Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 04-08-2012, 09:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

I like you GDon this is easy

Until you ask GDon if the resurrection was an historical event. You don't seem to understand that GDon is likely to worship Jesus and may believe the resurrected Jesus is the Universal Savior of all mankind.

Just ask GDon if his historical Jesus had a human father!!!

steve_bnk · 04-08-2012, 11:32 PM

My point is the ancient Jewish writers and the giospel writers woul.d be sitting around discussing or thinking what to write.

Monotheism was not unique when Moses came down form the mopuntain. Flood stories were around when Noah was written. If you look at a map of where it all happened, it is a small area. Stories would be in circulation.

Aesop's writings were popular in his day.

God incarnate saving the world would not have been a new story. I find it hard to imagine the gospel writers came up with the ideas out of thin air.

The modern detective novel traces its roots back quite a ways.

'It was a dark and stormy night..' a line used by a number or writers with an unknown origin.

The gospels make sense when you look at it as literature. Writers educated enough to write the gospels would likely have been aware of histories, literature, and myths.

Voice of reason · 04-09-2012, 03:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

is all her work this crappy??????????

Quote:

The sun's "birth" is attended by the "bright Star" either Sirius/Sothis or the planet Venus, and by the "Three Kings," representing the three stars in the belt of Orion.

not a single Israeli ever or ancient hebrew uttered the word 3 kings once refering to Orions belt.

Orions belt is mentioned many times in the bible, but never is that phrase used.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orion_(constellation)

Orion's Belt is called Drie Konings (Three Kings) or the Drie Susters (Three Sisters) by Afrikaans speakers in South Africa[2] and are referred to as les Trois Rois (the Three Kings) in Daudet's Lettres de Mon Moulin (1866). The appellation Driekoningen (the Three Kings) is also often found in 17th- and 18th-century Dutch star charts and seaman's guides. The same three stars are known in Spain and Latin America as "Orión

NOW lets get on to the terms jews/hebrews are known to use.

The Bible mentions Orion three times, naming it "Kesil" (כסיל, literally - fool. Though, this name perhaps is etymologically connected with "Kislev", the name for the ninth month of the Hebrew calendar (i.e. November-December), which, in turn, may derive from the Hebrew root K-S-L as in the words "kesel, kisla" (כֵּסֶל ,כִּסְלָה, hope, positiveness), i.e. hope for winter rains.): Job 9:9 ("He is the maker of the Bear and Orion"), Job 38:31 ("Can you loosen Orion`s belt?"), and Amos 5:8 ("He who made the Pleiades and Orion"). In ancient Aram, the constellation was known as Nephîlā′, the Nephilim may have been Orion's descendants

So what if Israeli or Hebrews ever uttered 3 Kings. It is not relevant

It is in the new testament and it parallels the Zodiac.

Voice of reason · 04-09-2012, 03:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

Quote:

So don't let the nay-sayers get to you!

this is just a matter of education

everyone of her statements are a stretch of the imagination, created to connect non existant dots :tombstone:

The FACT's are that there is no connection to sun worship as a large part of judaism.

"IF" they had worshipped the sun as a deity it would have been very evident. there would be no need to use imagination and ignornace to try and pass this BS off.

Judaism? I am talking about Christianity NOT Judaism which the link I provide talks about.

It is apparent you know nothing about the zodiac and did not read the link I provided.

The zodiac is not broad it is pretty exacting such as when Leo is on the horizen Aquarius is starting to come back up. This is a fact of astronomy and exactly in the bible this is when John the Baptist (Aquarius) is said to be resurrected.

Or Sagitarius the hunter who hunts and kills things and in the Jesus story he is hunted and killed. I see no stretch I see the Jesus story simply being an allegory.

The link I provided is by an educated person Craig M. Lyons Ms.D., D.D., M.Div.

Jason · 04-09-2012, 11:04 AM

I'm not usually one to venture into an analysis overtly Christian themes (sincerely or otherwise), but this thread reminds me of something I wrote yesterday. While mostly B.S. I wrote because I was bored and forced to watch the 1961 epic King of Kings after dinner last night, I found potential parallels between the story of Jesus' resurrection and Freud's conception of Eros and Thanatos:

Quote:

Ah, Easter. The season of Cadbury eggs, people in rabbit suits, and never ending replays of King of Kings. A time meant for reflection upon the almost unbelievable account of one man's victory over death itself, who Paul taunts by asking, "Where, O death, is your victory? Where, O death, is your sting?" But while Paul's words at 1 Cor 15:55 refer specifically to Jesus' resurrection, I see within them a deeper, existential challenge to the seemingly final end of life, and to the eternal emptiness that threateningly looms beyond.

