tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post195051731010130332..comments2023-11-05T20:19:44.812+13:00Comments on Ambassador Watch: Stone AgeGavinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03060097218905523899noreply@blogger.comBlogger88125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-56037096127725890902008-02-14T05:29:00.000+13:002008-02-14T05:29:00.000+13:00I haven't read every word of this thread, but Gavi...I haven't read every word of this thread, but Gavin's original post has a testimonial from one of Weinland's followers that says:<BR/><BR/>"Until Ronald I believed that perhaps E.T's were responsible for life on earth but now I know better."<BR/><BR/>I mean, really.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-7275152267432884892008-02-06T04:16:00.000+13:002008-02-06T04:16:00.000+13:00Looks like Jared doesn't want to "set things strai...Looks like Jared doesn't want to "set things straight" after all BB. Or maybe he's just busy.<BR/><BR/>As for me? Ah well. The underlying concept of the truly unknowable god is a good starting-place, unfortunately in their zeal to both connect themselves to their truly Pagan Roots, and get away from them at the same time, the Gnostics seem to have built up their own personal little shop of horrors.<BR/><BR/>Careful examination of the religious system of the Gnostics reveals a very carefully inverted form of catholicism, which is likely why Jared doesn't want to touch the debate with a ten-foot-pole (for which I must apologize to Mr. Olar, I intended no offense, and did not realize it at the time).<BR/><BR/>As with all religious systems, if you read through enough of the stuff on the Gnostic library site, you will notice that they repeat the refrain that "it is very important not to take some parts of Gnostic theology and leave the others aside".<BR/><BR/>Translation? "Pay money to our church and go through all our brain-washing rituals, and you'll get a chance at the brass ring, yo. Because we are <EM>the one true church</EM>!"<BR/><BR/>Yeah no. Been there done that still dealing with the fall-out.<BR/><BR/>Next!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-81993173790663444592008-02-04T07:49:00.000+13:002008-02-04T07:49:00.000+13:00And, to BB: The reason I've been posting so much a...And, to BB: The reason I've been posting so much about this stuff is because I <EM>know</EM> there's something "off" about it, no matter how much sense it makes to me, superficially. <BR/><BR/>Why? Because it's a belief system, and all belief systems are corrupt. I still, uh, "believe" that. No matter how attractive the Pagan Roots movement looks <EM>to me</EM>, based on what little I know about it <EM>at this time</EM>, it's still a belief system. One I need to get an objective view of, in order to have it knocked out of my head.<BR/><BR/>You see, I <EM>want</EM> to be debated on the topic, by an intelligent and intelligible opponent (haven't found one yet, although you promoting Jared gives me hope), precisely so that my thinking will be debunked, so I can put away these theories for once and for all, so I might retain the open-mindedness that I try and keep at all costs.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-67697600368705068122008-02-03T20:46:00.000+13:002008-02-03T20:46:00.000+13:00Again to Jared Olar-Some further points: I was awa...Again to Jared Olar-<BR/><BR/>Some further points: I was aware that Arianism was a close contender for becoming the RC church's main theology, but what little I read about it was only in passing, and suggested that Constantine opposed it. <BR/><BR/>I was not studying the passage closely, and likely either misinterpreted or read a faulty dialectic (it was on Wikipedia). I think the latter is most likely.<BR/><BR/>We will have to disagree again, with regards to James I's sincerity of faith or not. There is no way it can be proved, to either of our satisfactions, that he was or was not thoroughly devout and perfectly "christian" in his motives to translate the bible into common (for the time) English. <BR/><BR/>Can we agree that James did do it in order to unify the Anglican churches? They were under great pressure from both the Roman Catholics, and their own internal inconsistencies, at the time.<BR/><BR/>At least, that is the understanding I have of the history as it has been presented to me. If you feel I have erred, I welcome your input as to where I may be mistaken.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-19338448506302398772008-02-03T20:28:00.000+13:002008-02-03T20:28:00.000+13:00To Jared Olar-As I stated, I have an open mind and...To Jared Olar-<BR/><BR/>As I stated, I have an open mind and my views are by no means cut-and-dried. This is just what makes sense to me at this time, based on what I have read (and I have stated some of the sources for my leanings). <BR/><BR/>My assertions to the contrary, I do not wish it to appear that I am not constantly questioning my own views, I am the last person who wants to be closed-minded about my own beliefs!<BR/><BR/>Which is likely why your "Armstrongist!" comment rubbed me the wrong way. I take full responsibility for that, and I apologize if I sounded snappish in response.