Jesus Christ

[anomaly]

Many of you likely know the parallels to the 'supernatural' traits of Jesus and the 'supernatural' traits of pagan godsl ike Horus and Krishna. I recently submitted an article listing the similarities to a Christian, but he said that these similarites are generally not accepted as material which "debunks" Christianity. He also sent me a link, which attempts to explain why these similarites cannot debunk Christianity. I thought it rather weak, but I am wondering your reaction to the link, and any thoughts you may have on this subject. I am hoping some of you may be able to help me debate this particular Christian.

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/copycat.html

[Hegemonicretribution]

To be honest I got bored of reading, simply denying that the evidence isn't strong enough, without really explaining why in detail proves nothing.

Ther first question you are supposed to ask yourself makes little sense, and I would have to know what is being claimed of Jesus in this instance to understand it. All in all I advise people not to bother their time with it, as it is dull.

[redstar2000]

As far as I could tell, it (the link) does appear to be an accurate summary of recent biblical scholarship.

That is, it really is pretty unlikely that Christian mythology was directly "borrowed" from Hellenic, Egyptian, or Babylonian sources.

On the other hand, "gentile" recruits to Christianity would, in many cases, have been "loosely" familiar with such myths...and thus found Christian mythology not "unbelievable" on its face.

It was a "believing" age. :(

However, Christians do seem to be largely incapable of basic honesty even in summary.


While Old Testament scholars dispute whether the Hebrew almah should be rendered “young woman” or “virgin,” God clearly intended it here to mean virgin (as implied by the Gr. word parthenos).

There is no "dispute"...Ancient Hebrew had a completely different word for "virgin".

And "God" did not speak Greek to Isaiah...or to "Joseph". :lol:

By suggesting that a "dispute" exists, the author implies that Isaiah "really did" prophesy the birth of "Jesus".

Total bullshit.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

[anomaly]

Thanks Redstar. I'll be sure to tell you what my Christian buddy says in response.

[James]

this was discussed several months ago. in one of the longer threads in this forum. I posted a link was really good; good as in it was extensive. It answered all your questions. I cant remember the thread name though :S

[anomaly]

My Christian friend's response:

"No, I'll tell you whats total bullshit...the above. (that was in reference to what you said, Redstar)
If he was familiar with other languages he would understand that in one language, a word could mean multiple words in another language and vice versa. Hebrew does not have a seperate word for virgin. The word almah can be used to mean both young women and virgin, depending on the context. In the context of Isaish, he was describing how the people would know who the Christ was and he said it would be a micraculous sign of being born of a virgin.

What's so miraculous of the Christ being born to a young woman? Nothing. When the Hebrew was translated into Greek, the Greek have two seperate words for virgin and young woman. The Greeks used the word for virgin. The Jews then and today know that the word means virgin, only non-Jews and those unfamiliar with biblical languages think there is a dispute. "


So, Redstar, is he right?

[redstar2000]

If he was familiar with other languages he would understand that in one language, a word could mean multiple words in another language and vice versa.

Sometimes that happens...but this is not one of those times.

Virginity was important in patriarchal societies...in a way that we can no longer really grasp. Every language in those days had a specific word for a woman who "had never lied with a man"...because that's what made her marriageable.


Hebrew does not have a separate word for virgin.

It most certainly does and did at the time the OT books were written and compiled (after the "return from Babylon").


When the Hebrew was translated into Greek, the Greek have two separate words for virgin and young woman. The Greeks used the word for virgin.

The Hebrew Bible was first translated into Greek by Jewish scholars in Egypt c.90BCE. They used the Greek word meaning "young woman".

Only Christian translators retroactively changed the word to "virgin".


The Jews then and today know that the word means virgin, only non-Jews and those unfamiliar with biblical languages think there is a dispute.

Utter nonsense! No Jews have ever believed that the "messiah" would be "born of a virgin".

Indeed, the whole point of the Jewish "messiah" is that he is the "son of David" who will restore the "glories" of the Davidic "empire".

A "virgin birth" would make no sense in Jewish theology.


So, Redstar, is he right?

