DescentBB

roid wrote:You're off by 2 ages

Thank you for the correction!
But it still doesn't change anything. Bull, Ram, neither one was a significant "symbol" for the Jews of Judea around 30AD.

Kilaren.

You have to look at the big picture, and by that I'm mean the history of Judaism/Christianity and the cultural changes that occurred over a long period of time and how that impacted religion. Just looking at the time of 3AD to about 36AD does not tell us very much.

Over the course of Jewish history from before the time of Abraham (not much is recorded about Jews from before that time) to the Roman conquest of the Jews, there are many cases of dispersion of jews and conquest of Judea. This involved other cultures influencing Jewish religion. We know of their impact because of the appearance of these cultures doctrines entering the Jewish writings at the time of cultural mixing.

For example, we see the creation stories, Moses type stories, flood stories at the time of jews living in exile in Mesopotamia. We see beliefs in heaven, hell, angels, demons, and the apocalypse from the time of Cyrus and Persian Zoroastrian beliefs.

Because of the diospora (dispersion), cultural mixing, class divisions, times of great despair and orthodox vs. progressive philosophy, there were many sects that divided the Jews. Zoroastrian impact created \"progressive\" Jewish sects that were apocalyptal. Some orthodox sects were more messianic. Sometimes they came together when political solidarity was needed, and they would split again, or other offshoots were created.

All the time, borrowing other philosophies from the surrounding religions/cultures they came in contact with during the diaspora, and expanding/altering old ones.

Just to make an example, Mithra was a god in the Persian Zoroatrian culture. When Cyrus of Persia brought his religion to the Jews, he brought a religion of many minor gods and of an astrological basis. Many these archetypes are used in the jewish scripture to tell the Jewish story. (see 2 paragraphs up) They were a superstitious people and even rebuilt their own religion while in exile in Babylon.

Foundational Christianity was an apocalyptal, jewish movement that dennounced wealth and politics (and no non-jews allowed).

Foundational Christianity is very different from the Christianity that soon followed.

The Greek translation of the Torah and the influence of Greek mythology and dispersed Greek Jews (Paul of Tarsus) were quickly changing the rules for Christianity, Paul universalized the religion, and began making it acceptable for Roman wealth and politics. We see stories of resurrection, virgin births, turning water into wine, etc. All popular myths in Greek culture. The first gospel of Mark shows knowledge of jewish life and thought. The gospels get increasingly less familiar with the Jewish context of Jesus until the last gospel which shows no interest in Jewish context.

The gospels didn't appear in Christian writings until 135AD. They floated around until a Roman bishop decided which ones were ok and which were not.

So the New Testament didn't just spring up out of nowhere in 3AD to 36AD. It had a long splintered history and kept on evolving. The evolution of the writings show the history of the people, the cultural icons of influencing philosophy, and the folklore that is also influenced by religious thought and cultural mythologies.

When talking specifically about astrological cultural symbolism in the biblical writings, we can't discuss it in terms of a specific entry point. It is likely that the influence is more of a symbolic tradition carried over from the larger concepts of the Greeks, Zoroastrians, Chaldeans, Assyrians, Egyptians, Babylonians and so on...

All these cultures have impacted the Judeo/Christian belief system (we know this because the influences appear in the Jewish/Christian writings at the same time as cultural impact).

Also. all these cultures derive their deity worship from the cosmos. I'm not counting on the jewish/christian writings to get exact dates of precessional changes, but the icons of other cultures, that are more directly tied to astrological iconography, appear in the historical writings of Jewish/Christian society.

Here is an excellent read:

http://wsu.edu/~dee/HEBREWS/CONTENT1.HTM

and this one too, from the same site at University of Washington.

http://wsu.edu/~dee/CHRIST/CONTENTS.HTM

Some interesting views being exchanged here - good to see that this can happen at an intellectual level in an atmosphere of mutual respect... I thought such behaviour was a myth nowadays

Bet51987 wrote:Unless Christianity, or any other religion can support the God hypothesis then it is already false and without any proof, reliable observations, testable predictions that can be tested and observed, it cannot even be called a hypothesis.

I'm not sure that qualifying God only as a hypothesis to be proved is an idea that believers would subscribe to Bet (or even holds water in the presence of God being 'An Idea' ...cause there's plenty of evidence of that to be found )

- but even if believers were willing to regard God as a Hypothesis, I'm not sure if your logic holds water.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but a hypothesis (whether divine or scientific) is not invalidated by the presence or absense of proof - either supporting or not. Speaking purely logically, a hypothesis (or 'hypothetical supposition' if you prefer) can be either true or false in the absense of absolute proof; and absolute proof can be considered as big a myth as you (seemingly) proport religion to be.

(Descart argued something similar, but he totally ignoried the concept of probability. He maintained that any hypothesis that can be doubted (a probability of less than one) shold not be believed, when really, the only hypothesis that cannot be believed in is that with a probability of zero. Doubt does not invalidate a fact, a hypothesis, a theory or a religious belief either.)

An absense of proof, or an inability to prove a hypothesis, cannot render it false - it only makes it less probable than an alternate and mutually exclusive idea that does have some supporting evidence. So therefore God can never be deemed to be false - as there can be no absolute proof that God doesn't exist.

Logically, it then follows that - IF:

A: the only things we cannot believe, are those things that can have a probability of zero (ideas which can be absolutely disproved)

and

B:Nothing can be absolutely disproved, as even overwhelming evidence cannot remove all doubt

Therefore:

C: We are able to then believe in any damn thing that we want.

...as many people already do, as all the preceeding posts tend to suggest

Q.E.D?

Gekko

At this moment, I just thought of a character and I will name her Flamooey. I will imagine that she lives on the 14th moon of Earth and wears asteroids for earrings.

Now (according to your logic) I honestly can't prove that she doesn't exist, even though I just thought of her right now. There really COULD be a 14th moon that I don't know about and how would I know who lives there? I don't.

The probability is extremely low, but it's not zero. Therefore, I cannot conclude that Flamooey doesn't exist.

Regarding your last point stating that \"anyone can believe in any damn thing they want\" - I won't physically stop anyone from believing in any of the uncountable gods that have been conjured up by the human mind.

However, I strongly recommend against it.

From JohnG's link, (nice one btw)

To the west of the hills is the Jordan River valley. In Hebrew, the word Jordan means \"the descender,\" for it begins at Mount Hermon in the north at about 200 feet above sea level, and literally plummets to the Sea (actually a lake)

So that's why i like to play this game!!!

JohnG wrote: I won't physically stop anyone from believing in any of the uncountable gods that have been conjured up by the human mind.

However, I strongly recommend against it.

Fair enough - as is your right

Gekko71 wrote: (shortened by Bee) .....Correct me if I'm wrong, but a hypothesis (whether divine or scientific) is not invalidated by the presence or absense of proof - either supporting or not. Speaking purely logically, a hypothesis (or 'hypothetical supposition' if you prefer) can be either true or false in the absense of absolute proof; and absolute proof can be considered as big a myth as you (seemingly) proport religion to be.

Q.E.D?

Nope. You can't rest your case.

All of this reminds me of Schrödinger's cat. My dad always tells me that I don't have any "gray" areas... that I look at everything having just two states, black/white, yes/no, right/wrong, and says that a lot of times gray areas are the only way of getting something you want done accomplished. I know he's right, and I may not know if the cat is dead or alive, but I do know if the cat exists or not.

So to me, for something to be a hypothesis, it must have a direction toward truth. It must be allowed to be proven, or have some remote probability, to be proven true or false. If no experiments can do this, then it’s just a thought or a story like the flying spaghetti monster and when I look around at all that gray, all I can choose is false.

Bettina

Bet51987 wrote:

Gekko71 wrote: (shortened by Bee) .....Correct me if I'm wrong, but a hypothesis (whether divine or scientific) is not invalidated by the presence or absense of proof - either supporting or not. Speaking purely logically, a hypothesis (or 'hypothetical supposition' if you prefer) can be either true or false in the absense of absolute proof; and absolute proof can be considered as big a myth as you (seemingly) proport religion to be.

Q.E.D?

Nope. You can't rest your case.

All of this reminds me of Schrödinger's cat. My dad always tells me that I don't have any "gray" areas... that I look at everything having just two states, black/white, yes/no, right/wrong, and says that a lot of times gray areas are the only way of getting something you want done accomplished. I know he's right, and I may not know if the cat is dead or alive, but I do know if the cat exists or not.

So to me, for something to be a hypothesis, it must have a direction toward truth. It must be allowed to be proven, or have some remote probability, to be proven true or false. If no experiments can do this, then it’s just a thought or a story like the flying spaghetti monster and when I look around at all that gray, all I can choose is false.

Bettina

Hmm, your own unique definition of an hypothesis - fair enough ...although if you had stated that in the first place, it would have saved me having to write my first post.

I find myself envying you and the certainty of your convictions (Sincerely! Certainty is a very under-valued thing )

...although, I fear that with time, you'll come to realise your father is absolutely right. In my experience, the black & white certainty you speak of does not survive long-term. Wrestling with moral complexity and ambiguity are the realities of living an intelligent and informed life. The only people I have met in my life that have persistently clung onto a black/white, right/wrong view of the world are the narrow minded, the inexperienced, the sheltered, the zenophobic, the immoral or the egocentric-hypocrite who would rather live an existence of self-serving denial than deeply investigate the realities of the human experience.

...and you really don't strike me as being ANY of the above Bet - not even a bit


PS: "A direction towards truth??" ...you do know you just described a process of spiritual discovery, right?

Given your search for truth, there's a great book called "What is this thing called Science?" (I've forgotten the author) that I read a long time ago. I think you'd find it facinating Bet - I encourage you to give it a squiz.