<BR/><BR/>So! What would you recommend, as a good reference, for more information on the Neb-er-tcher creation-mythos of the Egyptians? <BR/><BR/>I have read, and am rereading <A HREF="http://www.sacred-texts.com/egy/leg/index.htm" REL="nofollow">The Egyptian Legends of the Gods</A> by Budge, published 1912. If there is some more recent or exhaustive volume you would recommend, I would be interested in learning of it.<BR/><BR/>I first became interested in studying the Egyptian legends for their similarities, after watching the documentary <A HREF="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58JyacWEFbE" REL="nofollow">The Pagan Christ</A>. This is based on the <A HREF="http://www.tomharpur.com/books/books_thepaganchrist.asp" REL="nofollow">book</A> of the same name by <A HREF="http://www.tomharpur.com/index.asp" REL="nofollow">Tom Harpur</A>. Have you read any of Harpur's work?<BR/><BR/>I do not wish to come across as being a Pagan Roots hard-liner, which is why (as I said), based on these things that I have read/discovered <EM>very recently</EM>, this is what makes sense <EM>to me</EM>, at this time.<BR/><BR/>That said, we shall have to agree to disagree (for the moment) on the similarities between the Egyptian texts and the KJV. You may not see any similarities, and I may see more than I should, and the truth (as it always does) lies somewhere in the middle.<BR/><BR/>I believe the trinity concept was taken from Isis being represented as having Osiris' belly, then it is stated that Isis conceived in the form of the (star) Septet or Sopthis. This was all drawn from the Budge texts. <BR/><BR/>Horus is sometimes represented in the Egyptian legends (so the documentary stated) as being his own father, I believe this may be in part due to the fact that Isis has the belly of Osiris, at least by the hieroglyphs recorded by Budge from one particular stone. <BR/><BR/>I believe this is the part of the Egyptian legends that may have been utilized for the trinity doctrine. Budge has his own theory on the origin of the trinity doctrine, to wit:<BR/><BR/><STRONG>Having described the coming into being of Khepera and the place on which he stood, the legend goes on to tell of the means by which the first Egyptian triad, or trinity, came into existence. Khepera had, in some form, union with his own shadow, and so begot offspring, who proceeded from his body under the forms of the gods Shu and Tefnut.</STRONG><BR/><BR/>As I stated on the forum where I brought this up, little did the ancient Egyptians know we'd be arguing about whether or not Khepera's shadow was a person, several thousands of years after the legend was extant.<BR/><BR/>Likewise with my views re: Constantine and the Nicene council, my stated views are aligned directly with what were presented in the documentary. If you can recommend a (non-biased) text that differs greatly, I would again, be interested in learning which text you would recommend.<BR/><BR/>One question I would be interested in hearing your answer to, given that you do not seem to believe that the Roman Catholic religion had any referents to paganism at all, do you believe that Constantine brought some of his Mithraism to RC christianity, or do you discount that as well?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-49580358595418329062008-02-03T05:08:00.000+13:002008-02-03T05:08:00.000+13:00Hey, Purple.I've been reading your comments here a...Hey, Purple.<BR/><BR/>I've been reading your comments here and on another forum/blog. I'm glad you opened up some of your recollections, understandings, and theories behind Horus, and Jesus here for discussion.<BR/><BR/>The reason I was happy to see your posts here was that I knew Jared would set things straight. He's got an awesome bank of historical knowledge, and has been very effective in dispelling not only some of the falsities folks use to support agnosticism or atheism, but also in dispelling the false histories presented by HWA and his lackeys.<BR/><BR/>In being a seeker of the truth, discernment is very important. You can always know who is well rooted by the fact that they can quote knowledgeable reliable sources. I don't pretend to be a historian myself, but I can see the difference between someone who speculates about Horus, Mithra, Jesus ben Pantera, etc, and someone who has actually made an exhaustive study of all the reference works pertaining to those individuals. It's like night and day.<BR/><BR/>BBAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-66770430014699555002008-02-02T17:58:00.000+13:002008-02-02T17:58:00.000+13:00your apologetic (I think I used it right in this i...<I>your apologetic (I think I used it right in this instance; feel free to correct me if you disagree.) is coloured by your own Roman Catholic Church perception filters</I><BR/><BR/>Oh, there's no question about that. None whatsoever.<BR/><BR/><I>I have an open mind; I'm not saying it's cut-and-dried; I am just saying, at this point in time, with all the evidence I have been presented with (and it is far greater than the space of this comments section can hold), it seems likely to me that this is what happened.