No, he's a typical Christian ignoramus.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

[anomaly]

Well, Redstar, the Christian seems to have taken the dfensive. His latest retort:


Ok, so I did my research and there are two words for virgin in Hebrew. But that still does not support his proposition

In Hebrew the word "virgin" is denoted by two words:
1. bethulah: The proper meaning denotes a virgin maiden.
2. almah (veiled): A young woman of marriageable age. This is the word used in Isaiah 7:14.

"The Holy Spirit through Isaiah did not use bethulah, because both the ideas of virginity and marriageable age had to be combined in one word to meet the immediate historical situation and the prophetic aspect centering in a virgin-born Messiah." (Unger, UBD, 1159)

"Virgin" is denoted in Greek by the word parthenos: a virgin, marriageable maiden, or yound married woman, pure virgin.

When the translators of the Septuagint translated Isaiah 7:14 into Greek they used the Greek word parthenos. TO them Isaiah 7:14 denoted that the Messiah would be born of a virgin.


This, to me, sounds as if this particular Christian has completely taken the dfensive, and so has come up with an assortment of bullshit to attempt to prove, to himself atleast, that he is right. What do you make of it?

[WingZero0]

Assortment of bullshit? Young one, you must analyze things clearly before you can deem something bullshit.

Let us take a look, first, at the passage in question:

"Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel."
--Isaiah 7:14

This prophecy is said to have been fulfilled by Jesus:

"She was found with child of the Holy Spirit....Then Joseph...did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son. And he called His name Jesus."

Next, let us examine the original languages these two text were written.

The book of Isaiah was written in Hebrew. The book of Matthew was written in Aramaic, not Greek as some think. The earliest manuscripts of Matthew are written in Aramaic. But most of the copies were written in Greek.
Addressing the "virgin issue" :

The Hebrew word bethulah is used multiple times in the Bible. In Gen. 24:16; Lev. 21:13; Deut. 22:14, 23, 28; Judg. 11:37; 1 Kin. 1:2 to name a few. Isaiah also uses the word on different occasions in his book so the author was no unfamiliar with it. The word certainly does mean a virgin maiden. (maiden is an unmarried woman).

The Hebrew word almah certainly means virgin also. Specifically if means a young woman of marriageable age. The above certainly is correct.

Now almah is used few times in the Old Testament. I believe only seven times. A study of these passages shows that it means virgin. It neve meant "young married woman".

Now look at Isaiah. It says in the beginning of the passage that the Lord would give you a sign. A sign being something that catches your attention something that is out of the ordinary. A child being born to a "young married woman" is hardly a sign, but a child being born to a "virgin" is quite a sign. Therefore, if young married(or unmarried) woman is used in this translation, it wouldn't fit the context of the passage.

In the Greek translations used in Matthew and Luke the word parthenos is used which means virgin. Parthenos is only used 15 times in the Bible and every time to mean an actual virgin not a "young married woman". Moreso, Matthew and Luke both say that Jesus "fulfills" this prophecy of being born a virgin.

And while I'm at it to answer the obvious question of "How come Jesus wasn't named Immanuel?"

Immanuel means "God with us". Jesus means "God saves". The arguement is that it is a failed prophecy since Jesus wasn't named Immanuel, but let us take a closer look.

In that culture it was common to have two names. King Solomon had two names: Soloman and Jedidiah. He was never called Jedidiah after that. These names are 'place' names. The name is used as a description, not his actual name. The Savior gets 4 more names in Isaiah 9:6. These names are only meant to show what he was to do, not his birth name.

Take a guy named Jim and place him into that culture. Now Jim is a good guy. He works as a lawyer but served as a soldier when he was a teenager. So, by the time he dies, the people will call him not only Jim but mayber warrior, advicate, defender, etc.

So Immanuel is used in Isaiah 7:14 to show that the Messiah will be God himself and He will walk among us.

I do hope that clears everything up for you guys. If not, I am here to help you answer any of your questions.

[WingZero0]

Oh, and Redstar, before you go throwing the word ignormous around at people you should know that agnostic translated into Latin is ignoramous. So if any of you call yourselves agnostics know that your also calling yourselves ignoramouses.

