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.

 

If "Jesus" was "without sin" then WHY was he baptised by John the Baptist?

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 28 2005 @ 08:46 AM
link   
Hi Helen,

Thanks for the links. I did read them carefully. Members of the Roman Catholic Church, I am one, also believe that Jesus purified the waters of the Jordan when he was baptized by John.



Originally posted by helen670


Manifesting His kenosis, Christ cleansed His own body in water not because of His sinfulness but because He was “the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29, 36; cf. Ephrem, NH 2; John Chrysostom, Bapt. 2, PG 49.366). Thus He acknowledged the importance of the Old Testament which He came to fulfil.


What is the difference between what you have quoted above and my quote from the Catechism? Is it the word "anoint"?



"His eternal messianic consecration was revealed during the time of his earthly life at the moment of his baptism by John, when "God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power," "that he might be revealed to Israel" as its Messiah. His works and words will manifest him as "the Holy One of God."


The New American Bible
Saint Joseph Edition
Matthew, 4: 13-17

The Baptism of Jesus

Then Jesus came from Galilee to John at the Jordan to be baptized by him. John tried to prevent him, saying, "I need to be baptized by you, and yet you are coming to me?" Jesus said to him in reply, "Allow it now, for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness." Then he allowed him. After Jesus was baptized, he came up from the water and behold, the heavens were opened [for him], and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove. [and] coming upon him. And a voice came from the heavens, saying, "This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased."



The following is a quote from the link Orthodox America, Holy Fathers - St. Athanasius

About the year 180, however, a serious error appeared, called Adoptionism. According to this false teaching, Christ was not really God at all, but only a man who had been "adopted" by God! Still another group, the Sabellians, believed that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit were but different "aspects" or manifestations of the one God. In other words, it was God the Father Who dwelt in the womb, becoming the Son at birth, etc. These dangerous ideas were of course purely human inventions, completely alien to the faith of Christians; but they prepared the way for an even more terrible heresy.
The above is not what members of the Roman Catholic Church believe. What we believe is stated in the "Nicene Creed".

"We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, one in Being with the Father."


Hi NEOAMADEUS,

Thank you for the link to the essay from CANONICAL RIVALRIES, by Yuri Kuchinsky.

I did read the first part of the essay and found it interesting and informative. But still do not see how you can equate this heresy with the beliefs of the Roman Catholic Church.

The Councils rejected these heresies.




posted on Sep, 28 2005 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Yuri Kuchinsky

Wow. Never thought I'd see someone quote yuri kuchinsky here. Whacky.


It looks like the best answers to the question given so far (imo anyway) are the ones from the catholic catcheisms, tho I don't claim to fully understand them.

If i understand the rest correctly, part of whats at issue is that if jesus is sinless, then he's not going to baptism himself specifically for washing away of sins; because he has none. So baptism makes no sense if he is sinless, however it does make sense if the idea of him being sinless, and even of him being anything more than a radicalized jew, was something added to the bible later. I think that that is what neo is going for here, and it does seem to make sense, however this catholic (tho i presume it has pre-catholic origins no?) idea of theophany seems to say that the baptism was not for the ablution of sin.



posted on Sep, 28 2005 @ 03:52 PM
link   
The reason for Christ's baptism was/is very simple: It was his entrance as the High Priest. Since he was the sacrifice, it was necessary to ritually cleanse both the sacrifice and the officiator of the sacrifice.



Quite simply, Jesus was baptized so he could enter into the Melchizedek priesthood so He could be the High Priest and offer Himself as a sacrifice for our sins.




To be consecrated as a priest, He had to be:
- washed with water (Lev. 8:6; Exodus 29:4, Matt. 3:16).
- Anointed with oil (Lev. 8:12; Exodus 29:7; Matt. 3:16).
Both of these were bestowed upon Jesus at His baptism.
Additionally, He may have needed to be 30 years old - (Num. 4:3)


www.carm.org



posted on Sep, 28 2005 @ 05:52 PM
link   
Hi Imperium Americanum:

So in your mind, R. Yehoshua bar Yosef the Galilean consciously chose to be baptised by R. Yohanon bar Zechariah because....he was trying to fulfill the prophecies of being the Messiah of both Israel (kingly/Daviddic) and Aaron (priestly/Levitical) i.e. in a single person, and not as one of TWO people (i.e. the Messiahs of Aaron and Israel) which is spoken so often in the Dead Sea Scroll corpus?