</I><BR/><BR/>In reference to your comments on Constantine role in the history of Christianity, I would suggest you have not been presented with all of the evidence, or for some reason are not adequately interacting with it and accounting for it. In reference to your comments on Egyptian religion, I don't think you are taking proper account of the totality of the information found in the Neb-er-tcher legend and the Hebrew creation myth.<BR/><BR/><I>I am not the only one who shares these views,</I><BR/><BR/>Of course. And yet, as the saying goes, truth is not determined by a majority vote.<BR/><BR/><I>and they are neither paranoid, conspiratorial, nor Armstrongist in nature.</I><BR/><BR/>No, not paranoid. But the notion that Constantinian syncretism accounts in any way for Christianity as we know it is indeed a conspiracy theory -- it requires the same kind of faulty and tendentious interpretive methodology that is the essence of conspiracy theory, and which is characteristic of Armstrongist rewrites of the historical record.<BR/><BR/><I>I believe there's some verse in your bible about casting stones?</I><BR/><BR/>Oh yes, there are quite a few verses about casting stones, especially in the Pentateuch. ;-)<BR/><BR/><I>We shall have to agree to disagree on some points, because clearly we won't be able to discuss it, in anything other than an inflammatory way.</I><BR/><BR/>We might be able to discuss it, but I'm rather a history geek, and I'm apt to be blunt and tactless -- and to razz and tease -- when I encounter statements that are not borne out by historical sources. Just ask Bob Thiel. Well, okay, don't ask him, as he's never yet conceded when I took him to task for his pseudohistory. Anyway, it's nothing personal, even if it's unpleasant at times.<BR/><BR/><I>I could outline for you the exact theology behind how Osiris, Isis and Horus are a triune god, and how they are a very likely source for the christian notion of "trinity",</I><BR/><BR/>I'm not unfamiliar with ancient Egyptian religion, and am well aware that Osiris, Isis, and Horus were never thought of as triune in any sense like the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Indeed, they were never presented as just one god, nor as the only god. As for the source of the Christian notion of "trinity," the development of that idea is clearly traced in Christian sources from the first century through the fourth century. There's no need to speculate about Christians borrowing pagan Egyptian concepts of deity, as our sources amply demostrate the growth and development of Christian theology, through writers such as St. Justin Martyr, St. Irenaeus, St. Hippolytus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, St. Gregory Thaumaturgus, St. Dionysius of Rome, St. Dionysius of Alexandria, St. Athanasius, St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Hilary of Poitiers, . . . It took a lot of back-and-forth and to-and-fro and bickering before Christians finally settled on the dogmatic definition of the Trinity, and at no point in the process can we trace the developing concepts back to the triad of father Osirius, mother Isis, and son Horus.<BR/><BR/><I>but you clearly do not wish to admit that the similarities exist,</I><BR/><BR/>No, I said there are similarities, but similarities are not enough to substantiate a genetic theory.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-19929157357548745862008-02-02T14:18:00.000+13:002008-02-02T14:18:00.000+13:00Following my comment about 'mass extinctions' at t...Following my comment about 'mass extinctions' at the end of the late Pleistocene era, around 11,000 BCE, where 'up to 95%' of species died out, there was a report a few months ago about research from Northern Arizona University by <BR/>Ted Bunch, Northern Arizona University NAU adjunct professor of geology and former NASA researcher who specializes in impact craters and Jim Wittke, a geologic materials analyst at NAU. They are:- <BR/><BR/>“co-authors of an upcoming paper that describes an extraterrestrial comet impact as the cause of the event 12,900 years ago leading to the documented mass extinctions at the end of the Ice Age.”<BR/><BR/>They go on the describe:- <BR/><BR/> “a four-inch-thick "black mat" of carbon-rich material from sites on the North American continent. The black mat appears as far north as Canada, Greenland as well as in Europe and to the south as far as the Channel Islands off the coast of California and also eastward from California to the Carolinas, with two sites in Arizona. <BR/><BR/>Upon examining this black mat, evidence of mammoths and other megafauna and early human hunters, who were known as the Clovis culture, was found beneath the black mat, but it is missing entirely within or above it. It is this significant discovery that has led the research team to conclude that an extraterrestrial impact wiped out many of the inhabitants of the Late Pleistocene era”.Questerukhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06659962107808147107noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-5415594926401897612008-02-02T10:18:00.000+13:002008-02-02T10:18:00.000+13:00To Jared Olar,Before you suggest that my interest ...To Jared Olar,<BR/><BR/>Before you suggest that my interest in historical theories drawn from -gasp- actual history are merely "conspiracy theories and Armstrongist-style pseudohistory", I suggest you take a long, hard look in the mirror, and reflect on the fact that your apologetic (I think I used it right in this instance; feel free to correct me if you disagree.) is coloured by your own Roman Catholic Church perception filters, as you are a believer in same.