepers in sin, we are made clean from our old transgressions by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord. We are thus spiritually regenerated as newborn infants, even as the Lord has declared: 'Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven."

Out of the teachings of Irenaeus came those of the Catholic Church, it has been argued. And this statement does appear to support the concept that the water is somehow sacred, and that the physical baptism is more than mere symbolism.

from Wikipeadia ''In Book II, chapter 22 of his treatise, Irenaeus asserts that the ministry of Jesus lasted from when he was baptized at the age of 30 until at least until the age of 50, and that he remained among his disciples until the reign of Trajan, that is, until at least the year 98 CE. It is not clear from the context whether Irenaeus believed Jesus was crucified in his old age, or was crucified at around the age 50 and then remained on earth long after his resurrection:''

I doubt you would claim that the early Christians commonly accepted the views of Irenaeus, since he clearly goes against the Gospels in some of his views.

Tertullian wrote a whole commentary on baptism, called "On Baptism":

Ah, Tertullian, the Father of the Catholic Church. I'm not surprised that you can find the 'sacrament of water' in his writings.
He even goes so far in his praise of water to say:
"The prescript is laid down that 'without baptism, salvation is attainable by none' chiefly on the ground of that declaration of the Lord, who says, 'Unless one be born of water, he hath not life.'" He has not quoted the text right, which clearly has it that ''The truth is, no one can enter the Kingdom of God without being born of water and the Spirit.'' He seems to have gone a bit too far.

The Shepherd of Hermas:

"And I said, 'I heard, sir, some teachers maintain that there is no other repentance than that which takes place, when we descended into the water and received remission of our former sin.' He said to me, 'That was sound doctrine which you heard; for that is really the case.'" (The Shepherd)

''The theology of the Church must have been very elastic at a time when such a book could enjoy popularity and implicit, if not explicit, ecclesiastical sanction, for its Christology does not seem to square with any of the Christologies of the New Testament, or with those of contemporary theologians whose occasional documents have reached us. The Shepherd speaks of a Son of God; but this Son of God is distinguished from Jesus.''
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/shepherd.html

Hardly mainstream Christian thoughts there, particularly when it contradicts the Gospels. Like I suspected, you have selected early Christian writers who probably did not represent the majority of early Christians, or at least did not agree with the Gospels.

St. Basil:

"This then is what it means to be `born again of water and Spirit': Just as our dying is effected in the water, our living is wrought through the Spirit. In three immersions and an equal number of invocations the great mystery of baptism is completed in such a way that the type of death may be shown figuratively, and that by the handing on of divine knowledge the souls of the baptized may be illuminated. If, therefore, there is any grace in the water, it is not from the nature of water, but from the Spirit's presence there" (The Holy Spirit)

This quote appears to contradict your position and support mine, since I have always maintained that it is a spiritual baptism through which we are saved, and that the water baptism is an indication of the spiritual baptism.

St. Ambrose:

"No one ascends into the kingdom of heaven except through the sacrament of baptism." (On Abraham)

Obviously, then, Abraham's baptism was not a physical one, but a spiritual one.

"You have read, therefore, that the three witnesses in baptism are one: water, blood, and the Spirit: And if you withdraw any one of these, the sacrament of baptism is not valid. For what is the water without the cross of Christ? A common element with no sacramental effect. Nor on the other hand is there any mystery of regeneration without water, for `unless a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God'" (The Mysteries)

The writings of the mystics were often confusing, for they were often making points that were not obvious. At any rate, when he talks about the sacrament of baptism, I'm not sure what he means. He seems to be alluding to the mystery of regeneration, and maintaining that water is as necessary as blood and spirit, whatever that means. He could have meant that the water was necessary for physical life, since without physical life there could not be spiritual life.

John Crysotom:

"None can enter into the kingdom of Heaven except he be regenerate through water and the Spirit" (The Priesthood)

Yet another Catholic Father.

And I could go on and on. Augustine commented on it, it was ruled on in various Orthodox councils, etc. Hopefully this gives you a good sample of what early Christians believed regarding baptism, as oppossed to the modern pop-culture views on baptism.

Yes, there does seem to be a wide variety of opinions on baptism, perhaps because we are not given a very clear indication of what it really is, according to the scriptures. It remains somewhat of a mystery, and even a point of debate between several mainstream denominations.
You seem to think that 'modern pop-culture' (whatever that is) is united on the subject.

Bruarong

28-04-2006, 13:58

OMG, are you getting your information from crystalinks? Don't you check out your sources first? This is one of the most insane, new age websites out there. The 10th century BC is also hundreds of years after the date attributed to Moses, so this doesn't exactly refute what I said. Rather, it enforces it.

But since you go to crystalinks for your information, I'm sure you believe what the host of the site (Ellie) states here too, in her biography on the website:

Yes, Ellie believes she was abducted by a UFO and contacted by Zoroaster. She also espouses virtually every occult and New Age doctrine out there, including the existence of Atlantis and Lemuria.

In quoting from such a site, I never meant that I endorse everything that I find there, nor that I am implying that the quote taken from there must be right. It was an example of public opinion, and you are welcome to show (using reasons) why you disagree (if you disagree). I don't tend to rely on the reputation of a website to make my arguments. I would rather arguments were made as appeals to reason and common sense, and I find arguments that have the attitude that 'this person said such and such, so it must be right' are quite childishly silly. I actually don't care who Ellie is or what else she says. If you disagree with the quote I used from her site, present your reasons, instead of attacking the author.

Its quite simple. No one worth their salt in this realm believes that Hebrew existed during the time of Moses. There is no evidence to support such a thing, and evidence to the contrary (such as scholarly concensus on the issue). Of course, there is the *possibility* that it existed, in the same respect that there is the *possibility* that the author of the New Age website you consult for your sources was abduced by a UFO and contacted by Zoroaster, as she claims.

There is no scholarly consensus on Jesus Christ either. Does that mean he never existed? Of course scholars are divided on the issue, because of the implications. One simply cannot be objective about the accuracy of the Bible, since everyone is either a believer or not a believer.

I didn't say that there were no Christian groups that disputed it. Perhaps you should go back an reread what I stated:

The fact that early Christian groups in the first century did not believe that Jesus literally rose from the dead is a wonderful piece of evidence that the resurrection of Jesus is a myth. If this were a historical, literal event, then there would not have been Christiain groups in the same time period and area that disputed it.

Disputes over evidence is evidence for a lack of evidence, perhaps, but but one could also argue that the fact that there was a dispute is evidence that Jesus really did rise from the dead.
Either way, mere speculation.

I stated that groups did dispute it. And if it were a real, literal event, there would not have been Christian groups that believed it was a metaphorical, mystical thing like the resurrection of Osiris, Mithras, and Dionysus.

Rubbish. There are Christians today who believe that it was not a literal event. Based on what? Evidence? Hardly. It's called bias. Humans believe all sorts of things out of preference. Bias does not demonstrate anything other than bias.

The idea that soldiers were sent to guard the tomb is another piece of Gospel myth, too. There are no historical records of Roman soldiers ever being sent to do such a thing, and due to the number of people Pilate executed (in the thousands), if soldiers were sent to guard the tomb of every religious leader or rebel, he would have had legions standing out in the desert guarding caves. Its really quite absurd, when viewed in a historical light, and not taking the Jesus myth at face value.

The Gospels make it clear that the guarding of the tomb was an exception, which kills your argument that it could not have been possible because it was not common practice.

And you seem to be saying that if the tomb was guarded, we ought to find such records, otherwise the lack of records proves that it was an invented story, which, as you should know, is a bit of a silly argument. One does not expect to find such orders written down, and surviving 2000 years even if they were written down by the Romans. And in their eyes, the crucifixion of Jesus would hardly have made the newspapers. Just another Jewish rebel in that strange corner of the Roman Empire.

There are also texts that give contrary accounts to the Gospel myths, such as the Toledoth Yeshu and Origen's Against Celsus, where Celsus' polemics against Christianity were recorded. Not to mention the dozens of Gnostic accounts.

I have little doubt that there were Christians who hated Jews, but in doing so, they would have directly gone against the words of Jesus, who taught us to love even our enemies.

There is a reason many texts were excluded from the NT. The Christians would argue that these texts did not contain confirmation of God's Spirit. They argue that the books in the cannon were discovered to contain God's words, and selected based on that. The discovery occurred over time, in the every day practice of following Christ, and not at a meeting of the church officials.

Bruarong

28-04-2006, 15:02

In the history of the world, was Alexander all that exceptional? No, not that much, imo. After all, what did he really do other than travel a great distance -- while drunk and angry? What is the legacy of Alexander? Nothing but stories. What impact did he have on the world? Not much compared to the impact of the Roman Empire. The Romans did more to spread Greek culture than he ever did. He didn't even leave physical marks on the world -- cities or monuments -- the way others did. The only thing he accomplished of any worth was increasing the information available to mapmakers. Beyond that, Alexander is nothing but a cool story about an exciting dude who some people see as a personal role model. In my opinion, the same can be said of many of the characters of the Bible.

You've possibly just written off one of the greatest influences on Western civilisation (I mean Greek culture) as nothing but stories. Come off it. Romans admired Greek culture because they were such a dominating world power for so long. Why? Because of a chap called Alexander. He really did take Greek from an insignificant little peninsular and turn it into perhaps the most influentual cuture the world has ever seen, through his conquests. The Romans did help to spread it, but it was Alexander that placed Greek culture in the Roman tribes initially. But I really object to you writing off Alexander as 'nothing but a cool story'. Sheesh.

Beyond that opinion, I'm expressing only the slightest degree of opinion about Moses or any of the content of the Bible. My opinion is that, if the Bible is to perform the legitimate function of myth, which is to help open the spiritual awareness of its readers and give them insight into the spiritual universe it is describing, then details of historicity are irrelevant and to focus on them is to miss the point of the book. That is based on my understanding of what myths and sacred writings are and what they are for.

