It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Plagiarism In The Bible

page: 20
28
<< 17  18  19    21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 21 2014 @ 12:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: StalkerSolent

originally posted by: Tangerine
Clearly, you want to believe that Jesus lived. Why? How would it change your life if you knew for certain (an impossibility, of course) that Jesus did not live?


Um, well, that's impossible, so it's hard to conceive. But it would probably graduate me from a sort-of existentialist/nihilist to a full blown one




I suspect you want to believe for religious reasons and the historicity of it is immaterial to your motivations.


I suspect the same about you




My overall agenda regarding this topic is to get Christians to distinguish between belief and fact. I think it is truly dangerous to be unable to distinguish between those two things.


And yet, you have faith, definitely unprovable, possibly unfounded, that facts, as you think of them, exist. Interesting, no?


I take your point.
But what else are we debating if not "facts"? On a metaphysical level, I'm not certain about much but I didn't think this was a metaphysical discussion, however much more interesting that might be. I'm used to most Christians being literalists and tend to default to that level of discussion.
edit on 21-11-2014 by Tangerine because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 21 2014 @ 10:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: StalkerSolent

originally posted by: Tangerine
Clearly, you want to believe that Jesus lived. Why? How would it change your life if you knew for certain (an impossibility, of course) that Jesus did not live?


Um, well, that's impossible, so it's hard to conceive. But it would probably graduate me from a sort-of existentialist/nihilist to a full blown one




Hmm. Are you a Christian? I can't tell from your posts.

I was raised in a fundamental Christian household, but I've come to understand Christianity and it's true meaning only after abandoning it. In my opinion, the debate and dogma surrounding an actual Jesus Christ living on earth, as well as his supposed return and the so called "End of Time" doctrine, is superfluous and it distracts and debases the beauty and truth that Christianity actually embraces.



posted on Nov, 21 2014 @ 10:55 AM
link   
a reply to: windword

In my opinion, the debate and dogma surrounding an actual Jesus Christ living on earth, as well as his supposed return and the so called "End of Time" doctrine, is superfluous and it distracts and debases the beauty and truth that Christianity actually embraces.

The realization of the living God (the moving presence), Christ, will end time.
Do you realize that you are ever present and you are seeing the present appearance always?

Where is time?



posted on Nov, 21 2014 @ 10:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Itisnowagain

My timing has always been perfect, even when it's not!



posted on Nov, 21 2014 @ 12:30 PM
link   
a reply to: StalkerSolent

the historical existence of jesus is not in question nearly so much as the claims made about him. as isaac asimov said, the more ridiculous and wild the claim, the more concrete and convincing the evidence ought to be. not the other way around.



posted on Nov, 21 2014 @ 05:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: StalkerSolent

the historical existence of jesus is not in question nearly so much as the claims made about him. as isaac asimov said, the more ridiculous and wild the claim, the more concrete and convincing the evidence ought to be. not the other way around.



They're both in question. The fact that there isn't an iota of contemporaneous documentation (ie. historical evidence) proving that Jesus lived pretty much discredits the other, more outrageous, claims. Christians can't prove the most basic element of their claims.



posted on Nov, 21 2014 @ 05:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Tangerine
I take your point.
But what else are we debating if not "facts"? On a metaphysical level, I'm not certain about much but I didn't think this was a metaphysical discussion, however much more interesting that might be. I'm used to most Christians being literalists and tend to default to that level of discussion.


Well, I'm not sure how you're using "literalist" (and therefore uncertain as to whether I qualify as one.)
*However,* I find that there are a few things that are proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and then a lot of them that are just extremely likely (or, conversely, extremely unlikely.) For instance, I cannot prove Bigfoot does not exist, but based on the sum of the evidence, I might find it unlikely. Most human endeavors deal with facts that we have good evidence to be true, and we extrapolate from there to likely interpretations or conclusions.



posted on Nov, 21 2014 @ 05:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword

Hmm. Are you a Christian? I can't tell from your posts.


Thanks, I guess
I am a Christian, but I prefer to deal with the arguments rather than what I am or am not personally, although I certainly try to behave consistently with my faith.



I was raised in a fundamental Christian household, but I've come to understand Christianity and it's true meaning only after abandoning it. In my opinion, the debate and dogma surrounding an actual Jesus Christ living on earth, as well as his supposed return and the so called "End of Time" doctrine, is superfluous and it distracts and debases the beauty and truth that Christianity actually embraces.


That's interesting. Christianity seems a little superfluous to me without Christ...



posted on Nov, 21 2014 @ 05:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: StalkerSolent

the historical existence of jesus is not in question nearly so much as the claims made about him.


Depends on who you ask, I guess




as isaac asimov said, the more ridiculous and wild the claim, the more concrete and convincing the evidence ought to be. not the other way around.


