Poll: What's Jesus about?
Son of God, etc
Lowly preacher bigged up
Total myth, never existed
Based on real people and events to create a religion
King Arthur
[Show Results]
 
What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-06-2014, 06:52 AM (This post was last modified: 08-06-2014 07:09 AM by Deltabravo.)
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
(08-06-2014 05:53 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(07-06-2014 12:51 PM)Deltabravo Wrote:  I looked into it and it seems that other Christian religions didn't even use the New Testament and it was only translated into their language hundreds of years later and they relied on books like the Septuagint.

The Syriac Christian Church, Coptic Christians, Armenians all seem to have had texts which I assume were "Christological" rather than "Christian" and may predate the New Testament and even Jesus. I think Carrier has written about Philo of Alexandria writing about a "christos" figure.

References ? Or did you just cook that up ? Carrier has discussed Philo's Jesus, not a "Christos" figure.

The Septuagint is the official bible of the Greek Orthodox church and was written a hundred or more years BCE. It contains references to a Kyrios-Lord, which his the christological figure and I believe Carrier uses the reference to "Joshua" as meaning Jesus. From what I have read, there isn't a reference to a "Jesus" in the Septuagint. http://orthodoxengland.org.uk/septuag.htm

Some articles I have read suggest that many early Christians and some present sects believe that "Jesus" and the apostles preached from the Septuagint. Some of these sects don't see Jesus as the divine son of God, which is, I think, why they are not part of Roman Catholicism. Some of these religions also have books such as the Pesshita of the Syriac Christian sect and there is the Didache.

If some early Christian sects such as the Armenian, Coptic and Syriac Christians had no copies of the NT, but did have a book which someone they called "Jesus" was preaching from, then the religion, Christianity was just something derived from an interpretation of the Septagint and Jesus was just a preacher, just as Eleazar Ben Azariah was a preacher and interpreted the Old Testament in a way which was different from the orthotdox position.

What that leads to, I suppose is the argument that there must have been someone called Jesus. Jesus, if he existed, could not have been preaching from the New Testament. Right? So, whatever he was peaching from, ie, some version of the Old Testament, must have contained the ideas he was teaching. Which would mean, that anyone who followed his teachings would have used those books and interpreted them in the way he did and would not have needed to have a story about him walking on water or raising Lazarus, in order to have a religious philosophy and called themselves "Christians". They would have been followers of a preacher called Jesus who used Christological expressions in the Septuagint.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-06-2014, 07:10 AM (This post was last modified: 08-06-2014 07:13 AM by Chas.)
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
(08-06-2014 06:23 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  
(07-06-2014 12:22 PM)Chas Wrote:  There were people in Europe prior to the LGP, they moved south as the glaciers progressed, they moved north following glacial retreat.

Your argument fails as you have the facts wrong.


All of the papers in your Wikipedia article which you link to predate DNA studies which now show that modern Europeans migrated to Europe from the Near East. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/201...133508.htm

Have you ever looked at a map of the world? You might notice that the Near East is between Europe and Africa and at the center of the Indo-European "world". The out of Africa theory would mean that even the people who lived in Europe before the ice age migrated there and would have got there from the Near East.

Or do you not believe in evolution? Or maybe you think humans descend from other primates who lived in the jungles of northern Europe??
Facepalm

Very amusing. Drinking Beverage

Your previous statements state or imply the wrong time frame for human migrations.
Deltabravo Wrote:This area was a green, fertile area and it was occupied by the ancestors of modern Europeans who were predominantly sheep farmers, so places like Syria, which we write of today as a pointless dustbowl was heavily occupied by "Europeans".
Humans have lived in Europe for tens of thousands of years, there was no recent migration of people between Europe and the Near East.

Or are you trying to make some other point entirely?

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-06-2014, 07:58 AM
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
I've read a bit about Richard Carrier and know that he is a "metaphysical naturalist"...whatever that means. It seems like a contradiction in terms to me but there you are!

Anyway, I have also been intrigued by the concept of the Nazar which is an ornament displayed on every house, office, car and piece of jewellery in what was Asia Minor, ie., Turkey, Armenia, Greece etc. It seems to be a version of the Eye of Horus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazar_%28amulet%29

I looked up the word in my Turkish/English dictionary and it has two meanings, one of which is "theoretical".