I'm not sure where all this high priest thingy comes in, unless of course you see him as the High Priest of MelchiZedek who "sacrifices himsef" and also at the same time "pontificates" over the sacrifice in a levetical manner by being washed in the Bronze Sea (Heb Mayim) of "Moses" complete with the 12 bronze molten oxen idols at the bottom that the levites bathed themselves in, in front of the "Tabernacle"?

Could it just be that R. Yehoshua was becoming a disciple of John the Baptist (R. Yohanon bar Zechariah) by being baptised by him for the remission of his own sins perhaps committed in the days of his youth (unattested in the gospels, naturally) ?

Didn't he even say of "John the Baptist" : "Among men born of women, no one is greater than John [the Baptist] that his eyes should not be averted in his presence" ?

or, "The Fountainhead of Prophecy was Severed with the Head of John the Baptist...." in other words, he seems to have held John in rather high esteem--which would have made sense if he were a disciple of John the Baptist before John was executed (cf: the reference "the Fountainhead of Prophecy was severed.."

Yet I can see the tendenz for most believers to try and force meaning into the event, such as dragging Noah's flood into it, or make it a kind of pre-crucifixion act of salvation-redemption for others---

I'm just wondering if there was not a more mundane reason for his being baptised for the remission of sins if believers think he was sinless (whatever that means).



posted on Sep, 28 2005 @ 06:11 PM
link   
Jesus did it for an example. He wasnt god though so he could sin, 1/2 god 1/2 man. Jesus did sinned once showing his 1/2 man side. When he said my god my god whay have you forsaken me, he sinned.



posted on Sep, 28 2005 @ 07:51 PM
link   
Hi Michael JP86

Are you agreeing with the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews (whoever he was, certainly not Paul, not his Greek style...) that "Iesous"

(see Heb 5:7)

"who in the days of his flesh,
having offered up many prayers and lamentations,
and with loud cries and tears,
to the One who was able to save him from Death,
he was [at last] heard for his godly fear.

8 Although he was righteous (lit. a son of god) ,
he had to learn obedience
through his suffering [on the cross]
9 and (lit. "having died abandoned by God") was thus made perfect
to become the source of eternal salvation
to all who follow his example..."

in other words, that he "had to learn Obedience to the will of God" by his suffering---meaning in effect, that he was NOT perfect BEFORE he was executed by the Romans on the gibbet, and thus had to be baptised for his own sins before he could start his public ministry "to usher in the Era of Righteousness"?



posted on Sep, 28 2005 @ 09:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by BaastetNoirThats dumb talk form Catholcis and OnceSavers who cant even read what the Bibel ells them... Jesus baptism had nothing to do with sin...it was a cerimony to show EVERYONE he was telling the truth.
I believe you, really where billions would not. Unfortunately his cousin the very same man who supposedly baptised him and heard the voice from heaven declare: "this is my son in whom I am well pleased." did not, for he had to send his own desciples not long after this event to enquire of the son and God himself: "art thou he that should come, or do we look for another?"

Neither the redactors nor the priests were too clever 1700 years ago it seems, to have missed that.


Giving him humn attributes helped people identifying with him, and it would make it easier to listen to what he was saying.
In other words, God the omnipotent could not manifest himself for every living human being to see at once, nor could he say out loud: all those who do not believe in me will immediately be turned into jellyfish. Then make it so in order to make humans believe that he was the most high; the most powerful; their creator. No, he had to turn himself into a human so as to utterly fail as to identifying himself. And why exactly? Because he loves the fact that as time goes by he can sentence more of his children to unfathomable tortures in perpetuity?

[edit on 9/28/05 by SomewhereinBetween]



posted on Sep, 28 2005 @ 10:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Michaeljp86
Jesus did sinned once showing his 1/2 man side. When he said my god my god whay have you forsaken me, he sinned.


How is quoting Psalm 22 considered a sin?



posted on Sep, 29 2005 @ 12:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by NEOAMADEUS
Hi Imperium Americanum:

So in your mind, R. Yehoshua bar Yosef the Galilean consciously chose to be baptised by R. Yohanon bar Zechariah because....he was trying to fulfill the prophecies of being the Messiah of both Israel (kingly/Daviddic) and Aaron (priestly/Levitical) i.e. in a single person, and not as one of TWO people (i.e. the Messiahs of Aaron and Israel) which is spoken so often in the Dead Sea Scroll corpus?