Hmm. While I think there's some truth to that, calling a claim "wild" or "ridiculous" seems pretty subjective.



posted on Nov, 21 2014 @ 06:36 PM
link   
a reply to: StalkerSolent




That's interesting. Christianity seems a little superfluous to me without Christ...


LOL

You can't have Christianity without Christ, but you can without Jesus.


Philo of Alexandria[edit]
Philo (20 BC – 50 AD), a Hellenized Jew, used the term Logos to mean an intermediary divine being, or demiurge. Philo followed the Platonic distinction between imperfect matter and perfect Form, and therefore intermediary beings were necessary to bridge the enormous gap between God and the material world. The Logos was the highest of these intermediary beings, and was called by Philo "the first-born of God." Philo also wrote that "the Logos of the living God is the bond of everything, holding all things together and binding all the parts, and prevents them from being dissolved and separated."

Plato's Theory of Forms was located within the Logos, but the Logos also acted on behalf of God in the physical world.In particular, the Angel of the Lord in the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) was identified with the Logos by Philo, who also said that the Logos was God's instrument in the creation of the universe.

Christianity
Christ the Logos
Main article: Logos (Christianity)

In principio erat verbum, Latin for In the beginning was the Word, from the Clementine Vulgate, Gospel of John, 1:1–18.
The Christian concept of the Logos is derived from the first chapter of the Gospel of John, where the Logos (often translated as “Word”) is described in terms that resemble, but likely surpass, the ideas of Philo:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not overcome it.


John 1 completely plagiarizes Philo's theme of the LOGOS, and then goes one further by claiming the LOGOS incarnated into ONE human body, lived and died for our sins, etc, etc, etc...


John also explicitly identifies the Logos with Jesus:

The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth. John testifies concerning him. He cries out, saying, "This was he of whom I said, 'He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.'"


LOGOS



posted on Nov, 21 2014 @ 08:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword

John 1 completely plagiarizes Philo's theme of the LOGOS, and then goes one further by claiming the LOGOS incarnated into ONE human body, lived and died for our sins, etc, etc, etc...



Well, considering that this Philo chaps is a *Jewish* philosopher, and that Christianity was (less so now) advertising itself as "Judaism fulfilled," it makes a lot of sense that Christianity would take ideas from Judaism.
(The Wiki says some scholars believe John and Philo had similar source material and reached the same conclusions, others believe Philo influenced John. *shrug*)



posted on Nov, 21 2014 @ 09:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: StalkerSolent

originally posted by: windword

John 1 completely plagiarizes Philo's theme of the LOGOS, and then goes one further by claiming the LOGOS incarnated into ONE human body, lived and died for our sins, etc, etc, etc...



Well, considering that this Philo chaps is a *Jewish* philosopher, and that Christianity was (less so now) advertising itself as "Judaism fulfilled," it makes a lot of sense that Christianity would take ideas from Judaism.


Sure! Exactly! Nuts and bolts.


(The Wiki says some scholars believe John and Philo had similar source material and reached the same conclusions, others believe Philo influenced John. *shrug*)


This goes to the argument for mysticism. Why didn't Philo know that he had the incarnation of the "Angel of the Lord", "The LOGOS" in his midst? The timing is impeccable!

Actually, Paul's Christianity, and all Christians from his writings forward, worship a celestial Jesus Christ, not a human being. It's the human part that's superfluous and a distraction from the true expression of Christianity, in my opinion.

Also, Christianity borrowed the ritual of baptism from the Essene and the Eleusian Mystery cults. Was John the Baptist an Essene or a Pagan?

More Stuff on That



posted on Nov, 21 2014 @ 10:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword

Sure! Exactly! Nuts and bolts.


I wouldn't call this plagiarism, since the Christians appropriated basically the entire Old Testament and brought in a bunch of Jewish traditions and ideas, but I think we agree on the idea




This goes to the argument for mysticism. Why didn't Philo know that he had the incarnation of the "Angel of the Lord", "The LOGOS" in his midst? The timing is impeccable!

You lost me




Actually, Paul's Christianity, and all Christians from his writings forward, worship a celestial Jesus Christ, not a human being. It's the human part that's superfluous and a distraction from the true expression of Christianity, in my opinion.


Erm...why do we get verses like "Christ, and Him crucified," then? *scratches head.* Doesn't sound mystical to me.




Also, Christianity borrowed the ritual of baptism from the Essene and the Eleusian Mystery cults. Was John the Baptist an Essene or a Pagan?


The Essenes were a Jewish sect who probably got their ideas on baptism from mainstream Judaism (at least, it seems likely to me...)



posted on Nov, 21 2014 @ 10:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: StalkerSolent

originally posted by: windword

Sure! Exactly! Nuts and bolts.


I wouldn't call this plagiarism, since the Christians appropriated basically the entire Old Testament and brought in a bunch of Jewish traditions and ideas, but I think we agree on the idea


Plagiarism is a little harsh and really only applies IF Christianity was deliberately engineered from Old Testament texts, as well as ancient and popular cults, that were advantageous to TPTB, after the fall of Jerusalem and the terrific destruction of Pompeii.