P.P.S: Hey! I ended my previous 'it is impossible to prove ANYTHING' post, with the statement "QED".

...Does anyone else see the irony?

Gekko71 wrote:Hmm, your own unique definition of an hypothesis - fair enough ...although if you had stated that in the first place, it would have saved me having to write my first post.

It's not unique. Its much like the scientific explanation of being able to be tested.

I find myself envying you and the certainty of your convictions (Sincerely! Certainty is a very under-valued thing )

...although, I fear that with time, you'll come to realise your father is absolutely right. In my experience, the black & white certainty you speak of does not survive long-term. Wrestling with moral complexity and ambiguity are the realities of living an intelligent and informed life. The only people I have met in my life that have persistently clung onto a black/white, right/wrong view of the world are the narrow minded, the inexperienced, the sheltered, the zenophobic, the immoral or the egocentric-hypocrite who would rather live an existence of self-serving denial than deeply investigate the realities of the human experience.

I know he's right. He's always right. I know that government politics are very gray and often there is no best choice for anything so they choose the middle. I understand, but yet I don't. I found out in this forum during the abortion discussion where I tried to be gray but religion made it so black and white I was forced to change the way I would vote from now on... and I did in my local election last week. Narrow-mindedness seems to cut both ways.

...and you really don't strike me as being ANY of the above Bet - not even a bit

Thank you very much.

PS: "A direction towards truth??" ...you do know you just described a process of spiritual discovery, right?

Given your search for truth, there's a great book called "What is this thing called Science?" (I've forgotten the author) that I read a long time ago. I think you'd find it facinating Bet - I encourage you to give it a squiz.


P.P.S: Hey! I ended my previous 'it is impossible to prove ANYTHING' post, with the statement "QED".

...Does anyone else see the irony?

I won't have time to read that book because my studies come first, and there is plenty of it, but I will keep it on my list.

Dang... I though QED meant "I rest my case". I even had to look it up.

Bettina

Apologies for being away from this for so long. My old computer dies and the new one runs Descent significantly better, so I've been in ur base in my pyro stealing ur flag.

On Precession

JohnG, as you argued earlier, \"Christianity has used [many] tactics all throughout its history to absorb new cultures\". That's true, but be careful -- hijacking one symbol doesn't mean they hijacked every symbol. Using a tactic at one point in history doesn't mean they used it at another point in history. As you said, the goal is to \"draw people away from their old philosophies, but by familiar means.\" It's pretty easy to look at whether the symbols are actually being used in order to draw people in, or if they're just an incidental match.

Consider the Greek concept of the Logos, which meant not merely \"word\", but also referred to \"logic\", to the material from which the universe was made, and even to the force or universal mechanic by which all things came into being. This enlightens us when we read John 1, which speaks of the Logos as being with God, being of the same nature as God, actually being God (some take issue with this translation), and being made flesh and dwelling among us in the form of Jesus. John is clearly using a familiar Greek philosophical concept (as well as the familiar Jewish concept of \"the Word of God\") to draw people in and teach them some things about Jesus, so understanding that Greek philosophical concept adds a new level of depth to the text.

Consider again the use of Egyptian and Canaanite gods and god-concepts in the narratives of Genesis 1-2 and Exodus 7-11. In both passages, the Hebrew God is described as in control of things those societies viewed as gods or as under the control of various gods, including the sun, the Nile, locust plagues, frogs, and so on. The author is clearly using familiar concepts to teach the Hebrew people about an all-powerful single God that was conceptually new to them. There are dozens of other Bible passages (like the tower of Babel, or the segment of Job mentioned several posts ago) that make more sense once you've studied the surrounding cultures and influences. There are dozens of passages that take common understanding and build on it, argue against it, or otherwise use it to teach a new concept.

When we look at the evidence presented thus far in favor of precession, we don't see the same sort of \"use of familiar concepts to teach a new idea\". We've got Moses angry about a bull and Jacob's 12 sons accounting for a bunch of mentions of the number 12 in the OT, and a bunch of fish stories and one water carrier in the Gospels. But we don't have any supporting details, or any details that suddenly become clear in light of precession. We don't have anything in the stories that precessionists would've said \"oh, wow, this story makes so much sense; the way that fish related to the [other object in the story] is a lot like the way Pisces relates to [whatever]!\" There are no associated concepts that show up more clearly once you understand precession. If someone was trying to use precession (or zodiac symbolism in general) to draw people in, they did an utterly incompetent job of it -- the teachings in the aforementioned passages don't build on, argue against, or use it in any way. There are a bunch of fish, a bull, a water carrier, some 12's, and... no depth, no clarification, no analogies, nothing. That gives me the impression the match is incidental.

On Jesus and Similar Figures

The story of Dionysus is well documented, the story varies, but all variances are from before the time of Jesus.... Ixion.... Mithras.... Attis.... Ishtar

This point is significantly more plausible than the precession point. If it turned out to be true, it would kind of make sense -- if you knew one story, you'd be drawn into the other story. If you knew one story, parts of the other story would build on, argue against, or otherwise use your prior understanding. The match between Jesus and whoever clearly is not incidental; it's intentional hijacking of one symbol into another religion.

The issue here, though, is still the issue I brought up pages ago: I'm waiting to see actual documentation on these points from actual ancient sources. I keep seeing these points all over the internet about how [ancient god x] had all these elements in its birth story, but nobody seems to be able to establish it from actual ancient documents that predate Jesus. The links you provided regarding Mithra show that there are parallels, but altars dating from the 200s AD don't really help you establish your timeline. \"If you read enough perspectives and study a bit of anthropology, you will see the relationship between the numerous religions from these times and earlier\" -- and you can definitely see that there is a relationship; what you're missing is any solid evidence as to which way the relationship went, who was the influencer and who was the influencee. (It appears as though people in the 1850s to present day have manufactured some of the relationships, but not all of them.)

To revisit an earlier point, we can read a lot of Early Christian Writings. We can see the sort of influences that came into play before about 250 AD -- long before any particular bishop came along and said \"these writings are OK and these are not\". In all my studies, I haven't come across anything that indicates influences from astrology, sun gods, or precession. In particular, none of the NT or related writings appear to try to argue against astrology, or to take astrological concepts and use them to illustrate other points. The NT writers and early church founders don't seem to pay much attention to astrology at all.

Other Stuff

considering that the general folklore about Sargon is much older than the folklore about Moses, I know where I would put my money as the original story, including the birth story.

I think it's foolish to make assumptions about the birth story either way. It's not attached to old versions of the Sargon story, and we don't have old versions of the Moses story. The oldest copy of the birth story comes from a time when the Assyrians were busy conquering Israel. The story applied to Sargon could have been older, or it could have been an attempt to draw the Israelites from their old philosophy using familiar means. The evidence is inconclusive, so putting your money on either story is speculative.

Alexandria, Egypt, Dec 25th, 50AD. There it is. There are the three stars of Orion’s belt lined up pointing to Sirius that has newly risen from the eastern horizon.

I used to teach a program called Constellations and Cultural Stories, where I taught about the Greek, Chinese, and Navajo constellations in a Starlab portable planetarium. I'm quite aware of the way the stars move in the night sky -- especially Orion's belt and Canis Major. The stars move across the sky, and the line they make sweeps out an arc across the horizon. Go back into skyview cafe, Alexandria Egypt (31d13'N, 29d55'E) Dec 25 50 AD 1800 UT+2. Switch to the horizon view using the right side menu, and drag the sky to center on ESE. Now look at where Sirius rises at 1749. It's pointing about 8 degrees east (left) of where the sunrise will be. As you increment the time, the views in the program are somewhat deceptive -- it appears those stars point more towards the south, but in the actual curved sky, they begin to point more east (further away from where the sun will rise) until they tip beyond horizontal, at which point they begin to point roughly west. You can witness this phenomenon simply by watching the night sky any night when Orion is visible. The line sweeps from about 289 degrees (where Sirius rises at 1749) out to the east (270 and less), becomes horizontal, and then sweeps from out west (>90) to about 85 degrees, where Orion sets at just after 0330 on Dec 26. The sunrise is at about 297 degrees -- 8 degrees away from the initial and closest point. The point the movie makes about the southern cross is even farther off. Overall, neither of these two astrological explanations of details of the birth story hold up -- the particular stars in question simply aren't that close to where the sun rises. They're not close enough to be thought of as \"pointing at\" or \"on\", particularly not in a society that charted the stars as carefully as the ancient societies in question. An 8 degree difference on the horizon is unacceptably far apart for an ancient astrologer.

I have to ask, at what point do you draw the line and say “I am not a Christian, I am someone who believes in treating people with respect and having a caring heart towards my fellow man/woman”

I believe Jesus was the Son of God, the chosen and promised Messiah who was sent to save people from their sins. I (try to) follow His ancient teachings (which requires deep and inquisitive study of the Bible, including study of the historical context and such), and I follow the guidance of the Spirit, who interacts with me directly. I believe the appropriate descriptor for someone who holds that belief is \"Christian\", though I would gladly claim a more accurate label that didn't carry the same cultural taint.

That being said, I read a little of some of your blog to find out your perspective outside of this movie and I respect the fact that you have distanced yourself from the actions of past/present Christians who carry a sword/gun in one hand and a cross in the other.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I see that you have also taken some of the bibles’ more extremist attitudes with a grain of salt. Again, I respect you for that. But I have to ask, at what point do you draw the line and say “I am not a Christian, I am someone who believes in treating people with respect and having a caring heart towards my fellow man/woman”?

I think you misunderstand Lothar's position slightly, and the state of Christianity overall, slightly.

Christianity distinguishes between essential beliefs and inessential beliefs. Essential beliefs are those you must hold in order to be a Christian--things like the deity of Jesus and salvation by grace. Inessential beliefs are things you can argue and disagree about (and lots of people do)--things like the role of women in the church, and the nature of the end times.