I have already stated that one does not need to hold the Biblical account of Moses to be 100% accurate in order to be a good Christian. What I object to is the writing off of the Bible as hopelessly inaccurate based on nothing more than the mere speculations of people with inflated opinions. I've done nothing more than argue that the Bible stories *could* be 100% accurate. My faith in God certainly does not require them to be so.

In this Moses brouhaha, I have been commenting on GnI's approach which is showing that the Bible is, in fact, not historically accurate. His purpose is not to claim that the Bible is false but, rather, that it is not meant to be history. Therefore, its authors were not concerned with being accurate.

Grave seems to have forgotten that speculations do not provide facts. If he thinks the Bible inaccurate, I'm OK with him holding that opinion. But when he tries to argue that it is more than mere opinion, that his argument is supported by reasons, then, as far as I can see, I have a right to challenge him. I'm not trying to convert him to my way of thinking (or you or anyone else).

I think it is a point of contention that the writers were not intentionally trying to be accurate. Why would they write down any details (e.g. names of cities, rivers, etc.) if they had no intention of being accurate? Why not present the story as Aesop's Fables?

As for what it would take to write such a book -- no, I don't think an exceptional person would be required to do it. There have been thousands upon thousands of amazing stories written throughout human history. How many exceptional authors do there have to be before they stop being exceptions?

If the story of Moses has any accuracy to it, he was definitely an exceptional person. He lead millions of people out of slavery and to the point of launching an invasion to conquer their own territory. Perhaps other people have done this, but that would make them also exceptional, and not mean that Moses was any less exceptional. I don't know of anyone alive today who could possibly do this, just like I don't know anyone who could have been another Alexander the Great. That makes them both exceptional, in my eyes.

Well, my problem with this whole side argument is that it's all just hunches. Fine, if we can debate hunches knowing that's what we are doing and knowing it's going to accomplish nothing, but some people here (Dubyagoat, I'm looking at you) seem bound and determined to prove it ain't no hunch. I described this elsewhere as arguing over where Arthur found the cocoanuts -- from the opening scene of "Monty Python & The Holy Grail," if you recall.

Yes, it is a mixture of 'hunches', reasoned arguments, and serious beliefs--which is possibly nothing like Monty Python.

I have made it clear my argument/question is -- just from the viewpoint of telling a story -- why do we have to use this less believable scenario of Moses learning and becoming literate in the Hebrew language while still living among the Egyptians, when there are other, more believable scenarios? From the mystical/literary pov, the miraculous revelation scenario works just fine. From the realistic plotting pov, your own learning-it-while-living-with-Jethro's-people scenario makes the most sense of all. Why must we insist on this Egyptian scenario at all? Especially, as this entire argument has made clear, it can only be made to work by twisting the history in order to fit an individualistic situation that goes against the grain of the cultural history. The other two scenarios do not require this much fiddling and twisting and it-could-happen argumentation.

My argument has been that we don't actually need to twist the story at all. That the challenges to the story are mostly speculations, not hard evidence. If anything, the biggest challenge to the story seems to be a lack of evidence, rather than positive evidence. But just much can we assume on a lack of evidence? Do we expect to find positive evidence for everything said and done more than 3 thousand years ago? Just what percentage of their way of life is expected to survive so many years? It all seems a bit presumptuous to assert that one needs to 'twist the history in order to fit an individualistic situation' in order to allow that the Bible stories are accurate.

I am still waiting, by the way, to be told where in the Bible it says precisely where Moses learned his languages. Does the Bible actually say he learned Hebrew in Egypt, or doesn't it?

The last time I read that part of the Bible, I don't recall the story ever mentioning where Moses learned his languages. If it did, we probably would be having this discussion (or perhaps we would).

Possible. Could have. Maybe. We suppose. It could happen.

Is any of this really the point of the Moses story in the first place?

GnI is taking on Dubyagoat's claim that it all really happened and it really had to happen just this way and no other.

I don't think DubyaGoat is really insisting that it really had to happen just this way and no other. That would be an unfair representation of his arguments. It would be more accurate to say that Grave is asserting that it could not have been this way (thus claiming inaccuracy of the Bible stories) and DubyaGoat and I have been saying that, while it may not have been accurate, it certainly isn't inaccurate because of Grave's reasons, which we feel have been lacking in substance.

My only question in all of this is, who cares? What difference does it make to the freaking story? AAGH! You're making me nuts with this obsession over every miniscule detail of this sewn-together stack of paper called a book.

The point is over whether the Biblical stories can be written off as inaccurate, or whether we are still in the position to allow that they may be accurate. (Either way, one does not need to believe in the accuracy of the stories in order to believe in God, I repeat.)

Good. This seems to imply that you have no problem sharing the world with other religions. But why, then, have you spent so much time here denigrating other religions, especially mine?

I think you would find that I have not really been denigrating other religions, once you saw things from my point of view. It may look like that to you, I will allow. But take, for example, the way Tropical Sands is often referring to my beliefs as 'modern pop-Christianty'. Do you think he is running down modern Christianity in his criticisms, or do you think that he is simply presenting his point of view? Or do you think that anything I say about any other religion is therefore running it down, while anything you or Grave or TS says is simply presenting their point of view? Obviously, I am questioning your objectivity in this case, since I suspect your bias is showing.

Then why have you relied so heavily on evangelical sources for your information about other religions?

My version of Christianity has been labelled as 'Evangelistic', and although I do believe that God wants us to evangelise, I don't think there needs to be any aggression in it. In fact, Jesus' way was simply to help those who most needed it. That is what I think evangelism means. Do I don't bash people with the Bible. I don't even talk to people about religion when they indicate that they are not interested. For example, of my friends, I only talk religion with those who are interested (and only because they are interested).

So then, do you think that the dead are stuck in their graves until Judgment Day? I'm not challenging you; I'm just curious. You don't have to pursue this, if you don't want to.

My current speculations on that are that perhaps the dead are kinda 'asleep'. They are outside of time, because they have died. When time has ended, they will be called out of their sleep before the throne of judgement, some to be judged as 'sheep', others as 'goats'. (Matthew 25) Maybe they have dreams in their sleep, I don't know. Oh, but then there are those people who have near death experiences, and come back describing all sorts of things. So I don't know what to think about that.

"Mentally acknowledge" -- yeah, whatever. :rolleyes: Sorry, but I decline to be satisfied with this limp promise. You made specific accusations for which you have no evidence whatsoever. Because those statements are accusations of specific abuses and crimes, I want them retracted at this time. I do not intend to back down from this until I get what I want.

I can't promise to write to you an acknowledgement, since either you or I could have well and truly left NS by then.

And what effect does this have, if any, on your opinion of animism? Or do you hold to the philosophy that if you can't say something nasty, you should say nothing at all?

Perhaps the most amusing thing for me was the opening paragraph, where the writer is describing life through the eyes of one of the Shaman. This shaman was apparently the most powerful shaman in his village, and also the leader of the village. (I had to think of your assertion that shaman were not leaders.)

He then describes in details his relationships to the spirits, claiming that he followed them because he thought they were good spirits. And he makes some very unusual observations about how his times with the spirits (apparently enhanced after regular takings of some weed prepared as a drug, an hallucinogen of some sort). I don't have the space to go into detail, but his life, even as a very powerful shaman seemed to be filled with fear, and plans to get revenge on the competing villages. He describes how he used the spirits to make the children of the other villages sick, as a form of attack. After a spirit attack the child would die through some sort of illness. He even lead a military attack on a village (killed everyone in it) because the spirits told him that the leader of that village (another shaman) was responsible for the death of his own small child. The accounts are quite shockingly graphic.

You can read more about it here
http://www.theropps.com/papers/Spring1997/SpiritoftheRainforest.htm

I've concluded that your defense of animism is perhaps valid for your version of animism, but apparently not all forms of animism, and apparently not for these Venesuelan Indians.

Blackredwithyellowsuna

28-04-2006, 15:46

Geez, how do you have nerve to write such gigantic posts?

Willamena

28-04-2006, 15:48

:D :D :D

Saxons! Those freaking Saxons, at it again! I am definitely going to have research this. A million thanks for cluing me to it.

I am not an enormous fan of Mary Gimbutas. She did remarkable work, of course, but I tend to look to her only for factual data as I find her analyses a little too politically slanted for my taste. I even think that her primordial goddess theory is a little too simplistic. She's definitely in my library, but not my #1 source.
That's fine, but my point was just that the motif of bird, egg and small land animal, all associated through goddess images, could be carried down to the bird-hare stories.

Grave_n_idle

28-04-2006, 17:01

it certainly isn't inaccurate because of Grave's reasons, which we feel have been lacking in substance.

Whereas, your entire argument can be boiled down to "I have one old book, which I believe to be supernaturally true".

Muravyets

29-04-2006, 16:56

When did I supposedly make that claim? All I've done is debunk a few erroneous arguments and statements from time to time. If you are going to prove anything, positive or negative, you at least have to maintain a factual footing.
That is how I have understood your argument so far. Sorry, if I have misinterpreted. However, you have not debunked anything yet. Most of your sources do not actually disprove anything that GnI and I have been saying, except to the extent that they express differing opinions.

The arguments that Moses couldn't have known how to write, or couldn't have known how to speak Hebrew etc., are falsehoods based on misdirected hypothesis and thus can't be used as evidences at all because they are erroneous. And equally, me showing that the person who 'could' have existed, as the story posits, does meet the requirements to fulfill the roll of the character in the story, does not in itself prove that the character did in fact actually exist exactly as the story holds.
I can't speak for GnI, but I have not been trying to prove that Moses didn't exist. I have been asking why the story has to be historically accurate in order to fulfill its function as a religious text. Why can't it be at least partially fictional and still be spiritually true? In other words, I'm not questioning the Bible, I'm questioning your approach to it.

But in the end, the requirement of proof has to come from the naysayer’s side ~ if an argument is made that there was never any Moses, then who invented him and when, and what historical evidences are there for such an argument to be made and taken seriously?
Um...no. First, and again, I never made any claim that there was no such person as Moses. I just said that, if you try to prove that he existed, you can't by using the real history because the story in the Bible doesn't match history. If he did exist, as a singular individual, then he is one of the countless billions of individual people whose true stories are lost to us over time.

Second, GnI and Tropical Sands and I have all addressed the questions of who could have invented the Moses character and story, when, why, and all that. You just don't like our answers, so you claim we never gave them. That's an annoying habit of yours. It would be fine if you just said you don't believe such answers and choose to reject them, but to pretend that we never offered them -- thus forcing us to repeat ourselves over and over -- is rude.

Muravyets

29-04-2006, 18:19

You've possibly just written off one of the greatest influences on Western civilisation (I mean Greek culture) as nothing but stories. Come off it. Romans admired Greek culture because they were such a dominating world power for so long. Why? Because of a chap called Alexander. He really did take Greek from an insignificant little peninsular and turn it into perhaps the most influentual cuture the world has ever seen, through his conquests. The Romans did help to spread it, but it was Alexander that placed Greek culture in the Roman tribes initially. But I really object to you writing off Alexander as 'nothing but a cool story'. Sheesh.
What are you talking about? Alexander didn't Hellenize Italy. That cultural influence far pre-dated him, as evidenced by the age of Greek ruins in Italy. If it were not for the Greeks, there never would have been a Rome, but that had nothing to do with Alexander. Show me the language influence of Alexander's army. Show me the cities they built. Show me the territories they ruled or the religion they spread. Alexander's army did two things beside generate stories: It spread a ton of Macedonian and Greek DNA around Eastern Europe and Asia, and it sent back cartographic information. Alexander wasn't even a Greek himself. Macedon was a politically and ethnically distinct nation, independent of the Greek city states. Alexander sure as hell did not put Greece on the map. They did that themselves centuries before he came along. Your ignorance is truly astonishing. There is no topic it doesn't touch.

I have already stated that one does not need to hold the Biblical account of Moses to be 100% accurate in order to be a good Christian. What I object to is the writing off of the Bible as hopelessly inaccurate based on nothing more than the mere speculations of people with inflated opinions. I've done nothing more than argue that the Bible stories *could* be 100% accurate. My faith in God certainly does not require them to be so.
Well, then why do you care what non-believers say about the Bible's historicity?

Grave seems to have forgotten that speculations do not provide facts. If he thinks the Bible inaccurate, I'm OK with him holding that opinion. But when he tries to argue that it is more than mere opinion, that his argument is supported by reasons, then, as far as I can see, I have a right to challenge him. I'm not trying to convert him to my way of thinking (or you or anyone else).
GnI has not been merely speculating. He bases his opinions on fact and has provided the factual information he has used. We may reasonably consider him something of an expert on this subject, as he has proven his scholarship in many threads on related topics. His approach here has been somewhat complex. He is not critiquing the Bible so much as the methods of interpreting it used by Bible literalists. In this sense, his use of history to question certain claims is perfectly legitimate. It would also be perfectly legitimate for you to simply diregard his critiques because they are irrelevant to the way you use and relate to the Bible. But it is not a legitimate argument to claim that facts are really opinions or that opinions based on fact are not valid just because it annoys you when people say the Bible isn't historically accurate.

I think it is a point of contention that the writers were not intentionally trying to be accurate. Why would they write down any details (e.g. names of cities, rivers, etc.) if they had no intention of being accurate? Why not present the story as Aesop's Fables?
If the stories are meant to be moral instructions and spiritual guides, they do not need to be 100% factually true or accurate. As to the naming of real places and people -- in literature, that's called verisimilitude. Homer's Odyssey names tons of real places. Does that make it history? Did all those sorcerers and giant monsters really exist? Mount Olympus is a real mountain. Do you believe the Greek gods are real, then? All of the religions that you claim can't be true if yours is to be considered true, name real places, real people, and real events in their mythologies. What about that? If you want to talk about invalid arguments, you cannot hold your own religious texts to a different and less rigorous standard than you apply to all other religions' texts.

The Bible is spiritual teaching presented in the form of literature. Whether any of its stories were ever meant to refer to real things is irrelevant. The truth of them is not in their specific content.

If the story of Moses has any accuracy to it, he was definitely an exceptional person. He lead millions of people out of slavery and to the point of launching an invasion to conquer their own territory. Perhaps other people have done this, but that would make them also exceptional, and not mean that Moses was any less exceptional. I don't know of anyone alive today who could possibly do this, just like I don't know anyone who could have been another Alexander the Great. That makes them both exceptional, in my eyes.
That's nice.

Yes, it is a mixture of 'hunches', reasoned arguments, and serious beliefs--which is possibly nothing like Monty Python.
Hunches, reasoned arguments and serious beliefs about how cocoanuts got to Mercia where Arthur says he found them (i.e. whether Moses was a real person), even though the story (the Holy Grail)/debate (pagan influences) is about something else entirely. Nope, I think Monty Python is a perfect analogy.

My argument has been that we don't actually need to twist the story at all. That the challenges to the story are mostly speculations, not hard evidence. If anything, the biggest challenge to the story seems to be a lack of evidence, rather than positive evidence. But just much can we assume on a lack of evidence? Do we expect to find positive evidence for everything said and done more than 3 thousand years ago? Just what percentage of their way of life is expected to survive so many years? It all seems a bit presumptuous to assert that one needs to 'twist the history in order to fit an individualistic situation' in order to allow that the Bible stories are accurate.
Yet Bible literalists do twist history to match their stories. As you say, proof that the stories are true does not exist. So why argue with people who doubt that the stories are history? Why bother with such a topic at all, since history is not the point of the book? The message I'm getting from you here is that we should assume the Bible is true because we can't prove it. I'm sorry but that's a nonsensical argument that is not worth either making or arguing with. Lack of evidence is not proof. This is not a problem for you because religion does not need proof of itself. Period. Let it go.

The last time I read that part of the Bible, I don't recall the story ever mentioning where Moses learned his languages. If it did, we probably would be having this discussion (or perhaps we would).
Well, in that case, I say we should quit having it now because we're not arguing about the Bible at all. So the hell with this nonsense.

I don't think DubyaGoat is really insisting that it really had to happen just this way and no other. That would be an unfair representation of his arguments. It would be more accurate to say that Grave is asserting that it could not have been this way (thus claiming inaccuracy of the Bible stories) and DubyaGoat and I have been saying that, while it may not have been accurate, it certainly isn't inaccurate because of Grave's reasons, which we feel have been lacking in substance.
And you are certainly the expert on arguments that lack substance.

Right here in this post, by acknowledging that this topic does not appear in the Bible, you have proven that this entire side argument is a pile of pointless bullcrap. I'm done with it.

The point is over whether the Biblical stories can be written off as inaccurate, or whether we are still in the position to allow that they may be accurate. (Either way, one does not need to believe in the accuracy of the stories in order to believe in God, I repeat.)
Right. So why are we still on this ride?

I think you would find that I have not really been denigrating other religions, once you saw things from my point of view. It may look like that to you, I will allow. But take, for example, the way Tropical Sands is often referring to my beliefs as 'modern pop-Christianty'. Do you think he is running down modern Christianity in his criticisms, or do you think that he is simply presenting his point of view? Or do you think that anything I say about any other religion is therefore running it down, while anything you or Grave or TS says is simply presenting their point of view? Obviously, I am questioning your objectivity in this case, since I suspect your bias is showing.
And now you are lying again. I refer you back to our entire argument throughout this thread and challenge you to tell me how it does not denigrate my religion to claim that Shinto was the cause of Japanese war crimes and that animism oppresses people with fear and causes them to kill their babies. My bias against you has certainly been clear from the moment you refused to retract the slanders you have been repeating about my religion since your post #124. Likewise, your bias against all relgions other than your own has also been clear, as has your insultingly elitist attitude, your willingness to falsify your own evidence to promote your bogus claims, and your total lack of any true evidence to back up those bogus claims.

My version of Christianity has been labelled as 'Evangelistic', and although I do believe that God wants us to evangelise, I don't think there needs to be any aggression in it. In fact, Jesus' way was simply to help those who most needed it. That is what I think evangelism means. Do I don't bash people with the Bible. I don't even talk to people about religion when they indicate that they are not interested. For example, of my friends, I only talk religion with those who are interested (and only because they are interested).
Oh good. I'm glad to hear that you are not driven by your religious beliefs to spread lies and slanders about other people.

My current speculations on that are that perhaps the dead are kinda 'asleep'. They are outside of time, because they have died. When time has ended, they will be called out of their sleep before the throne of judgement, some to be judged as 'sheep', others as 'goats'. (Matthew 25) Maybe they have dreams in their sleep, I don't know. Oh, but then there are those people who have near death experiences, and come back describing all sorts of things. So I don't know what to think about that.
Noted.

I can't promise to write to you an acknowledgement, since either you or I could have well and truly left NS by then.
Retract the statements now, and we'll be done.

Perhaps the most amusing thing for me was the opening paragraph, where the writer is describing life through the eyes of one of the Shaman. This shaman was apparently the most powerful shaman in his village, and also the leader of the village. (I had to think of your assertion that shaman were not leaders.)

He then describes in details his relationships to the spirits, claiming that he followed them because he thought they were good spirits. And he makes some very unusual observations about how his times with the spirits (apparently enhanced after regular takings of some weed prepared as a drug, an hallucinogen of some sort). I don't have the space to go into detail, but his life, even as a very powerful shaman seemed to be filled with fear, and plans to get revenge on the competing villages. He describes how he used the spirits to make the children of the other villages sick, as a form of attack. After a spirit attack the child would die through some sort of illness. He even lead a military attack on a village (killed everyone in it) because the spirits told him that the leader of that village (another shaman) was responsible for the death of his own small child. The accounts are quite shockingly graphic.