<BR/><BR/>I have an open mind; I'm not saying it's cut-and-dried; I am just saying, at this point in time, with all the evidence I have been presented with (and it is far greater than the space of this comments section can hold), it seems likely to me that this is what happened. <BR/><BR/>I am not the only one who shares these views, and they are neither paranoid, conspiratorial, nor Armstrongist in nature. I believe there's some verse in your bible about casting stones? We shall have to agree to disagree on some points, because clearly we won't be able to discuss it, in anything other than an inflammatory way.<BR/><BR/>I could outline for you the exact theology behind how Osiris, Isis and Horus are a triune god, and how they are a very likely source for the christian notion of "trinity", but you clearly do not wish to admit that the similarities exist, so I will save you having to "debunk" my arguments point-by-point, from a Catholic perspective.<BR/><BR/>Shall we diverge paths on an amicable basis at least?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-17040448117812143522008-02-02T03:15:00.000+13:002008-02-02T03:15:00.000+13:00Have 'reputable archaeologists' never got it wrong...<I>Have 'reputable archaeologists' never got it wrong?</I><BR/><BR/>They get things wrong all the time. But not to the extent that Rohl gets things wrong. Like Herman Hoeh did, Rohl identifies Pharaoh Shishaq with Rameses II, placing the accession of Rameses II about 930 B.C., when Egyptologists place Rameses II in the 1200s B.C. To identify these two Pharaohs as one, Rohl places Dynasties XXI and XXII parallel instead of consecutively -- but that gives us dual office holders for all the senior benefices in Egypt. It just doesn't make sense. Pharaoh Shishaq was Shoshenq or Soshenq I, not Rameses.<BR/><BR/>By the way, I should clarify that I didn't say Rohl wasn't a trained Egyptologist. He's definitely that. He's just not a reputable one, due to his radical and unsupported "New Chronology."<BR/><BR/>P.S. The article I'm cribbing from here, "Temporal Fugues," by Dr. Chris Bennett, uses "B.C." instead of "B.C.E." Also, Bennett opines that Rohl could be right in his identification of the chronological context of the Israelite Sojourn in Egypt. You just need to treat anything by Rohl with great caution.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-15441346886066559682008-02-02T01:47:00.000+13:002008-02-02T01:47:00.000+13:00'Rohl is not a reputable Egyptologist or archaeolo...'Rohl is not a reputable Egyptologist or archaeologist.'<BR/><BR/>Have 'reputable archaeologists' never got it wrong?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-42051648864495326422008-02-01T18:33:00.000+13:002008-02-01T18:33:00.000+13:00Where are those extremely well documented historic...<I>Where are those extremely well documented historical Jesus evidences located?</I><BR/><BR/>They are conveniently compiled in a collection of ancient Christian documents known as the New Testament.<BR/><BR/><I>There is nothing written about the existence of Jesus or the resurrection outside the Bible until the late 2nd century.</I><BR/><BR/>Perhaps you meant the late 1st century? Jesus Christ is mentioned by Josephus and Tacitus in the late 1st century and very early 2nd century. In the early 2nd century, Pliny refers to Christian belief in the divinity of the man Christ. Christ and His resurrection are discussed in the epistle of St. Clement to the Corinthians, written in the last decade of the 1st century, and in the epistles of St. Ignatius, written in the first decade of the 2nd century.<BR/><BR/><I>There were "christians", no doubt, but they couldn't even agree amongst themselves if Jesus existed in the flesh or was just a Gnosis, i.e., a personification of what they saw as a perfect man.</I><BR/><BR/>Your representation of "Gnosis" is unsupported by the primary sources. Gnostics did not view Jesus as a fiction, a mere literary personification of the perfect man, but as an incorporeal spirit sent to liberate man from the material universe and enable him to be reabsorbed by the Father.<BR/><BR/><I>Christianity only survived because of Constantine making it the state religion of Rome.</I><BR/><BR/>Only trouble is, Constantine never made Christianity the state religion of Rome. It was Theodosius who did that. To be sure, Constantine patronised the Church, but he never abolished the pagan cults and he continued their traditional patronage, even though he no longer participated in them. As for whether or not Christianity would have died out if not for Constantine's patronage, just keep in mind that the Empire had tried repeatedly to stamp out Christianity prior to the 300s A.D., and yet the Christian population of the Empire grew steadily and substantially throughout the 200s A.D. Before Constantine's Edict of Milan the Empire made one final desperate attempt to crush the Church, but no nation or state can survive if it tries to extermine half, or close to half, of its own population. It's not cynicism or political opportunism to recognise that and to seek to foster internal peace and harmony.