Now, people differ a lot even on what constitutes an essential belief. For example, a belief in the infallibility of the Bible is considered essential by most everybody, but there are those who believe in a fallible Bible and call themselves Christians. The rest say no, they aren't really.

Sometimes a group will decide that a particular interpretation of a particular piece of the Bible is so clear that to believe otherwise is to transgress infallibility. That is to say, they'll say, \"You have to believe X, or you're saying the Bible is lying and you're not really a Christian.\"

Lothar and I take an intellectual and skeptical approach to things, and often disagree with those folks. But the substance of our disagreement is always, \"no, the Bible doesn't teach that\", and never, \"well, if the Bible says that, that part's wrong.\"

We are certainly independant thinkers, but well within the bounds of Christianity, even Evangelical Christainity. Where we disagree with views that are more popular, we believe we are being more faithful to Jesus' message, not less faithful to error.

Lothar, thought I'd bored you enough! Glad your back, Kilaren has been keeping me on my toes and adding good discussion. I understand time constraints for online debates. Priorities.

What I find In my research is that the history of Judeo/Christian belief systems is that it’s a long and complex series of culture mixing, philosophy, conquest, being conquered, politics, class structures. and social interaction.

For example, when I think about the Jews in Babylon, I think of all the things that appear in Jewish culture during those events. I mentioned a few in an earlier post, but there are so many.

If you have a few minutes, look at this brief summary of Sumerians and think of the political and social changes in the Jews at that time (outside of religion): monarchy(Kings), law (Judges), writing, math pertaining to commerce…

http://wsu.edu/~dee/MESO/MESO.HTM

I suspect you are already familiar with them.

I understand your point about the Jews/Christians using these elements to teach about Yahweh/Jesus. But what of the cleric writers and carriers of oral traditions themselves? How did they go about \"keeping the faith\" with the popularity of these other notions and the success of their prospective cultures?

You have mentioned that the bible rejects notions of astrology, and I don’t doubt there was an awareness, especially during the Hellenistic period of Christianity, that astrology is in direct conflict with Judeo/Christian thought. That is likely the reason we don't see concepts of precession (and other direct astrological implications) used as a principal message of Yahweh. The idea that heavenly masses impact humanity as opposed to God is a contradiction. Especially when the planets are considered Gods themselves by other cultures. This was worked out in the sense that these “lesser” Gods were accepted as angels and demons. That is one method of \"keeping the faith\" - by acceptance of other ideas, under certain conditions.

What the Jews somehow didn’t consider a contradiction was the idea of using astrology as a method of keeping time. The Sumerians created calendars, divided into 12 months based on lunar cycles, and the zodiac to measure yearly time. The Jews adopted Babylonian names for the 12 months and we use them to this day (that’s about as hard evidence as anyone could ask for). The Jews would study moon cycles to predict equinox dates, travel conditions, sacrificial quota, and harvest dates, religious holidays…

Considering that Sumerians had “observatories” as early as 4000 BCE, and the abilty to document what they saw, they probably noticed the shifting of the cosmos over long periods of time (This has been proposed by many historians). They may not have understood the actual “precessing” of the earth, but were aware of the celestial implications. The only “precession caused celestial implication” that would have been within their cultural window would have been the shift from the age of Taurus to the age of Aries. That is, the path of the sun moving from the former to the latter. Religious implications aside (and there are many), is it unreasonable to think this event was implied as a change of time (age), that is, for the Jews? The same Jews who incorporated all other aspects of Sumerian time keeping? Looking at it this way, noting precession is not heretical or even surprising.

Now bring in the religious implications of the Jews in Babylon, and the cultural exchange that occurred. (Flood stories, creation stories…) Is it unreasonable to think the astrological motifs entered the Jewish culture? Even as representatives of time? We are already aware of the 12 months, as determined by the “Mezzolah” (curious how the word mezzolah was never translated in the english bible, to the english word zodiac) In this way we can look at fish, water carriers, bulls...

I know I mentioned this before, but to be more direct with my original point: By the time the Greeks wrote the Septuagint, the Torah was a bit of a hodge-podge of ideas. Considering the diaspora and the fact that many Jews had adopted other religious belief into their own, it is highly possible that the views of the highly regarded, and successful, Sumerians and Egyptians (views that are astrological in origin) had elements in the collections of various writings that became the OT.

If you are looking for documentation on parallels from ancient sources, you can read through the EBotD, as I have and found a striking resemblance in the overall tone of praise, the trinity, divine births, divinely appointed scribes. You can read the translations of the DSS, which are actually quite ethically disturbing in some points, or you will have to learn to translate yourself, as Gerald Massey has, and find museums full of artifacts. He is heavily criticized by theists, and why wouldn't he be? Massey himself doesn't portray his information in the way others have referenced him. For example, he doesn't write: Horus born of a virgin/Jesus born of a virgin. In his accounts, He denotes the connection of Isis to the Virgo constellation and notes the subsequent myths that incorporate the symbolism of this astrological reference: virgin births. I do regret posting the list of parallels in a previous post. I agree it is misleading. In the same way, I think the Zeitgeist movie presented it's arguments in a misleading way, however the basic ideas contain elements of truth.

A list like that brings to the imagination some Rabbi sitting alone in a locked room, copying directly from some Egyptian manuscript.

Here is another essay, but someone you might have an easier time identifying with:

http://www.stanford.edu/group/King/publ ... ianity.htm

Also, I highly recommend reading Joseph Campbell, and even a wiki search on \"god men\" and put the parallels together on your own.

We can discuss Greek mythology, the astrological implications of those myths, and the Greek influence on Christian stories, as told by Hellenistic writers in the NT: more virgin birth stories, eastern stars, and the attributes given to Jesus by these writers from the “cosmic” gods of Greek myths. The presence of magi at a divine birth is a common theme among astronomic inspired religions and very likely has origins of a cosmic sense.

There were no writings by Jesus or by his Nazarenes in his day – there was no point as they were waiting for the world to end. So many of the Christ teachings and attributes were placed well after foundational Christianity.

The Greek concept of Logos, as you mention, is translated as \"the WORD of God\" - but I agree that a more philosophical meaning is implied. This likely helped change the view of God from a single benevolent, albeit vengeful, entity to the concept of a trinity. This concept is a definite boon to those asking for worship of Jesus, as the son. Jesus undergoes a transformation from a rabbinical teacher in the first gospel the being the logos in the the gospel of John. There is a difference (contradiction) between being the anointed one (chosen king) to his contemporaries, and being the logos, the divine one, to John. So many identities.

To quote the WSU essay:

\"When examined in its individual parts, there's nothing original or new about the early Christianity, from the stories and teachings of its founder to later reformulations by the followers of the new religion in the first century AD. What was perhaps original about Christianity was its combination of several heterogeneous elements into a single structure; it was continuous with a variety of traditions, philosophies, and religious practices, and synthesized all of these into a new structure.\"

To be honest, I can’t argue much on this period in terms of astrological influence because there was so much politicizing going on with the NT books from these times to the Nicean Council, to the Patristic writers. None of it can be taken as a message from Jesus IMO, whoever or whatever he was. I think foundational Christianity was forever and quickly lost in the Catholic bureaucracy, beginning with the gospels themselves.

Also, before the Nicean council and the solidification of what would be the orthodox Christian religion, Constantine (who made Christianity the “go to” religion) was a pagan himself and figured Christ to be another sun god. Did the Bishops who canonized the bible make concessions for the emperors? The same emperors who considered themselves as gods? I think so.

If we want to look at at why Dionysian and Mithrian influences are present, and which came first, lets look at the gospels that DIDN'T reference them. Up until the 300's there were many more gospels than what we see today. The gospel of Mary Magdalene and the Pistis Sophia drew from the religion of the Vestals. The Acts of John and The gospel of Thomas use the Docetic doctrines of Mayhayana Buddhism. The Gnostic gospels come from Hellenistic Gnosticism which predates Christianity by a couple of hundred years in Northern Africa.
Mithraism was the primary faith of the Legions. Dionysus' center of worship was Byzantium (aka Constantinople). That's why the gospels that survived, did.

Astrological references are far from everything in the OT and NT, but they are there, and I would tend to think that many more were omitted from the canons in the early period of Christianity (as noted above). The whole religious landscape of the middle-east during those times would have been a completely different place without astrology.

In regards to the skylab observations, the point of my original response was that we shouldn't use the date of Dec24th, 1 AD to make an assumption as to weather the \"3 magi\"/eastern star reference was accurate or not. The date I used was a random idea,(but more likely than 1AD) I am not sure if the Zeitgeist movie uses the date of 1AD to make the point. If it does, it shouldn't have. If that was infact the inspiration of the story, it could have been inspired anywhere from 4000BCE to Ist century CE.

Refuting my perspectives by saying \"they don't hold up\" can easily go both ways. After all, we are both speculating on events/stories from long ago. It brings to mind the Roswell UFO story of the mid forties.This is a cultural folktale barely 70 years old. This story has taken on larger proportions, complete with dozens (if not hundreds) of “witnesses” and stories of alien autopsies, secret air-force missions, secret government cover-ups, televisions shows, documentaries, movies etc…because of a weather balloon.

It also contained historically accurate references to the current (at that time) government, political environment, and small social details.

Give this story 2000 years of momentum, and instead of newspapers and TV, put it in the hands of oral tradition, carried out by very superstitious people, and this is, in essence, what we are debating. If we attach an imperial political agenda to this story, and a code of ethics that date from the dawn of civilization - in time, we may have new religion on our hands (Judging from some of the bizarre websites I've seen, I think we already do)

wow.. huge post. I didn't read it all. One thing I would like to point out though was that the Samarians were summarily shunned by the whole of the Jewish community.

Sumerians != Samaritans

hehe.. yeah yeah I know. Was a long day at work. thx none the less.

JohnG wrote:the point of my original response was that we shouldn't use the date of Dec24th, 1 AD to make an assumption as to weather the "3 magi"/eastern star reference was accurate or not....

The point of my response is that, even if we consider different years and different cities, the explanation doesn't hold up. Again, check out skyview cafe. You can go forward or backward hundreds of years, and Sirius still rises in roughly the same place, just a few minutes earlier or later. You can jump 20 degrees east, west, north, or south on the earth's surface, and Sirius still rises in pretty much the same place -- about 8 degrees east of where the sunrise will be on Dec 25. The stars still move the same way, pointing further east and therefore further away from the sunrise after Sirius rises. It's about Feb 10 when Sirius actually rises at the same place as the sun. It doesn't matter what year or what ancient near east city we use; the "3 magi/eastern star pointing to Jesus = orion's belt/sirius pointing to the sunrise following the winter solstice" comparison fails on the astrological front, because the astrology itself doesn't work out. (I just realized, the 3 magi are said to follow the bright star; Orion's belt leads Sirius across the sky. Just another minor detail that doesn't work out.)

We're not looking at a situation wherein the details might match up if we move to a different city or modify the story slightly or otherwise speculate; we simply can't get Sirius/Orion to point to the sunrise in late December. We can speculate all manner of changes to the Bible text, but we can't speculate the stars into places they weren't. The explanation that the sun's "birth" is announced by 3 "wise men" in Orion's belt following a "bright star" in Sirius is not credible astrology. It's one thing to say Jesus' birth story is based on commonly known and documented astrology, but another thing entirely to say Jesus' birth story is based on speculated, fake astrology.

is it unreasonable to think this event was implied as a change of time (age), that is, for the Jews?

In a vacuum, it's reasonable to think the Jews could possibly have viewed changes of ages as significant. It is not, however, reasonable to think the text of the Bible references those changing ages in the particular ways the movie argued. Much like above, it's a problem of evidence -- we have specific details, and they don't match.

The sum total of the argument for the change from Taurus to Ares was "Moses gets angry about a bull". It's certainly possible that the Jews viewed the changing of the ages as significant, but if so, would the sum total of their scriptural reference to it be that single event, off by 700 years, without any references to rams in the story itself and without any follow-up changing from bulls to rams in temple sacrifices? Even if the text was a hodge-podge of ideas, if they considered that particular idea significant enough to put into one of the key stories of all of scripture, I think they'd have managed to follow through.

The New Testament theory (Jesus as Pisces) is far more credible, though still mostly lacking. It actually takes place at the right time in history, not hundreds of years off. There are multiple prominent fish references. There are statements about the "end of the age". The next symbol in line actually does show up once toward the end of the story. But the theory has the weaknesses I've been harping on for like 5 pages -- the clarifications and expansions and supporting details are simply absent. If it was meant as an astrological reference, the authors did an incredibly incompetent job of it.

The Jews certainly used the stars to track time, dividing their year into 12 months. But the text of the Bible doesn't tie the symbols (bulls, rams, fish, water carriers, lions, and so on) to months. The word Mazzalah appears in the story of Josiah destroying temples and priests dedicated to Baal, the sun, the moon, "the constellations", and all the stars in the sky. (This is the only use of the word in the entire Bible -- an angry response to astrology.) So, again, we don't have a particularly strong religious-astrological tie in the text; we don't see astrological and religious motifs tied together. We have stars being used to keep time without symbolism attached, which is utterly unsurprising and uncontroversial.

I think foundational Christianity was forever and quickly lost in the Catholic bureaucracy, beginning with the gospels themselves.

I agree that the Catholic church lost foundational Christianity and adopted a number of pagan festivals and practices (as brought out in the MLK essay), but it wasn't a permanent loss. The Catholic bureaucracy didn't exist until about the mid-300's AD. We have access to manuscripts, quotes, letters sent between various Christians, and so on that predate the rise of any sort of central authority in Christianity. We also have manuscripts from areas that never fell under the sway of the Catholic church, and we have those groups' ideas as to what should have been canon. By examining the manuscripts, we can see the Catholic church didn't particularly muck with the text itself during that era. They mostly relied on the fact that people didn't read it, and made stuff up (much like modern churches.) It's actually fairly easy to recover foundational Christian teachings, even those that didn't make it into official canon like Shepherd of Hermas and Gospel of the Hebrews.

We can also read such writings as the Pistis Sophia and Acts of John, and various other writings which speak of Jesus and show strong influence from other religions. We have a pretty good idea as to when they were written, what preexisting religions they mimicked, and so on.

We don't need to speculate about Pistis Sophia or the influence of Dionysus on the gospels during the time of Constantine or what the original gospel of John said. We have the documents, we have translations, we have a good idea as to when they were written, and in the case of most of the canon, we have geographically widespread manuscripts that we can use to reconstruct the originals with very high certainty. You've waved your hands and implied the history is a total clusterf**k that we can't make sense of and that it's fair to speculate that the New Testament has strong astrological influences. But the reality is, we have the ancient manuscripts and the knowledge to trace their origins, and the astrological influences are insignificant at best. Again, your speculation doesn't match with the evidence, and it's not a case of missing evidence; it's a case of the details of the evidence and the details of your theory not matching.

I will grant that Jesus' birth story in Matthew could have been imported, though if so, it would have been long before the Catholic church came into existence. I will again note that you have yet to present an actual quotation from an actual ancient document or translation that presents a similar birth story, particularly from Dionysus, Horus, etc. Where in the ancient documents are these virgin births with magi witnesses (actually after the fact in Matthew) that are such a "common" theme?

There is a difference (contradiction) between being the anointed one (chosen king) to his contemporaries, and being the logos, the divine one, to John.

Each of the four canonical Bibles focus on Jesus from a different perspective: chosen king, servant, perfect man, God (in that order), while touching on the other three. Trying to frame that as a "contradiction" demonstrates shallow reasoning.

In order for the basic historical borrowing claims of the zeitgeist movie, and the completely outdated scholarship upon which it is based, to be seriously considered true, a far more detailed account of how the borrowing occurred has to be created. Stories about how it could have happened simply do not suffice.

The borrowing theories are hold overs from 100-150 year old scholarship and do not reflect the general consensus of historians at this time. Simply because the right connections cannot be substantiated. \"Perhaps such-and-such\" just doesn't count as real historical inquiry.

The parallels are unenlightening. Such as the connection between the biblical flood story and gilgamesh. The unfortunate fact is that that sort of evidence can go both ways, with no internal way to distinguish which use of the evidence is favorable.

Lothar says:

I will again note that you have yet to present an actual quotation from an actual ancient document or translation that presents a similar birth story, particularly from Dionysus, Horus, etc. Where in the ancient documents are these virgin births with magi witnesses (actually after the fact in Matthew) that are such a \"common\" theme?

This is because such references do not exist. The scholarship on which this rests is almost entirely fictional. Where there are similarities, it tends to be a coincidence of translation. Words similar to those in the Biblical story are used in translation which creates the illusion of similarity. Such things can be overcome with simple replacement with synonyms, and the illusion immediately vanishs.

Formerly SV

There is an oxymoron taking place in this conversation in the sense that you (and Lothar) are asking for hard evidence against a story in which there is no hard evidence.

It's all just conversational speculation anyway, from either point of view. To take it further is ungainful in any respect.

When discussing mythology and the inspiration for it all we can do is look at ancient mythology and parallels. You and Lothar post that I have not presented parallels and I have - over and over. My debate partners ignore them.

What the heck - I'll give you more, specific to the points you brought up. Do references not exist of virgin birth stories? I have to ask myself, “Where do I begin?”

I guess we could go all the way back to Egypt and the Egyptian God Taht announcing to the virgin Queen that she is about to become a mother. Or the god Kneph (the Holy Spirit) magically impregnating the virgin by holding the Ankh (a cross) to her mouth. The old statues of Isis holding her baby Horus were employed by early christians as representing their own birth stories.

To deny that virgin birth stories are not evident in Greek mythology is to say that one has not read any Greek mythology. Read about Herakles, Romulus, and 90% of the other stories.

You know, I don't get the christian virgin birth story anyway. Matthew(?) wrote between 90 - 100 CE in Syria (the original works were actually anonymous and didn't include the story).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudepigrapha
The later author, who based the book upon Mattai (150 CE), included the story. He quotes the old testament (Isaiah 7:14) written 700 years before Jesus claiming it as a prophecy of the Messiah’s birth. He talks of his lineage from King David. What’s going on there? Maybe the septuagint was mistranslated, “virgin” for “woman”. That’s the only argument I can think of that a christian perspective could use.

It makes no sense. Either the word was mistranslated or he took the idea from Roman/Greek myths – not surprising being a Syrian. Either way, it never happened.

There are certainly many examples of like-mindedness in western cultures of these times.

Lothar wrote:Each of the four canonical Bibles focus on Jesus from a different perspective: chosen king, servant, perfect man, God (in that order), while touching on the other three. Trying to frame that as a "contradiction" demonstrates shallow reasoning.

Why is that? You mean to say that being a king from the (very human) lineage of King David is the same as being the logos?

Maybe your point of view is that this character was a regular joe who was blessed with the word of god? Is that it?

Why does his personna change into a more glorified and all powerfull (and non-jewish) character the further away the writers get from the time period of the original story?

It's more than just a "different perspective" to say one is a chosen king according to jewish tradition as opposed to a god.

JohnG wrote:There is an oxymoron taking place in this conversation in the sense that you (and Lothar) are asking for hard evidence against a story in which there is no hard evidence.

It's all just conversational speculation anyway...