So, in this and other Muslim countries they revere an object as something which supposed to be a protective symbol and looks out for people, wards off evil and has a name which is similar to "Nazarite", in fact, is the root of Nazarite. Odd.

Then in the NT we are told that "in the beginning" was the Logos which I understand to mean a concept which is like a knowledge or science which permeates everything...permeates "nature"...from the Latin "nasci" for birth, origin, our beginning.

Is Christianity really an old version of "metaphysical naturalism"? Has Carrier simply reinterpreted his old Christian beliefs and given them a new name without the Jesus guy? And in place of JC? RC! Ohmy
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-06-2014, 08:00 AM (This post was last modified: 09-06-2014 07:46 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
(08-06-2014 06:52 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  The Septuagint is the official bible of the Greek Orthodox church and was written a hundred or more years BCE. It contains references to a Kyrios-Lord, which his the christological figure and I believe Carrier uses the reference to "Joshua" as meaning Jesus. From what I have read, there isn't a reference to a "Jesus" in the Septuagint. http://orthodoxengland.org.uk/septuag.htm


Stop patronizing me, idiot. I know what the Septaugint is. I'm a PhD candidate at Harvard in the field. "Some articles" are not references. I'm well aware that the "divinity" (of Jesus) and ALL THE OTHER DIVINE beings the Jews believed in, was a hotly debated subject. Your point is meaningless. The "divinity" (as all real scholars know) is DIFFERENT in each gospel, and "divine" to a Hebrew is not "equivalent" status with Yahweh (Bible 101). Roman Catholicism is irrelevant. You are SO "all over the place" with your bullshit, it's almost impossible to know even where to begin with it. You don't have ANY evidence that early Christian sects DIDN'T have the NT. Not one scholar on the face of the Earth agrees with that invention.

"Jesus, if he existed, could not have been preaching from the New Testament. Right? " ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME ? Are you feeling alright ? Of course he wasn't "preaching from the New Testament". Not one person in the entire world says he was. We know he was (if he existed) one of the many Jewish apocalyptics, and the New Testament was written ABOUT HIM LATER. How could HE "preach" from the NT ? Facepalm

The "christ" was a Greek translation of the Hebrew word "anointed one", (the "messiah"). He never said "I am the anointed one". IF he had made that claim, anyone would have asked why he had not rid Israel of the Roman occupiers, which was the JOB of the messiah. Your insane illogical connections are just like Ellis's. You hop from one insane, unsupported, uneducated idiotic notion to the next, and then try to connect, (fallaciously) the two incorrect, unsupported ideas. Have you ever thought of taking a class in the subject ?

OMf'gG.
Why are we even talking to this idiot ?

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
08-06-2014, 09:24 AM (This post was last modified: 08-06-2014 09:34 AM by Deltabravo.)
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
(08-06-2014 08:00 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(08-06-2014 06:52 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  The Septuagint is the official bible of the Greek Orthodox church and was written a hundred or more years BCE. It contains references to a Kyrios-Lord, which his the christological figure and I believe Carrier uses the reference to "Joshua" as meaning Jesus. From what I have read, there isn't a reference to a "Jesus" in the Septuagint. http://orthodoxengland.org.uk/septuag.htm


Stop patronizing me, idiot. I know what the Septaugint is. I'm a PhD candidate at Harvard in the field. "Some articles" are not references. I'm well aware that the "divinity" (of Jesus) and ALL THE OTHER DIVINE beings the Jews believed in, was a hotly debated subject. Your point is meaningless. The "divinity" (as all real scholars know) is DIFFERENT in each gospel, and "divine" to a Hebrew is not "equivalent" status with Yahweh (Bible 101). Roman Catholicism is irrelevant. You are SO "all over the place" with your bullshit, it's almost impossible to know even where to begin with it. You don't have ANY evidence that early Christian sects DIDN'T have the NT. Not one scholar on the face of the Earth agrees with that invention.