<BR/><BR/><I>scientists use BCE and CE.</I><BR/><BR/>Some of them do, some of them don't. "BCE/CE" is Newspeak, leading one to wonder just why the "Common Era" is numbered as it is. Saying "BCE/CE" instead of "B.C./A.D." is the same sort of ideological bowdlerisation that we used to do as Armstrongists: "stake" instead of "cross," etc.<BR/><BR/><I>Constantine took the Egyptian mystery schools' teachings of the triune god Osiris/Isis/Horus,</I><BR/><BR/>The gods Osiris, Isis, and Horus were never believed to be a triune god. There is only one religion that has ever taught that there is only one God in three Persona. Pagan triads of gods, or pagan gods and goddesses exhibiting triple unity, are not the same as or even analogous to the Christian Trinity.<BR/><BR/><I>slapped a fresh coat of his own personal Mithraism onto it, and "Christianity" as we know it today was formed, in a last-gasp attempt to shore up the crumbling Roman empire. It didn't work.</I><BR/><BR/>Purple, are you aware that Constantine supported orthodox Christianity for a while, but later supported Arianism? Did you know that for most of the 300s A.D., the Emperors were emphatically not friends of orthodox Christianity, but were either Arians, semi-Arians, or neopagans? Constantine's successors did attempt to remake Christianity, but they encountered strong resistance from the Church. This theory that Christianity was the product of Constantine's alleged syncretism just doesn't agree with what history tells us. Armstrongists understandably like that theory a lot, but if you've left Armstrongism behind, you ought also to leave such conspiracy theories and Armstrongist-style pseudohistory behind too.<BR/><BR/>By the way, if his attempt to shore up the Roman Empire didn't work, then how come Constantinople did not finally fall until 1453?<BR/><BR/><I>King James I, under pressure to unify an increasingly disharmonious United Kingdom that was threatening to blow, re-invented Christianity in his own mold, and thus we have the widespread King James Version (and does anyone really stop think about what that means) Bible which has been extant up until very recently.</I><BR/><BR/>The KJV is still extant. Also, King James did not reinvent Christianity in his own mold. He was an Anglican, and Anglicanism was invented in the 1500s, not the early 1600s.<BR/><BR/><I>James didn't do it because of divine revelation, he was doing it for the same reason Constantine did, and took a political page from the Roman emperor's playbook.</I><BR/><BR/>On the contrary, there can be no reasonable doubt that James, for all his flaws and faults, was a sincere Christian. He wasn't cynically using religion as a political tool, but was motivated by his religious faith to do the things he did.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-23784946163262292212008-02-01T17:48:00.000+13:002008-02-01T17:48:00.000+13:00A useful title is by David Rohl: A Test of Time. H...<I>A useful title is by David Rohl: A Test of Time. He demonstrates 'the archaeologists were looking in the right place for the Israelites - but the wrong time' He has pics of the Israelite camp site in Goshen.</I><BR/><BR/>I hate to break the news to you, but David Rohl and his major reinterpretations of the archaeology of the Ancient Near East are viewed as pariahs by reputable archaeologists. His ideas are basically a form of mitigated Velikovskyanism -- the same basic method of reinterpretation of ancient archaeology as found in Herman Hoeh's Compendium, only nowhere near as flaky. I've got an excellent study paper by an Egyptologist that completely demolishes Rohl's attempted re-do of Egyptian history and shows that it just doesn't fit the evidence. Now, that's not to say that he hasn't correctly identified the Hebrew settlement in Goshen -- stopped clocks and all that, you known. But you should be aware of the quality of scholarship that you're reading -- Rohl is not a reputable Egyptologist or archaeologist.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-8963158135096832842008-02-01T10:34:00.000+13:002008-02-01T10:34:00.000+13:00The other messages in the thread outline the other...<I>The other messages in the thread outline the other parallels I have found, and this is just from a brief skimming of a very limited sample of Egyptian texts.</I><BR/><BR/>To establish genetic derivation, it takes a lot more than finding religious parallels. Otherwise we end up in the La-La Land of Alexander Hislop’s <I>The Two Babylons</I>.<BR/><BR/><I>(The masturbation thing was subverted into the "through the holy spirit, Christ was created" doctrine by the way,</I><BR/><BR/>Masturbation involves stimulation of the sexual organs apart from sex. Christianity does not maintain that there was any sexual stimulation involved in the virginal conception of Christ. One can rightly speak of masturbation when discussing the origins of the gods in pagan cosmogonies, but not in Jewish and Christianity mythology.<BR/><BR/><I>and explains why the various christian churches so demonize masturbation, lest their pagan roots start to show.)