I'm not asking for hard evidence AGAINST the Christian story. I'm asking for hard evidence FOR the position you've advocated -- that the Christian story parallels older stories. I'm asking for actual quotes from actual ancient manuscripts... actual star charts that show the astrological phenomena in question... actual evidence that shows a reasonable level of connection between the Christian story and astrology, ancient mythology, etc. You don't seem to have evidence, only speculation -- something you readily admit, and seem to be OK with.

Unless you have more to say on the astrological front, I'm going to declare a victory there. The stars don't point to where they'd have to point for the Orion/Sirius explanation to work, and the astrological symbolism in the Bible is tangential at best.

When discussing mythology and the inspiration for it all we can do is look at ancient mythology and parallels.

Right... we can look at ancient mythology and parallels. But we don't have to merely speculate based on weak similarities, as you seem content to do. We need to look at the following:

1) whether the parallel can actually be found in any ancient source. Many of the supposed parallels don't seem to exist at all. That's why I keep asking you to quote actual source material rather than merely assert that such-and-such god had such-and-such attribute. Don't just say Horus was born of a virgin; quote and link to the part of the EBotD that describes it.

2) the age of sources displaying the parallels. Do we have solid evidence that one story is older than the other? Many of the supposed parallels don't arise until centuries after the stories were written, as with Sargon/Moses. It doesn't help your position to show a parallel where someone else copied the Bible or where we have no way to tell who copied who.

3) the level of detail and strength of the parallel. Are we putting a lot of stock into a few shared words between stories, or are they substantially similar? In the tiny minority of the points you make where I can actually find evidence that such-and-such god had such-and-such attribute, the similarity has been underwhelming.

You accuse me of ignoring similarities you've posted. But every similarity you've posted has failed in at least one of the above ways. If you have a similarity you want me to give serious consideration to, you have to (1) tell me what ancient document it comes from, (2) tell me the age of the document, and (3) quote enough of it to show a strong similarity.

Do references not exist of virgin birth stories?

There might be some. Can you at least get through step (1) above and tell me where I can read original sources for the stories?

I can't find any reference to the Egyptian god Taht on wikipedia. The references to Taht I can find through google seem to trace back to Massey. Kneph at least seems to exist, but the story that he's impregnating the virgin is dubious at best (I linked to the same article in this post; try to keep up.) I don't see any indication that Herakles was involved in any sort of virgin birth; his mother Alcmene had sex with Zeus in disguise. (I can find stories of Herakles having sex with a lot of virgins, but none involving virgin births.) Romulus' mother, Rhea Silvia, was sworn to be a virgin, but she was raped by Mars. Thus far, you haven't provided any credible evidence of "virgin birth" stories predating Jesus (and you've demonstrated either an unwillingness or inability to do basic fact-checking. Is it really that hard to search wikipedia?)

I wouldn't be surprised if statues of a mother nursing a baby (Isis/Horus) were popular in the Catholic church several hundred years after the time of Jesus. Can you reference such statues being used by truly "early" Christians, or merely to the Catholic church several centuries after the foundation of Christianity?

Matthew.... based the book upon Mattai (150 CE), included the story.

That's the theory by Hayyim ben Yehoshua that's been posted all over the interweb. It seems to be a bit short on actual source references (This guy's response is a far less charitable way of saying the same thing.) It's one thing to speculate based on evidence; it's another thing entirely to just make stuff up. Please, if you're going to speculate, at least set higher standards for the speculation you accept.

He quotes the old testament (Isaiah 7:14) written 700 years before Jesus claiming it as a prophecy of the Messiah’s birth. He talks of his lineage from King David. What’s going on there? Maybe the septuagint was mistranslated, “virgin” for “woman”. That’s the only argument I can think of that a christian perspective could use.

If that's the only argument you can think of, you must not be trying very hard. The standard Christian perspective is that Jesus has both a "blood" lineage (through Mary) and a "legal" lineage (through Joseph). I don't see the problem.

You mean to say that being a king from the (very human) lineage of King David is the same as being the logos?

Why does his personna change into a more glorified and all powerfull (and non-jewish) character the further away the writers get from the time period of the original story?

I mean to say all of the perspectives are compatible -- a king whose legal lineage (through his adoptive "father") and blood lineage (through his mother) comes through David, a servant, a perfect man, and the incarnation of God. Again, all four of these themes are in all four of the gospels; each one just chooses a different focus. All four of the themes are present in the Old Testament; they're all a part of the Jewish expectation. And in all four descriptions, the king/servant/perfect man/God is said to be incredibly powerful; it's not as though bigger miracles are described in the later gospels.

I don't really need to add anything to what Lothar has said. The point is that parallels are quite a lot more rare than you say they are. And most of the examples are spurious. But as soon as that comes up it's no longer historical inquiry but \"investigation into mythology.\" The problem is that the mythology itself doesn't seem to exist, is too late, or is simply misrepresented.

This is why this is no longer much discussed in serious historical circles. The whole parallels thing is outmoded. Indeed, I am not looking for any hard evidence. I would simply look for any textual evidence which offers much of a compelling parallel. Then, even if a parallel is established, you have to have evidence--textual or \"hard\" proving that there was borrowing from X to Christianity, or whether it was the other way around. The Mary holding Jesus note is innocuous, as that form of art is incredibly late in development and has little to no bearing on the truth of anything.

It makes no sense. Either the word was mistranslated or he took the idea from Roman/Greek myths – not surprising being a Syrian. Either way, it never happened.

I know quite a few Christians who agree with this. It's fairly trivial, however. Of course, they're quite left of center theologically. If the story is fictional its development is better explained by purely Jewish and Christian theological speculation than by any alleged Greek parallel.

Here is my perpective in a nutshell:

When I do any historical reading about cultures that date from any period of antiquity there are stories of gods, goddeses, praising, smoting, and the things that go along with it. The cultures that surrounded (and spawned) the Jews were cultures from Mesopotamia and Egypt – cultures that based their religions on astrological phenomena.

In those times it was natural for people to combine art, poetry, science, religion, history into one idea,

Now you guys are telling me that Judeo/Christians developed their idea of god completely independently of the cultures they were born out of.

The only evidence you could possibly provide that would invoke a different scenario than the one I elude to is to prove the Jews dropped in from another planet with their religion intact or to prove your god.

I know you can’t do either because no theist in the history of mankind has ever been able to do so.

Your failure to do that will override any victory you could possibly claim.

I didn’t want to go that route with this conversation but if you are going to start claiming “victory” while asking me for “hard evidence”, you bring that into fair play.

You have yet to show me any hard evidence to the contrary. All you have done is countered logical theory, and not provided anything other than christian rhetoric.

JohnG wrote:In those times it was natural for people to combine art, poetry, science, religion, history into one idea

....and because those people could not find an immediate explanation for lightning, volcanoes, earthquakes, the sun, moon and stars etc, coupled with fear of the unknown, that idea strengthened and evolved into complex religions, until we have the religions we have today.

Well written post JohnG.

Bee

JohnG wrote:You have yet to show me any hard evidence to the contrary. All you have done is countered logical theory, and not provided anything other than christian rhetoric.

I've been following this thread for a while. Let's take a look at this from a provability perspective.


You made the following claim (paraphrased):
Claim: "The Judeo-Christian stories and ethics were largely derived from surrounding cultures, as evidenced by X, Y, and Z."

So... here's the primary issue:

Because of the way you stated this, it's not an unprovable conceptual debate. Your claim is provable/disprovable by nature because it references hard evidence (the corresponding stories). This means two things:
1. If you can back it up with evidence, it strengthens your claim.
2. It's subject to rational inquiry challenging your evidence.


Lothar was too harsh by "declaring victory". His challenge still stands unanswered, though. So far I have yet to see you produce anything to corroborate the provable portion of your claim.

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

Let me say this another way:

If you had simply said "Judeo-Christianity was influenced by other cultures", that would have been a purely conceptual claim. No evidence required there.

However, you said "Judeo-Christianity was borrowed from stories X, Y, and Z", which is an evidential claim. You specifically referenced evidence X, Y, and Z; it's simply the scientific process for someone to ask you to produce them.

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

Now, the other issue is your counter-challenge for Lothar to prove his own claim (although I'm not sure he made one).

You're basically saying "you can't prove anything, either".

I'm not sure about your background, but to those of us with scientific/logical backgrounds, that statement is essentially meaningless as a counter-argument.

You made a provable/disprovable claim, and it was challenged. Making statements about the provability of other claims is irrelevant when it comes to the validity of your own.

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

Here's what I would suggest:

We should start a new thread, title it "cultural influences in Judeo-Christianity", and limit any evidence-related arguments to the ones we can actually provide links for.

It would be a good discussion, and I think you'd find that the people here (including the Christians!) will readily discuss the various influences we can see in scripture. I'd be interested in a thread like that.

Foil wrote:

JohnG wrote:You have yet to show me any hard evidence to the contrary. All you have done is countered logical theory, and not provided anything other than christian rhetoric.

I've been following this thread for a while. Let's take a look at this from a truly logical perspective.


You made the following claim (paraphrased):

Claim: "The Judeo-Christian stories and ethics were largely derived from surrounding cultures."

You then backed up that claim by listing a number of examples, referencing stories and beliefs from surrounding cultures.


Here's the primary issue:

Because of the way you stated your claim, this is not a "battle of ideas". Your claim is provable/disprovable by nature because it references hard evidence (the corresponding stories). This means two things:
1. If you can back it up with evidence, it's a good claim.
2. It's subject to rational inquiry challenging your evidence.


Lothar was probably too harsh by "declaring victory", but I think his points stand. He challenged your evidence, and so far I have yet to see you produce anything to corroborate the provable portion of your claim.

