Early Instances of Christian Elements: Borrowings, Anticipations or Satanic Mockery?

Lot of assertions in your quotation, no real support for any of it --Dates, sources etc.When a lesser god impregnates a human woman, normally the ensuing birth is not a virgin birth, as the god is a finite being, built like a man, and impregnation is done the same way humans do it. There is no comparison with the operations of the omnipresent invisible Holy Spirit in the conception of Jesus. So more has to be said to justify this notion in relation to other religions.The idea of the virgin birth of Jesus was not the result of a mistranslation or the appropriation of Hellenistic concepts. Parthenoi was the Greek word chosen to translate "almah" from the famous text in Isaiah into the Greek Septuagint a few hundred years before Jesus, by orthodox Jewish scholars, hardly to be accused of hellenistic influences.I answered Ramoss that since "Satan" and "Savior" come from the Old Testament, that Christianity cannot be said to have "borrowed" them from some pagan source for opportunistic purposes.This message has been edited by Faith, 02-13-2006 10:19 AM

I wasn't clear. Those are just other scholars. I meant original sources. Where do they get this information? What do the original texts read like? (and since you doubt the accuracy of the transmission of the Bible, why should we trust anything ancient anyway?)I did give you a rebuttal anyway. I'd go for the interpretation that Satan, who rules all the pagan religions, was doing his best to anticipate what God had in mind, in order to imitate it and create the false idea that these things were somehow imitated by God in the birth of Jesus. I'm no expert either though. I don't think you'll get an orthodox/traditional/fundie interpretation of these things from anyone here. I could be wrong. You'll get the usual ANTI-fundie stuff no doubt. To my mind it is. All anyone who has made such claims has ever shown me on this subject is clearly a union between finite beings, and the virginity no longer exists thereafter. I don't know about this ray of sunshine bit. The Roman gods were always disguising themselves but they were still what they were. When was that one concocted too, I'd like to know. OK. It's just that this is always argued to "disprove" the claims of Christ, and the Christian interpretations are ignored. I wish I could remember C.S. Lewis' discussion of this. Something about the idea occurring to many but its real fulfillment in reality only once. Depending on the pagan myth that echoes what is in the Bible, Biblical theology would interpret it as being a dim and distorted memory of the same event, or an anticipation of a future real event based on historical clues, or a Satanic invention to depreciate the real event. I don't know how one could ever prove one way or the another which is the truth, but for a believer in the Bible, they are all at best approximations, at worst counterfeits. The Real Thing is in the Bible. I have no idea what to make of it. But I think the best I can do with this subject I just stated above. Bible translators go all over the world, learning the languages and the cultures of all the myriads still unreached by the gospel, in order to translate the Bible into their conceptualizations. (Often the people are illiterate and the translators have to give them an alphabet by which they transliterate their spoken language, and then teach the written version to the people). In the process of learning the culture we don't expect them to imbibe the beliefs of the peoples they are there to teach {abe: Meaning we don't expect them to accept those beliefs. They learn them in order to make the Bible understandable to the people. This is certainly what the Jews who translated the Septuagint did. They knew what "Parthenoi" meant and they chose it over the Greek word for a "young woman" because they intended to say "virgin."}This message has been edited by Faith, 02-13-2006 11:26 AM

Paul did what missionaries always do if they're any good. They make use of existing concepts in the culture they are trying to reach with the gospel. In the case of the shrine to the "unknown God" it gave Paul an opportunity to appeal to the Greeks about the one true God, who is unknown to all peoples except in the most shadowy forms, without the revelation of the word of God. It is this unknown God I declare to you, he told them.The Greeks had some beliefs that were useful for conveying his point, including some writings by their philosophers. He did what Greeks did when they wanted to have a philosophical discussion. He went to the Areopagus and presented his case. (This is what it means that Paul became all things to all people. It doesn't mean the false idea that Paul falsified anything. You use what comes to hand to communicate. That's all he did.)Christianity borrowed absolutely nothing from anywhere. It was all the outworking of the revelation of God through His prophets to Israel. No other factors entered into it.This message has been edited by Faith, 02-13-2006 11:39 AM

Using what comes to hand in order to communicate is not the same thing as borrowing. No wonder you think I'm contradicting myself. If I borrow your choice of words to convey something to you in a way I think you might understand better than if I use my own, I am not borrowing your ideas into my own, I am using yours to convey mine to you.