You can read more about it here
http://www.theropps.com/papers/Spring1997/SpiritoftheRainforest.htm

I've concluded that your defense of animism is perhaps valid for your version of animism, but apparently not all forms of animism, and apparently not for these Venesuelan Indians.
I see. It just took you this long to find something nasty to say.

You remind me of some lines from my favorite poet, Alexander Pope, from his "Epistle to Dr. Arbuthnot" in which he describes the kinds of people he despises, including:

"[H]e who hurts a harmless neighbour's peace,
Insults fallen worth, or Beauty in distress,
Who loves a Lie, lame Slander helps about,
Who writes a Libel, or who copies out;...
Who reads, but with a lust to misapply,
Make Satire a Lampoon, and Fiction, Lie."

You are so in love with the idea of condemning animism as a horrible abuse that you simply refuse to admit that you have not one shred of evidence for your slanderous accusations, despite the proof of the falseness of your claims that has been posted here for all to see. You are so in love with the insults you have heaped on my religion that you take every chance to repeat them. You take your own personal prejudices and try to claim them as being the thoughts and actions of others, again without the slightest evidence to back you up. Even your own terminology -- all assumption and presumption, appearance, seeming, could-haves and might-have-beens -- reveals the falseness of all your statements. You cherry-pick this or that story or partial story out of sources that are themselves biased against animism, and then further spin -- or even outright falsify -- them to illustrate your bigoted fantasies. And when you continue to repeat these fantasies in the face of the counter-evidence I have presented, they are transformed from fantasy to plain old lies. You have been given chance after chance to retract statements that have profoundly offended me, but all you do is repeat them. And what do you get for all this effort? Nothing but the chance to talk bad about other people -- and to insult me by extension.

This is low behavior, Bruarong. It does not speak well for your character that you fight so hard for the privilege of insulting others. It's not admirable, not worthy of respect. There is no positive conclusion that one can draw from this.

Grave_n_idle

29-04-2006, 18:21

That is how I have understood your argument so far. Sorry, if I have misinterpreted. However, you have not debunked anything yet. Most of your sources do not actually disprove anything that GnI and I have been saying, except to the extent that they express differing opinions.

I can't speak for GnI, but I have not been trying to prove that Moses didn't exist. I have been asking why the story has to be historically accurate in order to fulfill its function as a religious text. Why can't it be at least partially fictional and still be spiritually true? In other words, I'm not questioning the Bible, I'm questioning your approach to it.

Um...no. First, and again, I never made any claim that there was no such person as Moses. I just said that, if you try to prove that he existed, you can't by using the real history because the story in the Bible doesn't match history. If he did exist, as a singular individual, then he is one of the countless billions of individual people whose true stories are lost to us over time.

Second, GnI and Tropical Sands and I have all addressed the questions of who could have invented the Moses character and story, when, why, and all that. You just don't like our answers, so you claim we never gave them. That's an annoying habit of yours. It would be fine if you just said you don't believe such answers and choose to reject them, but to pretend that we never offered them -- thus forcing us to repeat ourselves over and over -- is rude.

I've not tried to 'prove' Moses didn't exist. There's not really any way one COULD prove that 'Moses' didn't exist...

What I might have done, is suggested that we should be skeptical... especially over a piece of evidence that has so LITTLE 'evidence' to support it, and that often flies in the face of, not only other sources, but also logic.

(Just as an example - those who claim Moses literally wrote all five books of the Pentatauch, even where his OWN death is detailed...)

I'm having a problem trying to debate with DG... it's kind of like trying to 'high-five' an octopus... you just don't know where to look. He makes 'gyroscope arguments', I think... they have to spin so fast, because they'd overbalance if they stayed still.

Muravyets

29-04-2006, 18:34

I've not tried to 'prove' Moses didn't exist. There's not really any way one COULD prove that 'Moses' didn't exist...

What I might have done, is suggested that we should be skeptical... especially over a piece of evidence that has so LITTLE 'evidence' to support it, and that often flies in the face of, not only other sources, but also logic.

(Just as an example - those who claim Moses literally wrote all five books of the Pentatauch, even where his OWN death is detailed...)

I'm having a problem trying to debate with DG... it's kind of like trying to 'high-five' an octopus... you just don't know where to look. He makes 'gyroscope arguments', I think... they have to spin so fast, because they'd overbalance if they stayed still.
I know. I was trying to prevent another of DG's little tricks, which is to try to put one person's argument in another person's mouth, thus confusing the line of the debate -- as he did when he claimed that I initiated the topic of Egyptian literacy and tried to transfer his attacks from you to me. Maybe he thought I would be less able to argue your points than you. The weakness of that approach, of course, is that it depends on my being tricked into trying to argue your points. By speaking only for myself, I was (A) trying to stop him from redefining the debate to be what he wants it to be, and (B) trying to honor your decision to quit arguing with this mope. I also intend to drop it after this, since Bruarong -- of whom I've also had more than my fill -- has confirmed that none of this nonsense in is the Bible anyway.

EDIT: PS: About those Bulgarian tales, I don't know where I put them. But when I do find them, I will email them to a yahoo account and TG you the address and password so you can take them whenever you like.

Grave_n_idle

29-04-2006, 18:44

I know. I was trying to prevent another of DG's little tricks, which is to try to put one person's argument in another person's mouth, thus confusing the line of the debate -- as he did when he claimed that I initiated the topic of Egyptian literacy and tried to transfer his attacks from you to me. Maybe he thought I would be less able to argue your points than you. The weakness of that approach, of course, is that it depends on my being tricked into trying to argue your points. By speaking only for myself, I was (A) trying to stop him from redefining the debate to be what he wants it to be, and (B) trying to honor your decision to quit arguing with this mope. I also intend to drop it after this, since Bruarong -- of whom I've also had more than my fill -- has confirmed that none of this nonsense in is the Bible anyway.

EDIT: PS: About those Bulgarian tales, I don't know where I put them. But when I do find them, I will email them to a yahoo account and TG you the address and password so you can take them whenever you like.

It's a shame to see a promising thread degenerating on a couple of fronts... but maybe we managed to mine what was of value, yes?

I appreciated that you were protecting my intent to abstain - and I thank you for it. I do indeed, intend to remain outside of whatever power-struggle I seem to be at risk of becoming embroiled in there... but, as you did - I felt the need to prevent the argument being 'redefined' after-the-fact.

There's no rush on 'The Bulgarian Tales'. Just, whenever they surface. :)

No matter what becomes of this troubled thread - I've gained plenty from it (and, have the promise of more Bulgarian bonuses). Not least has been watching excellent debates put forth by Tropical Sands, and yourself.

:)

Muravyets

29-04-2006, 18:45

That's fine, but my point was just that the motif of bird, egg and small land animal, all associated through goddess images, could be carried down to the bird-hare stories.
Agreed. I was just laughing about it because any time I run into some little detail that makes me say "wha-huh?" it's almost always from either the Saxons or some sub-group of Teuts. Not enough to just have bunnies and eggs. The bunnies have to be laying the eggs. I mean, yeah, it's cute but, come on, really.

I wonder what these people were like in their day? Did the other ancient Europeans roll their eyes and say, "Feh, it's just them Saxons again." :D

Muravyets

29-04-2006, 18:56

It's a shame to see a promising thread degenerating on a couple of fronts... but maybe we managed to mine what was of value, yes?

I appreciated that you were protecting my intent to abstain - and I thank you for it. I do indeed, intend to remain outside of whatever power-struggle I seem to be at risk of becoming embroiled in there... but, as you did - I felt the need to prevent the argument being 'redefined' after-the-fact.

There's no rush on 'The Bulgarian Tales'. Just, whenever they surface. :)

No matter what becomes of this troubled thread - I've gained plenty from it (and, have the promise of more Bulgarian bonuses). Not least has been watching excellent debates put forth by Tropical Sands, and yourself.

:)
It's been a grand thread. I'm grateful to TS for making it. I've learned things. I've had fun arguing. I've had fun reading terrific stuff from excellent writers. I've noted people I hope to stand up with again -- you, TS, and Willamena -- and people I look forward to opposing again -- DG and Bruarong. All around, an excellent use of my spare time.

I'll let you know about the tales. I'm in the midst of major spring cleaning and house reorganization right now, and going through the books and files isn't scheduled for a couple of weeks yet.

Grave_n_idle

29-04-2006, 19:03

It's been a grand thread. I'm grateful to TS for making it. I've learned things. I've had fun arguing. I've had fun reading terrific stuff from excellent writers. I've noted people I hope to stand up with again -- you, TS, and Willamena -- and people I look forward to opposing again -- DG and Bruarong. All around, an excellent use of my spare time.

I'll let you know about the tales. I'm in the midst of major spring cleaning and house reorganization right now, and going through the books and files isn't scheduled for a couple of weeks yet.

Ah yes, Willamena. I certainly didn't mean to slight her. I very much appreciate her unique perspectives. :)

As for the tales... I just started in on a translated collection of German stories, and have recently obtained a "complete annotated Sherlock Holmes"... so I shouldn't actually be running out of material to feed my head, any time soon. :)

DubyaGoat

29-04-2006, 21:16

...Second, GnI and Tropical Sands and I have all addressed the questions of who could have invented the Moses character and story, when, why, and all that. You just don't like our answers, so you claim we never gave them. That's an annoying habit of yours. It would be fine if you just said you don't believe such answers and choose to reject them, but to pretend that we never offered them -- thus forcing us to repeat ourselves over and over -- is rude.

If Moses wrote the Pentateuch he most likely would have had to done so between 1400 and 1200 BCE (New Kingdom – Egyptian time period) and this would then lead into the forty years of the Exodus Desert period. And IF it was written then, unless Moses is said to have invented written Hebrew (which I have not said, but you misunderstood previously what I meant by saying that) then the written language Moses used would have had to of been one of the three different types of Egyptian writings I already mentioned OR a Sinaitic, Canaanite, or a Semitic script known at that time. But in any event, it would by necessity need to be a script that would have be vastly different than the Hebrew of our existing Hebrew or the Babylonian exile period Hebrew as well.