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

Let me say this another way:

If you had simply said "Judeo-Christianity was influenced by other cultures", that would have been a purely conceptual claim. No evidence required there.

However, you said "Judeo-Christianity was borrowed from stories X, Y, and Z", which is an evidential claim. You specifically referenced evidence X, Y, and Z; it's simply the scientific process for someone to ask you to produce them.

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

Now, the other issue is your counter-challenge for Lothar to prove his own claim (although I'm not sure he made one).

You're basically saying "you can't prove anything, either".

I'm not sure about your background, but to those of us with scientific/logical backgrounds, that statement is essentially meaningless as a counter-argument.

You made a provable/disprovable claim, and it was challenged. Making statements about the provability of other claims is irrelevant when it comes to the validity of your own.

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


What I would suggest is that we start a new thread, title it "cultural influences in Judeo-Christianity", and limit any evidence-related arguments to the ones we can actually provide links for.

It would be a good discussion, and I think you'd find that the people here (including the Christians!) will readily acknowledge and discuss the various influences we can see in scripture. I'd be interested in a thread like that.

I agree with taking this topic out the framework of the movie - I think we all agree the movie was shoddily done, but the cultural influence aspect is worth discussing. I am only an amatuer historian, and not even a good debater for that matter, but I find this discussion interesting and I am learning a lot during the process.

It's hard to provide the type of evidence that Lothar is asking for - I don't have access to origunal stone tablets or papyrus. I know they exist and read their contents on sites such as this http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/

There are references done by others who have sat down with stone tablets, egyptian writings and so forth and know the languages and have transcribed them, but that has never been good enough for theists.

If I do provide any references, it's too easy too say "that person was discredited" and throw away the baby with the bathwater.

Even mentioning a name like Massey causes christian's eyes to roll, even though he has spent time with artifacts transcibing them. Of course it is recieved with contempt, it flies in the face of their belief systems.

I know that I have provided some references that are open to criticism, but I have provided some good logical points as well and some good references too. All I ask is that they be considered outside of a theological viewpoint.

At the same time, I am aware of early christian writings and have been generous to the christian view in dating them, putting them at the earliest possible date. I have also used references that are sympathetic the christian belief (Ulansey) that even though they are dubious in some ways, still support what I am saying.

I have learned during this discussion (through research) that indicating any astrological reference in biblical writing is considered blasphemous. However, I am not a theist and I am more concerned with cultural history and that is where we have an impasse. None of this is personal to me, just a matter of interest. I am trying to respect others as much as possible, but it's a touchy subject.

Foil wrote:it's simply the scientific process for someone to ask you to produce them.

Have I not provided evidence that Mesoptamian and Egyptian cultures are largley founded on astrological phenomena? Have I not provided evidence that the Jews were impacted by these cultures? Do I need to provide evidence that christianity was born out of judaism? Do I need to go dig up a stone tablet myself that says "Sorry, us christians were inspired by our surrounding cultures?"

As far as borrowing stories, the parallels are NOT weak when discussing creation stories (read in the link provided in this post), flood stories, ressurrection stories, heroe's journey (Joseph Campbell reference), commandment parallels, The golden rule itself predated Leviticus in ancient Egypt.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/reciproc.htm
http://www.fordham.edu/HALSALL/ANCIENT/ ... asant.html
http://www.abu.nb.ca/ecm/Lev00d.htm

I realize I am asking a theist to ponder that instead of a supernatural being, it was an evolution of ideas. There will be no victories on either POV here, just speculation on both parts. I, for one, admit that. If someone is going to ask me to believe otherwise, I need to see some miracles before I can move away from a perpective of a logical evolution of cultural beliefs.

Even without the miracles, there is no indication that OT or NT concepts are not without predeccessing ideas. The big parallel is god itself. The idea of supernatural creator(s) is as old as recorded human history itself. It is not exclusive to jews and christians. If we find what inspired those beliefs we find what inspired latter beliefs.

As far as the Zeitgeist movie is concerned, we are only discussing 1/3 of it and I have little political opinion on 9/11 other than it was horrible. I will never pretend to understand the motives of government and the best source I have ever found regarding motives I have read from the OPEC site. The last part (the Fed) is another discussion entirely but I am not an economist either. It does sound fishy to me but that's the extent of discussion you'll get out of me on that topic. I do, however, have a natural interest in cultural history and have for a long time. So yes, I am all for another thread being started.

...and thanks bet for the supportive post, I believe what you say is correct.

The reason that the evidence is not good enough for theists is that these people who claim these parallels are now on the fringes of scholarship. Akin to the flat earth society. I'm not saying that all scholars think the Bible is all, or even mostly true, or in some cases true at all. But most certainly see this parallelism with regard to Jesus as outdated and spurious scholarship. The parallels to the creation story are an entirely different thing and present minimal problems for all but the most conservative of Christians. The parallels are quite clear in this case, and the historical circumstance present decent grounds for making plausible borrowing claims. There are, of course, alternatives. Such as that the Biblical creation stories were presented as a challenge. I take them, however, as a theological narrative which was shared between cultures, probably from some earlier proto-narrative.

All that this means is that if you're going to challenge the stories about Jesus, you will have to do it on different historical grounds. There are other ways to challenge purported histories than through claiming they are instances of borrowing. One way is one which you already pointed out. The instances of seeming development in stories through time. It's quite plausible to claim that if a story changed over 100 years time, the later changes were more likely to be legendary than the earliest claims.

I should add that moral rules are more common and universal than logical imperatives, across the world. It's not surprising that Buddha says something very much like Jesus, and that others predating Jesus said things very like or exactly like the golden rule. Nor is it all that surprising to see that the New Testament's ethical system is very much akin to the eudamonian ethics of Aristotle, Plato and Socrates.

I don't think Jesus ever claimed to offer a novel moral system. I do think he implicitly claimed to be a theological reformer of sorts.

If I understand you correctly FSV, I detect a Marcionist perception on your part. I may be off base on that, correct me if I’m wrong.

By that I mean, it’s acceptable to consider Judaism (OT) theology as derivative, but not Jesus (NT). Before I go any further, Is that correct?

I wouldn't say anything as determinate as that. Yes, I think Judaic theology is derivative in some cases. Such as the case of the lack of a doctrine of an afterlife up until the Maccabean conflicts. Whether or not Jesus' theology is derivative depends, firstly, on whether or not one believes Him to be God, and then contingent upon that, what level of self-knowledge he had. But it turns out that one can accept happily a view of Jesus which brackets his divinity by accepting a view that he had very limited self-knowledge of his own divinity. So that we can view Jesus' theological developments as both derivative and divine.

Ultimately my point is not to push any particular view of Jesus' theological development and from what sources they were derived, but the open up the conversation to include possibilities outside of a very strict fundamentalist sort of view, which is a view in its own right, but certainly not the only, and perhaps not the most plausible view at least on Christianity. Obviously on a non-Christian view certain options gain superior plausibility.

Thanks for that insight FSV. Well done.

Therein lies the difference of opinion: the theistic view and the non. I continue to struggle with one aspect of this perspective and that is no matter what a person’s personal view, there was an actual history and course of events that is not dependant any of our opinion, but on historical fact.

Unfortunate to this discussion, there also remains a whole lot of grey area and speculation on who/what Jesus was. Grey area as to what the facts were. For example,

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html

Hence the term “faith” if one is a theist. So as you say, faith is based on one's perception, and who is anybody else to dictate another's perception, Correct? I would like to discuss that topic further...in another post. I believe that to be the heart of the matter.

In terms of drawing parallels from other philosophies (religions, ideas…) I have read theistic essays that state that the advent of christianity occurs before the introduction of outside philosophies. That is easily dismissed in some cases (ie: the golden rule). In other cases, you have to look more closely at the “advent”. When was the advent of Christianity? Was it during the time of the Nazarenes when there is a large gap in historical data (for whatever reason)? Or was it a century later when Paul of Tarsus outlined the basic structure of what a christian is? Or was it during the Nicene council that decided once and for all that Jesus was divine? Does a modern christian trust a council of pagans to make that decision for them?…and for political reasons?

I think when we are drawing parallels; we can’t assume Christianity was in its present form in the first century. I don’t think there could be an argument there. If we understand that, and understand the backgrounds of the people (and their respective cultures) responsible for the shaping of the religion, it gives us a clearer picture of what actually occurred.

Here is another good read IMO that discusses a point of contention between Lothar and I in regards to perspectives of Jesus. He accuses me of “shallow reasoning” when discussing how the NT describes Jesus. It would seem that the Nicene council understood well this contradiction in persona and addresses that very point.

Here is an excerpt from a source discussing that matter.

“The aim of the Nicene Creed was to require everybody to acknowledge, that Jesus Christ was a God, in such clear and forcible terms as to turn out of the Church all who would not follow the Egyptians in the mystical opinions which they had introduced, so that there should be no escape for those who believed in one only God, and who gave any whatever lower rank to the Savior. It declares that there is one God, the Maker of all things, and yet that the one Lord Jesus Christ was not made; that he also was very God of very God, and was yet crucified by Pontius Pilate; that he had been previously incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary and made man, although of one substance with the Father. All this carried with it no contradiction to the mind of the Egyptians. They were used to being told and believing that two Gods could be one God. They were used to hear of a God being put to death, as they had always held that Osiris, though a god, had been put to death.

They were used to hear of children being born of an earthly mother, and having no earthly father, as they held that many of their kings were so born, being incarnate by the god Amun-Ra. But Athanasius did not introduce into his creed any Egyptian mysticism to support it, nor did he try to explain away its inconsistency by any play upon words. The Nicene Creed does not mention the Trinity nor the two natures of Christ, but leaves the contradictions stated in the boldest terms. The well-known Athanasian Creed, in which an explanation of the difficulties has been attempted, is supposed to have been written two or three hundred years later, and the name of the great Alexandrian bishop has been given to it, either dishonestly, or because it was thought to represent his opinions.