The New Testament is in Greek. The New Testament used the Hebrew translation into GREEK, not Latin, and that was done by Jews a few hundred years before Christ. It was a direct translation from the Hebrew scriptures and wasn't retrofitted to nuthin. Translators aren't idiots. They know the languages they are dealing with, no doubt far better than you do. They used the proper equivalents. I have no idea where "the Jewish faith" got anything, but the Hebrew Bible got its stuff straight from the mouth of God Himself. Sorry again, the scriptures in the OT are quite clear. You are simply interpreting yourself out of ever understanding them. That's fine, your business, but the New Testament writers knew what they were saying, knew what the Hebrew scriptures meant -- they grew up hearing them every Saturday for their entire lives after all -- there is no such thing as a "Christian concept" in the Bible except from that basic Jewish source. Yes that is what many of the Jews were wrongly expecting, and therefore missed their Messiah, but those Jews who understood their scriptures recognized Him when He came.

This is ridiculous. Satan is a real being. Who cares where the terminology came from to describe him? See my post #13 which I was writing in answer to your post on the previous thread while you were writing this one.The Jews misunderstood their own scriptures -- partly because, in order to confuse Satan, a lot of it wasn't fully revealed until Christ came. To stick to the Hebrew scriptures alone, without the revelation of the New Testament, is to dig yourself into a complete misunderstanding. The Hebrew scriptures teach that the angels revolted. This comes from that source and from nowhere else. Oh, now you say the term came from Judaism. Well, so did the concept of Satan, aas Satan is not a "demigod" he is an angel who revolted, which is what the Hebrew scriptures say, not the Persians or the Greeks. The prophets of Jehovah consulted Jehovah, they did not consult foreigners. Hell is simply the European equivalent for the Biblical terms Sheol and Hades. All cultures have a concept of a place of the dead or a place of torment. When you translate the BIble you use the terms that are available in the receiving culture. Obviously. I simply give the authoritative Jewish translators - seventy of them I believe -- of the Greek translation of teh Hebrew scriptures known as the Septuagint (because of those seventy translators), and the writers of the New Testament, and the scholars and believers of the New Testament over the last two millennia, more credence than I give you.And ditto for all the rest of what you say: The term "virgin" is not applied to the Shulamite, but to the "virgins" plural:

quote:

---

Sgs 1:3 Because of the savour of thy good ointments thy name [is as] ointment poured forth, therefore do the virgins love thee.

​

Sgs 6:8 There are threescore queens, and fourscore concubines, and virgins without number.

---

I'm sorry, you do not have any credentials or authority over the writers of the New Testament or all its scholars since then, and they declare it a virgin birth. They are authoritative on the Old Testament, and you are not. This is an obtuse literalminded rendering of what is in reality a prophetic scripture.This message has been edited by Faith, 02-13-2006 06:07 PM

Judaism is false religion. It is based on the Talmud, not on the Old Testament. The New Testament interprets the Old Testament correctly. Even the Pharisees believed in a resurrection, however. So much for the notion there is no afterlife in Judaism. God Himself calls Himself the Savior throughout the Old Testament. And "He will save His people from their sins" is in the Old Testament. If Judaism misses this, too bad for Judaism. AAnd I AM EXTRA XTRA sorry sorry sorry but the New Testgament is quite quite clear. You are imposing a false Jewish interpretation on the scriptures that the New Testmaenet JEWS understood, as opposed to the ones who rejected their Messiah. Sorry sorry sorry and a half. You are the one sticking your fingers in your ears, and your arrogance in imposing the obtuse and unspiritual Jewish view on the Christian scriptures is simply offensive.You didn't give anything specific that has not been answered a hundred times. The Shulamite is not called a virgin in the Song of Songs. Almah is properly translated virgin, etc etc etc. What else is there to say.This message has been edited by Faith, 02-13-2006 06:59 PM

No need to do that. He's the one who clearly said it's false religion. That's how I know.

