Religions of Abraham Backwards?

[Bleed S & G]

Interpretting differently? Have you read Luke 1 and 2? Matthew 1? I don't understand how you interpret those passages into "not born of virgin."

This is a diffrent topic.. but I'll bite..

The story of Christmas, IMHO, is not even up for debate on being false.

You do know the Cathlioc church handpicked books for the bible right? Back to the point of this thread, it's all a fucking game.

You do know there are many, MANY more books that were passed over by this "church" because of one reason or another..

I mean, let's look at how the Christian faith really started making progress - in a WAR when an Emperor saw crosses on the sheilds. Yup, sure sounds like Jesus' religion to me.

Forget that you and I don't see eye to eye on Jesus being G-d.. you really think the Christian faith, as an instution, is Christian? I think they are the furthest thing from Jesus' message as possible. That's what I'm getting at - I don't want to debate Jesus being G-d in this thread - go start another, get all your bible verse ready - and then I'll come debate it.

I'm sure 99% of your "evidence" will be in the "letter's to" books - again, how did those books even get in the bible?

Through the "power of the spirit" or through man's corruption of the word?

What's your interpetation? Deception - or - Truth? Well, how is one to make this judgement?

Jesus said by the fruits of the tree.. how do those fruits look?

Genocide, murdering, child molesting.. and it's not like this is in the last week, or year.. it's been going on for 2,000 years.

Again, some pretty shitty fruits - if you ask me.

 

[Bleed S & G]

I left out why the story of Christmas is bogus..

Every culture has a similiar story that pre-dates Jesus' time.. it's the story of the winter solstace. It's early man passing down a story over generations.

The son of god, who was born of the virgin mary, hung on the cross for 3 days and rose..

Why do you think it's the 25th of December? Picked the date out of a hat??

The 21st - the Sun hangs on the Southern Crux - signalling the end of winter - on the 3rd day, December 25th, the Sun starts climbing in the sky (rising from the dead) to start spring - signalling life for man, animals, plants, etc.

 

[muffler dragon]

Interpretting differently? Have you read Luke 1 and 2? Matthew 1? I don't understand how you interpret those passages into "not born of virgin."

Do you mean besides the authors misinterpreting Isaiah or the context of Isaiah 7 AND 8? :tongue2:

 

[Bleed S & G]

Ahh, I'm so far off topic from where I want this thing to go - but here's some more on "Christmas"

ANCIENT ROME: Saturnalia began as a feast day for Saturn on DEC-17 and of Ops (DEC-19). About 50 BCE, both were later converted into two day celebrations. During the Empire, the festivals were combined to cover a full week: DEC-17 to 23.

By the third century CE, there were many religions and spiritual mysteries being followed within the Roman Empire. Many, if not most, celebrated the birth of their god-man near the time of the solstice. Emperor Aurelian (270 to 275 CE) blended a number of Pagan solstice celebrations of the nativity of such god-men/saviors as Appolo, Attis, Baal, Dionysus, Helios, Hercules, Horus, Mithra, Osiris, Perseus, and Theseus into a single festival called the "Birthday of the Unconquered Sun" on DEC-25. At the time, Mithraism and Christianity were fierce competitors. Aurelian had even declared Mithraism the official religion of the Roman Empire in 274 CE. Christianity won out by becoming the new official religion in the 4th century CE.

CHRISTIANITY: Any record of the date of birth of Yeshua of Nazareth (later known as Jesus Christ) has been lost. There is sufficient evidence in the Gospels to indicate that Yeshua was born in the fall, but this seems to have been unknown to early Christians. By the beginning of the 4th century CE, there was intense interest in choosing a day to celebrate Yeshua's birthday. The western church leaders selected DEC-25 because this was already the date recognized throughout the Roman Empire as the birthday of various Pagan gods. 1,2 Since there was no central Christian authority at the time, it took centuries before the tradition was universally accepted:

Eastern churches began to celebrate Christmas after 375 CE.

The church in Jerusalem started in the 7th century.

Ireland started in the 5th century

Austria, England and Switzerland in the 8th

Slavic lands in the 9th and 10th centuries. 3
Many symbols and practices associated with Christmas are of Pagan origin: holly, ivy, mistletoe, yule log, the giving of gifts, decorated evergreen tree, magical reindeer, etc. Polydor Virgil, a 15th century British Christian, said "Dancing, masques, mummeries, stageplays, and other such Christmas disorders now in use with Christians, were derived from these Roman Saturnalian and Bacchanalian festivals; which should cause all pious Christians eternally to abominate them." In Massachusetts, Puritans unsuccessfully tried to ban Christmas entirely during the 17th century, because of its heathenism. The English Parliament abolished Christmas in 1647. Some contemporary Christian faith groups do not celebrate Christmas. Included among these was the Worldwide Church of God (before its recent conversion to Evangelical Christianity) and the Jehovah's Witnesses.