This later creed states that though \"the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God, yet they are not three Gods, but one God.\" This is the Egyptian doctrine of plurality in unity, which is represented in numerous sculptures, and explained in pages 12 and 98. It then asserts the two natures of Christ, that he is both \"perfect God and perfect man.\" This was meant to get over the difficulty of a dying God which had been ridiculed by Xenophanes, in the case of Osiris, five centuries before the Christian era; when he told the Egyptians that if Osiris was a man they should not worship him, and if he was a god they need not lament his sufferings. But this Athanasian Creed, though setting forth the Egyptian opinions, was an offspring of the Latin church, and it is very doubtful whether it would have been wholly approved of by Athanasius. The Egyptians had raised Mary, the wife of Joseph, almost into a goddess, at least into \"the mother of God,\" who had imparted no portion of human nature to her son; they denied the two natures of Christ, and clung faithfully to t he words of their own Nicene Creed, which declared that he was \"of one substance with the Father.\"

Here is the source: http://sacred-texts.com/egy/emec/emec09.htm

Cheers

JohnG

I think you're mostly on track with the above. However, the text of the New Testament already hinted at a trinity of persons in a godhood. Also, being of a very philosophical bent, I think the article is disingenuous in that it bluntly pronounces that Jesus having two natures, or the Trinity, are \"contradictions\" it is very unclear why we should consider them contradictions. In fact, much recent work is being done in the philosophy of religion these days on both the \"Incarnation\" (c.f. The Logic of God Incarnate, by Thomas Morris) and the doctrine of the Trinity(mostly journal articles at this time, unfortunately. The Trinitarian doctrines which were consolidated at the Nicene council were an attempt to harmonize seemingly contradictory passages as much as they were a rejection of the Arian heresy.

It is true that the idea of a hypostasis which is important to later trinitarian developments was already well known in other religious ideas, including those of Jewish theologians themselves. It is also true that there has been growth in doctrine after the penning of the new testament documents. It's a rather delicate matter, as those in the protestant TRADITION are too quick to oppose tradition.

I am with those who argue that the concept of faith in the greek new testament ought to be translated into english as \"trust\" rather than \"faith.\" Because our modern usage of faith allows for sloppy attachment of \"blind\" or \"leap of\" to the word \"faith.\" Challenging another's perception is certainly possible, and as far as I am concerned, permissible. But then again, I am \"intolerant\" and definitely not politically correct.

It is an unfortunate fact that much of our perception of history and science and philosophy comes through a filter of prior worldview assumptions. But, what can we do? One can only do one's best.

I don't know of anyone in this thread, or any serious Christian scholar anywhere, who has claimed that "Judeo/Christians developed their idea of god completely independently of the cultures they were born out of." I even mentioned a couple of Greek, Egyptian, and Canaanite influences at the start of an earlier post, so I don't know why JohnG thinks either I or SV is arguing otherwise.

Those influences exist. It's tremendously important, for both historical and theological study, that we identify the RIGHT influences. In order to make a serious historical inquiry as to various influences, we need to generalize what I stated previously:

1. find ancient evidence for the supposed belief (translations like those linked from Halsall's site would work.)
2. determine the probable age and location of that belief based on the evidence
3. determine the strength of parallel with J/C beliefs of the appropriate era

My rejection of the majority of JohnG's points prior to my previous post (heh) isn't a refusal to consider things outside of a theological viewpoint. I'm simply acting as any historian (amateur or otherwise) should -- I want to see truly historical sources. I'm not "throwing out the baby with the bathwater"; I'm asking for the baby without any bathwater. I don't need to hear what Massey has to say; I want to see what the actual story of Horus or Osiris or Romulus actually says and compare for myself (most of the time, the "parallels" have turned out to be bogus.) The links to ancient "Golden Rule" style statements are a nice start; let's keep it up.

On to some specific influences that were claimed:

JohnG wrote:Have I not provided evidence that Mesoptamian and Egyptian cultures are largley founded on astrological phenomena? Have I not provided evidence that the Jews were impacted by these cultures? Do I need to provide evidence that christianity was born out of judaism?

That's kind of like noting that Spain was a world power in 1400 AD and heavily influenced Mexico, the US and especially California are affected by Mexico, and Kwanzaa was founded in California. Each statement is true, but it doesn't mean Kwanzaa is a secret celebration of the Spanish Armada. The connections from step to step simply aren't strong enough that we can claim belief X was preserved along the whole chain. It's *possible*, but we need more direct evidence.

As you've argued, beliefs change over time. It's possible that early Judaism had a strong Egyptian astrological basis that had completely faded out by the time of Christianity. It's also possible that Judaism never absorbed the astrological aspects of Egyptian or other religions, or that it recast astrological ideas into other terms, or that its astrological ideas got replaced by non-astrological ideas from the Assyrians or Persians, or that for some other reason, by the foundation of Christianity, the astrological was not a significant force in Judaism. All that is to say, the above argument doesn't really show astrological influence in the gospel stories.

If you wish to show astrological influence in the gospels, you need to show how the gospels actually demonstrate astrological influence. You need to show that the astrology actually makes sense as astrology (none of this Orion/Sirius not pointing the right direction stuff) and that it shows up in meaningful ways in the text. My challenges on this point have persisted for nearly six months (so I don't think it's premature for me to have declared victory.)

we can’t assume Christianity was in its present form in the first century.

Of course not. You'll note I haven't been making claims about Christianity's present form being correct or historically valid; I think it's totally screwed up in a lot of ways. I'm a big fan of returning to source documents within Christianity, not just in debates on this board.

It would seem that the Nicene council understood well this contradiction in persona and addresses that very point.....
All this carried with it no contradiction to the mind of the Egyptians.

So did they understand this as a contradiction in persona, or as conceptually coherent?

As SV mentioned, the article is very blunt about viewing the dual nature of Christ and the existence of the Trinity as "contradictions", but these need not be viewed as such. To the Egyptian mind, the ideas aren't contradictory. To my mind, they're not contradictory. I accuse you of shallow reasoning because you argue from the assumption that they are contradictory, rather than acknowledging the possibility that they are not, and you struggle to understand why I'm not convinced by the arguments you make based on an assumption I don't agree with.

Lothar, about the Egyptian thing in early Judaism. (which technically didn't come for a thousand years or so later) Read the Tora. That was written not long after they departed. ... or is that being debated as well? (I haven't followed this closely).

You know Lothar, in some ways I think we are saying the same thing but from different perspectives.

In terms of the movie “Zeitgeist”, we both agree that the movie itself is a propaganda piece. I’ve never said that the claims it made could be referenced to ancient manuscripts. Again, I don’t have personal access to any so I wouldn’t make that claim anyway.

As someone who has an interest in cultural history, the movie did make me think about some of the points it covered. My original objection was the feeling that you were completely dismissing the idea that the bible contains derivative information. You’ve clarified that by saying that you also believe in a derivative nature of the bible.

I understand that the movie narrative may have offended you, as a Christian. I would have been too. The movie speaks in a way that degrades a theistic viewpoint.

My whole point is that even though the movie is scattered and contains conflicting information, there are many plausible theories about where the ideas originated.

I am grateful that this conversation has inspired me to do some research and read many essays about Judaism, Christianity, Mesopotamia, Egypt, archeoastronomy, early Rome, Hellenistic culture…. and frankly, it has actually reinforced my beliefs that there is something to the assertion that the cultural influences in question took place. There is much I have read recently about Greek philosophy, such as stoicism, that relates to the Christian philosophy as well. It’s quite fascinating, and yet disturbing in some ways. It’s disturbing when I think of things like fundamentalism.

I read many things that are not word for word copies of biblical writings, but to me, the similarities are striking.

For example, here is a passage from the Avesta, which talks about salvation in a way very close to a biblical setting, with Zarathustra as the original “chosen one”

http://www.mircea-eliade.com/from-primi ... n/224.html

And again…

http://www.mircea-eliade.com/from-primi ... n/038.html

Granted, these are just raw passages that have not been poured over by any politically minded councils, or bishops, or contrived to fit any philosophy to avoid divisions in any empires. All that impact left little trace on the actual origins of the subject matter.

I think the first task I undertook on this was to look at historical records of Sargon and compare them with historical records of Moses. I quickly found that there was no historical records of Moses, so I could not pursue that very far. I find the same roadblocks when attempting to compare Jesus philosophy with other cultural philosophies. Jesus never wrote anything, nor did his disciples, and the gospels seem to be under great debate as to who wrote what. Also, they were written too long after the supposed events to give them and real historical credence. Also, biblical edits and translations are politically motivated and even murder was committed to those who didn’t conform.

Saying that, it's a challenge to gather real biblical documents in their original nature, and other documents as well. Or to understand to \"teachers\" in the bible and what their motives may have been. Information on these people just doesn't exist.

So, if you want to claim victory, it’s all yours on the grounds that there is no evidence whatsoever supporting the Christ event, Moses, God, and the validity that any of the philosophy of the bible is “divine “ in nature. That's not meant to offend, but your asking me for something that doesn't exist.

In going back to the Zeitgeist movie, I think it was intended to spur people to do some research for themselves, in that sense it had an effect on me and I too, found the errors in the movie, but the researched it spurred certainly helped clear a few questions about where much of monotheism was derived.

I never put much thought into religion in the past. I have been a non theist since I can remember. As a kid, I used to sit by the water and watch things buzz, swim, and slither around and read natural history books. My family was jewish but my dad didn’t talk about it. I came across some religious views when reading about Darwin and read a bit of the OT but didn’t identify with it. Many of the catholics in my neighborhood were not good representatives of the faith (I sincerely hope) so I further avoided any serious look into it. I guess your posts inspired me to learn more.