[visceroid]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2005, 07:46 AM
Oh, and Redstar, before you go throwing the word ignormous around at people you should know that agnostic translated into Latin is ignoramous. So if any of you call yourselves agnostics know that your also calling yourselves ignoramouses.
agnostic :lol: :lol: :lol: , i dont think redstar would ever call himself anything short of atheist

[James]

Okay i have gone through the the archives and found it!

The thread (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=27915) was
"Jesus Christ and the Pagans", and dates from Aug 8 2004.

The link that i had in mind, was http://tektonics.org/copycat/osy.html
It addresses the main "pagan claims" of similarity.
also
http://www.tektonics.org/harpur01.html

[James]

the site also contains a page on several key features of christianity which make it "special".
http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nowayjose.html

[redstar2000]

When the translators of the Septuagint translated Isaiah 7:14 into Greek they used the Greek word parthenos. To them Isaiah 7:14 denoted that the Messiah would be born of a virgin.

This contradicts the entirety of Jewish theology...and that's the heart of this particular controversy.

The first Christians were Jewish...and thus wanted "Jesus" to be accepted by Jews as the "Messiah". Thus Matthew is full of references to the Jewish Torah.

But the "Messiah" must be a "son of David". And Matthew attempts to demonstrate this with a long (fictional) list of forefathers that "prove" that "Jesus" is indeed "of the house of David".

We do not know "when" or "where" the legend that "Jesus" was "born of a virgin" originated...my guess would be after 70CE when the original "Jerusalem church" was dispersed.

We know it probably wasn't in Palestine...so that suggests a Greek, Roman, or Egyptian origin. Possibly an early gentile "convert" had a "vision" of what "must have happened"...and the tale was so attractive (and familiar) that it spread among Christian groups outside of Palestine.

When the time came for the "folk tales" that became the "gospels" to be written down (c.80-120CE), something had to be done about the awkward contradiction between the Jewish "Messiah" and the Christian legend of his "virgin birth".

The Christian author of Matthew "solved" this problem by making Isaiah "speak" of a "virgin birth" of the "Messiah".

This makes total hash of any Christian claim that "Jesus" was in any sense the Jewish "Messiah".

In fact, the practical impossibility of demonstrating that anyone is "of the house of David" has put the "Messiah" on "the back burner" of contemporary Jewish theology altogether. Only tiny sects of "hyper-orthodox" Jews are even interested in the matter anymore.

And I don't think that even they accept Matthew's claim that "Jesus" was "of the house of David" even in earthly terms.

Isaiah, like all the Jews of his era, expected the Messiah to be conceived and born in the "normal way". It was his name that would be a reflection of his significance. ("Names" were very important in those days.)

Moreover, the Christian idea that "God" would "become flesh" and walk among humans on the earth was most "un-Jewish" in and of itself. On the other hand, some Greek and Roman "gods" did do this sort of thing.

The Jewish Messiah would not be a "god" but rather a man "appointed by God".

Early Christians were, on the whole, quite successful in appropriating the vast bulk of Jewish theology for their own purposes...intellectual respectability not being the least of those purposes.

But once Christianity developed its own "canon", it would have been more honest had they simply rejected the OT entirely.

The two collections really have very little in common at all.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

[WingZero0]

Redstar,

Let us analyze this some more.

When analyzing a literary work one must not bring outside sources into the debate. Although Jewish theology says one thing, the Scriptures themselves say another.

For example, Catholic doctrine says that one must do good works and believe in Christ to be save. This theology contradicts what the Scriptures say:

"For it is by grace that you have been saved--through faith--and this is not of yourselves but a gift from God, not by works so noone can boast."
Ephesians 2:8-9


Also, you must realize that the Jews of that time, of times previous, and today, would rather follow what man says that what Scripture says. This is shown in the Bible by certain prophets exclaiming how woeful the Jews are to reject the Lord.

For example Jer. 3:6-25; Isaiah 1:2-31; Isaiah 3:1-4:1; Isaiah 5:8-30; Isaiah 29:1-30:33; Isaiah 43:14-28; Isaiah 48; Isaiah 50; Ezekiel 3:16-27; Ezekiel 10, 11; Ezekiel 16; Ezekiel 20:1-29; Ezekiel 22 just to name but a few.

