Who was Jesus talking to when he said...

[TheVisitor]

-I know much of this sort of stuff is bunk.
-The more convenient it is, and the fewer people know about it, the more likely it is to be a lie.
-So much of it, asserted with the utmost certainty, is wrong.

All three of the above fall into the same category.
How do you claim to know? You just told us. Majority opinion according to your own words.
The only things that think that way....are livestock. Prey. Safety in numbers.

Look...I'm going to resist dissecting your post line by line and refuting every claim and false assertion you just made.
It's a waste of time. Your bishop statement "I think", proves you haven't got a clue whats going on.
I've seen the "condition" before. Refute, deny, always get the last word. Agnostic. Don't believe anything.

It's probably terminal unless you're just a child. In either case turn back now, go away...go "play with the herd".
I really don't want to be the cause of your emotional trauma. I'll just feel bad later.
Herd animals give me indigestion.

 

[roger_pearse]

-I know much of this sort of stuff is bunk.
-The more convenient it is, and the fewer people know about it, the more likely it is to be a lie.
-So much of it, asserted with the utmost certainty, is wrong.

How do you claim to know? You just told us. Majority opinion according to your own words. <insults>

Since I don't hold that view, I can't imagine how you came by it. I did warn you about the perils of convenience, you know.

Incidentally you commited a rather curious logical error. Mouthing stale slogans and professing second-hand positions is certainly your right; but combining this with sneers about "following the herd" ... um. We can write original ideas, and deride those who conform, although to do so today risks being very unoriginal. Or we can write conventionally, and advocate conformity. But to write in the words of others a demand for originality is the preserve of the unthinking, surely?

Be sceptical.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

 

[TheVisitor]

Since I don't hold that view, I can't imagine how you came by it.

Where? The part I underlined.
"The less that know, more likely a lie", translates into the more who know the more likely it's true. Majority opinion.

Incidentally you commited a rather curious logical error. Mouthing stale slogans and professing second-hand positions is certainly your right; but combining this with sneers about "following the herd" ... um. We can write original ideas, and deride those who conform, although to do so today risks being very unoriginal. Or we can write conventionally, and advocate conformity. But to write in the words of others a demand for originality is the preserve of the unthinking, surely?

Huh...? Who told you any of that is true?
I don't know what you think you just said, but it didn't sound very nice.

 

[roger_pearse]

Where? The part I underlined so you wouldn't miss it. But you still don't get it. <insults>

Since I have already told you that I don't hold the view you attribute to me, and your response is insults, I can only presume you want a fight. Would you like to explain why?

Learning is a good thing, and best acquired rather than talked about. Returning to the Mithras issue, this link may be of use to some. It is a collection of all the ancient literary sources known to me which mention Mithras, which I compiled as a service to those who want to know what the evidence is. Undoubtedly it is not complete -- I only discovered the Carmen ad Antonium the other day -- but if so, I have yet to meet a better.

I should add that it also contains a little trap for the obscurantists. No-one of goodwill will even perceive it, I suspect, never mind fall into it.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

 

[TheVisitor]

Since I have already told you that I don't hold the view you attribute to me, and your response is insults, I can only presume you want a fight. Would you like to explain why?

I mentioned posting something two years ago that explains the Madonna/Child virgin born Saviour statues.
These were found in places like India, China, and Greece hundreds of years before Christ. (See link on post #262)

I also said Rome mixed Christianity with Pagan idolatry. You said; "I know you read this off the web. But it is bunk - sorry."
When I explained I first read this in book form thirty years ago, you dismissed that comment also.
I never thought about offending someones beliefs. I need to be more careful. I will agree a good dose of skepticism is always healthy.

I was not involved in the Mithras subject at all. I had never heard of Mithras until a couple of days ago.
Guess that's what I get for jumping into the middle of a conversation and changing the subject.

I did however just go back and re-read your post #280. I apparently read it wrong the first time.
I will apologize for overreacting with the comments I made in #281. Your post seems to be alright. Very informative.
Maybe I was still upset by your earlier comments mentioned above. I'll be reading from that link you provided for quite a while.
I do agree with most of what you said from there on looking back now. Sorry about that.
Maybe we just got off on the wrong foot.