Any original mosaic writings would have been 'transliterated' into some kind of Paleo-Hebrew during the Davidic Monarchy/Kingdom period (1000-700 BC), and the only script we have from that period that I know of is the Silver Scrolls jewelry only recently discovered and translated and analyzed. But it is good solid evidence that at least some mosaic writings had been recorded into Hebrew by then (hundreds of years before the Babylonian exile period).

Then that version would have been re-transliterated again into an old Aramaic script during the Exile period. So, by necessity, the transliterations of the mosaic writings by the scribes at the two different ages would have had to add some explanatory material and updated place names etc., those editorial 'clarifications' are generally self evident and would have been helpful to their contemporary readers. It is not necessary to think that Moses wrote these commentaries, like his own death, for example, and neither does ‘tradition’ require us to believe it.

There is no real reason to assume the Mosaic stories aren’t exactly what they proclaim to be. What was Moses inspiration, what was his muse, so to speak? Who knows, but why it couldn’t have been a summary of Sumerian and Ugartic influences I have no objection to myself. Unlike, for example, the Mohammed influences which are said to come from an angel in the form of a lizard in a cave to an illiterate man who had to memorize each message before the angel would let him leave the cave, the Moses authorship has no such confinement of definitions. Moses never claimed to have not been aware of other writings, as far as I know, so the finding of other older stories with similar themes is not in itself any evidence for or against the Moses character as the story presents itself.

The archaeological world will likely still have more finds and discoveries for us to re-interpret what we know, but to allow our speculations now to include preposterous suppositions (like Moses likely didn’t even know how to write or couldn’t have known Hebrew, or Moses mythology was likely made up during the exile period because Babylonian myths are similar) are not legitimate grounds for dismissing the Mosaic story itself. Perhaps, someday, we will have the actual ark itself, open it up, and see what language was used and who wrote what, but until then, we should keep our speculations within the realm of what we do know about the ancient near east and the societies that lived there. And as of now, there has been no material evidences to posit the claim that Moses isn't the author of the Pentateuch.

DubyaGoat

29-04-2006, 21:22

What are you talking about? Alexander didn't Hellenize Italy. That cultural influence far pre-dated him, as evidenced by the age of Greek ruins in Italy. If it were not for the Greeks, there never would have been a Rome, but that had nothing to do with Alexander. Show me the language influence of Alexander's army. Show me the cities they built. Show me the territories they ruled or the religion they spread. Alexander's army did two things beside generate stories: It spread a ton of Macedonian and Greek DNA around Eastern Europe and Asia, and it sent back cartographic information. Alexander wasn't even a Greek himself. Macedon was a politically and ethnically distinct nation, independent of the Greek city states. Alexander sure as hell did not put Greece on the map. They did that themselves centuries before he came along. Your ignorance is truly astonishing. There is no topic it doesn't touch.

Wow, that seems totally uncalled for, your insults know no bounds, there is no topic it doesn't touch.

Even Julius Caesar is said to have stood in front of a statue of Alexander (while in Spain mind you) when he was already older than Alexander was when he died, and Caesar is said to of cried because he thought of himself as a failure when compared to Alexander. You go too far when say that Alexander did not inspire the Romans.

Muravyets

30-04-2006, 04:09

Wow, that seems totally uncalled for, your insults know no bounds, there is no topic it doesn't touch.

Even Julius Caesar is said to have stood in front of a statue of Alexander (while in Spain mind you) when he was already older than Alexander was when he died, and Caesar is said to of cried because he thought of himself as a failure when compared to Alexander. You go too far when say that Alexander did not inspire the Romans.
Shows what you know. My insults to him are entirely appropriate and so are my insults to you, as follows:

I have had it. I have had it with the ignorance of both you and Bruarong. You know nothing, but you just will - not - shut - up. I have no patience left for either of you, and that's why, although I could have just posted this map and proved you to be, yet again, completely wrong, I decided instead to post it cushioned in a rant indicating just how frigging sick of you I am.

Here, you ignoramus, is a map of the empire controlled by Alexander the Great, which is a combination of the territories he conquered as well as the territories conquered by his father Phillip:
http://library.thinkquest.org/10805/alexmap.html

Look at it carefully. Keep looking. Don't blink. You see that bit in the upper lefthand corner -- the thing that looks like a boot? That's Italy. You know, where Rome is. And what do you know -- Alexander's territory is nowhere near it! Alexander's conquests went south and east, not north and west, to Italy.

Oh, and if you're not too dizzy from staring at that map, take a look at the text under it. I draw your attention specifically to the date. 320 BC. As in three hundred twenty. You think Alexander brought Greek culture to Rome? Then how the frigging hell did Greek ruins get into Italy that are more than 3,000 years old? Hm? You don't know? I'll explain -- It's because Greeks spread into Italy hundreds of years before Alexander existed!!

Read a book or go to hell -- but whatever you do, quit wasting our time with your ignorant nonsense.

Muravyets

30-04-2006, 04:27

If Moses wrote the Pentateuch he most likely would have had to done so between 1400 and 1200 BCE (New Kingdom – Egyptian time period) and this would then lead into the forty years of the Exodus Desert period. And IF it was written then, unless Moses is said to have invented written Hebrew (which I have not said, but you misunderstood previously what I meant by saying that) then the written language Moses used would have had to of been one of the three different types of Egyptian writings I already mentioned OR a Sinaitic, Canaanite, or a Semitic script known at that time. But in any event, it would by necessity need to be a script that would have be vastly different than the Hebrew of our existing Hebrew or the Babylonian exile period Hebrew as well.

Any original mosaic writings would have been 'transliterated' into some kind of Paleo-Hebrew during the Davidic Monarchy/Kingdom period (1000-700 BC), and the only script we have from that period that I know of is the Silver Scrolls jewelry only recently discovered and translated and analyzed. But it is good solid evidence that at least some mosaic writings had been recorded into Hebrew by then (hundreds of years before the Babylonian exile period).

Then that version would have been re-transliterated again into an old Aramaic script during the Exile period. So, by necessity, the transliterations of the mosaic writings by the scribes at the two different ages would have had to add some explanatory material and updated place names etc., those editorial 'clarifications' are generally self evident and would have been helpful to their contemporary readers. It is not necessary to think that Moses wrote these commentaries, like his own death, for example, and neither does ‘tradition’ require us to believe it.

There is no real reason to assume the Mosaic stories aren’t exactly what they proclaim to be. What was Moses inspiration, what was his muse, so to speak? Who knows, but why it couldn’t have been a summary of Sumerian and Ugartic influences I have no objection to myself. Unlike, for example, the Mohammed influences which are said to come from an angel in the form of a lizard in a cave to an illiterate man who had to memorize each message before the angel would let him leave the cave, the Moses authorship has no such confinement of definitions. Moses never claimed to have not been aware of other writings, as far as I know, so the finding of other older stories with similar themes is not in itself any evidence for or against the Moses character as the story presents itself.

The archaeological world will likely still have more finds and discoveries for us to re-interpret what we know, but to allow our speculations now to include preposterous suppositions (like Moses likely didn’t even know how to write or couldn’t have known Hebrew, or Moses mythology was likely made up during the exile period because Babylonian myths are similar) are not legitimate grounds for dismissing the Mosaic story itself. Perhaps, someday, we will have the actual ark itself, open it up, and see what language was used and who wrote what, but until then, we should keep our speculations within the realm of what we do know about the ancient near east and the societies that lived there. And as of now, there has been no material evidences to posit the claim that Moses isn't the author of the Pentateuch.
What a neat little essay. Of course, since it seems that the questions of whether Moses himself wrote the Pentatuech, when, where, or in what language, or how, when, and in what language he became literate do not appear in the Bible at all, then this essay, and all the argumentation that precedes it, is nothing more than you wasting everybody's time with your own baseless speculations about nothing at all. You have wasted enough of our time. The topic of the thread is "Pagan Influences on Christianity." If you have no comments to make about that, then why don't you find something useful to do -- like learn some actual facts about Alexander the Great?

DubyaGoat

30-04-2006, 04:52

Shows what you know. My insults to him are entirely appropriate and so are my insults to you, as follows:

I have had it. I have had it with the ignorance of both you and Bruarong. You know nothing, but you just will - not - shut - up. I have no patience left for either of you, and that's why, although I could have just posted this map and proved you to be, yet again, completely wrong, I decided instead to post it cushioned in a rant indicating just how frigging sick of you I am.

Here, you ignoramus, is a map of the empire controlled by Alexander the Great, which is a combination of the territories he conquered as well as the territories conquered by his father Phillip:
http://library.thinkquest.org/10805/alexmap.html

You are either drunk, or simply mad (either connotation you take by that is fine by me).

One would hope that you would have enough forethought to realize that one does not have to live in France, or in a once French controlled territory, to be inspired by someone like Napoleon and the history of the Napoleonic wars.... The same holds true for Caesar being inspired by Alexander while in Spain.

Meanwhile the regime in Rome had changed and Caesar could return home.
Based on his deeds and military achievements so far, Caesar successfully campaigned for a post in the Roman administration. Caesar served in 63 BC as a quaestor in Spain, where in Cadiz he is said to have broken down and wept in front of a statue of Alexander the Great, realizing that where Alexander had conquered most of the known world at thirty, Caesar at that age was merely seen as a dandy who had squandered his wife's fortunes as well as his own.
http://www.roman-empire.net/republic/caesar.html

But please, feel free to continue with your misdirected and short-sighted hissy-fit after eating your share of crow.

Muravyets

30-04-2006, 05:11

You are either drunk, or simply mad (either connotation you take by that is fine by me).

One would hope that you would have enough forethought to realize that one does not have to live in France, or in a once French controlled territory, to be inspired by someone like Napoleon and the history of the Napoleonic wars.... The same holds true for Caesar being inspired by Alexander while in Spain.