In my mind? No in fact! LOL *Just kidding…..Not really kidding*
Hey would I be a believer if I said anything else! LOL

Jokes aside…Yes I in fact believe that was exactly what was necessary. Look at the text for Aaron’s appointment as High Priest. But I do not believe that his actions were an attempt to fulfill prophesy. I believe that it was keeping the Law. G-d set the rules…and so he abides them. Whether or not the Dead Sea scrolls say one or two is of no concern. If we are to take the Bible as the Word…then it is clear G-d was following His own Law.



I'm not sure where all this high priest thingy comes in, unless of course you see him as the High Priest of MelchiZedek who "sacrifices himsef" and also at the same time "pontificates" over the sacrifice in a levetical manner by being washed in the Bronze Sea (Heb Mayim) of "Moses" complete with the 12 bronze molten oxen idols at the bottom that the levites bathed themselves in, in front of the "Tabernacle"?



And Malchizedek the king of Salem brought out bread and wine, and he was a priest to the Most High God. And he blessed him, and he said, "Blessed be Abram to the Most High God, Who possesses heaven and earth. And blessed be the Most High God, Who has delivered your adversaries into your hand," and he gave him a tithe from all. — Genesis 14:18-20


There is precedent in Canon for king/high priest.


Could it just be that R. Yehoshua was becoming a disciple of John the Baptist (R. Yohanon bar Zechariah) by being baptised by him for the remission of his own sins perhaps committed in the days of his youth (unattested in the gospels, naturally) ?


No….LOL


Didn't he even say of "John the Baptist" : "Among men born of women, no one is greater than John [the Baptist] that his eyes should not be averted in his presence" ?

or, "The Fountainhead of Prophecy was Severed with the Head of John the Baptist...." in other words, he seems to have held John in rather high esteem--which would have made sense if he were a disciple of John the Baptist before John was executed (cf: the reference "the Fountainhead of Prophecy was severed.."


I can dig the Fountainhead of Prophecy, but I think there is not direct relevance.


Yet I can see the tendenz for most believers to try and force meaning into the event, such as dragging Noah's flood into it, or make it a kind of pre-crucifixion act of salvation-redemption for others---

I'm just wondering if there was not a more mundane reason for his being baptised for the remission of sins if believers think he was sinless (whatever that means).


Believer of all faiths, at times, try to “Square peg, round hole” their beliefs and their writings, Christians are not alone there. Besides the Bible makes it clear that his was “Blameless” There is an issue of the whole “Age of Accountability”, but 1) This is G-d here and 2) the story of him at 12 , in the Temple, shows us that he was fully conscious of his purpose and destiny. With that in mind I believe that there was no issue of sin ever. How? Why? Do not know…that is where the whole faith comes in right?
____________________________________________

Originally posted by Michaeljp86
Jesus did it for an example. He wasnt god though so he could sin, 1/2 god 1/2 man. Jesus did sinned once showing his 1/2 man side. When he said my god my god whay have you forsaken me, he sinned.


Did he? Why do you say that. In the Book of Job, Job says the same thing and yet G-d proves his point that Job will not sin against G-d. Asking G-d where he is, in times of trouble, is not considered “sin”. Never has been.

Most Christian scholars believe that once Christ was on the cross he had taken on the sins of all mankind. G-d would have not been present. That would have been the first time Christ had been “cut off” from his Father. I would guess it was quite a shock, to say the least. Yes he would have know it was coming, but was most likely intense none the less.


Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
In other words, God the omnipotent could not manifest himself for every living human being to see at once, nor could he say out loud: all those who do not believe in me will immediately be turned into jellyfish. Then make it so in order to make humans believe that he was the most high; the most powerful; their creator. No, he had to turn himself into a human so as to utterly fail as to identifying himself. And why exactly? Because he loves the fact that as time goes by he can sentence more of his children to unfathomable tortures in perpetuity?


What the heck are you talking about? You of course assuming that there is a place of never ending torture. I for one do not. I am a subscriber in a belief call the Annihilationism. Sorry another debate, no doubt. My G-d is not cruel, he is just.


*whew….long post sorry, but so much to respond too* LOL



posted on Sep, 29 2005 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by NEOAMADEUS
Hi Banjo:

Torah says that the High Priest must be of the Tribe of Levi.

But R. Yehoshua bar Yosef the Galilean was of the Tribe of Judah not Levi (all that Daviddic blood you know), so technically (according to Torah) he could not be a "high priest" (baptism or no baptism), unless you want to follow the "logic" of the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews (whoever he was, certainly not Paul---not even close to his Greek style) who made "Iesous" a "High Priest after the Order of Melchizedek" (lit. "righteous-King" or "priest king = Heb. Melekh = king + Heb. Tsaddiq=righteous one, or priest ) who offered Abraham BREAD and WINE in Salem (later renamed Jeru-Salem) according to Genesis chapter 14:18

Marg brings up an important point: if his Baptism in the (filthy) Jordan by Yohanon was "for the remission of sins for the world", then what was the naked seditionist doing (exactly) dangling from that Roman gibbet on Golgoltha at Pesach in AD 36?





Zacharias was a Levite, he was actually serving his course in the temple (See gospel of Mark) when Jesus came on the scene.



posted on Sep, 29 2005 @ 02:14 PM
link   
Hi Banjo:

Of course R. Yohanon bar Zechariah the Galilean was a Levite. Did I suggest otherwise? Where did I imply that he was NOT? Are you perhaps confusing R. Yehoshua bar Yosef the Galilean with R. Yohanon bar Zechariah the Galilean?

The only issue at stake is that Luke's gospel seems to make R. Yehoshua bar Yosef the Galilean and R. Yohanon bar Zechariah the Galilean "first cousins" which is odd since the Levites and the Tribe of Judah did not mix sexually/genetically unless perhaps there was rape involved between a David and a Levite which would have made R. Yehoshua a "mamzer" (a "bastard" product of a sexually illicit union).

Do you think this is was Luke was trying to say when during the so-called Magnificat he makes Mary (Miryam of Galilee) say: "for Thou has looked upon the Humiliation of Thine Handmaid..." ?

Either way, the R. Yohanon was baptising in the Jordan as a Levitical priestly act would not be out of place if his family were Levites...

The question is whether R. Yehoshua bar Yosef took to himself BOTH the expected coming Messiahs (the Messiah of Aaron AND the Messiah of Israel spoken of in the Dead Sea Scrolls) as ONE SINGLE INDIVIDUAL as do the mediaeval copies of the DSS fragments found in the Cairo Geniza in 1897 by Solomon Shechter.

Perhaps after the execution for treason of R. Yohanon bar Zechariah, R. Yehoshua decided to absorb his teacher's role, or perhaps R. Yehoshua's own disciples did that after his death (since some of R. Yehoshua's own disciples were once disciples of R. Yohanon bar Zechariah first, e.g. Simon "Peter" and his brother Andrew bar Yonah...)

But what are YOU saying exactly here?



posted on Sep, 29 2005 @ 08:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Imperium AmericanaWhat the heck are you talking about?
The obvious of course—Should God desire to manifest himself and his truth to the world, he need only do so in such a manner that cannot be misconstrued by anyone. It is that simple. Yet, according to some men, he took the circuitous route by allowing himself to be witnessed by just a few and then have those convince all else that he in fact declared himself his own son in whom he was well pleased. And worse! It was expected that all of humankind would just bow their heads and say—yes we believe! I happen to think that God is much smarter than the men who stupidly devised his and the trinity's existence.


You of course assuming that there is a place of never ending torture. I for one do not. I am a subscriber in a belief call the Annihilationism. Sorry another debate, no doubt. My G-d is not cruel, he is just.
I think you ought to re-read my post for the mockery within it as to who believes, or rather, furthers the never-ending torture of hell. For the record, you will never find in my posts a testament to my personal belief in hell, or that place of never-ending torture, since such a testament will never be found coming from me. Hell is however, without a doubt, an imaginary place in the feeble minds of some humans, and utilized by those who understand how to prey on others and further the fear of those they wish to control. It works too. And just so you understand the fear-mongering works quite well, you need not look farther than the end-times predictions regards to Revelation on the ATS board for that proof.



[edit on 9/29/05 by SomewhereinBetween]



posted on Sep, 29 2005 @ 09:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
The obvious of course—Should God desire to manifest himself and his truth to the world, he need only do so in such a manner that cannot be misconstrued by anyone. It is that simple. Yet, according to some men, he took the circuitous route by allowing himself to be witnessed by just a few and then have those convince all else that he in fact declared himself his own son in whom he was well pleased. And worse! It was expected that all of humankind would just bow their heads and say—yes we believe! I happen to think that God is much smarter than the men who stupidly devised his and the trinity's existence.