 

[NMSquirrel]

*************
M*W: I'm not concerned with people who won't listen to me.

have you read yourself? in this post alone you spend more attention on the ppl who won't listen..so apperantly you are concered..

These people won't listen to anybody.

there are those who do not possess the skills to listen..it takes more than just hearing to listen..

I won't waste my time with them.

um..you are posting...waste of time is assumed...

There is enough knowledge out there, and plenty of knowledgeable people..

true..

..who spend their time trying to get this information to the uninformed.

how do they do this? do they try to berate and shame ppl to believe like they do? or do they just share the information and let the listener figure out what he wants to do with the information..IOW im only responsible for sharing what i know to be true..its up to you to decide what you want to do with that info..

Yet, these are the same people day in day out who refuse to listen.

when ppl communicate, they communicate the way they learned..if they learned to communicate by insults and slams, then thats the way they will tend to communicate, and by this they seldom understand why ppl won't listen to them..

IMO. there are two parts to this communication..one is the info you are trying to communicate, the second is the insult/slam this can be phrased very eloquently, but its still just a slam..
when the slam is interjected into the communication, that is all the other person will hear, it will distract from any info you are trying to share..

I'm not patient with these people who claim to be intelligent and informed,

there is so many things about this i can pick apart..lets just leave it at..
aren't you trying to tell us you are intelligent and informed??
how do you learn?

when all they do is spew the same garbage all over Internet forums.

again..don't you qualify for that also?
i mean, since you don't believe what they are saying, so it makes it garbage?..so if they don't believe what you are saying that means it is also garbage?..

 

[Medicine*Woman]

have you read yourself? in this post alone you spend more attention on the ppl who won't listen..so apperantly you are concered..

*************
M*W: I am impatient with people who refuse to at least debate a subject fairly. One can only go so far until it is beating a dead horse.

there are those who do not possess the skills to listen..it takes more than just hearing to listen..

*************
M*W: That's a fair assessment.

um..you are posting...waste of time is assumed...

*************
M*W: Just a figure of speech.

when ppl communicate, they communicate the way they learned..if they learned to communicate by insults and slams, then thats the way they will tend to communicate, and by this they seldom understand why ppl won't listen to them..

*************
M*W: True.

IMO. there are two parts to this communication..one is the info you are trying to communicate, the second is the insult/slam this can be phrased very eloquently, but its still just a slam..

************
M*W: I reach a point when I have made my point and provided enough back-up documention and the other party still doesn't want to be fair about the debate, then I get very tired of trying to pursue the point, because it's hopeless.

when the slam is interjected into the communication, that is all the other person will hear, it will distract from any info you are trying to share..

*************
M*W: Fair enough.

 

[roger_pearse]

I mentioned posting something two years ago that explains the Madonna/Child virgin born Saviour statues.
These were found in places like India, China, and Greece hundreds of years before Christ. (See link on post #262)

I also said Rome mixed Christianity with Pagan idolatry. You said; "I know you read this off the web. But it is bunk - sorry."
When I explained I first read this in book form thirty years ago, you dismissed that comment also.
I never thought about offending someones beliefs. I need to be more careful. I will agree a good dose of skepticism is always healthy.

I was not involved in the Mithras subject at all. I had never heard of Mithras until a couple of days ago.
Guess that's what I get for jumping into the middle of a conversation and changing the subject.

I did however just go back and re-read your post #280. I apparently read it wrong the first time.
I will apologize for overreacting with the comments I made in #281. Your post seems to be alright. Very informative.
Maybe I was still upset by your earlier comments mentioned above. I'll be reading from that link you provided for quite a while.
I do agree with most of what you said from there on looking back now. Sorry about that.
Maybe we just got off on the wrong foot.