</I><BR/><BR/>Nonsense. If Christian objections to masturbation are grounded in an impulse to obscure the pagan origin of a doctrine of the masturbatory virginal conception of Christ, then why does Orthodox Judaism also classify masturbation as unnatural and a perversion. Jews and Christians who object to masturbation as unnatural have always looked to the “be fruitful and multiply” blessing of Genesis. It has never been extrapolated from the doctrine of the Virgin Birth.<BR/><BR/><I>If you want to pick on me because apologist is the word and not apologetic, you go right ahead and fill your boots; I've seen both used, and didn't know there was "one true way" to use the term. My, uh, apologies. ;)</I><BR/><BR/>I wasn’t picking on you, just correcting your grammar. “Apologist” is a noun that refers to a person who engages in a verbal or written defense of some proposition, idea, doctrine, or organisation. “Apologetic” can be an adjective, but when used as a noun, it refers to the <I>apologia</I> or apology, that is, the arguments presented by the apologist.<BR/><BR/><I>Would you like to discuss this topic on a more even keel, or are you just going to dismiss me out of hand because I said my ingrained Armstrongism made me afraid of the way your churches looked?? I didn't say it was right, I just said that's what it did, and I apologize if it offended you.</I><BR/><BR/>I wasn’t offended. “Non gustibus disputandam” and all that. For one thing, some of our churches are frightfully ugly, and Catholicism also has a strong strain of aesthetically excremental religious art. Anyway, I know exactly what you mean, as I was brought up as you were --- it takes a while to acquire a taste for religious art that is produced by a culture that is alien to you.<BR/><BR/>I don’t think you’re “some out-of-left-field whackjob promoting a new and untested theory.” The ideas you’re espousing have been around for a while. I just don’t think they are adequately supported to merit our credence. In particular, there is insufficient evidence to support the Egyptian genetic hypothesis of the Hebrew creation myth --- and it’s impossible to affirm, as you did, that there is a large degree of similarity between the Egyptian myth and the Hebrew myth. The differences far outnumber the similarities.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-65862196170647899152008-02-01T10:10:00.000+13:002008-02-01T10:10:00.000+13:00Hm, well, if you want to pick apart this particula...Hm, well, if you want to pick apart this particular text I have provided, I've gone through it word-by-word, in comparison to the King James Version biblical scriptures <A HREF="http://www.shadowsofwcg.com/forum/index.php?topic=1701.msg10502#msg10502" REL="nofollow">here</A>. The other messages in the thread outline the other parallels I have found, and this is just from a brief skimming of a very limited sample of Egyptian texts.<BR/><BR/>(The masturbation thing was subverted into the "through the holy spirit, Christ was created" doctrine by the way, and explains why the various christian churches so demonize masturbation, lest their pagan roots start to show.)<BR/><BR/>If you want to pick on me because apologist is the word and not apologetic, you go right ahead and fill your boots; I've seen both used, and didn't know there was "one true way" to use the term. My, uh, apologies. ;)<BR/><BR/>Finally, if you think I'm just some out-of-left-field whackjob promoting a new and untested theory, might I refer you to professional theologian and New Testament scholar <A HREF="www.tomharpur.com" REL="nofollow">Tom Harpur</A> and his book (and the subsequent documentary on same, which will soon be available on DVD), <A HREF="http://www.tomharpur.com/books/books_thepaganchrist.asp" REL="nofollow">The Pagan Christ</A>.<BR/><BR/>The documentary as it aired on CBC, is available in five parts <A HREF="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58JyacWEFbE" REL="nofollow">here</A>.<BR/><BR/>Now. Would you like to discuss this topic on a more even keel, or are you just going to dismiss me out of hand because I said my ingrained Armstrongism made me afraid of the way your churches looked?? I didn't say it was right, I just said that's what it did, and I apologize if it offended you.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-26349574159039090002008-02-01T09:51:00.000+13:002008-02-01T09:51:00.000+13:00If you really really REALLY want to know where the...<I>If you really really REALLY want to know where the creation account in Genesis came from, for pity's sake read the original manuscript here. It's verbatim.</I><BR/><BR/>I don't think you know what the word "verbatim" means. Gen. 1-2 is certainly not a verbatim copy of the Egyptian myth of Creation.<BR/><BR/><I>The world-ocean, The Word, it's verbatim.</I><BR/><BR/>There is some resemblance, but in the Egyptian myth, before the heavens and the earth are created, there was a preexistent, eternal Chaos or ocean called Nu. Before creating the universe from the primordial chaos or world-ocean, Neb-er-tcher transformed himself into the Creator god Khepera. But in the Hebrew myth, God preexists all things, creating the heavens and the earth, but the earth He had made was chaotic and covered with a world ocean. God then brings order to the primordial chaos that He had brought into existence. Thus, the Egyptian myth is not the same as the Hebrew myth. In one, the Creator and primordial matter are both eternal, and the Creator shapes matter into the universe that we know. In the other, the Creator prexists all things and brings primordial matter into existence, and then shapes matter into the universe that we know.