"Jesus, if he existed, could not have been preaching from the New Testament. Right? " ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME ? Are you feeling alright ? Of course he wasn't "preaching from the New Testament". Not one person in the entire world says he was. We know he was (if he existed) one of the many Jewish apocalyptics, and the New Testament was written ABOUT HIM LATER. How could HE "preach" from the NT ? Facepalm

The "christ" was a Greek translation of the Hebrew word "anointed one", (the "messiah"). He never said "I am the anointed one". IF he had made that claim, anyone would have asked why he had not rid Israel of the Roman occupiers, which was the JOB or the messiah. Your insane illogical connections are just like Ellis's. You hop from one insane, unsupported, uneducated idiotic notion to the next, and then try to connect, (fallaciously) the two incorrect, unsupported ideas. Have you ever thought of taking a class in the subject ?

OMf'gG.
Why are we even talking to this idiot ?


Whose touchy today? I shall make sure that my "true" meaning is better understood.

Of course I was "kidding" when I said HE (facetious capitalization) didn't teach from the New Testament.

My point is quite simple. Some Christian sects claim to have converted to Christianity before the Romans, the Armenians for instance but I am "asking", because I don't actually know (that is actually true, I don't) how they got hold of gospels of the New Testament. King Agabar is, in what may only be legends of course, supposed to have corresponded with a Jesus, had a drawing made of his face and/or received some sort of image of Jesus after his death which has been interpreted by some as being the origin of the notion of the Shroud of Tourin. Then we have the Didache which is a completely independent document which doesn't owe anything, from my reading, to the New Testament and we know about the teachings of Rabbi Eleazar Ben Azariah which appear to be similar in vein to a "Christian" moral philosophy.

I will try again to set out a proposition, if I haven't made it clear yet, that "Christian" is the same word as "Horus-tian". They are spelled differently only for reasons which give us different spellings of words like "Peking" and "Bejing" and "Nicosia" and "Lefkosia". People just pronounce the same thing differently from place to place and they end up spelled differently.

The Egyptians combined the two sects of Ra worshippers and Horus worshippers so the sect of Horus/Ra was simply an Egyptian religion and their god figure was the annointed one "Horus/Christ/Kristos". Say it, spell it anyway you like, it's the same thing and this Jesus Christ, whether he was Izates, Eleazar, Jesus of Gamala, Apolllonius, Simon Magnus or a mashup of all or some of them is just a character in a fiction used as a literary device. On the other hand, if a Jesus figure is also known by others, like the Armenians, independently of the New Testament, because they hadn't even had a copy of any of it's gospels, and they adopted his version of "Christianity" because of the way he taught it, the same way Queen Helena is supposed to have adopted Judaism, because of the way Eleazar interpreted it, then that is strong circumstantial evidence that there was, in fact, someone called Jesus in Judea. I think that is inescapable. The other alternative is to continually return to the argument that everything is a myth with no historical basis at all.

The fact that there are no good records and we struggle to understand who the "churches" were who Paul is supposed to have travelled around the Mediterranean and met up with is a result of Roman censorship and a couple of thousand years of having Christian dogma forced upon European civilization so it is no wonder we don't know much about sects like the Syriac or Coptic Christians or the Arian Christians, or Albigensians and whether they had other documents like the Didache. I think it is completely plausible that early Christian sects simply relied on the Septuacint and some other documents which they relied on to interpret Judaism in the fashion of a priest called Jesus.


Maybe you should think that when I put something forward here I am actually looking for someone to shed some light on it. This is a chat forum and I am not doing a doctoral dissertation.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-06-2014, 09:44 AM
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
(08-06-2014 07:10 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(08-06-2014 06:23 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  All of the papers in your Wikipedia article which you link to predate DNA studies which now show that modern Europeans migrated to Europe from the Near East. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/201...133508.htm

Have you ever looked at a map of the world? You might notice that the Near East is between Europe and Africa and at the center of the Indo-European "world". The out of Africa theory would mean that even the people who lived in Europe before the ice age migrated there and would have got there from the Near East.

Or do you not believe in evolution? Or maybe you think humans descend from other primates who lived in the jungles of northern Europe??
Facepalm

Very amusing. Drinking Beverage

Your previous statements state or imply the wrong time frame for human migrations.
Deltabravo Wrote:This area was a green, fertile area and it was occupied by the ancestors of modern Europeans who were predominantly sheep farmers, so places like Syria, which we write of today as a pointless dustbowl was heavily occupied by "Europeans".
Humans have lived in Europe for tens of thousands of years, there was no recent migration of people between Europe and the Near East.