Meanwhile the regime in Rome had changed and Caesar could return home.
Based on his deeds and military achievements so far, Caesar successfully campaigned for a post in the Roman administration. Caesar served in 63 BC as a quaestor in Spain, where in Cadiz he is said to have broken down and wept in front of a statue of Alexander the Great, realizing that where Alexander had conquered most of the known world at thirty, Caesar at that age was merely seen as a dandy who had squandered his wife's fortunes as well as his own.
http://www.roman-empire.net/republic/caesar.html

But please, feel free to continue with your misdirected and short-sighted hissy-fit after eating your share of crow.
Hey, guess what? There's a statue of US Civll War General William Tecumseh Sherman in New York City -- only he never fought there. There's also a statue of Christopher Columbus in New York City, only he didn't discover Manhattan. Gosh, do you think there was a statue of Alexander in Spain because somebody other than him put it there? You were doing so nicely at first, DG, but now it seems you've decided to be an idiot. Why? Was your head hurting from the effort of thinking?

I have no intention of getting lured into a flame war with some loser who simply refuses to use his brain. Last word: You are wrong. I will respond to no more posts that are not on topic.

DubyaGoat

30-04-2006, 05:18

Hey, guess what? There's a statue of US Civll War General William Tecumseh Sherman in New York City -- only he never fought there. Gosh, do you think there was a statue of Alexander in Spain because somebody other than him put it there? You were doing so nicely at first, DG, but now it seems you've decided to be an idiot. Why? Was your head hurting from the effort of thinking?

I have no intention of getting lured into a flame war with some loser who simply refuses to use his brain. I will respond to no more posts that are not on topic.

Are you incapable of reading comprehension? When did I say Alexander was in Spain? Not once.

All I said was that even Caesar was inspired by Alexander and I did so to point out that Alexander was a 'hero-god' type of figure to the Romans by the time of Caesar. Your accusation that someone is trying to 'bait to flame war' rests entirely on your own shoulders.

Muravyets

30-04-2006, 05:35

Are you incapable of reading comprehension? When did I say Alexander was in Spain? Not once.

All I said was that even Caesar was inspired by Alexander and I did so to point out that Alexander was a 'hero-god' type of figure to the Romans by the time of Caesar. Your accusation that someone is trying to 'bait to flame war' rests entirely on your own shoulders.
I'm not accusing you of baiting me -- except by your existence, which I suppose you can't help. It's just that I'm that pissed off with you and your lack of reading comprehension, to wit:

What does Caesar being impressed by Alexander's career have to do with the Hellenization of Italy and the spread of Greek culture, which is what that other genius, Bruarong, was claiming? Eh? Not one blessed thing, and I told him so, and I am right. But that doesn't stop you from chiming in with your irrelevant junk, does it? Nope, it does not.

So not only is your entire Moses soap opera completely off the thread topic, but your remarks re Alexander are both responding to another argument that is also off the thread topic, AND completely off that topic as well! The missing-the-point trifecta. Congratulations. You officially have no idea what anyone is talking about here. You may go now. I know you won't, but I'm going to pretend that you already have. 'Bye.

Bruarong

30-04-2006, 07:56

Muravyets

30-04-2006, 16:20

Just let it go, Dubya. This whole debate seems to be dissolving. Too many emotions involved.

Muravyets, I've enjoyed some of the more sensible arguments we have had. Perhaps we can take it up another time in the future again.
I'm sure we shall. Confronting and exposing bigots wherever I find them is my hobby. See ya 'round.

Grave_n_idle

30-04-2006, 18:21

But in any event, it would by necessity need to be a script that would have be vastly different than the Hebrew of our existing Hebrew or the Babylonian exile period Hebrew as well.

Ugaritic, maybe - which is actually surprisingly similar...

Unlike, for example, the Mohammed influences which are said to come from an angel in the form of a lizard in a cave to an illiterate man who had to memorize each message before the angel would let him leave the cave, the Moses authorship has no such confinement of definitions.

I believe the word translated as 'illiterate' (I'm not remembering it at the moment... 'ummim', maybe?) is actually academically contested as historically having other possible meanings... specifically, I recall hearing 'Gentile' offered as one translation.

And as of now, there has been no material evidences to posit the claim that Moses isn't the author of the Pentateuch.

Or, that he IS.

Or - even, that he really existed...

Ashmoria

30-04-2006, 18:43

is there any evidence outside of the bible that the egyptians ever held "the descendants of abraham" as slaves? (would they be called hebrews before exodus? what does hebrew mean?)

Grave_n_idle

30-04-2006, 19:00

is there any evidence outside of the bible that the egyptians ever held "the descendants of abraham" as slaves? (would they be called hebrews before exodus? what does hebrew mean?)

There's a whole wealth of... not really.

The only 'semitic' people we know of for SURE, are the Hyksos, who conquered part of Egypt for a while, until they were driven back out by Egyptians - after a few hundred years of 'occupation' (which is why Egyptian history has occassions of two DIFFERENT dynasties at the same time).

Personally - I'm inclined to suspect that our 'Hebrews, freed from slavery by the hero Moses' might ACTUALLY have been the aggressive conqueror 'Hapiru', that were finally chased out.

(The Bible admits that Joseph was enormously powerful, and then skips straight to the Hebrews as slaves... no real explanations offered).

Of course - it's much more heroic and sympathetic to CLAIM you were being oppressed, no?

Ashmoria

30-04-2006, 19:13

all im saying is that if there were no hebrews held in slavery, there was no moses.

one might wonder where all those fairly specific rules came from and when.

Grave_n_idle

30-04-2006, 19:29

all im saying is that if there were no hebrews held in slavery, there was no moses.

one might wonder where all those fairly specific rules came from and when.

Well - many of the 'laws' are very similar to Babylonian laws already existing at that point (already literally 'carved into stone, also). And... indeed, some of the stories 'recorded' by 'Moses' are very similar to Babylonian stories already existing at that point.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Hammurabi

(I realise Hammurabi wasn't 'first'... but the Hebrews did chill in Babylon for a while...)

Ashmoria

30-04-2006, 19:42

Well - many of the 'laws' are very similar to Babylonian laws already existing at that point (already literally 'carved into stone, also). And... indeed, some of the stories 'recorded' by 'Moses' are very similar to Babylonian stories already existing at that point.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Hammurabi

(I realise Hammurabi wasn't 'first'... but the Hebrews did chill in Babylon for a while...)
ya ya

so as i understand it (from this thread) not ALL the isrealites went to babylon. many were left behind.

when the babylonian jews came back to israel (if that is how it worked) didnt the nonbabylonian jews say "what the fuck are you talking about with this moses bullshit and where did you come up with all these freaking RULES??

maybe they did. its a part of ancient history i know nothing about.

Grave_n_idle

30-04-2006, 22:28

ya ya

so as i understand it (from this thread) not ALL the isrealites went to babylon. many were left behind.

when the babylonian jews came back to israel (if that is how it worked) didnt the nonbabylonian jews say "what the fuck are you talking about with this moses bullshit and where did you come up with all these freaking RULES??

maybe they did. its a part of ancient history i know nothing about.

I suspect that many of the stories that were recorded by the post-Babylonian Hebrews, were already in the Hebrew 'public domain', in one form or another. Indeed - many of the stories may have already entered the Hebrew 'consciousness' by religious cross-pollination FROM Babylon... in which case, there wouldn't be MUCH that was totally new... just more detailed.

Plus - I believe those that were taken TO Babylon were already established 'religious minds'. Thus, when they were to return, they would be accorded a certain authority. The others would assume they had just not yet heard the 'full story', perhaps?

Plus - when the Hebrews came back out of Babylon (those that returned... I believe MOST of the Babylonian exiles actually chose to stay) they came back with money, and promise of a Temple to rebuild.... both convincing arguments.

Ashmoria

30-04-2006, 23:30

<nevermind. my mistake>

Tropical Sands

01-05-2006, 00:28

You have appeared to select a few comments from early Christians which you have interpreted to support your concept that they believed that a physical baptism is necessary for salvation.

You've selected... zero comments from early Christians to support your claim. I've given over a dozen individual sources from early Christians that literally state that baptism is necessary for salvation. Once again, you seem to be confusing "interpretation" with literalism.

However, I would argue that they held such a point of view, that any person refusing baptism is an indication that they are not a Christian (currently an issue in many Christian circles), and might face being turned out of that circle. However, these same people are not necessarily believing that baptism does the saving, but rather seeing it as necessary outward sign of genuine belief in God (which of course does not guarantee genuine belief).

See above. This is a perfect example of "interpretation." However, what I've given you is citations from early Christians, and the literal meaning of those early Christian writings demonstrate something quite different.

So you claim. I can, however, look up several modern translations of the original text and find a consensus. So long as there is no conspiracy between all of the modern translations, I would say that my interpretations are fairly consistent with the original meaning. I'm not in a position to prove this, of course, but neither are you in a position to prove me wrong, I suggest. At least my argument is that we should look for interpretations that are consistent with the basic theme of the scriptures. You, however, seem to look for interpretations that make the scriptures appear contradictory.

You're confusing "translation" with "interpretation." You've been giving modern interpretation. You havn't translated anything.

And yes, there is a modern concensus among pop-culture Christianity as to what 2000 year old scriptures mean. However, the modern Christian concensus is not what the modern scholarly concensus is or what the early Christian concensus was. That is why you havn't been able to support any of your claims with historical or scholarly sources, while I have.

I was objection to your labelling of my argument as a fallacy, without making any attempt to show *why* it was a fallacy. No reasons, no arguments, just a label. I don't call that arguing.

As I've stated, fallacies are facts. They work by systematic, logical principles. Asking me to show you *why* 2+2=4. Do you want me to pull out two red beans, two blue beans, put them together, and show you that you have four beans?

Do you mean necessary for us to determine whether someone is a Christian, or necessary for God to determine whether that someone is a Christian?

