Greek Myth vs. Christian belief

[herushura]

Wow. This is really pretty bad. First, Jesus modelled his discipleship on the twelve tribes of Israel. It was a very clear messianic statement. Second, Jesus is not a shortened form of dionysus. What are you talking about? Look at the names: Διόνυσος and Ἰησοῦς. They only thing they have in common really is the final signma. They even belong to different declensions in Greek. This is because one is a greek name, and the other is a semetic name rendered into greek. As for mary, what egyption virgin was named

Meri Hathor

 

[herushura]

80% of Greek gods are Pheonician Gods

 

[Oberon]

Why should we be taking you seriously about what Paul says when you are dependent on search engines to find what Paul said? The last time we debated this, I said Paul called James the brother of the lord. You haven't actually read the epistles, so you claimed he hadn't because you ran a search engine on the letters. As it turns out, you were wrong. And you are wrong again.

The fact remains that Paul met Peter and he states that Peter and himself were appointed by God to be apostles.

1. Galatians 2:8
   For God, who was at work in the ministry of Peter as an apostle to the Jews, was also at work in my ministry as an apostle to the Gentiles.
   Galatians 2:7-9 (in Context) Galatians 2 (Whole Chapter)

For one thing, your translation is inexact. But regardless, it doesn't say what you say it does. Paul never says that Peter "appointed himself" an apostle, and he does mentions Peter, the twelve, and James. He also says that James is Jesus' brother. How is this possible if he never existed?

The point is, we cannot look to Paul or epistle writers for evidence of any disciples of Jesus. Claims of disciples have no basis outside of the gospel mythology.

Right. You have yet to explain why Paul speaks of the "twelve," why Peter is a "pillar," why Acts, which was written by someone involved in some of the events, discribes the disciples of Jesus, why James is said to be Jesus' brother, why extra-canonical writings discuss the disciples of Jesus, etc. We have already been over this. You depend on having read no scholarship, and misrepresenting the few works by actual scholars you have read (supposedly).

 

[Oberon]

Meri Hathor

On what basis are you arguing that these names are linguistically connected? You already proved by your comparison of Jesus and Dionysus that you have zero knowledge of either etymology or the primary languages of the texts.

80% of Greek gods are Pheonician Gods

Better and better. So Zeus, Dionysus, Hera, Demeter, etc, are all phoenician... Right. It is certainly true that pagan religions tended to adapt and borrow myths and deities all the time. But which Greek gods are you talking about, and what is your source?

 

[herushura]

Its interesting to note how similar Greek myth is to Hebrew.
Right at the Head of the Greek Pantheon is Uranos, but in pheonician,
he is the Son of "Elion" that is El Elyon "the God who is most high".

Whom abraham made an altar to, plus the consort of Elion is called Berith, whom the Hebrew borrowed as a name for the Covenant.

 

[Oberon]

Its interesting to note how similar Greek myth is to Hebrew.
Right at the Head of the Greek Pantheon is Uranos, but in pheonician,
he is the Son of "Elion" that is El Elyon "the God who is most high".

Whom abraham made an altar to, plus the consort of Elion is called Berith, whom the Hebrew borrowed as a name for the Covenant.

The head of the greek pantheon is Zeus, not Uranos. He was a titan who was overthrown.

And your analysis above in no way indicates that there is any relationship between hebrew and greek gods.

So what you are saying is that 80% of the greek gods are phoenician because they are similar? For one thing, many cultures deified various "Forces." For example, in Greek we have Desire (eros) Justice (Dike) along side of thunder gods and gods of the sea. It is not suprising at all that completely independent pantheons would have similar deities, because they were dealing with similar deified forces.

I am still waiting on your linguistic analysis of your two "mary's"

 

[herushura]

On what basis are you arguing that these names are linguistically connected? You already proved by your comparison of Jesus and Dionysus that you have zero knowledge of either etymology or the primary languages of the texts.



Better and better. So Zeus, Dionysus, Hera, Demeter, etc, are all phoenician... Right. It is certainly true that pagan religions tended to adapt and borrow myths and deities all the time. But which Greek gods are you talking about, and what is your source?

Uranos = Ouranos
Kronos = EL
Zeus = dagon atoris
Posiedon = Adon (poseidon was considered as the main head deity at one time) he also is the founder of Atlantis whom 10 kings ruled after which it was flooded and deucalion and his 3 sons built ark and repopulation earth

-Cadmus threw Dionysus into the sea in a chest, dionysus was reared and rescued by the princess Ino | sounds familier

 

[Don Penguinoini]

On what basis are you arguing that these names are linguistically connected? You already proved by your comparison of Jesus and Dionysus that you have zero knowledge of either etymology or the primary languages of the texts.



Better and better. So Zeus, Dionysus, Hera, Demeter, etc, are all phoenician... Right. It is certainly true that pagan religions tended to adapt and borrow myths and deities all the time. But which Greek gods are you talking about, and what is your source?

Don't worrry. He once told me that the Sumerians invented Hinduism. He thinks everything came from Egypt.

 

[herushura]

The head of the greek pantheon is Zeus, not Uranos. He was a titan who was overthrown.

And your analysis above in no way indicates that there is any relationship between hebrew and greek gods.

So what you are saying is that 80% of the greek gods are phoenician because they are similar? For one thing, many cultures deified various "Forces." For example, in Greek we have Desire (eros) Justice (Dike) along side of thunder gods and gods of the sea. It is not suprising at all that completely independent pantheons would have similar deities, because they were dealing with similar deified forces.

I am still waiting on your linguistic analysis of your two "mary's"

Uranos was the head - then he was overthrown by Chronus who became head - then he was overcome by Zeus who became head - then i guess he was over thrown by his son dionysus/jesus.

 

[Azakel]

Don't worrry. He once told me that the Sumerians invented Hinduism. He thinks everything came from Egypt.

Well Sumerians and Egyptian are to different culture. But yes he does think everything comes from Egypt. With nothing to back up he's clam at all but trying to use word play think it will work because we might not know the words he's using.

 

[Don Penguinoini]

Well Sumerians and Egyptian are to different culture. But yes he does think everything comes from Egypt. With nothing to back up he's clam at all but trying to use word play think it will work because we might not know the words he's using.

It's great. Ever saw the episode of South Park where Cartman proved Kyle carried out 9/11? Well, this is what he is doing.
Cannot find video.

 

[herushura]

Don't worrry. He once told me that the Sumerians invented Hinduism. He thinks everything came from Egypt.

i based that on the Idea of "KI or KA"
The "ka" is a very complex part of the symbolism in ancient Egyptian mythology and represents several things: the ka is a symbol of the reception of the life powers from each man from the gods, it is the source of these powers, and it is the spiritual double that resides with every man

Ka in hindu a creative princible

ka in burmese is the spirit of the earth
ka is sumerian meaning Earth
ch'i in chinese is the breath

 

[Don Penguinoini]

i based that on the Idea of "KI or KA"
The "ka" is a very complex part of the symbolism in ancient Egyptian mythology and represents several things: the ka is a symbol of the reception of the life powers from each man from the gods, it is the source of these powers, and it is the spiritual double that resides with every man

Ka in hindu a creative princible

ka in burmese is the spirit of the earth
ka is sumerian meaning Earth
ch'i in chinese is the breath

So you base this on two letters? Hinduism is a VERY old religion, possibly the oldest in the world. Some say the Rig Ved itself is about 7000 years old. It is the oldest major religion in the world.

 

[Oberon]

So you base this on two letters? Hinduism is a VERY old religion, possibly the oldest in the world. Some say the Rig Ved itself is about 7000 years old. It is the oldest major religion in the world.

I think the theory herushura is using is as follows:

if it sounds similar, or has a similar concept, I can argue dependency without any evidence.

 

[dogsgod]

Why should we be taking you seriously about what Paul says when you are dependent on search engines to find what Paul said? The last time we debated this, I said Paul called James the brother of the lord. You haven't actually read the epistles, so you claimed he hadn't because you ran a search engine on the letters. As it turns out, you were wrong. And you are wrong again.

Unlike you I haven't memorized all the epistles and all the gospels and Acts so I have to refer to a Bible in order to quote from it.

For one thing, your translation is inexact. But regardless, it doesn't say what you say it does. Paul never says that Peter "appointed himself" an apostle, and he does mentions Peter, the twelve, and James. He also says that James is Jesus' brother. How is this possible if he never existed?
Right. You have yet to explain why Paul speaks of the "twelve," why Peter is a "pillar," why Acts, which was written by someone involved in some of the events, discribes the disciples of Jesus, why James is said to be Jesus' brother, why extra-canonical writings discuss the disciples of Jesus, etc. We have already been over this. You depend on having read no scholarship, and misrepresenting the few works by actual scholars you have read (supposedly).

He does not say that James is Jesus' brother, he states that James is the Lord's brother, or brother in/of the Lord. Had he stated that James was Jesus' brother I would agree with you that he states that, but he doesn't. You accept the Catholic traditional view that this is a reference to a literal brother of Jesus but in actuality there is no basis for it.

 

[Don Penguinoini]

I think the theory herushura is using is as follows:

if it sounds similar, or has a similar concept, I can argue dependency without any evidence.

Makes him happy.

 

[Oberon]

He does not say that James is Jesus' brother, he states that James is the Lord's brother, or brother in/of the Lord. Had he stated that James was Jesus' brother I would agree with you that he states that, but he doesn't. You accept the Catholic traditional view that this is a reference to a literal brother of Jesus but in actuality there is no basis for it.

First, the catholics believe that Jesus had no brothers or sisters, so that comment is completely wrong. Second, Paul constantly refers to Jesus as the lord. So who else is it supposed to refer to? And finally, why do you say "in/of" the lord? Exactly how is the genitive case here supposed to be parsed as "in the lord?"

 

[dogsgod]

First, the catholics believe that Jesus had no brothers or sisters, so that comment is completely wrong.

Possible identity with James, the brother of Jesus

James, son of Alphaeus, has also been identified with James, the brother of Jesus. This was supported by Jerome and therefore widely accepted in the Roman Catholic Church, while the Eastern Orthodox and Protestant tend to distinguish between the two. wiki

Second, Paul constantly refers to Jesus as the lord. So who else is it supposed to refer to? And finally, why do you say "in/of" the lord? Exactly how is the genitive case here supposed to be parsed as "in the lord?"

He refers to Jesus Christ as Lord and James as a brother of the Lord as well as references to brethren in the Lord. Philippians 1:14, "brothers/brethren in the Lord (adelphôn en kuriô), James would also be included as one of these brothers in/of the Lord. There is no reason to accept this one mention (brother of the Lord), to mean a literal brother of a Jesus that walked the earth in his recent history. Besides, it makes no sense because the Jesus portrayed in the gospels had nothing to do with any of his brothers or sisters, and Jesus' brothers and sisters aren't even named in Luke/Acts.


It's up to you to explain how it is that James, the brother of Jesus as referenced to in the gospels, became a leader of a Christian community when Luke/Acts doesn't so much as mention his name. It's really up to the one that makes the claim that Paul is referring to a blood sibling of Jesus to back up that interpretation.

 

[dogsgod]

The notion that the gospels are historical accounts is an extraordinary claim which requires extraordinary evidence to support such a notion.

 

[Oberon]

Possible identity with James, the brother of Jesus

James, son of Alphaeus, has also been identified with James, the brother of Jesus. This was supported by Jerome and therefore widely accepted in the Roman Catholic Church, while the Eastern Orthodox and Protestant tend to distinguish between the two. wiki

Again, catholics do not believe Jesus had any siblings! Read something you don't find on the internet for once.

He refers to Jesus Christ as Lord and James as a brother of the Lord as well as references to brethren in the Lord. Philippians 1:14, "brothers/brethren in the Lord (adelphôn en kuriô),

Yes, thats great. Except that adelphon en kyrio really is "brothers in the lord" but that is not how James is described. "en kyrio" uses the preposition "en" with the dative to mean "in" here. However, James alone is ton adelphon tou kyriou "brother OF the lord." You apparently can't distinguish the two.

James would also be included as one of these brothers in/of the Lord. There is no reason to accept this one mention (brother of the Lord), to mean a literal brother of a Jesus that walked the earth in his recent history.

Except that James is the only one referred to as brother of the lord (not in the lord). So again, who else is referred to as such?

Besides, it makes no sense because the Jesus portrayed in the gospels had nothing to do with any of his brothers or sisters, and Jesus' brothers and sisters aren't even named in Luke/Acts.

How does that make not make sense? The gospels portray the bulk of Jesus' family as rejecting him. That alone is evidence of historicity, because why else would they record such rejection (and Luke does say that Jesus had siblings). In any case, Paul is earlier than the gospels. You are the one claiming he only refers to a mythical Jesus, yet James is specifically mentioned as his brother. You also claim we shouldn't read the the epistles in the light of the gospels, yet here you are using the gospels as evidence that "brother of the lord" isn't a literal brother. If you are going to demonstrate you know nothing about the subject, at least be consistent.

It's up to you to explain how it is that James, the brother of Jesus, as referenced to in the gospels became a leader of a Christian community when Luke/Acts doesn't so much as mention his name.

That's easy. I doubt that James was active during Jesus' ministry, but is mentioned in acts, just not as the brother of the lord. It is impossible to prove that the James in say, Acts 15:13 is not the James paul refers to. However, it is likely that James, not being mentioned in the gospels, became a "pillar" after Jesus' death, and that the James not identified as a different James is Jesus' brother.

It's really up to the one that makes the claim that Paul is referring to a blood sibling of Jesus to back up that interpretation.

Again, easy. James is the only one referred to as the brother of the lord, despite numerous references by Paul to other christians as brethren or brothers. The reason for this is simple: James was a blood relation. And the gospels record that Jesus had family.

The notion that the gospels are historical accounts is an extraordinary claim which requires extraordinary evidence to support such a notion.

I have already given you numerous references to scholarship which compare the gospels to the greco-roman genre of biography. I have also provided you with numerous scholarly references which provide evidence that the gospels contain historical accounts. You are content to merely search the internet for whatever agrees with your point of view, so you are unlikely to read the evidence or support for such claims. Don't ask for what you aren't prepared to receive.