These passages show how the Jews have denied what God had said in the past. Their theology even contradicts the Scriptures they recognize as divinely inspired.

Just look at the Jews in Jesus's time. The Sadduccees denied there was going to be a resurrection when it was clearly told by the prophets that there will be. So, let us not look at Jewish theology for it does not follow the Scriptures, let us instead see what Scripture has to say for itself.

The first Christians were Jewish that is correct, but Matthew wrote to the Jews, and Jesus preached to the Jews first, because it was what was said. The prophets said the Messiah will come to the Jew first, then the Gentile. Your statement makes it sound like they needed all the Jews to become Christians. If you read the Gospels and the Acts you will find on multiple occasions where the Jews rejected the disciples and Jesus so they just said "forget you". Its not like they needed all the Jews to become Christians or anything.

The Messiah was to be born of the house of David:

"'Behold, the days are coming,' says the Lord, 'That I will raise to David a Branch of righteousnes; A king shall reign and prosper, and execute judgment and righteousness in the land.'"
Jeremiah 23:5

Jacob Minkin, in his book titled The World of Moses Maimonides, gives the view of this learned Jewish scholar: "Dismissing the mystical speculations concering the Messiah, his origin, activity, and the marvelous superhuman powers ascribed to him, Maimonides insisted that he must be regarded as a mortal human being, differing from his fellow-men only in the fact that he will be greater, wiser, and more resplendent than they. He must be a descendant of the House of David and like him, occupy himself with the Study of the Torah and observance of its commandments." (Minkin, WMM, 63)

Now you claim that Matthew gave a "fictional" geneology of Jesus, but you do not back it up with any evidence. Plus, although Jewish theology may have said that he was not to be born of a virgin, Scripture clearly says (as shown by my previous posts) that He was to be born of a virgin.

Thus your speculation that the whole "virgin birth myth" was created after 70 CE is unfounded for it was actually created when Isaiah was prophesing. And, of course, it was no myth.

Your claim that God would become as being "un-Jewish" is correct. The Jews weren't expecting God to become man, but that again shows how they rejected the Scriptures. As I showed in my previous posts, Isaiah said that he would be Immanuel meaning God with us. How else can God be with us unless He became man? Plus how else could the prophecies of redemption and a new covenant based on forgiveness be achieved unless God himself would become man and be our sacrifice for our sins?

I do hope that answers your questions. If not, I am here to help you understand.

[redstar2000]

It is an error on my part to "argue" with someone as genuinely bedazzled by Christian superstition as yourself. You "think" all that stuff is "true"...and there is no verbal contortion that you seem to be incapable of in order to "justify" it.

For example...


Now you claim that Matthew gave a "fictional" genealogy of Jesus, but you do not back it up with any evidence.

Oh, I forgot. Matthew just made a special visit to northern Palestine and looked up all the birth records at the "Office of Vital Statistics" and just copied down all the names of the "house of David". :lol:

The "genealogy" of "Jesus" was self-evidently a "pious forgery" in the service of a "greater truth".

The history of Christianity is replete with such forgeries. In all likelihood, everything about Jesus' biography before he became a "public figure" was fiction.

It's not as if the "Rome News Service" had reporters on hand covering those "events". :lol:


Your claim that God would become [flesh] as being "un-Jewish" is correct. The Jews weren't expecting God to become man, but that again shows how they rejected the Scriptures.

One of the distinguishing characteristics of Christian theology is arrogance...the claim that they "understand what the Jews wrote" better than the Jews themselves.

Permit me a contrary opinion. The Jews then and now are quite capable of interpreting their own "holy book" and do not require (much less desire) Christian "assistance".

Cannot you Christians be content with your own mythology without trying to steal someone else's?

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

[WingZero0]

Arrogance? Now now young one, before you start throwing accusational labels at people you should at least know what they really mean.

Arrogance is defined as an overbearing pride evidenced by superior manners toward inferiors.

First of all, there was no pride in my statements, let alone overbearing. And nowhere did I make myself, or any Christian, superior to anyone else.

I said that the Jews, as history shows, don't follow their own Scriptures.

