Interesting information on the "Christianity is a copy of Pagan Myths" Theory

Originally posted by saint4God
Me too.

I see you picked my short post to rebut, ignoring my long one, with the Chemosh reference and whatnot. Itemize that one if you please.

(For the record, I find your reponse to my short post unsatisfactory, but I'll get to that later.)

jake1997: Brilliant.

Zip

[edit on 7/14/2005 by Zipdot]

General attack on the bible from all angles?

You forgot one angle. Reading the bible and letting it interpret itself, instead of putting ones own spin on it.

We all know that Jesus Christ is the fulfillment of the OT...so what does Jesus teach about the many accusations you have made?
I eagerly await your answer

Originally posted by jake1997
General attack on the bible from all angles?

You forgot one angle. Reading the bible and letting it interpret itself, instead of putting ones own spin on it.

We all know that Jesus Christ is the fulfillment of the OT...so what does Jesus teach about the many accusations you have made?
I eagerly await your answer

We all know that?! Well, I guess I am excluded from "all" - well, me and about 5 billion of my good friends.

Actually, I have read the bible. In fact, I've read several of them. And, I've read a great many of the histories and commentaries (from both sides). So, if I read the bible and"let it interpret itself" and I come to a vastly different conclusion....well, then what?

How on earth would I know what Jesus taught? I'm pretty sure that there are some things in the NT that were the teachings of the one or more people generally referred to as Jesus but how can anyone say for certain which parts are accurate?

If I say that I am the Son of God and that only false prophets sent from Satan will disagree with me and that the truly ignorant will despise me and try to steer you away from true teachings then, where are we now? Believe in me or face eternal damnation! So it is written, right here, right now. (Please make checks payable to C.A.S.H. and don't forget they are tax deductible. Have a blessed day!)

Oh, I almost forgot to mention: this is just me starting my own new religion (by declaring myself the Messiah) using the same techniques as most all other religions have used to get started. Wow! It's easier than I thought! Maybe I should mention that I was born of a virgin...think that would be too over the top?

[edit on 14-7-2005 by Al Davison]

Originally posted by Al Davison
We all know that?! Well, I guess I am excluded from "all" - well, me and about 5 billion of my good friends.

Oh, I almost forgot to mention: this is just me starting my own new religion (by declaring myself the Messiah) using the same techniques as most all other religions have used to get started. Wow! It's easier than I thought! Maybe I should mention that I was born of a virgin...think that would be too over the top?

Hardly, except, to be accepted as the Messiah by the Jewish faith, you will need to be the ruler of the world when there is penultimate peace and prosperity. This is one of the dozens of reasons that the Jewish people reject Jesus as their Messiah - he was not the ruler or king of the world or of the Jews and he lived in a time of strife and oppression. By the definition of the word, the Messiah that the Jews await will come *after* there is no war in the world.

The Christians say that Christ is true because he will "come again" and he will fulfill the prophecies on his "next" arrival. The Jewish people think this is complete horse hockey because it was not part of the Old Testament prophecies.

Additionally, I would point out here that all of these people waiting for Christ's return to happen soon are jumping the gun. By their own admission, he will not return until there is already peace on Earth.

We have never had peace on Earth and it doesn't appear to be on the horizon, either.

Zip

[edit on 7/15/2005 by Zipdot]

You do err with all of the 'jews dont believe because..." things.

You may as well have used Hindu or Muslim and said "These dont see Jesus as ...."
One non believer is as good as another.

The funny thing is..the Jews DID and DO believe. The begining of the church was entirely jewish.
Guess who wrote the NT? Jews
That road is a dead end. No country can say that every citizen believed...

besides that...prophecy said that Israel would reject Christ as a Messiah until the Tribulation

Originally posted by jake1997
You do err with all of the 'jews dont believe because..." things.

You may as well have used Hindu or Muslim and said "These dont see Jesus as ...."
One non believer is as good as another.

The funny thing is..the Jews DID and DO believe. The begining of the church was entirely jewish.
Guess who wrote the NT? Jews
That road is a dead end. No country can say that every citizen believed...

besides that...prophecy said that Israel would reject Christ as a Messiah until the Tribulation

Not to mention that the jews of today, aren't the jews of history...
Anyways, where does it say that Isra-EL would reject Christ until the Tribulation...point me to the verse please

Originally posted by Zipdot
I see you picked my short post to rebut, ignoring my long one, with the Chemosh reference and whatnot. Itemize that one if you please.

I'll have to read my ATS Terms & Agreements again, but I don't recall the requirement to respond to every part of every post in equal length. If I didn't respond to a particular piece it's probably because of one of the following 5:

1.) Already covered the response/answer in a shorter form.
2.) It's been covered or answered before.
3.) Short on time at the time.
4.) Pointless circular discussion. A fight just to fight, no value.
5.) I don't have enough information to speak on it, so more research is required.