Sorry if I gave offence. I had not realised that someone might take personally some general comment I made about rubbish online. I had no such intention: most people post in good faith. Let's face it, we're all vulnerable to authoritative-sounding people in areas on which we are not experts. I think we'd all rather have the raw facts right -- religious opinions are another matter, of course.

I'd have posted links before now, but the forum software blocked me doing so until now.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

 

[John99]

TheVisitor, a mother and child image would be found in many places. Even in many people homes, for example themselves with their own child etc. I have to say you were a little rude in these posts too.

 

[John99]

*************
M*W: I am impatient with people who refuse to at least debate a subject fairly. One can only go so far until it is beating a dead horse.
.

Kind of ironic since some good answers were provided to you in the first few pages and most likely that was from years ago.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

TheVisitor, a mother and child image would be found in many places. Even in many people homes, for example themselves with their own child etc. I have to say you were a little rude in these posts too.

*************
M*W: The image of mother and child goes back thousands of years. It was a basic figure in many beliefs not just the Virgin Mary and Jesus. In fact, the Virgin Mary and Jesus could very well be the last depiction of the mother and child motif. Does anyone out there know of a later depiction than the mother and child in any religion (Islam, Buddhism, etc.?).

 

[Medicine*Woman]

Kind of ironic since some good answers were provided to you in the first few pages and most likely that was from years ago.

*************
M*W: What?

 

[TheVisitor]

TheVisitor, a mother and child image would be found in many places. Even in many people homes, for example themselves with their own child etc. I have to say you were a little rude in these posts too.

I wasn't talking about some old family portraits, John.
The existance of these images doesn't have to mean there were other saviours before Jesus.
It can be explained with a study of ancient religions and how they came about.
The images are of a virgin mother holding a child who is depicted as a saviour and is also the husband or father.
This is a term called the "husband/son. My link on post #262 above (pg. 14) contains a background of history explaining how this happened.

As for being rude, I'm working on that. The first step is admitting you have a problem.
It's always good to have a long term goal.

 

[Actual Facts]

*************
M*W: To whom was Jesus talking when he allegedly cried out from the cross in Greek, no less, and said, "Eli, eli, lama sabachtheni?" (My god, my god, why have you forsaken me?)

Let me explain... "El" is a shortened form of "Elias," the sun god "Helios," to whom Jesus called out from the cross. "El" is the sun. The "Elohim" also represents the many stars. Also known as the "Ali," who were associated with gods. "Ali" is Egyptian in origin and represents the "Atum," "Aten," and the "Amen," who are all part of "Elohim." "Atum" was later known as "Adam."

Jesus, as the sun of god, was crying out to his heavenly father/creator god, the sun, "Eli" and/or "Helios" who had abandoned him on the cross that day. Then the skies grew dark and stormy as the sun set behind the earth and died.

Jesus was no Sun worshipper for the Word of God is written.

"And lest thou lift up thine eyes unto heaven, and when thou seest the sun, and the moon, and the stars, even all the host of heaven, shouldest be driven to worship them, and serve them, which the LORD thy God hath divided under the whole heaven." -- Deuteronomy 4:19

"And he brought me unto the inner court of the LORD's house, and, behold, at the door of the temple of the LORD, between the porch and the altar, were about five and twenty men, with their backs toward the temple of the LORD, and their faces towards the east; and they worshipped the sun toward the east." -- Ezekiel 8:16

"And they shall spread them before the sun, and the moon, and all the host of heaven, whom they have loved, and whom they have served, and after whom they have walked, and whom they have sought, and whom they have worshipped: they shall not be gathered, nor be buried; they shall be for dung upon the face of the earth." -- Jeremiah 8:2

Jesus claimed to be half extraterrestrial.

"... ye are of this world; I am not of this world." -- Jesus Christ, John 8:23

"My kingdom is not of this world...." -- Jesus Christ, John 18:36

 

[Medicine*Woman]

Jesus was no Sun worshipper for the Word of God is written.

*************
M*W: I never said the character of Jesus was a sun worshipper. I believe Jesus was an anthropomorphization of the sun and worshipped as such.