<BR/><BR/><I>Genesis is based on the creation mythologies of the Egyptians. You can argue back and forth all you like, but there is no escaping the FACT that the book of Genesis in the King James Version bible (and the Catholic version too) is lifted almost whole cloth from the creation account in the Egyptian mythos.</I><BR/><BR/>Almost whole cloth? Then why doesn't the Egyptian myth say anything about a week of six creative days followed by a divine sabbath rest? And why doesn't the Hebrew myth mention the goddess Maat, or say anything about how the Creator god Khepera had sex with his own shadow, thereby bringing the gods Shu, the air, and Tefnut, water vapor, into existence by an act of masturbation? Shu and Tefnut then copulate and bring for Keb, the earth, and Nut, the sky. Keb and Nut then copulate and bring for Osiris, Horus, Set, Isis, and Nephthys. In the Hebrew myth, there is just one God, and the air, waters, earth, and sky are not gods, but are created things that do not have sex with each other. In contrast to the pagan creation myths, there is no cosmogony in Gen. 1-2, no account of how the gods came into existence through masturbation and incest. It requires a fatal lack of reading comprehension to conclude that the Genesis myth was lifted almost whole cloth from the Egyptian myth.<BR/><BR/><I>Anyone who, after reading the link I've just posted, still refuses to accept that, is a bible apologetic.</I><BR/><BR/>The word is "apologist." And you don't have to be a Bible apologist to notice that the Egyptian myth and the Hebrew myth have very little in common. In fact, if there was any influence between the Egyptian and Hebrew myths, we can make a nice case that the Egyptian myth was derived from the Hebrew myth. After all, this Egyptian creation legend is found in a text that wasn't written until 311 B.C. -- but I think the consensus even among Bible critics and skeptics is that the Book of Genesis was written by 600 B.C., and likely was written well before that. So, if we want to spin cockamamie theories that two extremely dissimilar myths that no one could confuse with each other are in fact genetically related, why must it be the Hebrew that came from the Egyptian and not the other way around?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-35990554927276970532008-02-01T07:10:00.000+13:002008-02-01T07:10:00.000+13:00OK I know I said I wouldn't beat this dead horse, ...OK I know I said I wouldn't beat this dead horse, but if you really really REALLY want to know where the creation account in Genesis came from, for pity's sake read the original manuscript <A HREF="http://www.sacred-texts.com/egy/leg/leg04.htm" REL="nofollow">here</A>.<BR/><BR/>It's verbatim. The world-ocean, The Word, it's verbatim. Genesis is based on the creation mythologies of the Egyptians. You can argue back and forth all you like, but there is no escaping the FACT that the book of Genesis in the King James Version bible (and the Catholic version too) is lifted almost whole cloth from the creation account in the Egyptian mythos.<BR/><BR/>Anyone who, after reading the link I've just posted, still refuses to accept that, is a bible apologetic.<BR/><BR/>(And the first one who says "Oh, they just called god and Jebus different names because the Egyptians didn't have bibles!" gets fish-slapped with a wet trout.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-38729782137588908052008-02-01T01:45:00.000+13:002008-02-01T01:45:00.000+13:00That there is a time gap between the first two ver...That there is a time gap between the first two verses of Genesis is an invention that is not supported by the rest of the Bible.<BR/><BR/>There would actually have to be two time gaps. One between the creation of the heavens and the creation of the earth and another gap between that creation and the re-creation.<BR/><BR/>Of course, we can always say that it's not literal and is really an allegory of the creation of the Hebrew people.<BR/><BR/>That's the problem with the big book of fantasy, it can be interpreted any way you like.Corkyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15894537940881776504noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-67094710632608162412008-02-01T01:15:00.000+13:002008-02-01T01:15:00.000+13:00Corky said:'There is no evidence of a worldwide fl...Corky said:<BR/>'There is no evidence of a worldwide flood 4200 years ago and no evidence of an Exodus by Jews from Egypt 3,300 years ago either'<BR/><BR/>A useful title is by David Rohl: A Test of Time. He demonstrates 'the archaeologists were looking in the right place for the Israelites - but the wrong time' He has pics of the Israelite camp site in GoshenAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-52871633150943501402008-02-01T01:10:00.000+13:002008-02-01T01:10:00.000+13:00Corky said: '6,000 years ago . . . nothing happene...Corky said: '6,000 years ago . . . nothing happened. There is no reason whatsoever to think that the earth was re-recreated at that time, none whatsoever'<BR/><BR/>No-one know how long the 'gap' of Gen1:2 was - perhaps millions of years.