This goes to the argument for mysticism. Why didn't Philo know that he had the incarnation of the "Angel of the Lord", "The LOGOS" in his midst? The timing is impeccable!


You lost me


Philo would have been a contemporary to Jesus of Nazareth and his Apostles.



Actually, Paul's Christianity, and all Christians from his writings forward, worship a celestial Jesus Christ, not a human being. It's the human part that's superfluous and a distraction from the true expression of Christianity, in my opinion.



Erm...why do we get verses like "Christ, and Him crucified," then? *scratches head.* Doesn't sound mystical to me.


The same reason Isis, The Great Virgin, gives birth to Horus in a celestial realm, and the same reason that Osiris was murdered in a celestial realm and for the same reason the Jesus said "My kingdom is not of this world".




Also, Christianity borrowed the ritual of baptism from the Essene and the Eleusian Mystery cults. Was John the Baptist an Essene or a Pagan?



The Essenes were a Jewish sect who probably got their ideas on baptism from mainstream Judaism (at least, it seems likely to me...)


Could be. Why do so many Christians violently reject the idea of Jesus (The Nazarite) having been an Essene? (It gets complicated, very complicated)

Funny how the ritual is NOT unique. In fact, it has roots that stretch from the representation of purity to that of death, grief, rebirth and hope, from Jews to Pagans, and Jesus uses it as a requisite to enter his religion for salvation.

Funny that.



posted on Nov, 22 2014 @ 05:28 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

Myths. Don't you understand that?



posted on Nov, 23 2014 @ 02:06 PM
link   
a reply to: StalkerSolent


Hmm. While I think there's some truth to that, calling a claim "wild" or "ridiculous" seems pretty subjective.


calling someone the progeny of a deity and the savior of 7 billion people strikes me as pretty wild. especially if you yourself are not willing to stand up on a stage with a microphone and say the same thing in front of 10,000 people.



posted on Nov, 23 2014 @ 03:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
Plagiarism is a little harsh and really only applies IF Christianity was deliberately engineered from Old Testament texts, as well as ancient and popular cults, that were advantageous to TPTB, after the fall of Jerusalem and the terrific destruction of Pompeii.


See, I distinctly remember the Christians being a pain in TPTB's side during the Roman time. Unless you were thinking of a different TPTB...



Philo would have been a contemporary to Jesus of Nazareth and his Apostles.


Ah. Cool!



Could be. Why do so many Christians violently reject the idea of Jesus (The Nazarite) having been an Essene? (It gets complicated, very complicated)


Well, I'm not briefed on the issue, or what have you, but it might be because the Essenes were sticklers for the Sabbath day, and Jesus was...less so. Just for starters. (I can definitely seem similarities, though. The Essenes seem pretty nifty, actually.)



Jesus uses it as a requisite to enter his religion for salvation.


Eh...beliefs on this vary depending on the breed of Christianity you're into. But the thief on the cross didn't seem to be in need of it




Funny that.


Yup, there's a lot of interesting similarities (and, of course, major differences) in world religions. One would expect that, based on Christian theology.



posted on Nov, 23 2014 @ 03:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm
calling someone the progeny of a deity and the savior of 7 billion people strikes me as pretty wild. especially if you yourself are not willing to stand up on a stage with a microphone and say the same thing in front of 10,000 people.


I'm also not willing to stand on stage and say I'm the queen of England, but that doesn't mean it isn't true of the Queen of England.



posted on Nov, 23 2014 @ 03:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: StalkerSolent

originally posted by: TzarChasm
calling someone the progeny of a deity and the savior of 7 billion people strikes me as pretty wild. especially if you yourself are not willing to stand up on a stage with a microphone and say the same thing in front of 10,000 people.


I'm also not willing to stand on stage and say I'm the queen of England, but that doesn't mean it isn't true of the Queen of England.


go ahead, keep missing the point.



posted on Nov, 23 2014 @ 03:58 PM
link   
a reply to: StalkerSolent




See, I distinctly remember the Christians being a pain in TPTB's side during the Roman time. Unless you were thinking of a different TPTB...


Yeah. I'm not buying that. The more you look into that claim, the more it doesn't make sense. The Jews were the pain in the Roman's butt. The Jews refused to honor the Roman Gods and deities and were offended by Roman taxes. Jesus told his followers to pay taxes gladly. Biblical Christianity teaches its adherents to honor the laws and government leaders, who are put there by God.

It seems hard to imagine that Roman leaders would be aware of the differences between Jews and Christians and the subtle differences in their messianic beliefs. It seems hard to believe that followers of Paul's Jesus would behave as badly as historians claim they did.

edit on 23-11-2014 by windword because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
28
<< 17  18  19    21  22 >>

log in

join