Struggling Christian Needs Advice

[Antlerman]

But then again I have reason to believe "Jesus" is actually the Egyptian Horus, sure there were people named Jesus all around the area, I just dont think the one from the NT is anything but a compilation of stories taken from pagan mytholgy and mystery schools.

 

Gosh...hes such an enigma.

 

Ok, I'll bite. What reason?

I'm thinking that comes back to the things from the Massey thread. At one point early on I was intrigued by that idea, until I learned more how it's really more on superficial comparisons and not the greatest scholarship. I think the ideas of savior gods present in the mystery religions influenced how the Christ Cults fashioned how Jesus looked, but it's not a rip off story as those like Acharya S have made popular from her using those like Massey and Budge.

 

Richard Carrier who is an well known atheist author and historian and actively posts over on infidels.org had this to say in conclusion after examining Acharya S's claims Horis was born of a virgin like Jesus based on the self-taught Egyptologist Gerald Massey's reading of the Luxor inscriptions:

And yet the Christian narratives are, like most myths,

very much original creations

(that's why the two versions--in Matthew and Luke--are so radically different from each other).

Understanding their background and cultural and historical context is certainly helpful, and necessary, but it doesn't lead to any plagiaristic scandal of the sort Acharya S wants there to be

. She may still be right that what we are told is actually a myth about Jesus, not historical fact, but that is a conclusion that requires a lot more evidence than what we find at Luxor.

Acharya S. bases her thoughts 3rd-hand off of Massey and cannot provide any direct evidence or support in other any modern scholars. The typical responses to that is that it's all some religious conspiracy to hide the truth because it makes them uncomfortable. That off course is curious since so many liberal scholars have no issues in recognizing the mythical nature of the stories and that Jesus was no real god.

 

I avoid these sorts of things as they are too easy too shoot down, plus don't go far enough to incorporate the things that scholarship is actually showing us, which when you dig into it shows a far more intriguing and realistic development of the myth. Massey wrote at the end of the 1800's, plus was influenced by Budge (whom scholars do roll their eyes at as bad). Not that this means Massey necessarily was a "bad" scholar, but you have to take into account how much has been learned since then and how dated he is. To take what he says as a source of authority is improper. He's not referenced by modern scholars as authoritative. You would think you'd have to cite that evidence directly, or modern scholars working off the texts directly who can be considered authoritative.

[mwc]

So you're saying that if there was a real Jesus who lived and taught in Galilee, the he would not have spoken in Aramaic? That that's not what they spoke there? Or what are you saying?

 

In looking at what I posted above explaining the views of scholars who argue for Aramaic Primacy, I'd say that those are lists of reasons that go well beyond "just because". Why do you believe otherwise? Just because? I'm interested in hearing you reasons for dismissing Aramaic.

Because it's a sneaky argument and you know it.

 

Let me answer it this way. A great many people did speak Aramaic (not all of course). This does not establish an oral tradition for the gospels nor does it establish a "jesus" of any sort. I'm sure I've left an opening in there somewhere but I'm pressed for time today (unlike most every other day ).

 

What's odd is that I'm discussing this at all since I only jumped in to correct a statement about the perception of 1C CE hades (which seems to have been dropped).

 

mwc

[mwc]

My point was that the Aramaic words are indications that he probably spoke in Aramaic and in these cases, the authors didn't want to translate his specific words. The other sayings are repeated (in translation) enough that if they aren't his words, he certainly was associated with those teachings. Neither Thomas nor Mark are too late to have been written by contemporaries, and Matthew and Luke are probably compilations of the teachings of Jesus' followers, either in Turkey or Jerusalem and the East.

The "he" you refer to has not been established so therefore the language that this "he" would have spoken cannot be established either. If you wish to say Aramaic since many people spoke that language then feel free to say that. Greek would be a great choice as well. Why not Swahili why you're at it? The "he" can speak any language you choose. Establish the "he" then pick a language. Then you can go on to whether there are any "teachings" or not. You're jumping the gun.

 

And if you want to dismiss "jesus" as Greek, that's fine. I am only using that name as convention dictates. I prefer his real name, Y'shua, anyway. It is rather ironic that the church insists on using Greek and Romanized names instead of his Aramaic or Jewish one... which of course, Anglicizes as Joshua.

Are there any sources that actually refer to a "jesus" as "Y'shua?" Nope. Not to my knowledge. Didn't happen. Modern wishful thinking. Joshua is "jesus" thanks to the LXX which is what the authors were reading. No "Y'shua." No "jesus." But I hear he taught in Aramaic from his state of non-existence. Good stuff.

 

mwc

[chefranden]

What? 1. You don't like The Gospels according to Thomas, Mark, Matthew or Luke? 2. You think they are all made up? 3. Made up from what or where?

 

1. I like Thomas the best.

 

2. Yes they were made up.

 

3. Most likely from a pot full of wine, but maybe a bad mushroom on a steak.

[chefranden]

So, my questions to you are: how do you view the topic of Hell? Especially the Calvinist view of we all "deserve" it?

 

Thanks for your time.

 

My view of Hell, Gaza.

 

Seriously though there is no hell and no god to send you there.

 

The reason the topic doesn't make sense to you is because the topic actually doesn't make sense. Therefore your confusion is quite sensible.

[Antlerman]

So you're saying that if there was a real Jesus who lived and taught in Galilee, the he would not have spoken in Aramaic? That that's not what they spoke there? Or what are you saying?

 

In looking at what I posted above explaining the views of scholars who argue for Aramaic Primacy, I'd say that those are lists of reasons that go well beyond "just because". Why do you believe otherwise? Just because? I'm interested in hearing you reasons for dismissing Aramaic.

Because it's a sneaky argument and you know it.

 

Let me answer it this way. A great many people did speak Aramaic (not all of course). This does not establish an oral tradition for the gospels nor does it establish a "jesus" of any sort. I'm sure I've left an opening in there somewhere but I'm pressed for time today (unlike most every other day ).

 

What's odd is that I'm discussing this at all since I only jumped in to correct a statement about the perception of 1C CE hades (which seems to have been dropped).

 

mwc

Actually no, I don't know this is a sneaky argument. How so? If you suspect its one that ropes someone into a corner arguing for what Jesus spoke and thereby acknowledging he existed, you missed how I asked the question. To repeat, "if there was a real Jesus who lived and taught in Galilee, then he would not have spoken in Aramaic?" It's no set up at all. It can be a hypothetical person not Jesus. If there was some individual who taught in Galilee, for arguments' sake, and later traditions grew up around him and got written down, why is it considered unlikely they would have spoken in Aramaic. Put another way, if the tradition grew out of Galilee, what excludes Aramaic from being the original language? What's your argument for that was my question.

 

It seemed surprising to me the in light of what I posted above you claim that those who think Aramaic was the orignial language are doing so for no other reason than "just because", as you put. I'm just asking for your thought as to why.

[Guest kcdad]

[

Are there any sources that actually refer to a "jesus" as "Y'shua?" Nope. Not to my knowledge. Didn't happen. Modern wishful thinking. Joshua is "jesus" thanks to the LXX which is what the authors were reading. No "Y'shua." No "jesus." But I hear he taught in Aramaic from his state of non-existence. Good stuff.

 

mwc

 

 

Oh I get it. You are a fundamentalists and literalist. Jesus is the Anglicized Greek form of Joshua which is the Anglicized form of the Hebrew Y'shua.

 

And geographically speaking, deNile is in Egypt.. there are two of them. One for them Christians and one for you Atheists.

[Ouroboros]

And geographically speaking, deNile is in Egypt.. there are two of them. One for them Christians and one for you Atheists.

Hey! I resent that generalization. Btw, it has a delta, so there's enough of it to go around to everyone.

[Guest kcdad]

And geographically speaking, deNile is in Egypt.. there are two of them. One for them Christians and one for you Atheists.

Hey! I resent that generalization. Btw, it has a delta, so there's enough of it to go around to everyone.

 

You are ok, Han.

[babysealclubber]

ruanddu,

 

I am an atheist and don't see the bible as representing any kind of authority on the hereafter, or any other subject really. However, if you would like to see one interpretation of the Bible's teaching on hell that I think is somewhat palatable, try reading this:

 

http://www.tentmaker.org/articles/jesusteachingonhell.html

 

I found it to be interesting. Hope you enjoy it, and I hope that you can find some answers to your questions. Welcome.

 

-BSC

[Antlerman]

And geographically speaking, deNile is in Egypt.. there are two of them. One for them Christians and one for you Atheists.

Hey! I resent that generalization. Btw, it has a delta, so there's enough of it to go around to everyone.

 

You are ok, Han.

Yeah, be careful... not all atheism is dry-drunk Christianity.

[Ouroboros]

kcdad,

 

Thanks! It's mutual.

[Ouroboros]

Yeah, be careful... not all atheism is dry-drunk Christianity.

I'm more of the liberal, or secular, atheist, you know... kind of like the Spong version of an atheist!?

[Antlerman]

Yeah, be careful... not all atheism is dry-drunk Christianity.

I'm more of the liberal, or secular, atheist, you know... kind of like the Spong version of an atheist!?

That describes me as well. Damn... Imagine that. Sometimes I see myself as a sort of mystical atheist. No supernatural, makes the exploration of the "immaterial" self a bit freer than confining it to a set of doctrines, either purely naturalistic or theistic. We are the creators of gods, the explorers of our own universe. Hard to do that when you say "this far, and no further". That's what I like about Spong too. He sees no reason to put limits on his views of God. Really its all the same thing, God is an immaterial sense of ourselves we created a face for, and it seems people like him understand that. [/rambling].

[Ouroboros]

That describes me as well. Damn... Imagine that. Sometimes I see myself as a sort of mystical atheist. No supernatural, makes the exploration of the "immaterial" self a bit freer than confining it to a set of doctrines, either purely naturalistic or theistic. We are the creators of gods, the explorers of our own universe. Hard to do that when you say "this far, and no further". That's what I like about Spong too. He sees no reason to put limits on his views of God. Really its all the same thing, God is an immaterial sense of ourselves we created a face for, and it seems people like him understand that. [/rambling].

Yes, I think I understand you. God as the image of our own understanding and explanation of existence. God not as a personal or independent being creating things outside of his own existence, but rather God as the whole, all, universal existence of everything. Nature is God, We are God, and God is us. Not a personal God, but God as reality, good and bad.

[mwc]

Oh I get it. You are a fundamentalists and literalist. Jesus is the Anglicized Greek form of Joshua which is the Anglicized form of the Hebrew Y'shua.

 

And geographically speaking, deNile is in Egypt.. there are two of them. One for them Christians and one for you Atheists.

Oh. Ow. Call me when you actually do get it since you've said nothing of value here.

 

mwc

[Guest kcdad]

That describes me as well. Damn... Imagine that. Sometimes I see myself as a sort of mystical atheist. No supernatural, makes the exploration of the "immaterial" self a bit freer than confining it to a set of doctrines, either purely naturalistic or theistic. We are the creators of gods, the explorers of our own universe. Hard to do that when you say "this far, and no further". That's what I like about Spong too. He sees no reason to put limits on his views of God. Really its all the same thing, God is an immaterial sense of ourselves we created a face for, and it seems people like him understand that. [/rambling].

Yes, I think I understand you. God as the image of our own understanding and explanation of existence. God not as a personal or independent being creating things outside of his own existence, but rather God as the whole, all, universal existence of everything. Nature is God, We are God, and God is us. Not a personal God, but God as reality, good and bad.

 

 

In Germany they say Gott is GUT... (God is good).. but I really think they mean Grand Unifying Theory. I believe... dang it, I hate that word.. I think... no better... er... I suspect that whatever is the "secret" of the universe, the ultimate Sacred of all existence, is some simple mathematical or chemical formula like F=MA or Newtons laws of motion, and in there is where I see God. The ultimate source and explanation of all existence and substance... as Tillich said: The Ground of Being. So Yes, I am a Doxic Atheist. (OFF TOPIC: I have a colleague who is a Jewish Atheist... he says that only requirement to being Jewish is to "live as if there were a God". It is a religion of praxis, not belief.

[Ouroboros]

In Germany they say Gott is GUT... (God is good).. but I really think they mean Grand Unifying Theory.

Or they mean God is the gut feeling they get sometimes after eating to many frijoles.

 

I believe... dang it, I hate that word..

Agree. It means too many things to be real specific and useful, and yet that's the first one that comes to mind when I want to explain my opinions.

 

I think... no better... er... I suspect that whatever is the "secret" of the universe, the ultimate Sacred of all existence, is some simple mathematical or chemical formula like F=MA or Newtons laws of motion, and in there is where I see God. The ultimate source and explanation of all existence and substance... as Tillich said: The Ground of Being. So Yes, I am a Doxic Atheist. (OFF TOPIC: I have a colleague who is a Jewish Atheist... he says that only requirement to being Jewish is to "live as if there were a God". It is a religion of praxis, not belief.

So true. I call myself a pragmatic atheist, I think, live, act, like an atheist, basically in all practical terms an atheist, but it doesn't necessarily mean I can't be open about all the other beliefs. And I can understand people who live as they were religious, even if they don't believe in it. It's kind of like celebrating Halloween, without necessarily believing in ghosts or monsters--it's just all fun and entertaining.

 

A while back I read in a science magazine a comment that struck me quite deeply. It led me to understand that if we hold on to that our mind and consciousness is the result of natural processes of matter and energy, and that the construct of the universe is contingent to the event of the Big Bang, then the foundation for consciousness was already in place at Big Bang, and the consciousness was inevitable. Or should I say that all the parts for the consciousness to exist must exist within the universe, which means it also had to exist within the hot, fiery ball of chaos, which existed "before" the Big Bang. Big Bang is the God of Creation, and the Universe is the God of Continuity. We're part of this and we are this. I find it amazing enough. Our worship is when we admire the universe, and our good act is when we care for all this which we're part of.

[mwc]

Actually no, I don't know this is a sneaky argument. How so? If you suspect its one that ropes someone into a corner arguing for what Jesus spoke and thereby acknowledging he existed, you missed how I asked the question. To repeat, "if there was a real Jesus who lived and taught in Galilee, then he would not have spoken in Aramaic?" It's no set up at all. It can be a hypothetical person not Jesus. If there was some individual who taught in Galilee, for arguments' sake, and later traditions grew up around him and got written down, why is it considered unlikely they would have spoken in Aramaic. Put another way, if the tradition grew out of Galilee, what excludes Aramaic from being the original language? What's your argument for that was my question.

Well, I answered the question that allowed for the speaking of Aramaic no matter who may, or may not have, been alive or even existed. So it seems we can move on.

 

What tradition came from Galilee? Do you mean the gospel traditions? If so, then you're talking Rome, Alexandria and possibly up further north around Syria (now Turkey). No Galilee. Galilee is featured as a location but poorly so as is the rest of that area.

 

On the other hand if you're talking purely hypothetical cases then I can give purely hypothetical answers. In the area of Galilee were any number of villages. They could have contained Jews. These Jews may have spoken Aramaic. They may have spoken Hebrew. They would have possibly had a roughly 10% literacy rate in Hebrew so they could study the Torah. Also in this same area were a number of large Hellenized cities. These would have had both Jews and "Gentiles" within them. The Jews would have still been highly literate but the others at the much lower rate of about 2-3% and they would have been versed largely in Greek and to a lesser extent Latin. So where does your hypothetical person hail from? Who did he study under? Who did he mingle with? What cities did he frequent? What did he use his literacy for? Who was this person in general? We need to know so we can figure out all of these things? Do you know? I bet you do not. So he's a Jew that reads and writes Aramaic since that only makes sense despite all the real possibilities in the area of Galilee. You know better than that.

 

It seemed surprising to me the in light of what I posted above you claim that those who think Aramaic was the orignial language are doing so for no other reason than "just because", as you put. I'm just asking for your thought as to why.

You're right. I'm should at least offer some sort of logical reason for going with Greek that you can see. How about this. The Soreg. It was a boundary marker inside Herod's temple warning Gentile's not to cross that line on penalty of death. That means either a lot of people simply wondered aimlessly to their death or a lot of people could read Greek. There is no Aramaic on it. It's not a Rosetta stone. This means that if you whether you were, or weren't, a Jew you had to be able to read what was on this thing (or you'd have to find someone to read it to you) so you wouldn't die. If Aramaic was the common language we'd expect to see more items like this marker with Aramaic on them but we don't. It's Greek. Even in the Jewish areas. They could read Greek even though they may have spoke Aramaic. It wasn't until after the Jewish wars that they went back to using Hebrew, not Aramaic, on things like their coins (which were also Greek until then).

 

Does that explain it? Lots of Greek in the Jewish culture. Lots and lots of Greek. And it only got worse in the Diaspora. Considering that Galilee never fully assimilated to begin with are you really surprised they might also have Greek in that area as well? Especially since Herod's kids were keen on Rome? This Aramaic movement is all new stuff but as I said there isn't one ancient writer that hints that there was an Aramaic in the writings. Hebrew was hinted at by the highly unreliable Papias but that's not really such a great endorsement (though Hebrew is more believable).

 

mwc