Why does it matter if Christianity is a sun worshiping religion?

[1137]

Again, if you are looking for parallels, you will find them. It isn't that hard. That still doesn't speak to the differences in the deeper meanings of the message. But even on a simpler level, the Son of God is a being like as we are (or... we were made in His image). The sun is an object in the sky with whom we have no relationship. Trying to get from one to the other is so much of a stretch that the thread broke... there is no connection.

But we are also related to the giant entity of light that is not of earth and sent his son in the first place, are we not? But yeah, yeah, no solar symbolism there.

BTW your pastor says the sky is actually green. Get on that ****.

 

[outhouse]

But we are also related to the giant entity of light that is not of earth and sent his son in the first place, are we not? But yeah, yeah, no solar symbolism there.

BTW your pastor says the sky is actually green. Get on that ****.

Your not refuting anything.

You have not made a case for anything yet other then pseudohistory based on lack of knowledge.

 

[ether-ore]

But we are also related to the giant entity of light that is not of earth and sent his son in the first place, are we not? But yeah, yeah, no solar symbolism there.

BTW your pastor says the sky is actually green. Get on that ****.

Now you are mixing metaphors. You are still not hearing me. It is easy to find symbolic parallels with the sun except that, in Christianity, the orb that is the sun is not and never has been worshiped.

A couple of other things just fyi: There is no "pastor" in my denomination and whether or not someone else says the sky is green is irrelevant. When I look at the sky, I see blue and that is all I need to know. God the Father sent His Son, Jesus Christ to be the light of the world. In the context of that revelation, light = intelligence; meaning, if we accept the revelations, we know who we are, where we came from and what the purpose of our existence is.

 

[JoStories]

Its actually the other way around. With no real level of certainty other then all mithras archeology seems to be later then Jesus

You're correct of course. I was tired yesterday and clearly not thinking. Mea Culpa.

 

[Muffled]

All of which is your opinion and doesn't prove a thing.

I believe the reality of what I have trumps anyone else's so called proof and is proof enough.

 

[Muffled]

Just a couple more things Robin. As a nursing professor and further, as a theology scholar, if a student of mine handed in a paper with references that old, unless they had historical relevance, the paper would be handed back and rejected due to the dates of the papers. No professor will accept references older than 2010 and we prefer 2012 or newer. The use of possessive pronouns would need to be pointed out and discussed to reason. In the discussion section, the counter argument would need at least mention. See, as a nursing and theology professor, I expected you to react as your did. And to gloss over the reasons I mentioned. But I did't exepct you to ignore them altogether.

I believe that might work foreducational purposes but not for the sake of argument. There is no proof that new scholarship is better than old scholarship.

 

[outhouse]

I believe that might work foreducational purposes but not for the sake of argument. There is no proof that new scholarship is better than old scholarship.

False. What thinking is going on inside ones mind, throwing out reason and logic, by throwing away more credible evidence that factually paints amore clear picture of the past?

Refusal of modern scholarship is FACTUAL fanaticism and fundamentalism, it is refusal of education and knowledge.



But to pick a few law professors from a few hundred years ago and claim they have ANY credibility at all, as they had NO historical education what so ever! , to me is not a credible thing to stand behind.

Its like saying I want to follow the most ignorant professor I can find because he has the conclusion I'm looking for

 

[JoStories]

I believe that might work foreducational purposes but not for the sake of argument. There is no proof that new scholarship is better than old scholarship.

In some cases, that is true, particularly when studying or addressing historical data. But by and large, the rule of thumb for most scholars is that reference material should recent, as in 2010 or more recent.

 

[1robin]

Yes, I can reject them for the reasons I mentioned, which I note you ignored. Yes, they are biased.

NO you can't. You gave no attempt what so ever to show that they are biased, the second reason is even worse plus it is wrong. They are not from ancient history. They are from within time periods long after the core constituents of what make good testimony and evidence good. They are separated from being ancient by hundreds and maybe even over a thousand years. Their teachings are what are being practiced in law today. They taught lawyers that are currently practicing what those sources taught them, or are at least taught the same lessons created by those sources. Attempting to hand wave them away only shows the bias you have not theirs.

Go to any federal court room in the US and you will find Simon Greenleaf's work in their library. I worked in about 30 of them and there was not one exception. I imagine the same is true in England of Lyndhurst.

If the only way I could keep my world view in order was to dismiss Newton and Einstein concerning physics issues I believe I might take another look at my own bias.

Are you even familiar with how theology scholars are unbiased, or at least attempt to maintain an unbiased POV?

That is one strange question but that is a subject both sources I gave would have been drilled in for years. Any legal education is going to absolutely soak the student in how to maintain impartiality. There is no one way to do that and so there is no one answer to your strange question.

No one would use pronouns such as 'our Lord", and they would argue or at least point out counter arguments. They are not 'two of the greatest legal minds ever know(n)", they are Christian apologists. It's not about my disagreeing with them, its about having an degree of scholarly credibility whatsoever. When you can set aside your enmity and anger, maybe we can discuss this.

Anyone who came to believe the testimony of the bible was actually reliable would use those terms. So your standard seems to be that the only scholars allowed to be sourced are those that deny the whole theological implications of biblical history. Which BTW was the ultimate source for the four + 1 historically reliable facts about Jesus NT scholars agree to. If you search debates I had with out house I quoted an atheist who was the one who suggested most NT historians agree to those facts. You have not given me a single credible standard for what a source must be but I can still find credible sources for my claims even given your absurd standards. I can quote modern scientists, atheists, Muslims scholars, mathematicians, professors, and brand you want who would support positive claims about central facts in the bible, but I deny any requirement that would validate the effort.

 

[1robin]

Just a couple more things Robin. As a nursing professor and further, as a theology scholar, if a student of mine handed in a paper with references that old, unless they had historical relevance, the paper would be handed back and rejected due to the dates of the papers. I do not know about nursing and I keep asking for your theological credentials (and have never received them). However I have taken theological classes, and philosophical classes. historical classes, math classes of every description, physics classes of all types, electrical engineering, secondary education, and so on. I have 190 semester hours in college and in no class what so ever was old information denied because it was that old. In fact in many cases the older the info the better. Ask any actual theological, comparative religion, theological philosopher, or NT historian what his greatest wish would be. 9 out of 10 would say older documents closer to the date of the event. That is even true in modern rocketry. When Apollo was rolling it was going so fast few hard core drawings were made. When we thought about going to the moon no one could figure out how many things were done or even possible. They resorted to scouring space junk yards for 1950's parts to reverse engineer. I do not know about nursing but in every other subject I can think of the old is never denied because it is old.

No professor will accept references older than 2010 and we prefer 2012 or newer. The use of possessive pronouns would need to be pointed out and discussed to reason. In the discussion section, the counter argument would need at least mention. See, as a nursing and theology professor, I expected you to react as your did. And to gloss over the reasons I mentioned. But I did't exepct you to ignore them altogether.

That is absolutely incorrect. I have handed in information thousands of years old in all kinds of classes and was never rejected because of it's age.

However let me illustrate the peril of that kind of mindset and it's actual cost in your own field. IN the early 1800's medical scholars thought they knew it all and resisted anything that was very old. By doing so they killed 10s of thousands of people by not even having read the bibles basic sanitation restrictions. During the civil war they would merely wipe blade or saw off on their pants between operations but a Sunday school knowledge of the OT teaches us to always use running water when dealing with sickness and death. It is estimated that a little less than 100,000 people died because arrogant doctors in 1860-63 did not follow what was known 3000 years before them. Their arrogance killed thousands. I see that exact same arrogance in your standards but I don't think you have incurred the same cost , yet.

I do not mean this to be offensive in any way but I have asked many times what your qualifications are to consider your self a biblical scholar, you do not seem to even have a Sunday school level of understanding of the bible. I like debating you but your vastly overestimating what you know concerning the bible.

 

[outhouse]

NO you can't

She can, she has a doctorate on the topic compared to your lack of academic education.

Please learn the topic at hand before making false claims.

Provide credible sources because the ones you supplied factually are not credible.

 

[outhouse]

Their teachings are what are being practiced in law today.

Non sequitur,,, that are not scholars and has no historical education what so ever.

They have been refuted for over a hundreds years, and this shows YOUR severe desperation, that you have to quote mine ancient apologetic rhetoric.

 

[JoStories]

NO you can't. You gave no attempt what so ever to show that they are biased, the second reason is even worse plus it is wrong. They are not from ancient history. They are from within time periods long after the core constituents of what make good testimony and evidence good. They are separated from being ancient by hundreds and maybe even over a thousand years. Their teachings are what are being practiced in law today. They taught lawyers that are currently practicing what those sources taught them, or are at least taught the same lessons created by those sources. Attempting to hand wave them away only shows the bias you have not theirs.

Go to any federal court room in the US and you will find Simon Greenleaf's work in their library. I worked in about 30 of them and there was not one exception. I imagine the same is true in England of Lyndhurst.

If the only way I could keep my world view in order was to dismiss Newton and Einstein concerning physics issues I believe I might take another look at my own bias.

Indeed I can dismiss them as biased and yes, I pointed out why they are biased. So that is a lie. I don't appreciate liars. They are considered ancient history from the POV of a scholar. That you don;t care for that is not my concern really. They do have historical value, I will grant you that. However, as I pointed out, when an author uses pronouns that capture the fact that the author believes that God is God, the author loses all credibility. I will admit it was an affectation of that time frame to use said pronouns but today, it would intimate overt bias and be rejected before even being considered.

 

[JoStories]

That is one strange question but that is a subject both sources I gave would have been drilled in for years. Any legal education is going to absolutely soak the student in how to maintain impartiality. There is no one way to do that and so there is no one answer to your strange question.

No, its not strange. It is necessary to maintain credibility of one's work. Unless one is truly trying to be biased. Consider, for example, Karen King's works. She presents the topics, albeit dryly as hell, of the History of God and the History of Fundementalism as simply topics to be discussed. She sets aside her past as a nun and simply presents the historical data of both for the reader to draw their conclusions from. That is not strange, that is the means of writing today from a theologian POV>

 

[JoStories]

Anyone who came to believe the testimony of the bible was actually reliable would use those terms. So your standard seems to be that the only scholars allowed to be sourced are those that deny the whole theological implications of biblical history. Which BTW was the ultimate source for the four + 1 historically reliable facts about Jesus NT scholars agree to. If you search debates I had with out house I quoted an atheist who was the one who suggested most NT historians agree to those facts. You have not given me a single credible standard for what a source must be but I can still find credible sources for my claims even given your absurd standards. I can quote modern scientists, atheists, Muslims scholars, mathematicians, professors, and brand you want who would support positive claims about central facts in the bible, but I deny any requirement that would validate the effort.

If you could, for one moment, set aside your anger and try to listen. I have pointed out how people do this. Dr. Swinton, a favorite of mine, presents spirituality in nursing from an unbiased POV, while being Christian himself and a true Scotsman. Again, the example of Karen King is a good one. Scholars must try to set aside bias in order to present a subject. Of course, no one can do this completely and hence, typically the need for multiple authors from varied POV's. But all this aside Robin, it seems clear to me you are upset by this and I have no desire to upset anyone. I think we should just agree to disagree and move on.

 

[JoStories]

She can, she has a doctorate on the topic compared to your lack of academic education.

Please learn the topic at hand before making false claims.

Provide credible sources because the ones you supplied factually are not credible.

Thank you darling. Have I told you lately how much I love you? Kiss kiss.

 

[JoStories]

Non sequitur,,, that are not scholars and has no historical education what so ever.

They have been refuted for over a hundreds years, and this shows YOUR severe desperation, that you have to quote mine ancient apologetic rhetoric.

I would disagree slightly here love. They do have a bit of historical import in that when one studies the history of theology, one must take into consideration all these sources when reviewing the literature of the topic. Clearly, they are biased and that would need to be considered but they do offer a POV from that time frame that is important to remember.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

My concern is why this should matter in any way, shape, or form.

Because I care about what is and isn't true, for starters.

Why can't the three stages of the sun be the foundation of the Trinity?

Because they aren't.

Why does it matter if the there wise men are the stars of Orion's belt?

Because this isn't just wrong but rather bizarre (I thought I knew all the Jesus Mystery-type nonsense; huh.).

My question is actually mainly direct by Christians who fight to the death against such views of Christianity. Why does it matter?

This I can't speak to directly. But I alone of my immediate family am agnostic- the rest are practicing Catholics. I can tell you right now that they would object to a characterization of the origins of the Church that contradicts their faith. It matters to them because e.g., the trinity was supposed to be the nature of "God" and revealed by "God" through Christ and the Holy Spirit, not solar phenomena. It matters because they (or, at least my mother, my "fundamentalist" Catholic brother, and I think my father believe) believe that there were three magi as the NT, inspired by God, states, not some constellation.

 

[1robin]

Indeed I can dismiss them as biased and yes, I pointed out why they are biased. So that is a lie. I don't appreciate liars. They are considered ancient history from the POV of a scholar. That you don;t care for that is not my concern really. They do have historical value, I will grant you that. However, as I pointed out, when an author uses pronouns that capture the fact that the author believes that God is God, the author loses all credibility. I will admit it was an affectation of that time frame to use said pronouns but today, it would intimate overt bias and be rejected before even being considered.

I did not say you could not. I said you can not dismiss a person for bias without showing first they are biased (which I have no memory of your doing nor how you could do it if you tried), secondly they have no rational justification for their bias, and thirdly that their bias has produced a false conclusion. If you searched my 12,000 posts you might find 3 dismissals of a claim because it was biased. You will find instead that I show their claim is wrong instead of dismissing them as biased. Because this is called dismissal by category. For instance if anyone said anything against homosexuality the wrong response is to call them homophobic and then dismiss them. The scholarly response is to find out if what they said against homosexuality is true or false. Yelling bias (and not proving it) is not an argument it is a unjustifiable tactic. For all you know Greenleaf was given a supernatural tour of heaven and is merely convicted about his claims. However Greenleaf have forgotten more about how to separate bias from claims than we both put together even know.

Your second point is also incorrect. Calling something ancient does not mean they are behind the most modern ideas. Ancient is a term that actually means something. It is not an exact term. IT can mean anything before 1AD all way up to the invention of the printing press. So Greenleaf is not an ancient scholar and I would bet he is quoted and researched in legal classrooms far more than 90% of histories greatest legal minds. So no he is not rejected today as irrelevant (every federal library I have seen contains his texts), Lawyers are taught using his methods, and this kind of a subject does not change over time much. There are no fossils to find, no ancient texts that could rewrite what evidence and testimony mean. He is as relevant as any lawyer has ever been. Why don't you try and prove what he said is actually wrong instead of mistakenly classifying him with a negative label and dismissing him.

One last point you accused me of lying. I do not put up with that too long so I advise you do not make that accusation again. To claim a person is lying bears burdens you cannot possibly meet. You must know for a fact that I knew the answer I typed was wrong (that it was not simply an error). Lying implies intent and I have no need to intentionally lie, it defeats the reason I am here. So accusing me of lying is almost a lie its self.

 

[1robin]

No, its not strange. It is necessary to maintain credibility of one's work. Unless one is truly trying to be biased. Consider, for example, Karen King's works. She presents the topics, albeit dryly as hell, of the History of God and the History of Fundementalism as simply topics to be discussed. She sets aside her past as a nun and simply presents the historical data of both for the reader to draw their conclusions from. That is not strange, that is the means of writing today from a theologian POV>

It seemed strange to me because the primary mechanism which would make a person resist or give in to bias is their own honor. Any other academic methods to minimize bias would be irrelevant if honor was not present. And if they have a host of classes on methods to minimize bias exist Greenleaf would have had them all, wrote textbooks used to teach them, and probable taught them himself. IOW Greenleaf would be more familiar with methodologies to reduce bias than most even within the legal community.

I think this is what is causing you to have this bias problem.
1. Greenleaf says specifically that he granted a certain aspect of scriptural study up front because he was writing about something completely different and to combine a paper defending both issues was beyond his scope, and that hundreds of papers have already made a defense for what he granted before hand if anyone was actually interested in looking for them.
2. You do not seem to include the fact that no two convictions are equal. I for one have 100% conviction in Christ's proprietary death because what that provided I received and I studied salvation for 3 straight years. others have received the gifts of speaking in tongues, others have been gifted with healing, etc..... Greenleaf's had two gifts he had been born again (which could not occur unless the Gospels were in general telling the truth), and he was blessed with one of if not the greatest minds in history for separating reliable from unreliable testimony and evidence, he wrote (still used textbooks on it, founded one of the best legal schools in history, he taught it, etc......... And so I think your mistaking conviction that comes from his access to things you do not and from abilities you nor I have, and his access to information we do not have with bias.
3. Not just Greenleaf but I can quote lawyer after lawyer, historian after historian, philosopher after philosopher, etc...... who specifically set aside their Christian presumptions and examined the bible just as they would a historical text, or a philosophical text, etc....... and found it far more credible that even they estimated going in.
4. I don't think you showed Greenleaf was biased, but I think your attempt to was to quote him as saying "Our Lord". That is not evidence of bias it is the evidence of a level of conviction derived from a level of scrutiny you probably cannot even conceive of. And once your born again it is a hard thing to never use a term with theological undertones. That is not proof that anything he said in his capacity as a all star lawyer was wrong in any way.