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-13141088502073236642008-01-31T16:47:00.000+13:002008-01-31T16:47:00.000+13:00It is readily admitted that there were 'mass extin...It is readily admitted that there were 'mass extinctions' at the end of the late Pleistocene era, around 11,000 years ago, where 'up to 95%' of species died out. <BR/><BR/>This has been downplayed - and obviously evolution cannot allow the quoted 95% to become 100%, or they hit a problem.Questerukhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06659962107808147107noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-30120814649911566112008-01-31T15:29:00.000+13:002008-01-31T15:29:00.000+13:006,000 years ago . . . nothing happened. There is n...6,000 years ago . . . nothing happened. There is no reason whatsoever to think that the earth was re-recreated at that time, none whatsoever. <BR/><BR/>There is no evidence of a worldwide flood 4200 years ago and no evidence of an Exodus by Jews from Egypt 3,300 years ago either.<BR/><BR/>It's all so much bunk and BS made up by a priesthood returning from Babylon upon the decree of Cyrus to build a temple to Marduk in every capitol city of the exiled peoples in the empire.<BR/><BR/>Purpose? To collect tribute from the populations of the lands from which the exiled originated.Corkyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15894537940881776504noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-14487532577417910362008-01-31T10:40:00.000+13:002008-01-31T10:40:00.000+13:00My last shot in "getting through" on the Gap Theor...My last shot in "getting through" on the Gap Theory. Fossils are not an issue, and I didn't mention them.<BR/><BR/>Imagine the earth covered with water, tohu and bohu. Beneath are the remains of <B>an entire antediluvian word</B> - not just animals, Neanderthals, but forests, eco-systems.<BR/><BR/>And this is just 6000 years ago?<BR/><BR/>Forget fossils, grab a geology text book. Look for planet wide sedimentary layers at the appropriate depth. The evidence should be overwhelming.<BR/><BR/>Is it?<BR/><BR/>Go grab a text on geology - or chat to someone with some knowledge about earth's real history - and find out for yourself.<BR/><BR/>Meantime, spare us all the cheap apologetics.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-55542554948623060632008-01-31T07:38:00.000+13:002008-01-31T07:38:00.000+13:00Constantine didn't make "Christianity" the state r...Constantine didn't make "Christianity" the state religion of Rome. Constantine took the Egyptian mystery schools' teachings of the triune god Osiris/Isis/Horus, slapped a fresh coat of his own personal Mithraism onto it, and "Christianity" as we know it today was formed, in a last-gasp attempt to shore up the crumbling Roman empire. It didn't work.<BR/><BR/>King James I, under pressure to unify an increasingly disharmonious United Kingdom that was threatening to blow, re-invented Christianity in his own mold, and thus we have the widespread King James Version (and does anyone really stop think about what that means) Bible which has been extant up until very recently.<BR/><BR/>James didn't do it because of divine revelation, he was doing it for the same reason Constantine did, and took a political page from the Roman emperor's playbook. <BR/><BR/>While it didn't work for Constantine, it certainly worked for James, and thus we have the descendant offshoots of that in "the new world" today.<BR/><BR/>I will leave it for the astute reader to draw the parallels between Constantine, James, and the conservative American political right, which just happens to be using fundamental evangelism, and the "New International Version" (strangely enough in English) of the bible in exactly the same manner.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-66255553072907660602008-01-31T07:22:00.000+13:002008-01-31T07:22:00.000+13:00However, the historicity of Jesus is extremely wel...<I>However, the historicity of Jesus is extremely well documented. His impact on the modern world is very significant, 2,000 years after the fact.</I><BR/><BR/>Where are those extremely well documented historical Jesus evidences located? <BR/><BR/>The resurrection is said to be a well documented fact too, however, outside the Bible, there is no evidence of either one.<BR/><BR/>There is nothing written about the existence of Jesus or the resurrection outside the Bible until the late 2nd century. <BR/><BR/>There were "christians", no doubt, but they couldn't even agree amongst themselves if Jesus existed in the flesh or was just a Gnosis, i.e., a personification of what they saw as a perfect man.<BR/><BR/>Christianity only survived because of Constantine making it the state religion of Rome.<BR/><BR/>And, time is not divided into BC & AD except by the Christian Church's influence in the making of the calender. The Jews still don't use it in figuring what year it is and neither do the Chinese, and scietists use BCE and CE.Corkyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15894537940881776504noreply@blogger.com