Or are you trying to make some other point entirely?

I really can't understand what you are getting at.
The whole of Turkey, Syria, Lebanon, Iran, Iraq is inhabited by people who are genetically related to Europeans. With, of course, an admixture of Turkic people who invaded in 1453. Before that, they were the same as Europeans. They were Greek, which is why there is something called Eonosis which is the Greek claim that the whole of Turkey should be handed back over to the Greeks.

Do the maths. If you work backwards from a population of the entirety of Britain, for instance, as of about 1500 of only 3 million and keep going back, you are left with a very small number of people in Europe and they ultimately didn't start out there now did they? They migrated there from somewhere else because the ice covered the whole place and the rest of it was too cold to live in.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-06-2014, 09:45 AM
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
(08-06-2014 09:44 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  
(08-06-2014 07:10 AM)Chas Wrote:  Very amusing. Drinking Beverage

Your previous statements state or imply the wrong time frame for human migrations.
Humans have lived in Europe for tens of thousands of years, there was no recent migration of people between Europe and the Near East.

Or are you trying to make some other point entirely?

I really can't understand what you are getting at.
The whole of Turkey, Syria, Lebanon, Iran, Iraq is inhabited by people who are genetically related to Europeans. With, of course, an admixture of Turkic people who invaded in 1453, and Arabs. Before that, they were the same as Europeans. The inhabitants of Turkey were Greek, which is why there is something called Enosis which is the Greek claim that the whole of Turkey should be handed back over to the Greeks. Greeks are Europeans.

Do the maths. If you work backwards from a population of the entirety of Britain, for instance, as of about 1500 of only 3 million and keep going back, you are left with a very small number of people in Europe and they ultimately didn't start out there now did they? They migrated there from somewhere else because the ice covered the whole place and the rest of it was too cold to live in.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-06-2014, 10:04 AM
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
As for people of Europe not migrating, all the "myths" about European national origins go back to the Near East and Egypt. The English myth is that they come descend from Eng, the son of Manu, the fourth son of Noah. The Saxons are purportedly the Sassanids, the Welsh or Cymri are the Cimmerians, the Scots are descended from either the Royal Schythians (see the Delaration of Arbroath) or Scota, the daughter of a Pharoah, the French think they are descended from the Phrygians, the Germans think they are Sumerians, the Swiss came from Suweiss (Suez) the Danes from the Tribe of Dan, the Scandinavians think they are Suebians, the Vikings thought they were Phoenicians etc etc.

Caesar named the Belgians the Bulgai and they started out in Bulgaria and then moved West. Caesar also allowed 20,000 Celts to return to Asia Minor because they wanted back in after leaving.

Abraham is referred to as a "Keltoi". The Galatians were called that because of the whiteness of their skin, the Phoenicians had red hair and freckles.

And, it is now being accepted that core English words are from Sumerian. For instance, http://www.medicinae.org/e111

Europe was settled by wave upon wave of migrating peoples each pushing the ones ahead of them further north and west over a period of thousands of years.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-06-2014, 04:24 PM
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
(08-06-2014 09:24 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  Whose touchy today? I shall make sure that my "true" meaning is better understood.

It's "Who's touchy today". PhD you said ? I call a fankiesj here, ^10.

(08-06-2014 09:24 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  Of course I was "kidding" when I said HE (facetious capitalization) didn't teach from the New Testament.

Sure you were.

(08-06-2014 09:24 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  My point is quite simple. Some Christian sects claim to have converted to Christianity before the Romans, the Armenians for instance but I am "asking", because I don't actually know (that is actually true, I don't) how they got hold of gospels of the New Testament. King Agabar is, in what may only be legends of course, supposed to have corresponded with a Jesus, had a drawing made of his face and/or received some sort of image of Jesus after his death which has been interpreted by some as being the origin of the notion of the Shroud of Tourin. Then we have the Didache which is a completely independent document which doesn't owe anything, from my reading, to the New Testament and we know about the teachings of Rabbi Eleazar Ben Azariah which appear to be similar in vein to a "Christian" moral philosophy.

