Dumpy Dooby
Veteran X
What does this have to do with the historicity of Jesus?
What does this have to do with the historicity of Jesus?
I'm sure you're not in a hurry. I doubt you'd be able to hold your ground in any sort of actual debate.
Official Christianity Thread
- Thread starter Sipher77
- Start date
Since I am getting tired and want to try get some DOTA in before bed, I will take a small stab at it to see what you think. I do not know all the myths and stories you speak of. To be honest I dont know any of that. But if God created Man, and eventually bands of humankind became seperated from him (I am speaking of Genesis like times btw) then in the back of these peoples minds, they would definitely look upon their old spirtual roots from God and liken their own idols and gods for whatever purpose they deemed.
Think of it this way, if you were taught the English language and then attempted to create your own, your new language would probably be similar in many ways to the English language that you knew prior. You can see similiarites of this in practice with other languages such as Latin having similarites to other languages. You could possibly apply this analogy to those other religions.
I know this is a pretty big stretch of the imagination but it is the only thing I got. As I said prior the only real knowledge I have is from the Holy Spirit. This does not mean I have knowledge in other religious myths and stories. LOL.
fartiusstinkius
Veteran XV
So Christ just made up his beliefs to be like the religions that came before him?
I'm converted.
Dumpy Dooby
Veteran X
For anyone that's interested, here is what I was talking about earlier regarding the role of evil in the interpretation of the first creation story.
I wrote this on another forum a while back. I used it to start a thread, so if it looks like it's initiating a thread, that's why.
I wrote this on another forum a while back. I used it to start a thread, so if it looks like it's initiating a thread, that's why.
Was Earth created ex nihilo?
Personally, I used to think that the Bible clearly states that it was. And well, most Christian Bibles do, in fact, state that. However, upon further research, I found that the traditional phrasing of the first creation story doesn't semantically align with the ancient Hebrew.
Here's the traditional phrasing. Most Christian Bibles do not differ from this.
Here's a more accurate translation:
The difference, as you may have noticed, is the dependency of the clauses. The first verse is a dependent clause. The second verse is an appositive. The third verse is where we have our first independent clause. No, I'm not being a grammar Nazi and nitpicking the punctuation in the Bible. Linguistically, this creation story differs significantly from the story in the KJV. The most important thing to notice here is that the earth began as an unformed mass, which debunks the theory that God created Earth ex nihilo.
Moving on, verse two mentions five key elements that are present at the beginning of creation. Four out of those five are symbolic of chaos and evil: unformed, void, darkness, the deep, and water. The only item mentioned in verse two that is not symbolic of something bad is the "wind from God" (note that "spirit" and "wind" are the same word in Hebrew). The prehistoric people of ancient Israel who were reading the book of Genesis (and who were part and parcel of that ancient Near Eastern world) would have recognized the point very clearly: the preexistent matter in this story is symbolic of evil.
God's role is to bring order and goodness into this chaotic and evil world. Even the very next verse reads, "God saw that the light was good." Continuing verse four, we see that "He separated the light from the darkness." That is, he is separating the good from the evil. This is the point of the first creation story. It is not to literally create everything. It is to give us an understanding of good and evil, which is what can really explain the creation story in Gen 2, which is focused on knowledge, which I'll get into later (supposing this discussion isn't for naught).
Personally, I used to think that the Bible clearly states that it was. And well, most Christian Bibles do, in fact, state that. However, upon further research, I found that the traditional phrasing of the first creation story doesn't semantically align with the ancient Hebrew.
Here's the traditional phrasing. Most Christian Bibles do not differ from this.
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
-KJV
-KJV
Here's a more accurate translation:
When God began to create Heaven and Earth - the Earth being unformed and void with darkness over the surface of the deep, and a wind from God sweeping over the water - God said let there be light, and there was light.
-JPS
-JPS
The difference, as you may have noticed, is the dependency of the clauses. The first verse is a dependent clause. The second verse is an appositive. The third verse is where we have our first independent clause. No, I'm not being a grammar Nazi and nitpicking the punctuation in the Bible. Linguistically, this creation story differs significantly from the story in the KJV. The most important thing to notice here is that the earth began as an unformed mass, which debunks the theory that God created Earth ex nihilo.
Moving on, verse two mentions five key elements that are present at the beginning of creation. Four out of those five are symbolic of chaos and evil: unformed, void, darkness, the deep, and water. The only item mentioned in verse two that is not symbolic of something bad is the "wind from God" (note that "spirit" and "wind" are the same word in Hebrew). The prehistoric people of ancient Israel who were reading the book of Genesis (and who were part and parcel of that ancient Near Eastern world) would have recognized the point very clearly: the preexistent matter in this story is symbolic of evil.
God's role is to bring order and goodness into this chaotic and evil world. Even the very next verse reads, "God saw that the light was good." Continuing verse four, we see that "He separated the light from the darkness." That is, he is separating the good from the evil. This is the point of the first creation story. It is not to literally create everything. It is to give us an understanding of good and evil, which is what can really explain the creation story in Gen 2, which is focused on knowledge, which I'll get into later (supposing this discussion isn't for naught).
I was attempting to address a more philisophical question and I admit I was using some pretty crappy logic to come to a possible answer to his question. I will say no more in regards to that.
And No, Christ did not make up his beliefs to be like the previous religions.
escapedturkey
Veteran-4
What if god designed this as an intelligence test? All the blind faith types fail, the semi-faithful get a C -, and the skeptics get an A+.
Then I would probably get grounded and not get an allowance anymore? I dunno lol
SirBatesAlot
Veteran X
Alright, now you're going too far.
escapedturkey
Veteran-4
I'd still like to know if you believe that sin came before god, especially since you say it always existed.
There it is. Sweet sweet cop out. I'm not presenting ANYTHING new here. Nothing. This is all old shit. You're an intelligent, educated person and it shocks me a bit that you're falling back to this.
Lines like that one attack me personally and shift the burden off you to produce the 'mountain of evidence' you promised. Fact is Dooby, you're full of shit on this one and you know it. You can't fight this argument because deep down you know you're wrong. You have nothing sir - nothing.
So, keep changing the subject and side stepping the argument till I go away - problem is - I don't. So, save yourself some time, throw your hands in the air, and scream FAITH! It's the closest you'll get to winning this argument.
It has everything to do with it. It demonstrates that he is a myth. What have you got?
Last edited:
Zeitgeist was a pretty bad movie.
Do you get high before you type all that?
Though I didn't, I could have stopped reading there. The bible states the circumstances of the Life of Jesus and presents them as truth, no? If you examine these other myths, and I hope you do, you'll see that the story of Jesus is much older than Jesus. Nearly every part of it has been told before (and will be again).
Know what the 'scholars' say about it? They say that 'Satan' foresaw the coming of Christ and seeded these myths to undermine the power of the savior - weak.
Wowbagger said:
It's a party now. All the best people are here. We just need TseTse!
I'd be willing to bet a synopsis of your life would look pretty similar to the 500 billion or so that were here before you.
If you examined it in the detail that Christs life was, I doubt it. Were all 500 billion of them born on June 27th? How about 10% of them? 5%?
Edit: I'm headed to bed to give Dooby time to compile his lolmoutainofevidencelol
EditEdit: I'm sooooo voting for 'Dumpy Dooby' to be tattoo'd on the back of mstrikes ass. Let's see him explain that one to his doctor!
Last edited:
