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

[outhouse]

I am reading a book called "The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold" that says something to that effect. Well, I just started it anyway.

Your wasting time. AchyraS has only provide pathetic work and its based on lies and quote mining old text for a hundred years ago. It is pseudo history.

She is the one who zitgiest is based on and probably where OP was steered wrong.

She is laughed at in all academic circles, and when I debate her she flat runs, and her minions in other forums.


She is nothing short of dishonest, and is not a scholar in any way.

 

[outhouse]

Yes, the video seemed to be presenting unbiased historical facts.
Interesting to me.

I have found a few mistakes in it, but as an outline, it has some value.

When you top that off with Finkelstein and Dever's work you start getting a more complete picture.

Avoid Faust and Mazar, its weaker biased work that doesn't hold up.

 

[JoStories]

A really good book that pretty accurate, is by Karen Armstrong.

This vid was based on her work.

I use her books quite a lot, and The History of God, while one of the driest books I have ever read, is quite enlightening and does a thorough and excellent job of tracing that history.

 

[JoStories]

The mythology developed around the martyrdom after his death. It grew all over the diaspora as people returned home after Passover with these legends.

The temple was corrupt, and he caused some trouble probably fighting this and died on a cross, sticking up for the common man.


It was a perceived sacrifice, and the only reason he ended up so famous IMHO was because this took place in front of half a million people.


Certainty here is only that he died on a cross and was baptized by John. Which amounts to being Johns student.


There were plenty of reasons for an Aramaic Galilean Jew to be upset in the temple with Hellenist perverting gods house, they were extorting money out of peasants as well as oppressing them, The temple was the treasury and this Passover was a money making event of the year that brought in tax dollars as well as tithes taken by force.

The temple coin had a pagan deity Melqart on the face and it was required to use this coin, this would have been enough to upset any pious Aramaic Jew.

I really have nothing here I can disagree with. It never ceases to amaze me how learned you are about these things. It is rare, IMO, for an atheist to be so well versed. I mean this as a very serious compliment Outhouse and in no way am I trying to insult or disrespect you.

 

[JoStories]

Your wasting time. AchyraS has only provide pathetic work and its based on lies and quote mining old text for a hundred years ago. It is pseudo history.

She is the one who zitgiest is based on and probably where OP was steered wrong.

She is laughed at in all academic circles, and when I debate her she flat runs, and her minions in other forums.


She is nothing short of dishonest, and is not a scholar in any way.

While I agree with you about Acharya S, or DM Murdock, I do know that there are some who do hail his books. And it is a 'he', the Acharya character is fiction. Most that do agree are not credible however, but people like Russ Kick and Ken Thomas had nothing but laudatory comments for him and his work. But that said, he merely has a BA if I am not mistaken and not taken as someone with an ounce of integrity.

 

[JoStories]

I have found a few mistakes in it, but as an outline, it has some value.

When you top that off with Finkelstein and Dever's work you start getting a more complete picture.

Avoid Faust and Mazar, its weaker biased work that doesn't hold up.

I actually have 2 copies of The Bible Unearthed in my library but I also have Who were the early Israelites and where did they come from as well. Great reads and highly accurate, IMO.

 

[1robin]

Ok but I would disagree with you on a couple of things here. First, that Pagan roots of Christianity is necessarily forbidden by the Bible. I don't mean idol worship of course but rather the incorporation of nature and rituals that Pagans enjoy that many argue were the basis of some of your faith. Examples abound but just a couple are the birthday of Jesus, Easter, and a few others as well. Second, there's a Unity church right down the street from me who do use sun worship. Unity is a group out of Missouri, IIRC, and while they claim an interfaith approach, they are also very Christian in their ideals.

Well the bible considers men to be in one of two groups.

1. Those that are born again, are in the spiritual Church of Christ (I do not mean they go to any specific type of denomination, I mean they are part of the body of Christ and belong to his spiritual church), and belong to God.

2. Anyone who has not been born again is in the unbeliever camp. However unlike Islam these unbelievers are not meant to be subdued, over taxed, forced to become a believer, or killed. Our instructions are to forgive and council this second group if they wish to be counseled. The bible is packed full of warnings against the first group backsliding into the practices on the second group. In fact that is the major theme and source of trouble throughout the OT. Israel kept intermarrying into unbelieving tribes, or admiring their ways, or for a number of reasons abandoning the practices God had laid down for practices of their neighbors. I cringe when I read the wrath God sent down among them for doing this.

The reason for this is very simple. God chose Israel (because of Abrahams faith, and Israel being Abraham's children) to be his conduit for his revelation and his greatest revelation Christ was to come from their culture. They were held to higher standards and were to be unique among the nations so that the revelations sent through them would have more impact and be more profound. If you read any significant portion of the OT it will contain Israel adopting the habits of other nations and cultures, God's punishment, and Israel's restoration. He must have known what he was up to because a three year ministry of a man born in a backwater of the Roman empire has changed the world more than any other single influence.

The church down your street is also violating emphatic biblical commands. The bible prophecies that the 'church" will always get it wrong just as man does (look at what Catholicism has done over the years with it's inquisitions, witch hunts, and crusades). However God foretells of a great falling away of the church towards the end of day which I believe we are living. The end may be tomorrow or a few hundred years from now but I believe the great fall of the church has begun.

BTW: the Bible not what any Church does is the final arbiter of a theological matters.

Also I have a challenge for you. Find me a single instance where Christ, the apostles, and early church father, or any creed from a major denomination worshipped the sun or instructs us to do so. I have provided several from the bible that forbid it, lets see if you can counter them in the context.

 

[outhouse]

Ken Thomas

Is a conspiracy nutter who is not a scholar.

Russ Kick

not a scholar.

While I agree with you about Acharya S, or DM Murdock, I do know that there are some who do hail his books. And it is a 'he', the Acharya character is fiction

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acharya_S

Acharya S,[1][2] also known as D. M. Murdock, is the pen name of Dorothy M. Murdock,[3][4] an American author and proponent of the Christ myth theory.[5] She writes books, and operates a website named Truth be Known.

some who do hail his books

Now Price has commented against her, and retracted some of his statements and is a scholar. But he is a laughed at fringe scholar, who begged for money in a public forum when his shingles flared up. Quite embarrassing.

Acharya character is fiction

She post in another forum under s pseudo name that is fiction.

 

[outhouse]

God chose Israel (because of Abrahams faith,

Define God, and how the definition changed over time at mans hands alone.

The proto Israelites were polytheistic and worshipped many gods, no single god ever chose these people outside mythology.

Good luck with that because Abraham never existed outside mythology, he factually has no historicity as ever existing. And there is no chance of a character as such to have ever existing knowing what we know about the displaced Canaanites that would become Israelites

 

[outhouse]

I really have nothing here I can disagree with. It never ceases to amaze me how learned you are about these things. It is rare, IMO, for an atheist to be so well versed. I mean this as a very serious compliment Outhouse and in no way am I trying to insult or disrespect you.

Thank you very much. It means a lot to me because of who you are and how well respected you are.

If I ever went after a doctorate, it would be centered around the need for what would be later be named Marks gospel. With the temple falling there was a need to collect and save these traditions that had been shared every year at Passover when large groups of like minded Hellenistic Proselytes met and shared traditions.

Since these people could no longer meet in groups, they saved the traditions important to them.

This started a chain reaction where other communities that got their hands on Mark, decided the gospel was incomplete to what the needed to add to it and change theological positions.

 

[outhouse]

BTW: the Bible not what any Church does is the final arbiter of a theological matters.

The problem you don't recognize from lack of study in these fields, is that the brightest best well know, most educated people OFTEN disagree on interpretation.


People who use primitive interpretations have no clue on what the final arbiter of a theological matters may be, and are literally lost here.

And even scholars can give good educated guesses in many places, but even they cannot use the bible as the final arbiter, SO YOU may need to rethink that one.

 

[JoStories]

Thank you very much. It means a lot to me because of who you are and how well respected you are.

If I ever went after a doctorate, it would be centered around the need for what would be later be named Marks gospel. With the temple falling there was a need to collect and save these traditions that had been shared every year at Passover when large groups of like minded Hellenistic Proselytes met and shared traditions.

Since these people could no longer meet in groups, they saved the traditions important to them.

This started a chain reaction where other communities that got their hands on Mark, decided the gospel was incomplete to what the needed to add to it and change theological positions.

Interesting that you would pick Mark. Its one of the gospels that most interested me as well. I found the contradictions between the original and what was included to be highly interesting. But then, of course, my passion was mystical experiences and the ubiquitous nature of God and the parallels therein. And there are many, trust me. I'm a fan of Merton, for what should be obvious reasons but also St Teresa of Avila and many others as well. How would you view Mark, given the cultural import and the impact of Roman changes of the time, particular with Constantine and what he wanted to do? If you are of a mind to share that is.

 

[JoStories]

Is a conspiracy nutter who is not a scholar.



not a scholar.




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acharya_S

Acharya S,[1][2] also known as D. M. Murdock, is the pen name of Dorothy M. Murdock,[3][4] an American author and proponent of the Christ myth theory.[5] She writes books, and operates a website named Truth be Known.



Now Price has commented against her, and retracted some of his statements and is a scholar. But he is a laughed at fringe scholar, who begged for money in a public forum when his shingles flared up. Quite embarrassing.



She post in another forum under s pseudo name that is fiction.

I guess I wasn't clear that I disagreed with Kick and Thomas. I was merely pointing out that they agreed with the author. Mea Culpa about her gender. My bad. But overall, as I pointed out, I don't know that I like any of her work. Sorry if I wasn't clear dear friend.

 

[outhouse]

I guess I wasn't clear that I disagreed with Kick and Thomas. I was merely pointing out that they agreed with the author. Mea Culpa about her gender. My bad. But overall, as I pointed out, I don't know that I like any of her work. Sorry if I wasn't clear dear friend.

No problem, its not you I have issues with.


I dislike her to a high degree because of her dishonesty she uses to prey on the ignorant.

 

[outhouse]

How would you view Mark, given the cultural import and the impact of Roman changes of the time, particular with Constantine and what he wanted to do? If you are of a mind to share that is.

Constantine wanted unification, and he gave the early church freedom to unify, but unify they would or else.

He was no slouch when it came to the religion and had been well acquainted with it, more so then most people attribute.


But Mark played little to no part with these later people, as Matthew was the most popular overall and had most of Mark in it. They did not really view it as markan priority even if it had been brought up much earlier. It was not viewed today as the known compilation of written and oral traditions. Mark in Constantine's time was almost insignificant due to its short length and poorer writing skill.

 

[JoStories]

Constantine wanted unification, and he gave the early church freedom to unify, but unify they would or else.

He was no slouch when it came to the religion and had been well acquainted with it, more so then most people attribute.


But Mark played little to no part with these later people, as Matthew was the most popular overall and had most of Mark in it. They did not really view it as markan priority even if it had been brought up much earlier. It was not viewed today as the known compilation of written and oral traditions. Mark in Constantine's time was almost insignificant due to its short length and poorer writing skill.

All true of course but that begs the question of why the inclusion and the exclusion of the more important gospels, at least more important IMO. What was it about Mark that made it stand out, particularly in light of how the three other main gospels tell the same story? And what of the added and highly controversial addition seen in some Bibles? Thanks for answering btw Outhouse.

 

[JoStories]

No problem, its not you I have issues with.


I dislike her to a high degree because of her dishonesty she uses to prey on the ignorant.

I can certainly understand that one Outhouse. I don't like her work either. Very sloppy and uneducated IMO.

 

[JoStories]

Well the bible considers men to be in one of two groups.

1. Those that are born again, are in the spiritual Church of Christ (I do not mean they go to any specific type of denomination, I mean they are part of the body of Christ and belong to his spiritual church), and belong to God.

2. Anyone who has not been born again is in the unbeliever camp. However unlike Islam these unbelievers are not meant to be subdued, over taxed, forced to become a believer, or killed. Our instructions are to forgive and council this second group if they wish to be counseled. The bible is packed full of warnings against the first group backsliding into the practices on the second group. In fact that is the major theme and source of trouble throughout the OT. Israel kept intermarrying into unbelieving tribes, or admiring their ways, or for a number of reasons abandoning the practices God had laid down for practices of their neighbors. I cringe when I read the wrath God sent down among them for doing this.

The reason for this is very simple. God chose Israel (because of Abrahams faith, and Israel being Abraham's children) to be his conduit for his revelation and his greatest revelation Christ was tobhor come from their culture. They were held to higher standards and were to be unique among the nations so that the revelations sent through them would have more impact and be more profound. If you read any significant portion of the OT it will contain Israel adopting the habits of other nations and cultures, God's punishment, and Israel's restoration. He must have known what he was up to because a three year ministry of a man born in a backwater of the Roman empire has changed the world more than any other single influence.

The church down your street is also violating emphatic biblical commands. The bible prophecies that the 'church" will always get it wrong just as man does (look at what Catholicism has done over the years with it's inquisitions, witch hunts, and crusades). However God foretells of a great falling away of the church towards the end of day which I believe we are living. The end may be tomorrow or a few hundred years from now but I believe the great fall of the church has begun.

BTW: the Bible not what any Church does is the final arbiter of a theological matters.

Also I have a challenge for you. Find me a single instance where Christ, the apostles, and early church father, or any creed from a major denomination worshipped the sun or instructs us to do so. I have provided several from the bible that forbid it, lets see if you can counter them in the context.

A couple of things here. 1. Your biased remark about Muslims is very wrong, IMO. You categorize an entire faith, many of whom are peaceable people who follow the Qu'ran and who abhor violence. I find that remark very wrongheaded, IMO. And not a little bigoted on your part.
2. I never said that worship of the sun was included in the Bible. I said that the symbolism and lore of your Bible is or rather, was built on the shoulders of older faiths and that those symbols depict, in part, the worship of the sun.
3. You believe that Israel was the people that God chose. It could have easily been any group really. Perhaps it was the time, perhaps history just had them at the right time and place to be the ones that the story came from. I would ask what about the Hindus and Vishnu or perhaps the Asians who came up with The Buddha. Same as with Middle eastern peoples in the time of Mohammed. Something in history just paints the time ripe for a faith to be born. You believe it was Israel and furthermore, you believe that Jesus was the messiah that was to come but Jews would disagree with you strongly because he doesn't fulfill the criteria for that. Hence, all Jews would now be Christian.
4. The thing I like about my church down the road is that they are welcoming to any and all faiths. I don't believe God would be so exclusive to only be God to one faith. There are many faces to God. And those faces could include any of the faiths and their God. When they pray, they use 'mother, father, God' in the beginning of the prayer or just say Spirit. There is a Buddhist meditation before the service and Pagans are involved with the holidays of that faith. So you honestly think God would exclude everyone who is not Christian. I certainly do not.

 

[outhouse]

What was it about Mark that made it stand out, particularly in light of how the three other main gospels tell the same story?

Mark was the primary source for Luke and Matthew with a high degree of certainty. Same story but a few different clues.

And what of the added and highly controversial addition seen in some Bibles?

Different communities added different theology. The movement started diverse and still is today.

 

[JoStories]

Mark was the primary source for Luke and Matthew with a high degree of certainty. Same story but a few different clues.



Different communities added different theology. The movement started diverse and still is today.

All true. But what take would you use to get your point across and what would be your point? Would you research this from a cultural POV, or something else?