RE: Why Yahweh? (Or Allah, or Zeus, etc.)
October 25, 2012 at 7:34 pm
(This post was last modified: October 25, 2012 at 8:27 pm by FallentoReason.)
(October 25, 2012 at 12:30 pm)John V Wrote:If you go to a Mithraeum you will find a depiction of Mithra slaying the bull. The image will be accompanied by a crow on Mithra's shoulder, a scorpion by the bull's genitals, a dog lapping at the fatal wound, a cup beneath the fatal wound and a snake curled around the cup. This no doubt is a map of the heavens, where each animal represents their relative constellation i.e. Taurus, Corvus, Hydra, Canis Major/Minor etc...(October 25, 2012 at 11:20 am)FallentoReason Wrote: In those times they were perfectly fine with their chosen saviour god to have resided in the lower heavens while still holding human attributes. E.g. Mithras didn't slay a bull on earth to redeem mankind but rather in the heavens. I'm sure the same goes for Hercules' 12 works in that they weren't earthly occurences but rather "cosmic". Therefore, I don't see any conflict here between what Paul says and Jesus being a spirit.Sorry, but sweeping unsupported generalizations don't overturn the plain reading of the text, which indicates that Jesus was human. Spirits aren't typically born of women.
On a side note, it is clear that Mithraism pre-dates Christianity because of the fact that it's a bull that Mithras is slaying. The last astrological age was Taurus and now we're in the age of Pisces, which is was Jesus is heavily tied to (what's the symbol for Jesus that you put on the back of your car?). Then the most damning verse in the Bible is that of Luke 22:10 concerning the next passover; "And he said unto them, Behold, when ye are entered into the city, there shall a man meet you, bearing a pitcher of water; follow him into the house where he entereth in." If you check the 12 Houses of the Zodiac you will see that Aquarius is the next age. Jesus will supposedly be returning, not when the world ends, but the age (in the Greek it's aeon, which has been mistranslated to "world").
I have no problems in accepting that some guy 2000 years ago claimed to be the messiah, as apparently there were lots. I find it hard to believe though that the Biblical Jesus existed because every word devoted to him in the Bible seems to tell a different story.
Quote:[/quote]Quote:It goes to show the events found in the Gospels never happened.Are you arguing:
- that the gospels were intended as spiritual as well, or
- that the gospels conflict with Paul?
The Gospels are jam-packed with astrology. Jesus' birth in Bethlehem doesn't work historically, but it makes perfect sense astrologically. I'll explain that if you need me to.
If we assume Paul is speaking of anything but a human who spent time on earth, then him and the Gospels align beautifully. See, when I said before that this information might sound incoherent to the Christian, I meant modern-day Christians. This interpretation of Jesus could very well be what Paul and the anonymous Gospel authors meant, which means it's not up for debate because they are the fathers of what you believe in. All we are doing here is stripping the "tradition" away and actually seeing these texts for what they are, because historically (i.e. traditionally) they don't stand up too well.
(October 25, 2012 at 12:35 pm)Darkstar Wrote:(October 25, 2012 at 12:30 pm)John V Wrote: Sorry, but sweeping unsupported generalizations don't overturn the plain reading of the text, which indicates that Jesus was human. Spirits aren't typically born of women.
For once I am going to have to agree with John V. Jesus was human, there is no doubt about this.
I think the real claim, which has perhaps been distorted, is that the prophecy of Jesus's birth is not a legitimate one, as 'virgin' also meant 'young woman' at thet time, and this implied nothing miraculous about Jesus's birth. The virgin birth was most likely made up after Jesus's death.
Hercules was born from Acmene, a mere mortal, after Jupiter raped her. Does that make Hercules a real person?
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it" ~ Aristotle