You mean something like taking a small splinter sect of a third rate theocratic country's religion and seting the course of western history for say the past 2000 years. Why not the whole world and it's history since the beginning of time? Yeah you are right...he does think small! LOL


I think you ought to re-read my post for the mockery within it as to who believes, or rather, furthers the never-ending torture of hell. For the record, you will never find in my posts a testament to my personal belief in hell, or that place of never-ending torture, since such a testament will never be found coming from me. Hell is however, without a doubt, an imaginary place in the feeble minds of some humans, and utilized by those who understand how to prey on others and further the fear of those they wish to control. It works too. And just so you understand the fear-mongering works quite well, you need not look farther than the end-times predictions regards to Revelation on the ATS board for that proof.


All I got to say to that is...Word Man!






posted on Sep, 29 2005 @ 10:11 PM
link   
Baptism is a symbolic act of the remission of sin. Nothing more. Nothing less.



posted on Sep, 29 2005 @ 11:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Imperium AmericanaYou mean something like taking a small splinter sect of a third rate theocratic country's religion and seting the course of western history for say the past 2000 years. Why not the whole world and it's history since the beginning of time? Yeah you are right...he does think small! LOL
Yes, he does think small if that is your concept of large.

2,000 years is young, in fact it is nothing but a juvenile. But you obviously do not know this. The Egyptian religion under Amu/Ra/Aten, evolved and lasted for a minimum of 4,500 years. And if you want to take the Old testament as fact, the Hebrew religion continues to exist 5,765 years from the date of creation.

To complicate this 2,000 year history, Christianity has seen itself morph into tens of offshoots. So secure are you that 2,000 years means strength, you neglect to examine the declining hold of Roman and Greek Catholicism in the last 200 years alone.

So your point is?



posted on Sep, 30 2005 @ 09:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
2,000 years is young, in fact it is nothing but a juvenile. But you obviously do not know this. The Egyptian religion under Amu/Ra/Aten, evolved and lasted for a minimum of 4,500 years. And if you want to take the Old testament as fact, the Hebrew religion continues to exist 5,765 years from the date of creation.

To complicate this 2,000 year history, Christianity has seen itself morph into tens of offshoots. So secure are you that 2,000 years means strength, you neglect to examine the declining hold of Roman and Greek Catholicism in the last 200 years alone.




I did not include the Hebrew years for simplicities sake. But I feel it is fair, thus Christianity, a sect of Judaism, is one of the oldest religion. Even older than your Egyptian example.

So arrogant are you in your response that you fail to account for the incredibly rapid advance of evangelicalism. Which will soon be the largest sect of Christianity. The decent of the RCC and GOC is not a bad thing. Think of it like democracy comes to religion. Besides gives us a few more thousand years...we will still be here.

On another note how about some dancing jokers



posted on Sep, 30 2005 @ 04:48 PM
link   
Hi Imperium Americanum:

How can you say that Christianity (Messianic Judaeism after AD 36) and Rabinnic Judaeim (beginning in AD 70 after the 2nd Temple of Herod was destroyed) is in any way older than the more sophisticated Egyptian Relgious traditions which go back to at least 3500 BC?

The first "identifiable" Hapiru (or "Hebrews") on the scene, as separate from the Canaanitish clans from which they sprang, did not emerge until the time of the Hyksos around 1400 BC.

One cannot speak of Judaiesm as a recogniseable religion (i.e. Yahwistic monotheism) in the separate-from-Canaanite-religion-sense until after the Babylonian exile c. 480 BC, when Yahwism was forced on the population--an event which is fairly late. Certainly much later than the older Egyptian religous cults along the Nile (e.g. ancient gods such as Ptah, Amun, Re, Aset (=Isis) , Djechuti (=Tehuti or Thoth), Wasir (=Osiris), Hewur (=Horus), Maat, Baast etc.)

Before the time of the Exile, "Jews" worshipped a variety or "pantheon" of Canaanite and imported gods including Yahweh, e.g. Baal, Asherah, Dagon, El, El-Elyon, Nebo, Attanuzzi (i.e. Adonis, or Tammuz) El-Shaddai etc.

Just a quick heads up in case your a little muddled on your time line....!



posted on Sep, 30 2005 @ 10:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Imperium AmericanaI did not include the Hebrew years for simplicities sake. But I feel it is fair, thus Christianity, a sect of Judaism, is one of the oldest religion. Even older than your Egyptian example.
You did not include same because you refuse to accept that the Jews do not accept your Christian faith as part of theirs. You as with all Christians, attached yourself to Judaism for more than one reason, not the least of which is that to introduce an absolutely new faith, that is, Christianity without roots, would have proven fruitless with both the Roman pagans as well as with the Egyptian, Greek and Babylonian pagans, not to mention the Jewish sects fighting among themselves for superiority. You are less than 2,000 years old, no matter how you look at it, even after you now try to attach an extra 3800 years to your initial claim after being cornered.