To say that a Jew would be ideal to interpret another Jew's writing seems superfically accurate. However, not all Jews are the same. One Jew might interpret another's writings completely wrong.

Besides, when the Scripture itself clearly states one thing, and the Jews state the opposite who are we to believe regarding what the Scriptures say? The Scriptures or the Jews?

Certainly the Jews are capable of interpreting the Scriptures on their own, but who is to call them on their error when they contradict the obvious. Would let a group of people go around saying the sky is green when its really blue? I highly doubt that.

You toss the word mythology around, but give no evidence to call it such. As it pertains to this debate it would seem (by the evidence presented thusfar) that you are in error. Have I not shown that the Scriptures are not as fictional as you seem to think? Step outside your own presuppositions and analyze what has been said. Can you truely say that the Christian faith is based off of simple, easily refutable myths?

It is your choice however. If you deny Christ because of intellectual reasons, I would be more than happy to show you that Christianity is logical and accurate. If you deny Christ because of your own will, that I'm afraid can't be dealt with. Only you can change your will.

Anyways, dealing with the geneology again:

I suppose I should have listed the evidence that the geneology was correct. It is an error on my part which I apologize for.

You say it is an error on your part to argue with me because I am "bedazzeled" by Christianity. Certainly I am bedazzeled, bedazzeled because the evidence shows it true!

Or are you the kind of person with the philosophy that nothing can truely be known? If so, then we have a bigger problem on our hands. (and a whole other issue)

And verbal contortion? I have not contorted anything, but if I have please elaborate so I may know.

Really you must stop making ungrounded accusations.

Now actually getting to the Matthew geneology:

Quite the contrary. There was a "Office of Birth Records" if you will. The genelogical records themselves were quite easily obtainable. Not only were a good chunk of the geneology listed in previous OT books, but the more recent records would have been kept at the city. Geneologies played an important role in Jewish soceity. Of course they would keep birth records.

Also, the whole Davidic blood issue was never brought up by Jesus's enemies for centuries.

And there are tons of references saying that Jesus is of the lineage of David other than geneologies.

in Zechariah's Song - Luke 1:69
The blindman at Jericho - Mt 9:27; Mr 10:47
The Canaanite Woman (a foreigner!) - Mt 15:22
The questioning crowd in Mt 12:23
The massive crowd at the Triumphal Entry - Mt 21:15
Apostle Peter - Acts 2.25ff
Apostle Paul - Acts 13.22ff; Romans 1.3; 2 Tim 2.8
Apostle John - Revelation 5:5; 22.16

Again, I hope this answers your questions. If not, I will be more than happy to help you understand. As a note, you should stop throwing accusations around in a debate, it doesn't help your cause any (especially if there unfounded) and usually shows that the person hurdeling the insults has no refutation but is unwilling to admit defeat.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by WingZero0
You toss the word mythology around, but give no evidence to call it such.

Three centuries of scientific research into the real universe have produced zero credible evidence of the "existence" of a "supernatural realm"...much less one that's "inhabited".

Thus for rational people the question is settled...there are no gods.

The "supernatural" content of all "holy books" is thus mythological by definition.

"Holy books" do often contain references to specific historical events. Once we "strip away" the mythological trappings, we can then examine those accounts for plausibility, independent confirming evidence, internal consistency, etc.

It is, for example, quite implausible that the Jewish author of "Isaiah" would have ever considered that the "Messiah" would be born of a "virgin"...since such a view lies completely outside of what we know about Jewish theology of that era.

And we thus conclude that it was early Christian theologians that came up with this "special interpretation" of "Isaiah" in order to bolster their own mythology.

Likewise the claim that "Jesus" was "of the house of David". Given the tumultuous history of Palestine in the three centuries prior to the birth of "Jesus", it is extremely implausible that records were actually preserved...though it is quite likely that someone might claim to be "of the house of David" for immediate advantage or even a bit of enhanced social prestige.

Perhaps "Joseph" thought that a reputation for being "of the house of David" would get him some extra carpentry jobs from his neighbors. :lol:

But as I noted earlier, it is most plausible that all of the "details" of Jesus' birth and childhood were pious inventions made by Christians many decades after his death.

Of course, plausibility does not "weigh heavily" in your outlook on things. You believe "because it is absurd".


