Who was Jesus talking to when he said...

[TheVisitor]

-I cant make things any clearer for you....
- I just don't see how this 'big' discovery you\your shady sources claim to make can be anything remotely approaching intelligent observation.

That "shady sources" comment was a little uncalled for. I was trying to be nice.
Why the unprovoked attack? Do you have a problem seeing the trinity doctrines as being of Pagan origin?
The Madonna/child images do tie into to that.

 

[John99]

Don't worry about clearing things up for me, John.

I am bringing out a point to you that you are going to see that image, in one form or another, regardless of any point it is attempting to make. Another thing that is a assumption is that the image is always mother and child but that is just presumed by the viewer in many cases.

I'm sorry if this offends you.

I bring out things based on logic and if i see errors in reasoning then i reveal those errors and anything else you are reading into. As you may see, from your comment about my having trouble with everyone (which i dont agree with) i have no compulsion to fit into any group or be part of the crowd so i base my opinions on observations i make and nothing more. Not to mention the fact that i am not a religious person myself.

 

[TheVisitor]

-I bring out things based on logic and if i see errors in reasoning then i reveal those errors...
-As you may see...I have no compulsion to fit into any group or be part of the crowd...
-Not to mention the fact that i am not a religious person myself.

You just "bring things out" based on your "logic"
Religion is big part of history, John.
You really can't study one without studying the other.

 

[John99]

You seem to be answering your own questions.

For example:

Your not religious. No weaknesses that way for others to exploit.

Religion is big part of history, John.
You really can't study one without studying the other.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

So you don't really have any opinions of your own.

Didnt i give you my own opinion in the other post?

 

[John99]

Roger, My sentiments as well.

However much there is to exploit i dont fault people for writing fiction and selling it for $12.99

Just too much assumption and no facts. People write entire books on a few cave drawings and the meaning of a simple drawing which of course is very profound .and mysterious when in reality it was someone doodling with a rock.

 

[NMSquirrel]

Roger, My sentiments as well.

However much there is to exploit i dont fault people for writing fiction and selling it for $12.99

there ya go MW..publish yur book..doesnt matter if they agree or not as long as they buy the book..maybe someone will reference it trying to make their point.

 

[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: I read what I can in what little time I have to do it. I also don't have a lot of time to post anymore, so forgive me if I have overlooked some things.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

I'm open to suggestions, but anything before 481 at least.

*************
M*W: I told you this was my belief, and I posted references for you per your request. I don't have the time to argue each and every cherry picked point of contention you may have.

I don't know what you mean by "astrotheological".

*************
M*W: If you read the references, you would know what the word means.

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

*************
M*W: Anything written about Jesus at any time is not evidence that Jesus existed.

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?

*************
M*W: The "God of Israel" (I'm talking the ancient people of Canaan) were sun worshippers. If you read the references, you would know the answer.

Um, but the text does NOT say "I am the Sun" -- that is YOUR gloss on it. You are entitled to your opinion; but what ancient source agrees with you? You made a statement, remember, about what people living in this period thought.

*************
M*W: The references clearly describe what ancient sun worship is and why early christians associated the sun with Jesus. I've provided you with the references. I don't have time to sit here and argue each and every question (insult) you have. Look it up for yourself.

You will find these texts online. But since you only refer to them, we can hardly evaluate your 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 ... why do you reference them?

*************
M*W: What you do is of no concern to me. I've referenced the answers you requested, now it is up to you to read them. Then we can discuss.

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

*************
M*W: I don't have the time either, so if anyone else out there can answer Roger Pearse's nit-picking, I would appreciate it.

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).

*************
M*W: I'm not a victim of Acharya S. I think it is funny how you call others "nut-jobs" when it's apparent that you are one of them.

 

[John99]

there ya go MW..publish yur book..doesnt matter if they agree or not as long as they buy the book..maybe someone will reference it trying to make their point.

I dont mind new theories but if they dont work out then it has to be accepted.

 

[TheVisitor]

One interpretation is that the sun is a type of God - the Light. The moon has no light of it's own.
It only reflects the sun to light the night in it's absence.
The moon represents the people or hosts through which that light is reflected or operates during the "night" or the absence of God being present in person.
This is what the Bible refers to when mentioning the sun and the moon in type.
Other sources however may have different meanings for them.

The people of Israel should not be confused with the inhabitants of Canaan that were there before them.
They were not sun worshipers in general. They were told not to worship the heavenly hosts, but did on occasion fall away from that directive.

 

[roger_pearse]

*************
M*W: I told you this was my belief, and I posted references for you per your request.

Sorry, but you didn't. I have explained my difficulties with your post already. Your response to it was to brush my queries away as follows:

I don't have the time to argue each and every cherry picked point of contention you may have.

M*W: If you read the references, you would know what the word means.

M*W: Anything written about Jesus at any time is not evidence that Jesus existed.

M*W: The references clearly describe what ancient sun worship is and why early christians associated the sun with Jesus. I've provided you with the references. I don't have time to sit here and argue each and every question (insult) you have. Look it up for yourself.

M*W: What you do is of no concern to me. I've referenced the answers you requested, now it is up to you to read them. Then we can discuss.

M*W: I don't have the time either, so if anyone else out there can answer Roger Pearse's nit-picking, I would appreciate it.

M*W: I'm not a victim of Acharya S. I think it is funny how you call others "nut-jobs" when it's apparent that you are one of them.

So ... no answer to my queries except "it's somewhere in the long list of books" -- mostly evidently irrelevant -- "that I posted". Um.

If this is the only response to enquiry, I think we can dismiss this claim as nonsense.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

 

[roger_pearse]

Roger, My sentiments as well.