Am I the only one here? Well, I'm sure there are plenty here tired of reading my posts and I do my best to not let my nose get in the way of an round-table open forum. If you have a specific question for me, by all means ask it. To expect responses from me on every point is a bit demanding, don't ya think? If you can tell me you honestly value my assessments that much and take it heart each time, then I will make the effort.

Originally posted by Zipdot
(For the record, I find your reponse to my short post unsatisfactory, but I'll get to that later.)

That's okay, I'm not here to do the work for you , I'm here to help where I can. I'll always welcome SPECIFIC feedback to get better if ever you have some.

Originally posted by Al Davison
We all know that?! Well, I guess I am excluded from "all" - well, me and about 5 billion of my good friends.

That's a lot of personal good friends! How'd you do that? Isn't it a bit demanding? I have only a few good friends and they're always wanting me to do stuff all time. Do you think your new religion is going to fly with them?

Who wrote the new testament? Actually. . .

The New Testament, the basis of today's Christian faith, is a collection of 27 compositions, all first written in Greek. This three-part series tells the story of the 27 books of the New Testament.

The new testament was indeed composed of letters of people spreading the new movement and telling the followers how to spread the Gospels themselves.

But the compilation of them was much later after Jesus death.

Originally posted by marg6043
Who wrote the new testament? Actually. . .

The New Testament, the basis of today's Christian faith, is a collection of 27 compositions, all first written in Greek. This three-part series tells the story of the 27 books of the New Testament.

The new testament was indeed composed of letters of people spreading the new movement and telling the followers how to spread the Gospels themselves.

Looks like factual information to me.

Originally posted by marg6043
But the compilation of them was much later after Jesus death.

Much later? When were they written?

Originally posted by saint4God
I'll have to read my ATS Terms & Agreements again, but I don't recall the requirement to respond to every part of every post in equal length. If I didn't respond to a particular piece it's probably because of one of the following 5:

Heh, okay, don't respond to it, then.

Originally posted by saint4God
Much later? When were they written?

Which book(s) are you referring to, or are you referring to the first compilation of New Testament gospels and epistles?

Zip

I remember 2 decades ago, as an atheist, finding a copy of A. B. Kuhn's "Pagan Christs." It certainly fit in with what I had felt about the Bible stories I grew up with. I think Kuhn's work is one pillar of many (but by no means all) of the arguments made for paralells between Christianity and other religions.

I was discussing the topic a couple of years ago with a noted Egyptologist, one of the curators of the recent "Quest for Immortality: Treasures of Ancient Egypt" exhibition that toured internationally ~ 2000 - 2003.

She said that actually, what we know of Egyptian religion is being totally rewritten. Much of what has been unterstood of 'classic' Egyptian myth comes from a priest named Manetho, who live in the 3rd century BCE. The problem is, we don't possess an actual copy of his works. Instead, we have "epitomes" that are later glosses of his works, penned by post-Christian (!) authors. Right now, scholars are trying to decide whether Manetho's later Christian editors intentionally tried to make Egyptian religion seem "proto-Christian" as a way of asserting the cultural primacy of the Coptic (Egyptian) church.

Another major source, particularly for info on Isis and Osirus, comes from Plutarch, who was a priest at a Temple to Apollo (in Greece) about the time of Christ. While manuscripts of his works are common, scholars are divided on how much of his work "de Ises et Osiride" actually reflects his own personal beliefs rather than the Official state Egyptian cult. Plutarch believed in one god, and in reincarnation. Both beliefs may have strongly flavored his interpretation of the Set/Osirus cycle.

One of the things this discussion needs is a respect for how OTHER religions changed over time, and how those other faiths may not be reported to us accurately. After all, the Bible isn't the only text to every suffer at the hands of translators and editors!

I'm looking on the net for more info, but havent found anything quote-worthy yet.

Tho a christian myself, I cherish the free flow of ideas, and look forward to informed, civil discourse on this topic.

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by marg6043
Who wrote the new testament? Actually. . .

The New Testament, the basis of today's Christian faith, is a collection of 27 compositions, all first written in Greek. This three-part series tells the story of the 27 books of the New Testament.

The new testament was indeed composed of letters of people spreading the new movement and telling the followers how to spread the Gospels themselves.

Looks like factual information to me.

Originally posted by marg6043
But the compilation of them was much later after Jesus death.

Much later? When were they written?

According to tradition, the earliest of the books were the letters of Paul, and the last books to be written are those attributed to John, who is traditionally said to have lived to a very old age, perhaps dying as late as 100, although evidence for this tradition is generally not convincing. Irenaeus of Lyons, c. 185, stated that the Gospels of Matthew and Mark were written while Peter and Paul were preaching in Rome, which would be in the 60s, and Luke was written some time later. Evangelical and Traditionalist scholars continue to support this dating....

en.wikipedia.org...