Before the concept of transubstination, the Apostles apparently drank wine and ate bread (a fully meal, in fact) with Christ. They kept this practice, enjoying communal meals. It wasn't until later that the Catholic Church developed the concept of transubstination, which was not accepted by all Christians.

No, you must have ignored half of my post. Transubstination existed in pre-Christian and contemporary pagan rites, such as those of Mithras, Dionysus, and Tammuz. Not only was it an early Christian belief, but it was a pre-Christian belief that was borrowed by early Christians from pagans.

But anyway, my point was that there are references in the Gospels where Jesus talks in a way that is obviously not meant to be taken literally. For example, most Christians didn't think that we should be pulling out our eyes and cutting off our hands, but rather rejecting the part of us that desires to sin. Nor were we to literally hate our family members, but put our love of God supreme to all competing loves.

Yes, and proper exegesis dictates when something is literal and when it isn't. Right now, you're using a fallacious analogy. There is no logical link between Jesus talking about hating your families and baptism. You've yet to demonstrate that you have a sound grasp of Biblical exegesis and when to interpret something as literal or metaphorical.

I find it in the scriptures. They obviously distinguished between a physical death and a spiritual one, between physical life and eternal life. Even the passing of the children of Israel through the Red Sea was called a baptism.

Once again, you're confusing "scriptures" with "my interpretation of scriptures." If you want to interpret something in the scriptures, you need to be able to support that interpretation. So far, you've been unable to support a single one of your personal, modern, pop-culture Christian interpretations.

This is another fallacious analogy, too. You're comparing two sets that, once again, have no real logical link.

It looks as though Paul meant that if you are in the position of ''calling on the name of the Lord'', all the other criteria necessary were fulfilled (in order for a person to reach that position). Certainly, in his arguments about Abraham, there was no baptism there. However, Abraham was considered a friend of God, and considered righteous.

Well, "it looks as though" this is your personal interpretation again. As I stated before, the verse you quoted is not a logically exclusive verse. Thus, you have no logical basis to interpret it as such.

So I'm more familiar with politics that George Bush, because I disagree with his politics. That seems to be the logic you are using.

I never stated I was more familiar with halacha than Paul because I disagreed with Paul. I stated I was more familiar with halacha than Paul because I have a more thorough background in it than Paul, and modern scholarship questions the fact that Paul was even a Jew, much less the things he claimed. Paul demonstrated a lack of legal knowledge, was inconsistent in his claims, etc.

The Jews who converted became Christians, and eventually would have lost their Jewish heritage, and not been considered Jews by their non-converted relatives. Thus Christianity consisted of Gentiles and ex-Jews, but not Jews that were Christians.

The vast majority of converts to Christianity were Goyim. Modern Christianity would have you believe that a large portion of Jewish converts made up early Christianity, but the historical record only gives us large portions of early Christian Goyim. A strong Jewish presence in early Christianity is largely a myth.

Two references!! And you claim this is plagiarism? You must be joking? If anything, this has convinced me that you are really clutching at straws with that point. It is possible that both of these references happened to be similar by coincidence. Or it could have been common sayings at that time that became very meaningful because of the context in which it was said. In neither of these cases is this plagiarism.

Lets see, we have two places in the Gospels alone where pagan texts are quoted, word for word. Yes, tha tis plagiarism by definition. Perhaps you should look the word up. And no, it isn't possible that they could be "similiar by coincidence." They are identical, not similiar. And yes, they were common sayings, because the pagan religions were common in the Galilee and all of Judea. So were the works of Plato and Euripides, where they were plagiarized from.

And yes, it is plagiarism, by definition. Look the word up. As I stated before, if "plagiarism" existed then in the sense it did now, they would have been called out for intellectual theft.

The Jews of that time all spoke Greek, I thought, like the Gentiles. What sort of evidence would you need to show that any part of the NT was written by Jews?

Who believes they were written by Jews today anyway, except the adherents of the Jesus myth? Once again, you're confusing your personal religious beliefs with what scholarship today tells us.

It isn't just that they are written in Greek, but that they quote sources used primarily by Goyim, like the Septuagint.

And if they were written as polemic against the Jews, why is it that many modern Christians still love the Jews? Obviously it didn't work then. Sure, there is a long history of institutionalized Christianity persecuting the Jews, but perhaps they are the ones that did so in spite of the scriptures, not because of them, while modern Christians are now loving the Jews because of the scriptures.

I think you've just refuted your original point. Reread "long history of institutionalized Christianity persecuting the Jews." The vast majority of Christian history has been Christians persecuting the Jews based on Christianity, and at the root of this the Gospels.

Luke was apparently both a companion of Paul and a writer of the book of Luke and the Acts, which gives us a lot of information about Paul. I see a very strong connection between Luke and Paul.

Who told you that Luke wrote Luke? That doesn't occur anywhere in the text. The name "Luke" was attributed to that anonymous Gospel during canonization. Once again, you have to keep in mind that each Gospel was anonymous, and the authorship was attributed to them later by the Church.

Depends how you read it. I personally don't read any anti-Semitic sentiment into it. Indeed, I have Jews among my personal friends.

No, because you don't want to. No Christian will admit that they are anti-Semitic. However, most of secular analysis of the Gospels demonstrates that they are polemic against Jews and do have an anti-Semitic slant. I would trust unbiased, secular analysis of the Gospels rather than an analysis of the Gospels made by adherents of the Jesus myth.

We would hardly expect to find records made by the Jews about Jews breaking their own laws. That would not be evidence for the inaccuracy of the Gospels, would it?

That shows how little you know about Jewish culture and Judaism. Lets see, the entire Tanach (Old Testament) is full of records about Jews breaking their own laws... the Talmud is full of records about Jews breaking their own laws... Josephus, Jewish historian, records Jews breaking their own laws, Philo, etc.

The fact is, out of all the records of Jewish history, by Jews and non-Jews, there is nothing to support what the Gospels claim, and everything to support a picture of history contrary to it. And that is why, as I've stated, those of us involved in modern scholarship in this area reject the Gospels as painting an accurate picture of Jewish history.

There you go again. Christian scholars are pseudo-scholars. Why? Because they disagree with you?

Perhaps I'm not being clear. I'll go ahead and retype what I stated:

You're working backwards. Not all modern scholars hold my POV. But there is no serious scholarship to support anything you've claimed. As I've stated, your opinions tend to be those of modern pop-culture Christianity, and modern pop-culture Christianity has a brand of pseudo-scholars who are essentially half-rate apologists.

I didn't say Christian scholars are pseudo-scholars. I stated that your opinions are those of pseudo-scholarship and pop-culture Christianity. Most of my peers and professors are "Christian scholars." And as I've stated, from them, you'll find no support for anything you've claimed.

So the Gentiles were clever enough to construct a story about Jesus that seemed to fulfill the Jewish prophecies, and foolish enough to paint Jesus as contradiction their own claims that He is the only way to fulfill the law. You still have a contradiction there.

What contradiction is there? That occurs in every religion. Some things make sense, and some things contradict themselves. The Goyim who invented the Jesus myth didn't do a very good job of making Jesus fulfill "Jewish prophecies" either, since most "prophecies" he fulfilled were never actual prophecies to begin with, but scriptures taken out of context.

And you are still defining 'serious scholars' as those who don't have the same version of Christianity that I have. I don't call that a serious argument. That's just labelling.

No, I'm defining 'serious scholars' as those who have peer-reviewed works and are accepted by modern scholarly concensus. I've never stated anything about their personal beliefs. And you have yet to actually support any one of your claims with a shred of serious scholarship. And you couldn't. Because modern scholarship doesn't support your claims.

Many modern scholars are Christians. Your assertion might be true in your little school, but I doubt that modern scholarship in general is opposed to Christianity, unless you are still defining scholars as those who aren't Christians.

They identify as Christians, anyway. If you've ever attended seminary, you might be shocked at what the educated "Christians" really believe.

It is necessary to interpret everything, silly. You even have to interpret my posts. Neither you or I can avoid having a personal interpretation on just about everything we have an opinion on.

Some interpretations are based on subjectivity, and some are objective (based on the literal, lexical meanings). The latter is far, far stronger than the former. While I've been giving the latter, you've been giving the former. Furthermore, interpretations can be logically coherent, illogical, etc.

They aren't all "personal interpretations" and they aren't all equal. This is just exegesis 101 here.

I've no doubt that there are differences. But since there is quite a variety of opinion among modern Christians, there would have also been a variety among the early Christians. Some right, some wrong.

Well lets see. If some early Christians were right, but no early Christians believed what you believe, then that would mean you can't be right too. I would suggest figuring out what those early Christians believed. And stop assuming that its your modern, pop-culture interpretation of scriptures.

If you do find some early Christian sources to demonstrate that they believed what you do, I'd love to see 'em.

In order to take any meaning from the scriptures, there needs to be some basic rules regarding interpretation. That isn't necessarily circular reasoning, but simply being consistent.

You didn't outline "basic rules." You gave a subjective interpretation of one verse to prove something about another verse. In fact, using any part of the Bible to "prove" something about another part is circular reasoning, by definition.

Sure, there is a great variety of interpretations within Christianity, but I suggest that this is not peculiar to Christianity, but can be attributed to human nature, since it is found in virtually every major religion.

Christianity has more sects than most major religions combined. It certainly is particular to Christianity. It has to do with a lack of education, a lack of authority, and a lack of discipline among Christians.

In fact, you're a perfect example. Lets look at one of your posts below:

"No one ascends into the kingdom of heaven except through the sacrament of baptism." (On Abraham)Obviously, then, Abraham's baptism was not a physical one, but a spiritual one.

Now, needless to say, you really aren't familiar with Ambrose. Nor are you familiar with his work "On Abraham." So much so, that you would assume that this has something to do with Abraham. Ambrose was talking about sacraments within the Church, this had nothing to do with Abraham. But you saw "On Abraham" and, without knowing your stuff, instantly assumed that it had something to do with Abraham. And then you gave your subjective interpretation that it had something to do with a spiritual baptism, rather than a physical baptism. I may be the only one that's read Ambrose here to grasp it, but you've really made a fool out of yourself with this one.