Now now young one...

:lol:

I am, for your information, 63 years "young". But I am, for some reason, always flattered when reactionaries like yourself attribute my views to my "youth".

It confirms that I haven't "lost my edge". :lol:

Now, go burn a witch. :angry:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

[WingZero0]

You really believe that we have discovered that there is no supernatural realm? Have you not ever thought that through?

If I were to tell you that there is NO gold in China, I would be disproven when one speck of gold is found in the country of China. To be able to prove such a statement is next to impossible.

But, if I were to tell you that there IS gold in China, all I would have to do is show you a speck of gold that is in the country of China. Much easier to prove and quite possible.

So to say that there is no God, you would have to know everything there is to know in the universe to say that there isn't, for if you only know 99.9% of all knowledge God could still exist in that .1%. And, of course, to claim you (or humanity) knows everything there is in the universe, then you would be God!

And science has not shown that there is no God, but rather the opposite--that there is!

First, do you truely believe evolution could occur? Have you ever studied it? It is a physical impossiblity for anything to go from a simple organism to a complex organism. Besides, how did organic life come about in the first place? The current theories out there leave alot to be desired. But evolution is another topic, another debate.

Have you not been reading all of my posts? No matter how implausable it may be in Jewish theology for Isaiah to have written that the Messiah would be born of a virgin, he nonetheless did!

Go back and read my previous posts and if you still seem to think that it is not obvious that Isaiah wrote that the Messiah would be born of a virgin, then it is a logical conclusion that you simply do not WANT to believe it. It would go against everything you stand for wouldn't it? And it is not that I don't want to believe your point of view, because there is no logic behind your point of view. Isaiah clearly wrote that the Messiah was going to be born of a virgin. Who cares what Jewish theology says?!

And immediate advantage of being called the "son of David"? Hardly. But none the less if there was a discrepency in the birth records, there would be evidence of it. Yet, there is none. Again refer to my previous posts.

It is not the most plausable explanation that Jesus's birth and childhood were mere creations of Christians after his death. As I have stated earlier the evidence is stacked agaisnt such a statement. Or is it that you do not think ANY ancient writing is accurate, let alone the New Testament. Scholars agree that the New Testament is the most reliable ancient text. Yet, that is another topic and another debate. But it may be the heart of the issue? Is it? I'm not sure, that is for you to decide.

I hope that answers your questions. Please voice any other questions you may have and I will provide an answer.

[Publius]

First, do you truely believe evolution could occur? Have you ever studied it? It is a physical impossiblity for anything to go from a simple organism to a complex organism.

According to whom?

That twat Behe?

Read: http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf (Shitty file format warning)



Besides, how did organic life come about in the first place?

Miller-Urey.



The current theories out there leave alot to be desired.

Not really.

Is abiogenesis proven yet? No, but it doesn't have to be.



But evolution is another topic, another debate.

Or rather, another waste of time.

[Paradox]

Who cares what Jewish theology says?!

Who cares what ANY theology says. Is your imaginary friend and your "holy book" better than everybody else's? :rolleyes:


So to say that there is no God, you would have to know everything there is to know in the universe to say that there isn't, for if you only know 99.9% of all knowledge God could still exist in that .1%. And, of course, to claim you (or humanity) knows everything there is in the universe, then you would be God!

Bullshit. Just because we can't yet explain certain things or don't know everything doesn't mean we won't figure them out and be able to accurately explain them in the future. We don't need gods and spirits to explain shit, that's done out of ignorance.

And no one person can ever know everything anyway. Think about how much studying you'd have to do just to know everything that we know as of now. That was a completely retarded claim to make. And even if one person did manage such an enormous task, how the hell would that make them a god? Unless they had supernatural powers and had power over life and death and could "save" people and do all that supernatural crap, they would not be a god, they'd still be mortal. Another retarded claim.

[cccpcommie]

listen this shit is written by assholes..how can you argue if someone is reading something out of context ? the ones that could argue this are the ones who wrote these proverbs and shit...who cares..religion fucks people up.."an eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth"..does that mean i need to take care of shit myself or will life, or even god take care of them for me..context is rediculous