And that was explained to you before, and you chose to ignore it. Christianity was not unique in any way with the "golden rule" preaching. The Rabbis at the time were attempting to simplify the old law, and boil it down. MANY of them preached the "golden rule" You point is meaningless. Christianity was not special in that regard, or unique in their moral precepts. Your proposition reeks of ignorance of the history of the time. You can make up anything you choose.

"I will try again to set out a proposition, if I haven't made it clear yet, that "Christian" is the same word as "Horus-tian". They are spelled differently only for reasons which give us different spellings of words like "Peking" and "Bejing" and "Nicosia" and "Lefkosia". People just pronounce the same thing differently from place to place and they end up spelled differently."

Not one scholar on the face of the Earth buys that crap. There were many similar and syncretic borrowed elements in all the ancient Near Eastern religions. Drawing immaginary lines between imaginary dots, (which you learned from Ellis), is not helping you.

(08-06-2014 09:24 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  Say it, spell it anyway you like, it's the same thing and this Jesus Christ, whether he was Izates, Eleazar, Jesus of Gamala, Apolllonius, Simon Magnus or a mashup of all or some of them is just a character in a fiction used as a literary device.

On the other hand, if a Jesus figure is also known by others, like the Armenians, independently of the New Testament, because they hadn't even had a copy of any of it's gospels, and they adopted his version of "Christianity" because of the way he taught it, the same way Queen Helena is supposed to have adopted Judaism, because of the way Eleazar interpreted it, then that is strong circumstantial evidence that there was, in fact, someone called Jesus in Judea. I think that is inescapable. The other alternative is to continually return to the argument that everything is a myth with no historical basis at all.

A nice fiction. Now prove any of it, and provide EVIDENCE that the Armenians knew
of the Jesus in the New Testament "independently" of the gospels.

(08-06-2014 09:24 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  The fact that there are no good records and we struggle to understand who the "churches" were who Paul is supposed to have travelled around the Mediterranean and met up with is a result of Roman censorship and a couple of thousand years of having Christian dogma forced upon European civilization so it is no wonder we don't know much about sects like the Syriac or Coptic Christians or the Arian Christians, or Albigensians and whether they had other documents like the Didache. I think it is completely plausible that early Christian sects simply relied on the Septuacint and some other documents which they relied on to interpret Judaism in the fashion of a priest called Jesus.

So you admit you just made it up. How nice. A great deal is known about the origins of Coptic Christianity, especially since the Nag Hamadi finds.

Have fun connecting imaginary dots.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
09-06-2014, 11:34 AM (This post was last modified: 09-06-2014 11:51 AM by Deltabravo.)
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
f
(08-06-2014 04:24 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(08-06-2014 09:24 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  Whose touchy today? I shall make sure that my "true" meaning is better understood.

It's "Who's touchy today". PhD you said ? I call a fankiesj here, ^10.

(08-06-2014 09:24 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  Of course I was "kidding" when I said HE (facetious capitalization) didn't teach from the New Testament.

Sure you were.

(08-06-2014 09:24 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  My point is quite simple. Some Christian sects claim to have converted to Christianity before the Romans, the Armenians for instance but I am "asking", because I don't actually know (that is actually true, I don't) how they got hold of gospels of the New Testament. King Agabar is, in what may only be legends of course, supposed to have corresponded with a Jesus, had a drawing made of his face and/or received some sort of image of Jesus after his death which has been interpreted by some as being the origin of the notion of the Shroud of Tourin. Then we have the Didache which is a completely independent document which doesn't owe anything, from my reading, to the New Testament and we know about the teachings of Rabbi Eleazar Ben Azariah which appear to be similar in vein to a "Christian" moral philosophy.

And that was explained to you before, and you chose to ignore it. Christianity was not unique in any way with the "golden rule" preaching. The Rabbis at the time were attempting to simplify the old law, and boil it down. MANY of them preached the "golden rule" You point is meaningless. Christianity was not special in that regard, or unique in their moral precepts. Your proposition reeks of ignorance of the history of the time. You can make up anything you choose.

"I will try again to set out a proposition, if I haven't made it clear yet, that "Christian" is the same word as "Horus-tian". They are spelled differently only for reasons which give us different spellings of words like "Peking" and "Bejing" and "Nicosia" and "Lefkosia". People just pronounce the same thing differently from place to place and they end up spelled differently."