Yet another Catholic Father. *snip*

And out of the dozen or so early Christians I've cited, saying "But they're a Catholic" doesn't really get you out of it. Early Christianity was divided between Orthodoxy (Catholicism) and Heresy (mostly Gnosticism, etc.) You seem to be under the mistaken impression that Catholicism in this sense equals the RCC that you know today, which is not the case.

However, if you can find any early Christian sources that are not affiliated with "Catholicism" as you like to scapegoat, I'd love to see it. I'm surprised you didn't dismiss every one of those early Christian sources, since they all identified as "Catholic."

Keep in mind, it was "Catholics" who developed your New Testament. They were the ones that created the Bianity and Trinity doctrines. The ones who decided that the names "Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John" would be attributed to those anonymous Gospels, etc. Its so absurd when modern, pop-culture Christians reject Catholicism, because virtually everything you believe can be traced back to Catholicism and is 100% dependent on it in one way or another.

Tropical Sands

01-05-2006, 00:42

In quoting from such a site, I never meant that I endorse everything that I find there, nor that I am implying that the quote taken from there must be right. It was an example of public opinion, and you are welcome to show (using reasons) why you disagree (if you disagree). I don't tend to rely on the reputation of a website to make my arguments. I would rather arguments were made as appeals to reason and common sense, and I find arguments that have the attitude that 'this person said such and such, so it must be right' are quite childishly silly. I actually don't care who Ellie is or what else she says. If you disagree with the quote I used from her site, present your reasons, instead of attacking the author.

I don't think you're fooling anyone at this point. You just google stuff and pull it off the first site that pops up. Perhaps you should put some effort into really learning about the subject instead of finding whatever garbage is out there on the internet to try and win an argument.

There is no scholarly consensus on Jesus Christ either. Does that mean he never existed? Of course scholars are divided on the issue, because of the implications. One simply cannot be objective about the accuracy of the Bible, since everyone is either a believer or not a believer.

There is a scholarly concensus on the dichotomy between the "historical Jesus" and the "jesus of faith." I know I've already explained the way we use these two terms in history multiple times in this thread, but I'll do it again. The latter is the Bible Jesus, that the Jesus myth adherents believe in, and the former is the origin of the Jesus myth. While there is little concensus on just what the historical Jesus is, there is a concensus that the "jesus of faith", i.e. the Bible Jesus, is not historical.

Rubbish. There are Christians today who believe that it was not a literal event. Based on what? Evidence? Hardly. It's called bias. Humans believe all sorts of things out of preference. Bias does not demonstrate anything other than bias.

You've slipped into a fallacious analogy again. You seem to be cursed with confusing modern Christians with early Christians. I hope I really don't have to explain where you've gone astray with this one, again.

The Gospels make it clear that the guarding of the tomb was an exception, which kills your argument that it could not have been possible because it was not common practice.

They don't state that it was an exception. They simply state that it was done on request. More subjective interpretation I guess. The fact is, we have no such evidence of anything like this being done.

And you seem to be saying that if the tomb was guarded, we ought to find such records, otherwise the lack of records proves that it was an invented story, which, as you should know, is a bit of a silly argument. One does not expect to find such orders written down, and surviving 2000 years even if they were written down by the Romans. And in their eyes, the crucifixion of Jesus would hardly have made the newspapers. Just another Jewish rebel in that strange corner of the Roman Empire.

We do have written records of what happened to crucifixion victims. They were left outside for animals or thrown onto fires or garbage dumps. Josephus records this. The whole Jesus myth goes astray as soon as it states that he was given over his buddies for burial. Crucifixion victims were thrown out, they weren't returned to their families.

And it isn't that we don't have records of Jesus' specific tomb incident. Its that we don't have records of such a thing being done, ever. What the Gospels record is inconsistent. Does it "prove" anything? No. Does it demonstrate an improbability and historical inconistency? Yes.

I have little doubt that there were Christians who hated Jews, but in doing so, they would have directly gone against the words of Jesus, who taught us to love even our enemies.

Right, your own personal, modern interpretation of Jesus. The predominate belief in Christianity throughout history was to hate Jews.

And for every "loving" verse of Jesus you interpret, I can interpret one the way Christians did for the majority of Christian history.

Luke 19:27 "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me."

There is a reason many texts were excluded from the NT. The Christians would argue that these texts did not contain confirmation of God's Spirit. They argue that the books in the cannon were discovered to contain God's words, and selected based on that. The discovery occurred over time, in the every day practice of following Christ, and not at a meeting of the church officials.

What Christians would argue that? Its a historical fact that it occured at a meeting of church officials, and even after an official canon was selected, it was later modified and other books continued to be in use by Christians for hundreds of years. There are no Christian accounts of books being "discovered to contain God's words." Perhaps this is another bit of modern, pop-culture, wishful thinking.

Muravyets

01-05-2006, 02:54

<snip>
No, you must have ignored half of my post. Transubstination existed in pre-Christian and contemporary pagan rites, such as those of Mithras, Dionysus, and Tammuz. Not only was it an early Christian belief, but it was a pre-Christian belief that was borrowed by early Christians from pagans.
Indeed. Major sacrifices in pagan religions often ended up as feasts shared by the clergy and/or worshippers. This practice continues to this day. In instances of symbolic human sacrifice, in which some cooked food was meant to stand in for a human being, it was believed that a human spirit was present in the food and that the food transformed into what it symbolized as it was eaten. We see faint survivals of this magical idea in the common idea of food turning into something else in the mouth of a guilty person or a grieving person, and so on. We also see the reverse of this magic in myths and folktales of baked bread men coming to life, of gods like the Slavic Jarovit being baked in an oven until all impurities are burned off, etc. In shamanism, it is common theme of myths for the shaman to undergo transformations in which his body is treated as food -- butchered, stewed, baked -- and then reassembled and restored with improvements. The foundation of the saying "we are what we eat" is extremely ancient.

As pagans accepted the idea of the crucifixion as a sacrifice, it is no wonder that they would have re-enacted the last shared meal as a symbolic sacrificial feast. But this clearly must be a later interpretation brought in by converted pagans, because in the Jesus story, the meal is had before the sacrifice occurs. The last supper was not a memorial for someone already dead, as a sacrificial feast should have been, so the meal, the eucharist, and the transubstantiation would not have been part of the original story that was presented to the first generations of converts. It is much more likely that they added this in the process of developing their new religious rituals.

The vast majority of converts to Christianity were Goyim. Modern Christianity would have you believe that a large portion of Jewish converts made up early Christianity, but the historical record only gives us large portions of early Christian Goyim. A strong Jewish presence in early Christianity is largely a myth.
And I, for one, don't understand the origin of this myth, since Christianity first came to power and was codified under the Romans, who were not Jewish by any stretch of the imagination, and that it spread through Europe which was also not Jewish territory.

Lets see, we have two places in the Gospels alone where pagan texts are quoted, word for word. Yes, tha tis plagiarism by definition. Perhaps you should look the word up. And no, it isn't possible that they could be "similiar by coincidence." They are identical, not similiar. And yes, they were common sayings, because the pagan religions were common in the Galilee and all of Judea. So were the works of Plato and Euripides, where they were plagiarized from.

And yes, it is plagiarism, by definition. Look the word up. As I stated before, if "plagiarism" existed then in the sense it did now, they would have been called out for intellectual theft.
And since the rules were different then, and such wholesale lifting -- as well as fictionalizations and false attributions -- was not against any rules at the time it was done, then I don't see why we should be upset about it or feel it has any bearing on the value of the content.

Who believes they were written by Jews today anyway, except the adherents of the Jesus myth? Once again, you're confusing your personal religious beliefs with what scholarship today tells us.

It isn't just that they are written in Greek, but that they quote sources used primarily by Goyim, like the Septuagint.
Perhaps the idea that Jews were the first Christians is just a new expansion of the fact that Jesus (if he existed) would have been a Jew. Or maybe it is an attempt at some sort of legitimacy. Or a reaction against a pagan-based history?

I think you've just refuted your original point. Reread "long history of institutionalized Christianity persecuting the Jews." The vast majority of Christian history has been Christians persecuting the Jews based on Christianity, and at the root of this the Gospels.
Maybe the claim that Jews wrote the gospels is an attempt to un-do this history. But it's one thing to try to rewrite history. It's quite another to try to erase it altogether.

<snip>
Christianity has more sects than most major religions combined. It certainly is particular to Christianity. It has to do with a lack of education, a lack of authority, and a lack of discipline among Christians.
<snip>
There is certainly a lot of that, especially among the newer sects. There is also the problem of the way the original canon was chosen. Even though only one faction won that fight, all the factions were strong. Resistance to the form the church took (aka "heresy") has been ongoing since the beginning.

And out of the dozen or so early Christians I've cited, saying "But they're a Catholic" doesn't really get you out of it. Early Christianity was divided between Orthodoxy (Catholicism) and Heresy (mostly Gnosticism, etc.) You seem to be under the mistaken impression that Catholicism in this sense equals the RCC that you know today, which is not the case.

However, if you can find any early Christian sources that are not affiliated with "Catholicism" as you like to scapegoat, I'd love to see it. I'm surprised you didn't dismiss every one of those early Christian sources, since they all identified as "Catholic."

Keep in mind, it was "Catholics" who developed your New Testament. They were the ones that created the Bianity and Trinity doctrines. The ones who decided that the names "Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John" would be attributed to those anonymous Gospels, etc. Its so absurd when modern, pop-culture Christians reject Catholicism, because virtually everything you believe can be traced back to Catholicism and is 100% dependent on it in one way or another.
Some people don't seem aware that "catholic" (lower case) is an adjective.

NationStates Jolt Archive

Pagan Influences in Christianity - Page 3