"And lest thou lift up thine eyes unto heaven, and when thou seest the sun, and the moon, and the stars, even all the host of heaven, shouldest be driven to worship them, and serve them, which the LORD thy God hath divided under the whole heaven." -- Deuteronomy 4:19

************
M*W: The buzz words here are "the LORD thy God hath divided under the whole heaven." The LORD being the sun itself.

"And he brought me unto the inner court of the LORD's house, and, behold, at the door of the temple of the LORD, between the porch and the altar, were about five and twenty men, with their backs toward the temple of the LORD, and their faces towards the east; and they worshipped the sun toward the east." -- Ezekiel 8:16

*************
M*W: The LORD's house resides in the heavens as the sun resides in the heavens. It's a metaphor.

I don't know who those "five and twenty men" are, (I don't think anybody does, but if I translated it astrotheologically, I would say that the men represented sky bodies such as planets, constellations or stars.

Their backs were "towards the temple of the LORD, and their faces towards the east...;" If you examine this astrotheologically, it implies these "men" were clearly in the "heavens" as the sun rose. It clearly states "they worshipped the sun toward the east."

"And they shall spread them before the sun, and the moon, and all the host of heaven, whom they have loved, and whom they have served, and after whom they have walked, and whom they have sought, and whom they have worshipped: they shall not be gathered, nor be buried; they shall be for dung upon the face of the earth." -- Jeremiah 8:2

*************
M*W: This verse is pretty much self-explanatory. I think it implies that these "objects" or the "five and twenty men" shall be spread before the sun, and the moon, and all the host of heaven...,." In the bible where there are references to "men," they represented planets, stars and constellations, in the heavens. It's simple really.

:Jesus claimed to be half extraterrestrial."

"... ye are of this world; I am not of this world." -- Jesus Christ, John 8:23

"My kingdom is not of this world...." -- Jesus Christ, John 18:36[/QUOTE]
*************
M*W: Good analogy meaning that Jesus Christ represents the sun. However, I don't believe JC was an ET. It's all metaphorical, my dear.

 

[NMSquirrel]

i do like it when someone quotes bible to associate with their claims..

but not the king james version..
we always talk about misinterpretation..the king james version exemplifies that by using all the thee's and thou's and so much other words that are subjective to missinterpretation, we get enough misinterpretation with just the data that is in the bible, we dont need to confuse the issue by quoting the most confusing version of the bible..

 

[roger_pearse]

*************
M*W: II believe Jesus was an anthropomorphization of the sun and worshipped as such.

A quick query: what is the ancient evidence for this view? The NT would seem to contradict it fairly extensively, for instance.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

A quick query: what is the ancient evidence for this view? The NT would seem to contradict it fairly extensively, for instance.

*************
M*W: I don't know what you consider to be ancient evidence. I clearly stated that this was my astrotheological belief. But to answer your question, the bible offers a lot of astrotheological evidence. In fact, the NT is probably the best source of this evidence.

From the OT:

Psalms 84:11 "the Lord God is a sun..."

Deuteronomy 4:24 "For the LORD your God is a consuming fire,"

Malachi 4:2 "the Sun of Righteousness..."

From the NT:

John 8:12 When Jesus spoke again to the people, he said, "I am the light of the world." (The "light of the world" is the Sun.)

John 9:5 While I am in the world, I am the light of the world. (The "light of the world" is the Sun.)

Matthew 4:16 The people living in darkness have seen a great light; on those living in the land of the shadow of death a light has dawned.")

Matthew 17:2 His face shone like the sun, and his clothes became as white as the light.

John 1:3-8 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it (the Sun removes the darkness). There came a man who was sent from God; his name was John. He [John] came as a witness to testify concerning that light (the Sun), so that through him all men might believe. He [John] himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light. The true light (the Sun) that gives light to every man was coming into the world.

John 3:19-20 This is the verdict: Light (the Sun) has come into the world, but men loved darkness (night time) instead of light (the Sun) because their deeds were evil (criminals do their crimes at night). Everyone who does evil hates the light (the Sun), and will not come into the light (the Sun) for fear that his deeds will be exposed.