Now the point of fact is, that the Jewish religion claims to be alive from day one, when in fact, there is no evidence of same prior to the 8th century BCE, and I am being generous with that age. Unlike Egyptian religions which as I have said date to millenia before, and by the way, are documented in stone, that very primitive form of record before papyrus was manufactured.

Now if you think you can prove otherwise, then present at least one document or stone carving belonging to the Jews and their faith that dates back to...let me make it easy for you....Moses. ca 1444BCE, I will even allow you the Mose of Egyptian record who along with his mother, filed a claim in court for a piece of land.


So arrogant are you in your response that you fail to account for the incredibly rapid advance of evangelicalism. Which will soon be the largest sect of Christianity. The decent of the RCC and GOC is not a bad thing. Think of it like democracy comes to religion. Besides gives us a few more thousand years...we will still be here.
Actually, I was arrogant enough to allude to evangelicalism as the basis for the most current and scant centuries old challenge to Christian doctrine. But then, as I expected, you missed it.


On another note how about some dancing jokers
I outgrew jokers in my early twenties. but thank you anyway.



posted on Oct, 1 2005 @ 08:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by NEOAMADEUS
Hi Imperium Americanum:

How can you say that Christianity (Messianic Judaeism after AD 36) and Rabinnic Judaeim (beginning in AD 70 after the 2nd Temple of Herod was destroyed) is in any way older than the more sophisticated Egyptian Relgious traditions which go back to at least 3500 BC?

The first "identifiable" Hapiru (or "Hebrews") on the scene, as separate from the Canaanitish clans from which they sprang, did not emerge until the time of the Hyksos around 1400 BC.

One cannot speak of Judaiesm as a recogniseable religion (i.e. Yahwistic monotheism) in the separate-from-Canaanite-religion-sense until after the Babylonian exile c. 480 BC, when Yahwism was forced on the population--an event which is fairly late. Certainly much later than the older Egyptian religous cults along the Nile (e.g. ancient gods such as Ptah, Amun, Re, Aset (=Isis) , Djechuti (=Tehuti or Thoth), Wasir (=Osiris), Hewur (=Horus), Maat, Baast etc.)

Before the time of the Exile, "Jews" worshipped a variety or "pantheon" of Canaanite and imported gods including Yahweh, e.g. Baal, Asherah, Dagon, El, El-Elyon, Nebo, Attanuzzi (i.e. Adonis, or Tammuz) El-Shaddai etc.

Just a quick heads up in case your a little muddled on your time line....!


Hi NEOAMADEUS:
BTW I do like how you begin your posts. It is formal but yet friendly.

I think there is a fundamental difference here. I view modern day Christianity as a evolution in a common single stand, starting with an ancient Hebrew religion, and ending with it’s last shift with the advent of Islam. Gasp…did I say that out loud? * Looks around to see if other Christians or Muslims are listening* LOL
While there are remarkable differences between the two, one can make the same point in the history of Egyptian religion. There are some striking changes that occur to Egyptian religious beliefs in the years between the First Dynasty and the Ptolemaic period. This is to be expected. In fact it has long been my contention that Roman Catholicism is a combination of ancient Egyptian, Mesopotamian, and Judeo/Christian religions. Consequently it is the basis for my personal rejection of Catholicism as my chosen belief system. And yes I do place Christianity as a more sophisticated religion, than the Egyptian beliefs, simply because of it’s ability to maintain relevance in the past 2000 years. Unlike the Egyptian, Mesopotamian and other assorted religions absorbed in to modern Catholicism, Christianity has consistently sought to reinvent itself to each societal shift (although you could also say argue some Christian evolutionary shifts caused societal shifts). The fact that the afore mentioned, non Judeo/Christian beliefs, are defunct as a stand alone belief system, currently give a hint as to why their extinction was an inevitability. Conversely J/C/I ability to adapt will allow it to flourish for a very long time. In time, even now, J/C/I will continue to evolve away from each other. I understand that there were religions all over the Near east region that had concepts of a single deity, long before the solidification of any Hebrew culture/religion. I do not see this as proof, that Judaism was stolen from other cultures, quite the opposite. I see that as a verification of an extremely ancient religion.
BTW your quote below:

The first "identifiable" Hapiru (or "Hebrews") on the scene, as separate from the Canaanitish clans from which they sprang, did not emerge until the time of the Hyksos around 1400 BC

Is still the subject of a very hot topic amongst J/C scholors.



Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
You did not include same because you refuse to accept that the Jews do not accept your Christian faith as part of theirs. You as with all Christians, attached yourself to Judaism for more than one reason, not the least of which is that to introduce an absolutely new faith, that is, Christianity without roots, would have proven fruitless with both the Roman pagans as well as with the Egyptian, Greek and Babylonian pagans, not to mention the Jewish sects fighting among themselves for superiority. You are less than 2,000 years old, no matter how you look at it, even after you now try to attach an extra 3800 years to your initial claim after being cornered.

Now the point of fact is, that the Jewish religion claims to be alive from day one, when in fact, there is no evidence of same prior to the 8th century BCE, and I am being generous with that age. Unlike Egyptian religions which as I have said date to millenia before, and by the way, are documented in stone, that very primitive form of record before papyrus was manufactured.

Now if you think you can prove otherwise, then present at least one document or stone carving belonging to the Jews and their faith that dates back to...let me make it easy for you....Moses. ca 1444BCE, I will even allow you the Mose of Egyptian record who along with his mother, filed a claim in court for a piece of land.


There is a good reason most Jews do not accept Christianity as a splinter from Judaism, I would suspect that it has more to do with the history of Christian-Jewish relations than it does directly with the canonical differences we face. But for the record I believe in commonality due to three major factors: a shared deity, as partially shared scriptures, and a common birth site. The primary focus of the NT was on a Jew living in Israel and the first converts and followers of the faith were Jews, in fact it really took a Jew to get Christianity spread out to the non Jews.

You contention that

to introduce an absolutely new faith, that is, Christianity without roots, would have proven fruitless with both the Roman pagans as well as with the Egyptian, Greek and Babylonian pagans, not to mention the Jewish sects fighting among themselves for superiority.

Is historically inaccurate. In fact the marked rise of Christianity in the Roman world was at a time when the church was castrating all Jewish influence from it’s self. To be correct it was the incorporation of these other foreign religious beliefs that made Christianity More appealing to the various non believers.




Now the point of fact is, that the Jewish religion claims to be alive from day one, when in fact, there is no evidence of same prior to the 8th century BCE, and I am being generous with that age.


Wiki Accepts the fact that there is strong evidence of a Hebrew existence before 8th century BCE:

en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
Pay attention to the particular portion to this section of the link above:

from Wiki- Sea People: “Curiously, and in contrast to most theories of their origin, the Egyptians depicted them as being circumcised, and having Semitic names. As a consequence, more radical, and less accepted, theories of their origin have been proposed, suggesting that the Sea Peoples represent a group of people from Canaan. In these theories, the group of 5 sea peoples mentioned together are identified as the 5 groups with coastal lands during the era of Solomon:
The Peleset are the Philistines (the name Philistine being a phonetic corruption of Peleset+-ine)
The Danua are the Tribe of Dan
The Shekelesh are the Tribe of Issachar (Shekelesh being understood to translate as men of Sheker, a corruption of men of Sachar)
The Weshesh are the Tribe of Asher (technically the name is equivalent to Uashesh, and so in the theories is a corruption of Asher)
The Tjekker are the Tribe of Manassah (an Egyptian tale Wenamun explicitly mentions that Dor is a Tjekker town, and Dor is the name of a place in the Manassah region)

Since these place the Philistines on the same side as the tribe of Dan, this suggests that the Tribe of Dan, and the others, later joined a different confederacy, historic Israel, of which they were not originally part, resulting in great enmity (as recorded in the Bible) with the Philistines, whom they had thus betrayed. Also, Tjekker itself is understood, in the theory, to translate as of Aker, a town in Asher's dominion whose original inhabitants were allowed to remain. This requires, in the theory, that Aker was originally part of the land of Manassah, and Asher invaded the area, indeed, as the tale of Wenamun recounts, Beder (a name not mentioned in any other Egyptian text) was the prince of Dor, and the closest name mentioned in the bible is Bezer, a prince of Asher, implying Manasseh was the vassal of Asher. Kenneth Kitchen in On the Reliability of the Old Testament rejects these views as contradicting the Bible, which as an Evangelical Christian, he believes to be inerrantly true under all situations.”


And Finally: Sep. 27, 2005 23:01 First Temple-era seal discovered: www.jpost.com.../JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1127787594479

While the last find only gets us as far back as 1000BCE. It is still better than your 800BCE. Any other evidence for a Jewish culture farther back has been found indirectly by looking at other cultures remains. Either way there is clear evidence that something WAS happening in and around the time suggested by the Bible.