Winter solstice celebrations of Christianity, Judaism, Neopaganism, etc

Reconcile it any way you need to, I'm just going off the fruits.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Why do you think it's the 25th of December? Picked the date out of a hat??

The 21st - the Sun hangs on the Southern Crux - signalling the BEGINNING of winter - on the 3rd day, December 25th, the Sun starts climbing in the sky (rising from the dead) to start spring - signalling life for man, animals, plants, etc.

Correction. The Winter Solstice signals the beginning of winter, not the end. It is the end of Fall. I don't think that changes your point, just making the correction.

 

[t_BuckeyeScott]

This is a diffrent topic.. but I'll bite..

The story of Christmas, IMHO, is not even up for debate on being false.

You do know the Cathlioc church handpicked books for the bible right? Back to the point of this thread, it's all a fucking game.

You do know there are many, MANY more books that were passed over by this "church" because of one reason or another..

I mean, let's look at how the Christian faith really started making progress - in a WAR when an Emperor saw crosses on the sheilds. Yup, sure sounds like Jesus' religion to me.

Forget that you and I don't see eye to eye on Jesus being G-d.. you really think the Christian faith, as an instution, is Christian? I think they are the furthest thing from Jesus' message as possible. That's what I'm getting at - I don't want to debate Jesus being G-d in this thread - go start another, get all your bible verse ready - and then I'll come debate it.

I'm sure 99% of your "evidence" will be in the "letter's to" books - again, how did those books even get in the bible?

Through the "power of the spirit" or through man's corruption of the word?

What's your interpetation? Deception - or - Truth? Well, how is one to make this judgement?

Jesus said by the fruits of the tree.. how do those fruits look?

Genocide, murdering, child molesting.. and it's not like this is in the last week, or year.. it's been going on for 2,000 years.

Again, some pretty shitty fruits - if you ask me.

I'm not a catholic. I've read plenty of church history, maybe not as much as BGrad or some others. I'm really comfortable that it wasn't the catholic church that "chose" the books of the Bible. I actually just went through a class where I learned (most of which I forgot) that the council just affirmed what was already accepted. Some of the earliest matching compilations that we have today are still in between 100 AD and 200 AD Well before any Roman Catholic Church. BGrad posted a very good article (probably a couple of years ago) about it that I can' find now. I'm very comfortable with the canon having nothing to do with the Roman Catholic Church.

Futhermore, I do certainly believe that Satan has in some ways gotten into the church. Which is far different than saying he got into the Word. I do believe there are genuinely evil people who claim to follow Jesus. Why wouldn't Satan use this? However, it is not the Pope's of the middle ages that decided on the canonicty. So I don't need the guys who started the crusades, or the spanish inquisition, or child molesting to validate what I believe. I agree with the fruits of the tree. But the fruits are to evaluate the people not the Word.

On Christmas, say we have the date wrong what does that really matter? I've seen sholarly work both for and against, both outside the Catholic church, the Dec 25. So Christian's want to pick a date to celebrate Jesus coming to the earth. I don't see how that further's your argument.

You're real argument is that the canon books of the NT aren't really scripture and because of that you can claim that Jesus wasn't God. Don't tell me about the church's horrible actions in the 15th century to invalidate what people far and wide were accepting in the 2nd. It matters not. You've got to bring something better than that.

 

[t_BuckeyeScott]

Do you mean besides the authors misinterpreting Isaiah or the context of Isaiah 7 AND 8? :tongue2:

Hey Muff,
No, I don't think that's germane to the discussion of S & G and I are having. I understand whether it could lead you to accept a truth to the NT as a whole but if you're going to take straight out of a Gospel account and then deny stuff from the same gospel account I think that 's another problem entirely.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

This may be the most interesting thing you said. And maybe the only time I've heard it.

It's almost like we need a poll.

All I can remember is quotes like "Life ain't supposed to be easy, kid."

But really I think this is the second time you've said something the opposite of what I thought was accepted by everyone. The other one being contention with the idea that self sacrifice isn't the highest form of showing love.
I find this interesting.

Not to side track the thread.... but.. Life is suppose to be easy. I suppose we could look at this from any sort of perspective we might choose... a more "obvious" way might be in consideration of the saying that life is a "Gift"

I mean, when I give gifts - it is so that the individual I award that gift to is brought happiness on some level... it makes their life easier.. it brings them pleasure.. whatever... I would expect an gift from G-d to be of that same kind, no?

Now, I am purposely ignoring "hard learned lessons" which are, of course benefits and themselves gifts.. there's merit to those discussions... I'm just trying to limit what I'm trying to say for purposes here (thread/post length, if nothing else).

Anyway... my Mom was quite Christian in her beliefs, and she had arrived at that conclusion - that life is meant to be enjoyed.. is meant to be fun.. not work.. a long time ago. During her life, while I tried, I was never truly able to operate that way. I saw life as "work" quite a bit, that is to say. Almost a punishment, in a lot of ways.

Now that I've seen a different perspective, I've not only found life a lot more enjoyable (and consequently, successful) but I feel like I "get" something now as it concerns my relationship with the Father. I don't know... maybe it took for me to be a parent before I really ever understood what LOVE is.

 

[Bleed S & G]

I'm not a catholic. I've read plenty of church history, maybe not as much as BGrad or some others. I'm really comfortable that it wasn't the catholic church that "chose" the books of the Bible. I actually just went through a class where I learned (most of which I forgot) that the council just affirmed what was already accepted. Some of the earliest matching compilations that we have today are still in between 100 AD and 200 AD Well before any Roman Catholic Church. BGrad posted a very good article (probably a couple of years ago) about it that I can' find now. I'm very comfortable with the canon having nothing to do with the Roman Catholic Church.

Futhermore, I do certainly believe that Satan has in some ways gotten into the church. Which is far different than saying he got into the Word. I do believe there are genuinely evil people who claim to follow Jesus. Why wouldn't Satan use this? However, it is not the Pope's of the middle ages that decided on the canonicty. So I don't need the guys who started the crusades, or the spanish inquisition, or child molesting to validate what I believe. I agree with the fruits of the tree. But the fruits are to evaluate the people not the Word.

On Christmas, say we have the date wrong what does that really matter? I've seen sholarly work both for and against, both outside the Catholic church, the Dec 25. So Christian's want to pick a date to celebrate Jesus coming to the earth. I don't see how that further's your argument.

You're real argument is that the canon books of the NT aren't really scripture and because of that you can claim that Jesus wasn't God. Don't tell me about the church's horrible actions in the 15th century to invalidate what people far and wide were accepting in the 2nd. It matters not. You've got to bring something better than that.

 

[muffler dragon]

Hey Muff,
No, I don't think that's germane to the discussion of S & G and I are having. I understand whether it could lead you to accept a truth to the NT as a whole but if you're going to take straight out of a Gospel account and then deny stuff from the same gospel account I think that 's another problem entirely.

I believe I am following what you're saying. (essentially, you're "picking and choosing" comments before, correct?)

No problem whatsoever. Carry on, and I will simply observe. :)

 

[AKAK]

Just to play Devil's Advocate here...


Oh, wait.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

I'm not a catholic. I've read plenty of church history, maybe not as much as BGrad or some others. I'm really comfortable that it wasn't the catholic church that "chose" the books of the Bible. I actually just went through a class where I learned (most of which I forgot) that the council just affirmed what was already accepted. Some of the earliest matching compilations that we have today are still in between 100 AD and 200 AD Well before any Roman Catholic Church. BGrad posted a very good article (probably a couple of years ago) about it that I can' find now. I'm very comfortable with the canon having nothing to do with the Roman Catholic Church.

But, don't we have to agree that, whoever it was...it was MAN choosing what books to include and which to discard? (I realize that you are of the position that G-d directed those decisions, but isn't it "reasonable" nonetheless to see it as a man made religion in this circumstance?)

"Catholic," I think, was originally used to mean "universal" and... thus the Apostle's creed, which mentioned "I believe in one catholic church" is NOT a reference to what we call Catholicism today. (not saying your post suggests you didn't already know that...)

 

[Ttown]

This is easier over on ESPN boards. All they do is drink beer, talk sports and bash tOSU.

 

[t_BuckeyeScott]

But, don't we have to agree that, whoever it was...it was MAN choosing what books to include and which to discard? (I realize that you are of the position that G-d directed those decisions, but isn't it "reasonable" nonetheless to see it as a man made religion in this circumstance?)

"Catholic," I think, was originally used to mean "universal" and... thus the Apostle's creed, which mentioned "I believe in one catholic church" is NOT a reference to what we call Catholicism today. (not saying your post suggests you didn't already know that...)

No more or less than I agree it was man who wrote the books if that brings any clarity. As much as anything is reasonable it's reasonable to argue that. But the idea that what some Pope did 1000 years later bears on whether we actually have God's Word is not worth my time. Now the validity of how the choosing was done is a different story.

 

[Bleed S & G]

No more or less than I agree it was man who wrote the books if that brings any clarity. As much as anything is reasonable it's reasonable to argue that. But the idea that what some Pope did 1000 years later bears on whether we actually have God's Word is not worth my time. Now the validity of how the choosing was done is a different story.