John 12:35-36 Then Jesus told them, "You are going to have the light (the light is the Sun) just a little while longer (the Sun will set soon). Walk while you have the light (the light is the Sun), before darkness (night time) overtakes you. The man who walks in the dark (at night) does not know where he is going. Put your trust in the light (the light is the Sun)while you have it, so that you may become sons of light." When he had finished speaking, Jesus left and hid himself from them (i.e. the sun set, because Jesus is the Sun).

John 12:46 I have come into the world as a light (the Sun), so that no one who believes in me should stay in darkness.

Ephesians 5:14 Christ (the Sun) will shine on you.

Philippians 3:20 For our conversation is in heaven (the celestial sphere above); from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ (the Sun).

Colossians 3:2 Set your minds on things above, not on earthly things.

Luke 4:19 To preach the acceptable year of the Lord. (i.e. the story is about the passage of the year.)

From other sources:

Archelaus, The Acts of The Disputation with The Heresiarch Manes, Kessinger, 2004.

Augustine, St. Augustin on Homilies on the Gospel of John, Kessinger, 2004.

Budge, E.A. Wallis, Egyptian Ideas of the Future Life, Kessinger, 2004.

Catholic Encyclopedia, XIV, Charles G. Herbermann, et al., eds., The Universal Knowledge Foundation, NY, 1913.

Dodgson, Charles, tr., A Library of Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church: Tertullian, John Henry Parker, Oxford, 1842.

Dupuis, Charles Francois, The Origin of All Religious Worship, University of Michigan, 2005.

Hornung, Erik, The Secret Lore of Egypt: Its Impact on the West, tr. David Lorton, Cornell University Press, NY, 2001.

Jenkins, William, ed., The Comprehensive Commentary on the Holy Bible, Fessenden and Co., Brattleboro, 1834.

Katz, Israel J., et al., Studies on the Cantigas de Santa Maria: Art Music, and Poetry, Hispanic Seminary of Medieval Studies, 1987.

McClintock, John and Strong, James, Cyclopaedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, I, Harper & Brothers, NY, 1891.

Murdock, D.M., Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection, Stellar House Publishing, Seattle, 2009.

Rahner, Hugo, Greek Myths and Christian Mystery, Biblo & Tannen Publishers, 1971.

Roberts, Alexander, Ante-Nicene Christian Library, XI, T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1869.

--Ante-Nicene Fathers, III, Charles Scribner's Sons, NY, 1903.

Schaff, Philip, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, XII, The Christian Literature Company, NY, 1895.

Taggart, James M., Nahuat Myth and Social Structure, University of Texas Press, 1997.

Taylor, Glen, Yahweh and the Sun: Biblical and Archaeological Evidence for Sun Worship in Ancient Israel, Continuum International Publishing Group, 1993.
Other sources of astrotheological evidence:

http://stellarhousepublishing.com/jesussunexcerpt.html

http://biblelight.net/xmas.htm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQLD59fK_Iw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPAzBO-c9c8

http://www.masters-table.org/pagan/sun1.htm

http://www.masters-table.org/pagan/sun2.htm

http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/monstr.htm

 

[roger_pearse]

*************

M*W: II believe Jesus was an anthropomorphization of the sun and worshipped as such. ”

A quick query: what is the ancient evidence for this view? The NT would seem to contradict it fairly extensively, for instance.

M*W: I don't know what you consider to be ancient evidence.

I'm open to suggestions, but anything before 481 at least. You could argue anything before 1000 if you like, in the Eastern Empire anyway.

I clearly stated that this was my astrotheological belief.

Well, I don't know what you mean by "astrotheological". Would you explain?

I have come across people who take refuge in words like "symbolically true", when asked to give evidence for some evidently unhistorical statement. So I'm a little wary. Could you clarify?

Does the word perhaps mean "not amenable to proof or disproof by means of historical evidence"? Not clear what you're saying here. Religious beliefs are one thing; but statements about what happened on the ground in history should be testable.