Actually, I was arrogant enough to allude to evangelicalism as the basis for the most current and scant centuries old challenge to Christian doctrine. But then, as I expected, you missed it.


Please! A clear reading of that targeted section, indicates you were postulating on the, and I quote: “Strength”of the Christian faith italics are mine to denote sic.

So secure are you that 2,000 years means strength, you neglect to examine the declining hold of Roman and Greek Catholicism in the last 200 years alone.


You contention was that God was “thinking small” and point to the Decline of the GOC/RCC as an example. But you failed to account for the near meteoric rise of the Evangelical movement. If that is what you truly meant, then next time address it with a bit more clarity and I promise not to be misled

I outgrew jokers in my early twenties. but thank you anyway.

That is too bad, I thought we all could us a bit of levity.



posted on Oct, 2 2005 @ 12:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Imperium AmericanaThere is a good reason most Jews do not accept Christianity as a splinter from Judaism, I would suspect that it has more to do with the history of Christian-Jewish relations than it does directly with the canonical differences we face.
Considering that the Judeo-Christian relations, or more precisely, the lack thereof do not manifest itself for centuries unril after the death of your Jesus, yours is not good reasoning, or even suspected good reasoning. The only plausible fact is that Jews do not accept Jesus as the messiah because he did not have any impact on Jews of his day, at least none to warrant even a cocked eye, nor did the accounts of his ministry adhere to prophetic expectation, as expounded by the prophets who spoke to God; the very same prophets Christians adopted and blasphemously claimed were hailing your (Christian saviour). The same can be said for Israelites stealing Egyptian dogma, and Islam stealing Christian dogma. The two things they all have in common is that each claims theirs to be the exclusive purview of God, and theft of doctrine.

But that little aside of yours supports my charge.

You as with all Christians, attached yourself to Judaism…
They did not adopt you, you! without their blessing, adopted them. And accordingly, the commonality you speak to is claimed by all Abramic faiths, yet none of them agree to bow to the other.

I will also add, the primary focus of the NT was not on the Jew at all, but on the gentile. It became essential to grow the Christian church by incorporating the pagans, not the Jews, so this

The primary focus of the NT was on a Jew living in Israel and the first converts and followers of the faith were Jews,…(exh. A)
is deflated by Peter, who is represented as a Jew and relative of Jesus per the gospels,and is by Clement of Alexandria’s account, anti-Jew, to wit he quotes Peter as having said

"Neither worship as the Jews; for they, thinking that they only know God, do not know Him, adoring as they do angels and archangels, the month and the moon. And if the moon be not visible, they do not hold the Sabbath, which is called the first; nor do they hold the new moon, nor the feast of unleavened bread, nor the feast, nor the great day."




You contention that:
to introduce an absolutely new faith, that is, Christianity without roots, would have proven fruitless with both the Roman pagans as well as with the Egyptian, Greek and Babylonian pagans, not to mention the Jewish sects fighting among themselves for superiority.

Is historically inaccurate. In fact the marked rise of Christianity in the Roman world was at a time when the church was castrating all Jewish influence from it’s self.(exh. B) To be correct it was the incorporation of these other foreign religious beliefs that made Christianity More appealing to the various non believers.
I see no historical inaccuracy within it, save to say your declaration in the above quote that it is so. What in essence I do see is you at odds with yourself. You need only refer to your own quotes which are marked above as exhibits “A” and “B” to note that you are talking in circles.


Wiki Accepts the fact that there is strong evidence of a Hebrew existence before 8th century BCE:
I am convinced now. “Wiki” which is a conglomeration of posts by any and everyone, accepts that which is denied by historical and archaeological evidence. And then to add to your insult you offer something dating back as far as 200 years before to 1,000 BCE.

I really do not know how to break this to you gently, but 4,500 years BCE is a solid 3,500 years earlier than 1,000BCE, and those Egyptian stone carvings just won’t be giving way to age anytime in the near future to anything you might conjure.

Relative to your bobbing and weaving on Evangelicalism, all I can say is argue some more in favour of it taking hold. It only proves my point that religion is subject to evolution, and that; Evangelicalism that is, is yet another chapter involving changing the doctrine and practices of the church. You know, like, popes; icons; sacraments; Biblical texts; dogma and all.


That is too bad, I thought we all could us a bit of levity.
I appreciate levity, and applaud it when I see it.




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join