I would like to add this, before you collect your trophy. There is something that has deeply bothered me about monotheistic religions for a long time, and the Zeitgeist movie touched on it very briefly at the end. I don’t care for the idea that mankind is a product of an “otherworldy” consciousness and the separation this idea puts between the planet, it’s ecosystems and mankind. Joseph Campbell also mentions this and I couldn’t agree with him more. In this big universe, this planet is all we have and it’s not to be treated as a stepping stone to a “better place”. The religious mindset dismisses the true creator of our beings and that is the ground we walk on. Not in a spiritual sense, but in a literal sense. I have to think that until we understand that, we will continue to create divisions between us and take no responsibility for our environment.

We are immortal through our children, but it’s not true immortality. If the world was to cease its ability to support life that “immortality” would end. I find it eerily ironic that it could possibly be a belief in an “almighty” that extinguishes us all, through the neglect of our environment.

JohnG wrote:you also believe in a derivative nature of the bible.

I do, but probably not in the same way as you do. But that's OK; now that we've got some common ground, we can at least begin to study the topic.

I think it's important that, when looking at how the Bible might be derivative of other stories, we approach the subject in a serious historical manner. Rather than merely noting that a theory seems "plausible" at first glance, we need to look at the theory in detail and try to confirm as much as we can. The thing that's bothered me the most in this thread is how many of the theories have fallen apart when subjected to minor historical scrutiny, and how I seem to be the only one applying such scrutiny. Can we agree that, before either of us presents a theory, we'll at least take a few minutes with google/wikipedia to see if it's worth discussing?

Some more groundwork: when studying the historical influences on the Bible, it's important that we don't get stuck just looking for "derivative" type influences. We should look for the following (and probably more):

• directly copied tales (like the Greek/Roman myths -- same stories, different names)
• tales recast in a different light (where the story is similar but has some significantly different implications -- often, the differences are more important than the similarities!)
• use of common literary structure to tell original tales
• use of common symbolism to illustrate a point
• references to other stories that are tangential
• responses and rebuttals to other stories

One of the things I've found when reading the Bible and other ancient mythology is how common the last point is -- how much of the Biblical material explicitly responds to common ideas of the time, and how often it's miscategorized as "copies" rather than "responses". This is often because people (including Christians) don't understand the Bible, or the other work, well enough to draw such distinctions. Let's make a habit of trying to recognize the different types of influences, rather than lumping them all together.

We should start with some understanding of the Biblical timeline. The time of Moses (the stories in the first 5 books of the Bible) was about 1500 BC, when Egypt was the dominant force in the world. The majority of the rest of the Old Testament stories are said to have taken place from 1000-500 BC, and reflect the change from Egyptian to Assyrian, Persian, and Babylonian dominance. By New Testament times, Greek/Roman culture was extremely dominant. When we're looking at theories about cultural influences, the hope is that we can at least roughly match that pattern (even if the books weren't written exactly in those times, we should be able to detect some shifts between them.) If our theory finds strong Egyptian undertones in the New Testament but very few in the Old Testament, that suggests a problem with our theory.

here is a passage from the Avesta, which talks about salvation in a way very close to a biblical setting

Be careful with your terminology. Neither present the biblical picture of salvation (taking unworthy sinners and declaring them worthy through blood sacrifice, rather than through their own goodness); they both present the common religious motif of blessings being given to the righteous and the eventual downfall of the wicked, much like you'd find in various psalms. They're interesting, no doubt, but shouldn't be cast as relating to "salvation".

it's a challenge to gather real biblical documents.... so.... if you want to claim victory, it’s all yours on the grounds that there is no evidence whatsoever supporting the Christ event

Please don't misconstrue what I said. I haven't claimed victory on Jesus vs. all possible historical and mythological figures. I've only claimed victory on some specific bogus theories presented in this thread. I claimed victory against the claim that Orion's belt / Sirius provide an explanation of Jesus' birth story, and that other astrological references provide a good explanation for Jesus as a whole. It's not a victory based on lack of evidence for the "Christ event"; it's a victory based on a solid understanding of astronomy. If you have reason why I shouldn't claim victory on that front, please, present it.

I don’t care for the idea that mankind is a product of an “otherworldy” consciousness.... this planet is all we have and it’s not to be treated as a stepping stone to a “better place”.... we will continue to create divisions between us and take no responsibility for our environment.

That depends very much on what you make of the "otherworldly" consciousness and the "better place". Nothing in your argument is at odds with a creator/God, only with a specific god-concept -- one that I don't think matches with the Biblical description.

I have discussed Jewish history. After a century of excavation we know today that the stories of liberation are myths. We seem to agree here so I won’t dwell on it.

I have discussed early entry points of Persian ideas into Jewish sectarian culture and the elements they introduced, that later impacted Christianity, I need not repeat all that again.

I have discussed common literary structure by referencing the extensive work of Joseph Campbell.

Common symbolism? Do you mean apart from the earlier ideas of, god, prayer, prophets, light, dark, heaven, hell, sin, worship, ritual, rites, afterlife, wrath, crosses, angels, devils, ethical codes, shrines, temples, salvation, the soul, …?

Lothar wrote: “…how much of the Biblical material explicitly responds to common ideas of the time, and how often it's miscategorized as "copies" rather than "responses"

It’s difficult to view many biblical concepts as “responses” when the very foundation of the material is also the very foundation earlier beliefs.

Maybe you are referring to the Christian philosophy itself, rather than the supernatural aspect of Jewish beliefs they were founded upon.

Paul of Tarsus certainly had opportunities for hearing Stoic lectures on philosophy, as evidenced by his arguments concerning man’s natural belief in god and that man’s existence is in god.

Next, I quote this reference….

http://www.humanities.mq.edu.au/Ockham/y67s10a.html

“The Epicureans held that body and soul are collections of atoms, finally dispersed at death (or shortly afterwards). The Stoics also were materialists; they held that after death the body becomes earth, and the soul returns to the central fire. The Platonists held that the soul is immortal; the Christians held that the whole human being is immortal, that the body will rise...”

end quote

There is much overlapping of Platonism, Epicureanism, Stoicism, and Christianity in terms of ethics and personal virtue, however, we must remember that Christianity had long had its roots in Jewish culture and had already established most of its moral concepts. Fatalism, humility, ascetic way of life, and self-perfection teachings had been around for some time. The words “responses” and “copies” are both incorrect, but rather “adaptations”



A major adoption of that time was the stoic ideas of predestination, living a moderate and simple life, humanism, good attitude, search for truth, and the skill of living a happy life.

I am curious why you say, “Be careful with your terminology” when showing you a quote from the Avesta.

Was it my reference to salvation? Here is an excerpt from the text I cited

“11. If you, 0 men, understand the commandments which the Wise
One has given,
Well-being and suffering-long torment for the wicked and
salvation for the righteous-
All shall hereafter be for the best.”

Or was it referring to Zoroaster as the Avesta’s version of the “chosen one” – considering the message of the god, Ahura Mazda, was taught by the prophet Zoroaster, it’s a fair comparison.

I will give you a victory on the Sirius/Orion Jesus birth story, on the grounds that we both agree that pretty much any “claimed as truth” birth story of Jesus is bogus.

I’m not saying astrology is an explanation of Jesus as a whole, but I am saying that without astrological based religions, we wouldn’t be discussing Christianity right now.

I read something interesting the other day that you may already know, but nonetheless, I think it relates to our discussion in a way.

Up until the 19th century the Iliad was read as Greek history, until a wealthy German archaeologist Heinrich Schliemann spent 20 years and a pile of money excavating the site. Needless to say it showed no evidence of a 10 yearlong Trojan war at that time. The story does however, give a flattering account of Greek history in the same way the exodus gives a flattering account of Jewish liberation and portrays my own ancestors as heroic refugees, written half a millennium after the time period.

It’s interesting that the Iliad formed the foundation of the Greek identity. By placing the heroic events in the far distant past it seems that these stories grow and take on a cultural significance of their own, much like the stories of the Jews and the Christians. In the case of the bible, a large portion of the population hasn’t accepted the overwhelming archaeological evidence (or lack of), although in the case of Homer’s The Odyssey, the evidence was easily accepted.

It’s not difficult to understand why that is, seeing how Christianity and Islam, founded on Judaism, is so vociferously adhered to even in this day and age. I bring it up because it’s odd.

I just want to add a little more about Platonism, I may have glossed over that name a little quickly in my last post, and seeing how there was a thread going on about the soul. Plato was probably the first philosopher to describe the \"soul\" (man's essence) as being immortal. His theology was a little hard to understand but even concluded that he couldn't verbalize his beliefs, and referred to them as ideas, and even myths. But he was a \"spiritual\" man who lived about 424/423 BC – 348/347 BC

This is a very Christian concept - the immortality of the soul. His was not a \"response\" to Christian doctrine, nor was it a response to anything other than his own thought. He never claimed any visions or epiphanys, but just a man who formulated his ideas.

These are the types of philosophical ideas that permeated the Hellenistic world at the advent (and beyond) of Christianity.

read the psalms. its in there too.

Duper wrote:read the psalms. its in there too.

Sort of...but no. The Hebrew word for soul is nephesh, meaning " a breathing creature" (taking a breath). There really isn't a word in the Hebrew language that describes the soul in terms of what modern english describes. The Hebrew system of thought doesn't include any separation (or combination) of the body and "soul". Those ideas are definitley Greek and Latin in origin.

I think it was Origen Adamantius (185 - 254) who spoke of the Christian soul in terms of an immortal soul that departs the material world to an everlasting reward (or everlasting punishment) - same as Plato.

Not surprising because aside from being an early father of the Christian church, Origen was also an admirer of Plato.