But to answer your question, the bible offers a lot of astrotheological evidence. In fact, the NT is probably the best source of this evidence.

From the OT:

Psalms 84:11 "the Lord God is a sun..." <snip other OT snippets>

Um, a text written before Jesus was born is not evidence, surely? Can you explain how it is relevant?

Once you have established how it is relevant, would you explain how comparing the God of Israel to the sun is evidence that no-one named Jesus of Nazareth existed?

I suspect I am not following your argument, you see.

From the NT:

John 8:12 When Jesus spoke again to the people, he said, "I am the light of the world." (The "light of the world" is the Sun.)

Um, but the text does NOT say "I am the Sun" -- surely that is your gloss on it? Of course you are entitled to your opinion; but does any ancient source agrees with you? Because you made a statement, remember, not about what the "real meaning" was, but about what people living in this period thought of it.

(snip)
Colossians 3:2 Set your minds on things above, not on earthly things.

Luke 4:19 To preach the acceptable year of the Lord. (i.e. the story is about the passage of the year.)

You do not indicate how these quotations support your thesis, however.

From other sources:

Archelaus, The Acts of The Disputation with The Heresiarch Manes, Kessinger, 2004.

Augustine, St. Augustin on Homilies on the Gospel of John, Kessinger, 2004.

You will find these texts online, actually! But since you only refer to them without specifics, we can hardly evaluate this claim. I don't believe that either the Acta Archelai -- a third century text -- or Augustine -- a fourth century writer -- held the view you articulate. So ... I didn't understand why you referenced them?

Budge, E.A. Wallis, Egyptian Ideas of the Future Life, Kessinger, 2004.

How are the beliefs of ancient Eygpt relevant, tho?

Catholic Encyclopedia, XIV, Charles G. Herbermann, et al., eds., The Universal Knowledge Foundation, NY, 1913.

Um. There are doubtless many curious things in this book. But I am quite certain that the view you advocate is not one of them!

Dodgson, Charles, tr., A Library of Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church: Tertullian, John Henry Parker, Oxford, 1842.

Dupuis, Charles Francois, The Origin of All Religious Worship, University of Michigan, 2005.
...
(snip lots of books, many of value)

This looks like a random list of books, however. Dodgson's translation of Tertullian, for heaven's sake?!?

Murdock, D.M., Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection, Stellar House Publishing, Seattle, 2009.

I'm sorry, but "Acharya S" as he/she used to be known is merely a nut-job.

http://stellarhousepublishing.com/jesussunexcerpt.html

http://biblelight.net/xmas.htm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQLD59fK_Iw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPAzBO-c9c8

http://www.masters-table.org/pagan/sun1.htm

http://www.masters-table.org/pagan/sun2.htm

http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/monstr.htm

An interesting collection of websites from the lunatic fringe. My time is precious, so pardon me if I don't hunt through them for the evidence I asked you for! But ... you don't indicate how any of these support your case. Why is the assertion of amateur websites something any of us should pay attention to?

Pardon me if I have been abrupt-sounding her -- no such intention. But I don't follow your argument.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

UPDATE: I looked at one of those url's, once my browser had submitted, and found that "astrotheological" is a buzz word of "Acharya S", now writing as D. Murdock. Is that the source of all your claims, I wonder?

I dismissed Acharya S earlier as a nut-job, without realising that you might be one of his/her victims. If so, I realise you will find that dismissal rather too curt. I'm not sure that I can write a demolition of this person's stuff. But there are quite a few online. Have you read any of them? If so, what did you think? (I should also mention that Acharya S enjoys a very low reputation even among atheists, because her stuff is so bad at the factual level).

 

[John99]

I wasn't talking about some old family portraits, John.

I cant make things any clearer for you except to say that particular imagery is itself an icon and even to this day. There is good reason for that though. Even to this day if you pass a photographers shop you see many images with that very same theme. It is safe to say this has been the same for centuries and from early civilization, before paint was discovered, they even carved it into cave walls. I just dont see how this 'big' discovery you\your shady sources claim to make can be anything remotely approaching intelligent observation.