If you're going to quote the WikiPedia entry and only include the "traditional" section of Biblical dating, some might say that is misleading. Following that paragraph is another that presents the "modern critical" approach to New Testament dating.

Zip

I think I have the information I need....which is it isn't really "much" later unless you're a hamster and that nobody really knows any more than it was around the time of Christ.

[edit on 15-7-2005 by saint4God]

Much later? When were they written?


Which book(s) are you referring to, or are you referring to the first compilation of New Testament gospels and epistles?

Zip

I guess if you refering to the approved first compilation by the church yes, before that Paul was the first to composed his epistle to the Thessalonians - the earliest known New Testament writing. (c. 49)

The more controvertial parts were edited by the church.

Historically, the four gospels and the epistles of the Apostles were not grouped into one document nor were they labeled the New Testament until after the Messiah’s and Apostle’s death. During the time of the Apostles, these manuscripts were circulated individually to the various assemblies, but were not compiled as they are today. It also should be noted that when the Apostle John sent the Book of Revelation to the seven assemblies in A.D. 96, all the Apostles were dead.

James Hastings in the Dictionary of the Bible states that the earliest compilation of the New Testament was over a century after the Messiah’s death. The first explicit reference to a collection of New Testament books involved the Heretic Marion. He issued a canon of scriptures consisting of a mutilated gospel of St. Luke and the epistles of Paul in about 140 A.D. (p. 123).

More correctly the New Testament has three parts:

• the four gospels that refer to the Messiah fulfilling the prophecies of the Old Testament,

• the writings of the Apostles to the various assemblies,

• and the Book of Revelation by the Apostle John.

www.plim.org...

The writings that later became the new testament were written by the several apostles of Christ in the first century A.D.

This writings included the birth and life of Christ, and the establishment of the church, but all the original copies like in the old testament writings has been lost or destroyed, but copies of the writings are preserved

The first translation of the old testament from Hebrew to Greek was completed in Alexandria Egypt and was called the Septuagint.

The first major English translation of the New Testament and the one that Christians in the west abide by, was completed by John Wyclif in 1382 after 22 years of hard work. In 1456 printing was invented by Johanne Gutenberg, making it possible to publish Bibles much faster and virtually eliminating typographical errors so common in hand copies.

In 1525, William Tydale made the first printed translated bible, and took it to England, The Catholic church opposed to this because it was only people in the higher ranks in the church eyes only.

After this bible was printed many other versions sprouted between 1604 specially the one Version and translation by king James, this one was finished by 1611.

It was the most widely used version until in 1982 it was revised to take many of the archaic word and replaced with modern terminology.

But the first “American standard edition” was published in 1901, other American bibles also included the REVISED STANDARD VERSION in 1952 and the NEW AMERICAN STANDARD in 1970.

Yes the bible has come a long way baby and with each translation a new way of bible viewing and interpretation is born.

Bible translations and editing is good business.


[edit on 15-7-2005 by marg6043]

Zipdot just got my last "Way Above" vote for this month.

(I didn't bother quoting him/her but, if you're reading, you already know what he/she said.)

Thanks! And, thank you for doing such a better job of making my point that I was capable of doing at the time - since my phone started ringing non-stop while I was trying to write that post.

The point was that one close-but-no-cigar Messiah is as good as another. I probably have offended a few people whom I'd prefer not to offend, especially Saint4God whom I really like and admire, (as opposed to a few others whom I do not mind offending). So, to y'all, I apologize for being too glib about a very serious subject. Just trying to keep it light-hearted and fun even though the topic is something I take very seriously.

Great posts, y'all!

Originally posted by Al Davison
The point was that one close-but-no-cigar Messiah is as good as another. I probably have offended a few people whom I'd prefer not to offend, especially Saint4God whom I really like and admire, (as opposed to a few others whom I do not mind offending).

I'm not offended at all. 'Way above' is who you think presents excellent points and information. If Zip fits the bill, then that's certainly fair. If we all sat around agreeing with each other, there'd be no point to me being here (oops! I just gave away the secret on how to get rid of me). Thank you for the compliment as well, I'm honored ^_^.

Originally posted by Al Davison
So, to y'all, I apologize for being too glib about a very serious subject.

No worries. Be you, do what you do -

Originally posted by Zipdot
If you're going to quote the WikiPedia entry and only include the "traditional" section of Biblical dating, some might say that is misleading. Following that paragraph is another that presents the "modern critical" approach to New Testament dating.

Zip

Not my intention at all; you will, of course, note the "..." at the end of my insert, which typically signifies that there is more to this (than I cared to clutter the thread with). That's also why I included the link. Intelligent, inquiring minds will navigate toward knowledge, and never accept partial information at face value. I also have the greatest confidence in the personages I have encountered so far on this site, to discharge this duty with due diligence, and not a small amount of flair.

Yours in Truth