|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 126 days) Posts: 4001 From: Adirondackia Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Early Instances of Christian Elements: Borrowings, Anticipations or Satanic Mockery? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member (Idle past 126 days) Posts: 4001 From: Adirondackia Joined: |
In the Purgatory thread, starting here claims have been made and questioned about just what elements of Christian belief were first seen in earlier Pagan religions. To help keep that thread on topic, let's move that discussion here.
The discussion so far, in brief:
inkorrekt writes: Christianity did not borrow anything from anyone. Chiroptera writes: Well, except for the bit about a god being born of a virgin to be a sacrifice for the world. And the part about the Supreme Being being an omnipotent, omniscient, perfect being. ramoss writes: And the concept of "Satan"We must also not forget that the terms "Savior" and "Salvation' were political statements, because those are the terms that Ceasar Agustus gave himself, being the 'divine son of God', who 'brought salvation to the roman empire'. Faith writes: Christianity "borrowed" the concept of "Satan?" From whom?
1Ch 21:1 And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel... Job 1:6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them... Job 1:7 And the LORD said unto Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it... Job 1:8 And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that [there is] none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil? ...Job 1:9 Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, Doth Job fear God for nought? ...Job 1:12 And the LORD said unto Satan, Behold, all that he hath [is] in thy power; only upon himself put not forth thine hand ...Psa 109:6 Set thou a wicked man over him: and let Satan stand at his right hand. ...Zec 3:1 And he shewed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the LORD, and Satan standing at his right hand to resist him. ...Zec 3:2 And the LORD said unto Satan, The LORD rebuke thee, O Satan; even the LORD that hath chosen Jerusalem rebuke thee: [is] not this a brand plucked out of the fire? I suppose "Savior" and "salvation" had political implications, all right, but they were directly taken from the Old Testament too, just as "Satan" was also in the OT, not manufactured for the purpose if that's what you are implying. God Himself calls himself the Savior in many passages. And you of course deny it, but The Messiah was prophesied to BE God Himself in the flesh, so to call Him the Savior was simply in keeping with the ancient prophecies. Faith writes: This is off topic, as was Ramoss' post, which I just answered, but I think it needs some explanation. I know of no other religion where any god was actually born of a virgin. The "virgin" was no longer a virgin by the time of the birth -- or the conception for that matter. And how does one "borrow" the idea of an omnipotent omniscient perfect God who was known to all people at one time? So let's discuss what elements of Christian belief were present in pre-Christian pagan beliefs, and the significance of those common elements. Christians might argue that pagan beliefs comprised a premonitory anticipation of Christ; others might assert that pagan religions passed along elements to Christianity in the same fashion that all culture evolves and synthesizes new worldviews from the old. Let me start with this passage which suggests a far more profane source for the notion (and phraseology) of virgin birth:
Sargon is perhaps the first Babylonian king who was said to have a larger-than-life birth and childhood. He was born in secret to a mother of lowly birth and a father who was a mountain god. In a motif which would later be borrowed and attributed to Horus and Moses, Sargon's mother placed the child in a basket of rushes and sent him down a river to protect him from the god's enemies. The babe was rescued downstream by simple folk and the goddess Ishtar loved and guided Sargon through his early childhood and to his final destiny: the ascension of the throne. Sargon's biography started a "tall tale" tradition that subsequent kings felt the need to match. The attribute of divine birth and predestination became an important vehicle whereby a mortal king was said to be god-favored; gaining recognition and power during his life which often continued into posterity long after death. By 1000 BCE, we find this tradition improved upon so that the biography of kings and important men insist that they were not only divinely born, but said to have transcended death to become gods themselves. Zoroaster, the Persian prophet and patriarch who lived and preached in ancient Babylon, was said to have been God-begotten and virgin born. Virgin-birth was the responsibility of the Ishtar priestesses, who conducted fertility rites, prophesied and performed elaborate rituals in the temples throughout Babylon. The priestesses who administered the temples also managed a lucrative prostitution business that provided a steady stream of financial support for temple activities. Upon their return to Palestine, Hebrews of the Babylonian captivity brought back to the Mediterranean peoples wondrous tales of the priestesses and their blasphemous sexual ministries to the men who visited them. The role of the Ishtar priestess was to act as both mother to the prospective man's child and minister to the child's divine needs: "Holy Virgin" was the title of harlot-priestesses of Ishtar (and) Asherah. The title didn't mean physical virginity; it meant simply "unmarried." The function of such "holy virgins" was to dispense the Mother's grace through sexual worship; to heal; to prophesy; to perform sacred dances; to wail for the dead; and to become Brides of God."