However much there is to exploit i dont fault people for writing fiction and selling it for $12.99

Just too much assumption and no facts. People write entire books on a few cave drawings and the meaning of a simple drawing which of course is very profound .and mysterious when in reality it was someone doodling with a rock.

Indeed so. We need to be sceptical of these imaginary claims.

And didn't Von Daniken do it all first, and do it better? These tawdry little Christian-haters are so DULL!

 

[roger_pearse]

Do you have a problem seeing the trinity doctrines as being of Pagan origin?

The formula of the Trinity -- or at least the terminology -- was originated by Tertullian and set out in Adversus Praxean. I don't think we need spend any time on the idea that Tertullian introduced something of pagan origin. He states that the teaching is apostolic.

The New Testament makes the following statements:

1. There is only one God, the Father.
2. Jesus is God (worshipped, etc).
3. Jesus is not the Father.

From that, some formulation like the Trinity was inevitable, I suspect.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

 

[Medicine*Woman]

I dont mind new theories but if they dont work out then it has to be accepted.

*************
M*W: It's not a new theory, but a very old one.

There is enough information on this theory that it cannot be dismissed. When I say it is my belief. I don't mean I worship that belief. All I'm saying is that it's an earlier myth and I accept it as such. I don't know how some people (christians) cannot accept the fact that sun worship was actually practiced in some ancient societies.

 

[John99]

*************
M*W: It's not a new theory, but a very old one.

There is enough information on this theory that it cannot be dismissed. When I say it is my belief. I don't mean I worship that belief. All I'm saying is that it's an earlier myth and I accept it as such. I don't know how some people (christians) cannot accept the fact that sun worship was actually practiced in some ancient societies.

My feeling is that it is a big mistake to view ancient people as intellectually inferior or less capable to make some very simple assessments like we are discussing here.

Less sophisticated and the amount of information (mainly technological) we have today is no comparison but these things we are discussing are very base.

I dont see where being Christian has anything to do more about belief that people where (edit: were) 'Sun Worshipers'. Major problem is that we cannot ask them so many assumptions (a term some would use loosely) can be made.

Human nature points to a living god and the Sun being part of the picture.

 

[John99]

I also can visualize the yearning for knowledge greater at that time simply becuase new discoveries were easier to come by. Some, if not most, of these theories were very far from truth and i see that is the case with these relatively modern impressions of those particular times. The point being is that there is only so much to work with and we cant just make stuff up to fill the gaps in.

 

[TheVisitor]

I don't think we need spend any time on the idea that Tertullian introduced something of pagan origin. He states that the teaching is apostolic.

The New Testament makes the following statements:

1. There is only one God, the Father.
2. Jesus is God (worshipped, etc).
3. Jesus is not the Father.

From that, some formulation like the Trinity was inevitable, I suspect.

I would agree with your last statement, but not with Tertullian.
It is a finely weaved web that combined paganism with Christianty. The teaching was never apostolic.
It existed in pagan religions long before Jesus as three gods in one form in India, China, Japan etc...
The New Testament states these three "attributes" of God exist..
1) The Father
2) The Son
3) The Holy Ghost

Now examine each of these attributes.
-The Father is spirit.
-The Son is the only begotten of that Spirit incarnate in flesh. (the fullness of the Godhead bodily)
-The Holy Ghost is spirit.

Jesus said God was His father, and "when you see me you've seen the Father."
The New Testament also says He was concieved of the Holy Ghost.

Unless Jesus had two fathers, the Father and the Holy Ghost are the same Spirit and Jesus the Son was It's only "begotten" human incarnation.
That is one God in human form, not three gods in one form.
It never said they constitute three seperate enities.

The trinity doctrine of "three persons in one God", or "one God with three equal but distinct personalites" and other pagan teachings such as the falsely titled "apostles creed" may have been called apostolic but they were only intoduced and taught by the Christian churches much later after they had began to compromise with paganism

 

[Medicine*Woman]

My feeling is that it is a big mistake to view ancient people as intellectually inferior or less capable to make some very simple assessments like we are discussing here.

Less sophisticated and the amount of information (mainly technological) we have today is no comparison but these things we are discussing are very base.

*************
M*W: Where did I imply that??? Ancient people were sun worshippers like the Israelites in Canaan, and practically everybody in Egypt at one time or another. That does NOT imply they were "intellectually inferior!" Inferior to who? To what? Explain, please.

I dont see where being Christian has anything to do more about belief that people where (edit: were) 'Sun Worshipers'. Major problem is that we cannot ask them so many assumptions (a term some would use loosely) can be made.

*************
M*W: I've provided a lot of bibliographical information about ancient sun worshippers. It's not an "assumption," it's a fact. No, we can't "ask" them if they were sun worshippers, the bibliographical information proves that. Go and read some of it before you comment.

Human nature points to a living god and the Sun being part of the picture.

*************
M*W: Human survival points to a metaphorical god--the sun.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

I also can visualize the yearning for knowledge greater at that time simply becuase new discoveries were easier to come by. Some, if not most, of these theories were very far from truth and i see that is the case with these relatively modern impressions of those particular times. The point being is that there is only so much to work with and we cant just make stuff up to fill the gaps in.

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

 

[John99]

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

M*W: I've provided a lot of bibliographical information about ancient sun worshippers. It's not an "assumption," it's a fact. No, we can't "ask" them if they were sun worshippers, the bibliographical information proves that. Go and read some of it before you comment.

Sun worshipper is a misnomer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misnomer) because you are taking only a small piece of things and oversimplifying it. Small things amuse small minds.