At some deep, subconscious level, there's a constant fear of death buried within the human heart, a fear embedded in its deepest, darkest recesses by eons of evolution, an overwhelming instinct to survive. And this fear of death, of nonexistence, translates into love of life, a defiance of death, and a desire to live in some way forever, a desire for immortality. And in the story of Jesus' resurrection, we have the personification of this desire for immortality, and the promise of complete victory over death. It's a comforting image, and it's difficult not to appreciate that the idea of his resurrection resonances with many on a deeply emotional level regardless of its actual occurrence. I, too, find it a stirring tale.

On the other hand, as strange as it may seem on the face of it, I find a part of myself agreeing with Mephistopheles in his preference for the promise of eternal emptiness, which immediately brings to mind Freud's conception of Eros and Thanatos, love and death. The former, Eros, love, libido, or whatever you want to call it, was seen by Freud as a constructive and binding force, and corresponds to our innate drive to survive, our love of life, and in this case, our desire for immortality in the form of the resurrected Jesus. The latter, Thanatos or the death drive, which Freud thought the root of our aggressive and self-destructive tendencies, corresponds to Mephistopheles' poetic praise of eternal emptiness, of complete and utter annihilation, our self-destructive behaviour in the form of Judas, who betrayed Jesus, and the Roman soldiers who crucified him.

It may be a bit of a stretch, but I can't help thinking that a Hegelian or Marxist versed in Freud, or vice versa, might see these two conflicting forces in the context of a dialectical relationship, which can be seen as a mechanism for change and progression in both the individual as well as society, neither giving either force an absolute existence nor denying them completely. Perhaps these things are simply an expression of an ever-evolving consciousness in an ever-evolving universe, a reflection of the psychological contradictions that drive all human endeavors forward.

From this point of view, Judas and those who crucified God in the flesh are just as important as the resurrected Jesus himself, with each representing the opposing creative and destructive forces within ourselves; and our spiritual evolution requires the resolution of tensions between the two in the form of the risen Jesus. Easter, then, might be seen as a subconscious acknowledgement of the dialectical relationship between Eros and Thanatos, between life and death, between immortality and the void. And Jesus, who personifies a deified Eros, must rise from the dead so that Hades, who may be seen as a biblical personification of the death drive, never has the final say.

The focus is on Jesus simply because he plays a duel role in the relationship. As Eros, he represents the vitality of life and the desire for immortality, which is ultimately negated by death. But he also represents the synthesis in his resurrected form, the resolution of the tensions between the seeming futility of life and apparent finality of death, between the conflicting drives to create and to destroy. And his victory over death, his resurrection, represents life's struggle to survive, to replenish itself, to reproduce, to overcome, and which manifests in us as the desire to live forever through our creations and offspring. In fact, the story of Jesus' resurrection can even be seen as an elaborate, mythologized affirmation of Dr. Ian Malcolm's (Jeff Goldblum) aphorism in The Lost World: Jurassic Park, "Life will find a way."

Just thought I'd share it here for your amusement.

Roger Pearse · 04-09-2012, 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Voice of reason

So many parallels I am convinced that Jesus is merely the personification of the sun going through the zodiac it is crystal clear.

Indeed. Likewise there are pyramids in Egypt and pyramids in Mexico. That PROVES that Atlantis must have existed!!!!

All the best,

Roger Pearse

seeker · 04-09-2012, 11:38 AM

I think it's easy to forget that this is a story that was pretty obviously embellished by its authors. Whoever authored the Gospel of Mark undoubtedly built in astrological imagery to enhance the divinity of Jesus just as writers of the various books of the OT used numerology to enhance their religious claims.

There are enough geographical inconsistencies in the gospels to clearly suggest that they weren't recorded by anyone who actually lived in Palestine and the fact that that were written at least thirty years after the events described makes it likely that a lot of details were, lets be generous and say re-constructed. The greatest likelihood is that the author of Mark built the gospel around a few notions he had about Jesus and then fleshed the story out using astrology as a sort of template.

Alternatively the story told in Mark could well have been based on a theatrical work. It isn't that big a stretch to suppose that someone would have written a play about one of the many delusional claimants to the title of Messiah that inhabited Palestine in that era.

outhouse · 04-09-2012, 11:58 AM

steve we need to get you inline with history first

Quote:

My point is the ancient Jewish writers and the giospel writers woul.d be sitting around discussing or thinking what to write.

these were not jewish writers.

paul and how jewish he was is contested as he was roman born, a jew head hunter, a criminal, but most of all, a want-to-be apostle

the only write who has a possibility of being jewish would be the unknown author of Matthew, but since he is using teh roman/gentile verion laid before him. i think he was just installing more roots of judaism back into the movement that was going away. Due to the geographic location this was written, it makes perfect sense.