Not one scholar on the face of the Earth buys that crap. There were many similar and syncretic borrowed elements in all the ancient Near Eastern religions. Drawing immaginary lines between imaginary dots, (which you learned from Ellis), is not helping you.

(08-06-2014 09:24 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  Say it, spell it anyway you like, it's the same thing and this Jesus Christ, whether he was Izates, Eleazar, Jesus of Gamala, Apolllonius, Simon Magnus or a mashup of all or some of them is just a character in a fiction used as a literary device.

On the other hand, if a Jesus figure is also known by others, like the Armenians, independently of the New Testament, because they hadn't even had a copy of any of it's gospels, and they adopted his version of "Christianity" because of the way he taught it, the same way Queen Helena is supposed to have adopted Judaism, because of the way Eleazar interpreted it, then that is strong circumstantial evidence that there was, in fact, someone called Jesus in Judea. I think that is inescapable. The other alternative is to continually return to the argument that everything is a myth with no historical basis at all.

A nice fiction. Now prove any of it, and provide EVIDENCE that the Armenians knew
of the Jesus in the New Testament "independently" of the gospels.

(08-06-2014 09:24 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  The fact that there are no good records and we struggle to understand who the "churches" were who Paul is supposed to have travelled around the Mediterranean and met up with is a result of Roman censorship and a couple of thousand years of having Christian dogma forced upon European civilization so it is no wonder we don't know much about sects like the Syriac or Coptic Christians or the Arian Christians, or Albigensians and whether they had other documents like the Didache. I think it is completely plausible that early Christian sects simply relied on the Septuacint and some other documents which they relied on to interpret Judaism in the fashion of a priest called Jesus.

So you admit you just made it up. How nice. A great deal is known about the origins of Coptic Christianity, especially since the Nag Hamadi finds.

Have fun connecting imaginary dots.


Who says I am trying to "prove" anything?

I am putting forward a question to which I don't see any obvious answers. If the Armenians converted to Christianity because of "Jesus", how did they get hold of the Synoptic gospels. If they didn't, which I think is likely, then they must have learned about this form of Judaism from someone who they referred to as Jesus and probably orally. From what I have read, the Armenians adopted Christianity in the second century AD and they did have the NT gospels translated into their language until the fifth century. Seriously, are you suggesting these gospels were in wide circulation. I would have thought that in a society in which probably less than 5% of the population were in any way literate, it was unlikely that anyone had a copy of any of the synoptic gospels and that religious ideas were generally circulated orally.

One could say that this leads to an inevitability that there was a preacher called Jesus who was preaching something which was not mainstream Judaism. One such person is Eleazar ben Azariah and if you are who you say, then you know about him and you know his interpretation of the Torah was unique, and that he was from Galilee, having left Jerusalem at an early age.

Is that right or do you think that is made up as well?

As for Horus and Christ being the same word, you need to study linguistic analysis which is moving in a different direction now. It is becoming accepted that words in different language with similar sounds and similar meanings have common roots. I have no problem accepting that religious scholars studying Christianity don't want to associate Christ with Horus and that they aren't linguists. For example "We have already pointed out that speech precedes writing fylogenetically and ontogenetically, and that the written code is largely secondary to the structure of the spoken language from a structural-linguistic point of view." langs.eserver.org/linell/chapter05.html You might want to read the link to see that if even linguistics is considered "narrow" then it is to be expected that religious scholars are even more narrow.

Saying that something "comes from" the Latin or Greek isn't linguistic analysis, it's etymology which is a different thing. Both the word "christ" and "horus" mean the anointed son of god and their pronunciation is similar. All that is required to make them exactly the same is to pronounce the "h" further back in the throat, which is a feature of speech in the Near East. The "t" ending of Christ is a feature of agglutination and simply means "of".

What I haven't seen you address in any cogent fashion is the suggestion I have made which is that Christianity is a literary vehicle put together in order to deliver a reason based ethical system with the "logos" as it's central feature, whether or not it is exactly the same as Kant's categorical imperative or is more developed in that it actually sets out examples of the application of the "rule". Or are you more interested in trying to pin down who Paul was or are you a mythicist?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: