-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Why does it matter if Christianity is a sun worshiping religion?
- Thread starter 1137
- Start date
Lol.
No by all means, post whatever fanciful conspiracy narrative you want. You'll just have to ignore the fact that I'm going to contemptuously dismiss your nonsense.
Nada
#
You tell me this as if I actually care what you think.I do not even know you.As a matter of fact,who was even talking to you?Lol...You approached me with laughter.Lol.. I responded with laughter.I can care less what you do or think.By all means, dismiss.Do what you like.I care not.Bye...
outhouse
Atheistically
This is a debate section, if you post ridiculous non academic garbage, you will get called on it.
Here is a clue, if you want to make a credible point, simply provide credible sources to your statements and you will avoid being looked down upon.
It's a debate thread, but what you've posted is so uninformed and ridiculous that it's not even worth addressing. But it's not so much the arrogance of the conspiracy theorist, it's the utter lack of self-awareness. I mean, the Vatican sun-worship-Luciferian-Freemason thing is entertaining, but it has no basis in reality no matter how authoritatively you declare it.You tell me this as if I actually care what you think.I do not even know you.As a matter of fact,who was even talking to you?Lol...You approached me with laughter.Lol.. I responded with laughter.I can care less what you do or think.By all means, dismiss.Do what you like.I care not.Bye...
If you want to "expose" Catholicism, then do some real reading on it. Half baked fiction doesn't count as research.
You are correct in stating that what I like is irrelevant to the truth. However, what you like is similarly irrelevant to truth as well. You gave too biased and ancient Christian apologist sites that prove nothing. The moment an 'author' writes and uses pronouns such as 'our lord', all credibility has gone out the window. Mr. Greenleaf writes as though the authors of the gospels were truly Matthew, etc. No one can state that with any degree of credulity. Not one ounce. Furthermore, when one writes the following:
That the books of the Old Testament, as we now have them, are genuine; that they existed in the time of our Savior,
No credible theology scholar would even entertain this. The author speaks of Matthew, etc, as if they were proven historical people and further, that they actually wrote the gospels when in truth, we don't know that. Your 'scholars' are not scholars are all but 2 century old Christian apologists which hold no weight in this argument whatsoever.
All of which is your opinion and doesn't prove a thing.
1robin
Christian/Baptist
Agreed. If I made a religion I liked it would not be Christianity. I did not pick Christianity because I liked it. I picked it because it seemed the best explanation, and after I chose it God validated my choice by spiritually revealing it's core claims in event human language can't fully describe.
Too biased!!!!!!! You just rejected two of the greatest legal minds ever know, and apparently the reason you did so was because they don't agree with you. I gave you two of the greatest experts on testimony and evidence your going to have to find a better reason or higher credentials before you can dismiss them with a waving of your hand. Those men were among the best in human history of separating good testimony from bad, founded the best law school in history, and every high court seat of the worlds greatest empire. You can't merely shrug them off. However I knew that was exactly what you would try to do and predicted it in the post you answered.
How about I let the most famous modern bible CRITIC answer you on this. Keep in mind this is the best anti-apologist the bible currently has.
Most of these differences are completely immaterial and insignificant; in fact most of the
changes found in our early Christian manuscripts have nothing to do with theology or ideology. Far and away the most changes are the result of mistakes, pure and simple— slips of the pen, accidental omissions, inadvertent additions, misspelled words, blunders of one sort or another when scribes made intentional changes, sometimes their motives were as pure as the driven snow. And so we must rest content knowing that getting back to the earliest attainable version is the best we can do, whether or not we have reached back to the "original" text. This oldest form of the text is no doubt closely (very closely) related to what the author originally wrote, and so it is the basis for our interpretation of his teaching.
The gentleman that I’m quoting is Bart Ehrman in Misquoting Jesus. [audience laughter]
“Can the New Testament Be Inspired in Light of Textual Variation?”
Dr. James White vs. Dr. Bart Ehrman
January 21, 2009
That's so far with one being the hero of the non-believing side. You can also add the over 100 NT scholars who worked on the NIV bible. You said their cannot be one scholar that believes the modern bible generally reflects the earliest sources. In about 5 minutes I gave you 106 including one from your own side. BTW it was another scholar from your own side that made the claim about what NT scholars historically believe are true. "The empty tomb" being one of those.
Plus the dead sea scrolls are like an atom smasher that chew up almost every claim you made. I think the principle book Isaiah that was found preceded the oldest copy we had by around a thousand years. But even compared to modern bibles it was over 95% accurate.
And I see you pulled both unjustifiable and clichéd responses to the greatest experts on testimony and evidence in history. You not only claimed they are dismissed on the basic assumption that no one can be considered a scholar if they are Christian, and you even used the second prediction I made. You said the mere fact they rode a horse instead of taking a taxi, or drank well water instead of avian they can be dismissed. Despite the fact that many of the rules used in courthouses in the west contain rules and regulations they invented and taught. I used to modernize federal courtrooms all over the US. I do not think I saw one without works by Greenhouse in them.
Last edited:
outhouse
Atheistically
outhouse
Atheistically
Sure we can. They were totally ignorant to biblical history, and have BEEN COMPLETELY REFUTED FOR OVER A HUNDRED YEARS.
They had no historical education, and based testimony assumption and hearsay.
Last edited:
Yes, I can reject them for the reasons I mentioned, which I note you ignored. Yes, they are biased. Are you even familiar with how theology scholars are unbiased, or at least attempt to maintain an unbiased POV? 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.
ether-ore
Active Member
This phrase is important: "are more than apparent to any who look for them". You went looking for parallels and surprise, surprise, you found them. Even if you wish to call the story of the "Son" of God a superstition and equate it (and I'm sure you do) with a worship of the "sun" (silly phonetics); there is no similarity in the core message of the two. The story of the Son of God and His atonement tells us of our relationship to God and what the purpose of our existence is. A worship of the sun provides no explanation for our existence or any relationship of our's to the sun and it explains nothing more than a dependence on the change in the seasons.
It matters because the attempt to equate the two indicates a rabid desire to obscure the core message of the Son of God which is His atonement.
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.
The ability to rise again like the dawning sun, eh?
outhouse
Atheistically
And if you knew history you would see the OT is chocked full of resurrection mythology.
The sun had nothing to do with Jesus divinity.
ether-ore
Active Member
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.
How about Horus then? Or Mithras? The son of a god is far from new, new being when your faith was developed. Both Horus and Mithras predate Jesus and are strikingly similar to the story of Jesus. You speak of 'deeper meaning' but is that not the subjective meaning that one incorporates into a story? You might find deeper meaning in Jesus but that does not mean it is there. You perceive it. I do not.
outhouse
Atheistically
Its actually the other way around.
With no real level of certainty other then all mithras archeology seems to be later then Jesus