Quote:

Monotheism was not unique when Moses came down form the mopuntain.

Moses didnt exist, never!

nor does he have anything to do with monotheism or the polytheism hebrews started to ditch around 622BC

Quote:

Flood stories were around when Noah was written.

noah is fictional, and the flood legends all existed in oral tradion from when the Euphrates overflowed in 2900BC and started ALL the legends in the area.

Quote:

Writers educated enough to write the gospels would likely have been aware of histories, literature, and myths

yes and all the mythical content of that time was used in building Bjesus

mythers screw up badly but not realizing all the mythical parrallels are already in the bible.

of couse if they ever took the time to read it, they'd know it

outhouse · 04-09-2012, 12:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Voice of reason

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

is all her work this crappy??????????

not a single Israeli ever or ancient hebrew uttered the word 3 kings once refering to Orions belt.

Orions belt is mentioned many times in the bible, but never is that phrase used.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orion_(constellation)

Orion's Belt is called Drie Konings (Three Kings) or the Drie Susters (Three Sisters) by Afrikaans speakers in South Africa[2] and are referred to as les Trois Rois (the Three Kings) in Daudet's Lettres de Mon Moulin (1866). The appellation Driekoningen (the Three Kings) is also often found in 17th- and 18th-century Dutch star charts and seaman's guides. The same three stars are known in Spain and Latin America as "Orión

NOW lets get on to the terms jews/hebrews are known to use.

The Bible mentions Orion three times, naming it "Kesil" (כסיל, literally - fool. Though, this name perhaps is etymologically connected with "Kislev", the name for the ninth month of the Hebrew calendar (i.e. November-December), which, in turn, may derive from the Hebrew root K-S-L as in the words "kesel, kisla" (כֵּסֶל ,כִּסְלָה, hope, positiveness), i.e. hope for winter rains.): Job 9:9 ("He is the maker of the Bear and Orion"), Job 38:31 ("Can you loosen Orion`s belt?"), and Amos 5:8 ("He who made the Pleiades and Orion"). In ancient Aram, the constellation was known as Nephîlā′, the Nephilim may have been Orion's descendants

So what if Israeli or Hebrews ever uttered 3 Kings. It is not relevant

It is in the new testament and it parallels the Zodiac.

that line is installed preying on the ignorance of the audience.

suckers dont know the first thing about history and eat this stuff up.

look at how many hits that jerk zitgeist gets, but that doesnt make this garbage true.

there may be small slight connections that were originally rooted in judaism from its polytheistic past, that doesnt mean the NT authors followed them.

At this point your playing connect the dots with imagination.

there is no connection to the zodiac as presented

outhouse · 04-09-2012, 12:08 PM

Quote:

The link I provided is by an educated person Craig M. Lyons Ms.D., D.D., M.Div

is a nut job laughed out of modern scholarships.

Quote:

Judaism? I am talking about Christianity NOT Judaism which the link I provide talks about.

this is showing your ignorance my friend.

its best if you quit embarrassing yourself.

just when do you think christianity could be labeled as such?? before the gospels were written?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-08-2012, 11:32 PM	#32
steve_bnk Contributor Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Seattle Posts: 27,602	My point is the ancient Jewish writers and the giospel writers woul.d be sitting around discussing or thinking what to write. Monotheism was not unique when Moses came down form the mopuntain. Flood stories were around when Noah was written. If you look at a map of where it all happened, it is a small area. Stories would be in circulation. Aesop's writings were popular in his day. God incarnate saving the world would not have been a new story. I find it hard to imagine the gospel writers came up with the ideas out of thin air. The modern detective novel traces its roots back quite a ways. 'It was a dark and stormy night..' a line used by a number or writers with an unknown origin. The gospels make sense when you look at it as literature. Writers educated enough to write the gospels would likely have been aware of histories, literature, and myths.

04-09-2012, 11:38 AM	#37
seeker Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: US Posts: 748	I think it's easy to forget that this is a story that was pretty obviously embellished by its authors. Whoever authored the Gospel of Mark undoubtedly built in astrological imagery to enhance the divinity of Jesus just as writers of the various books of the OT used numerology to enhance their religious claims. There are enough geographical inconsistencies in the gospels to clearly suggest that they weren't recorded by anyone who actually lived in Palestine and the fact that that were written at least thirty years after the events described makes it likely that a lot of details were, lets be generous and say re-constructed. The greatest likelihood is that the author of Mark built the gospel around a few notions he had about Jesus and then fleshed the story out using astrology as a sort of template. Alternatively the story told in Mark could well have been based on a theatrical work. It isn't that big a stretch to suppose that someone would have written a play about one of the many delusional claimants to the title of Messiah that inhabited Palestine in that era.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.