Yeah, jar, my support is the authority of the New Testament writers, and Jesus Christ, God Himself. Can't do better than that for support, jar.This message has been edited by Faith, 02-13-2006 07:25 PM

Everywhere he condemns and speaks woe to the Pharisees and the scribes, for they are Judaism then and now as well. Wherever Jesus condemns the Pharisees for following the traditions of men instead of God. Wherever it does interpret the Old Testament at all. Its writers were Jews who had grown up hearing the Old Testament. The New Testament is the word of God. And God is my support. My posts certainly do deny that Christianity has adopted anything whatever. And you bet Christianity is intolerant of evil and lies and pious frauds like you. I call on God to expose you as the fraud you are.

sSorry, I'm in a mood not to put up with any guff today. And everybody who knows the truth as I know it IS the arbiter of all Christianity. That's ALL of us. At EvC that includes brothers Iano, and Buzsaw and Randman too. I'm sure of them, I'm not awfully sure of anybody else though there may be a few.This message has been edited by Faith, 02-13-2006 11:10 PM

The topic is "Early Instances of Christian Elements: Borrowings, Anticipations or Satanic Mockery?" If you are going to continue the "my beliefs are better than your beliefs" garbage, suspensions will follow.- The Queen

Well then, we're even since your unbelievable arrogance against the New Testament makes you an anti-Christian.The Talmud is claimed to have been given to Moses at Sinai along with the Torah, but there is no evidence in scripture of any such thing and it is the Talmud which Jesus condemned as the traditions of men the Jews put between themselves and God. The Talmud contains the obsessional additions to the law that Jesus said put a burden on the people they could not carry. Yes, that is what is claimed for it, but it also does what Jesus condemned it for. It removes people from the requirements of the law by interposing a bunch of nitpicky rules for observing them. Not if they MISinterpreted them, which they did, which is what Jesus taught they did, and severely condemned them for doing, and the whole New Testament teaches in general, including Paul and Peter. Jesus on the other hand, taught the Old Testament in truth. Judaism has been following a manmade false interpretation and not the Old Testament. That is correct, they certainly do not have that concept and they are wrong because it is clearly and obviously in their own scriptures. That is correct, he does not because they have misinterpreted their scriptures. It is what the New Testament teaches, and your denial of what the New Testament teaches is just plain prejudice on your part. The feeling is mutual. Yes that is your misinterpretation. I'm quite familiar with it. It's what I'm answering and have answered quite adequately on many threads at this forum.This message has been edited by Faith, 02-14-2006 02:35 AMThis message has been edited by AdminAsgara, 02-14-2006 07:47 AM

He didn't change or abolish anything, he fulfilled it all personally as no ordinary human being could, only the perfect Man Jesus. Which is why any ordinary person who tries to live by the law in his own flesh is doomed to Hell.This message has been edited by Faith, 02-14-2006 02:38 AM

Unable? Oh far from it. I just assumed that anybody with the slightest knowledge of the New Testament would recognize my casual references. My mistake. Allow me to help you out. Don't recognize this? Well, try these out:

quote:

---

Mat 23:13 But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in [yourselves], neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.
Mat 23:14 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.
Mat 23:15 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.
Mat 23:23 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier [matters] of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.
Mat 23:25 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess.
Mat 23:27 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead [men's] bones, and of all uncleanness.
Mat 23:29 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous,
Luk 11:44 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are as graves which appear not, and the men that walk over [them] are not aware [of them].

---

There's lots more in Luke 11 and 12 too, though most of it repeats Matthew 23.

quote:

---

Mat 3:7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?
Mat 5:20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed [the righteousness] of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.
Mat 16:6 Then Jesus said unto them, Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.
Mat 16:11 How is it that ye do not understand that I spake [it] not to you concerning bread, that ye should beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees?
Mat 16:12 Then understood they how that he bade [them] not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.
Luk 11:39 And the Lord said unto him, Now do ye Pharisees make clean the outside of the cup and the platter; but your inward part is full of ravening and wickedness.
Luk 11:42 But woe unto you, Pharisees! for ye tithe mint and rue and all manner of herbs, and pass over judgment and the love of God: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.

---

See quotes above. My support is as I said, God's own authority, which will ultimately condemn all who dishonor him as is done at EvC all the time.