[1] The Hebrews called the children of these priestesses bathur, which meant literally "virgin-born" as in those children who were born of the holy harlot-priestesses of the temple. The Hellenic world had no equivalent to the bizarre rituals of Ishtar, and mistranslated and misunderstood the literal Hebrew's bathur as parthenioi, also "virgin-born" but in the sense of physical, not spiritual, virginity. from infidels.org And one more bit of grist from the same article:
Zeus was said to have impregnated Danae by visiting her as a ray of sunlight and the dove, sacred to Ishtar, manifests itself as a Holy Ghost to impregnate Mary and announce Jesus as the son of God.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminAsgara Administrator (Idle past 2554 days) Posts: 2073 From: The Universe Joined: |
Comparative Religions?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member (Idle past 126 days) Posts: 4001 From: Adirondackia Joined: |
Works for me, Queen. I'll edit the link in the Purgatory thread once it's moved.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminAsgara Administrator (Idle past 2554 days) Posts: 2073 From: The Universe Joined: |
Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1696 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member (Idle past 126 days) Posts: 4001 From: Adirondackia Joined: |
Lot of assertions in your quotation, no real support for any of it --Dates, sources etc. Yes, there are. I hope that they will be rebutted or supported--I was more interested in getting the discussion rolling immediately in a new on-topic thread than posting exhaustive proofs. The full article I linked to does include footnoted sources.
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. Yes, we see the most ancient form of the divinely-begotten king to involve actual physical impregnation by the god. Yet a case can be made that this claim was, over time, becoming more subtle and spiritually sophisticated. For example, as I noted, "Zeus was said to have impregnated Danae by visiting her as a ray of sunlight..." which I think is well established mythology without requiring dates and sources. This is certainly more ethereal than a roll in the hay with the mountain god, and it seems reasonable to suggest it reflects a trend that culminates in the virgin birth claims for Jesus. Don't misunderstand me, Faith. I am not an expert in this area (you will note my lack of assertions in the OP), and I expect to learn a great deal as this thread progresses. OTOH, if your argument is a narrow one ("There is no comparison with the operations of the omnipresent invisible Holy Spirit in the conception of Jesus."), so that pagan traditions about virgin birth have to include Christian doctrine about an omnipresent invisible Holy Spirit before they are considered similar, I suppose the dicussion is over before it begins. As I understand it, the general claim by some is that many Christian elements were recognizably present in pagan form, not that they exactly corresponded. Perhaps we can focus on one element at a time, beginning with virgin birth. Let's take this example from my lengthy quote from infidels.org:
Zoroaster, the Persian prophet and patriarch who lived and preached in ancient Babylon, was said to have been God-begotten and virgin born. Do you accept the accuracy of this statement about Zoroaster's tradition? By the way:
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. It would be quite remarkable to learn a language without experiencing any other influence. "Dost thou think because thou art virtuous there shall be no more cakes and ale?" -Sir Toby Belch, Twelfth Night Save lives! Click here!Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC! ---------------------------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1696 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Lot of assertions in your quotation, no real support for any of it --Dates, sources etc.
quote: 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.
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.
quote: 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.
Don't misunderstand me, Faith. I am not an expert in this area (you will note my lack of assertions in the OP), and I expect to learn a great deal as this thread progresses. 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.
OTOH, if your argument is a narrow one ("There is no comparison with the operations of the omnipresent invisible Holy Spirit in the conception of Jesus."), so that pagan traditions about virgin birth have to include Christian doctrine about an omnipresent invisible Holy Spirit before they are considered similar, I suppose the dicussion is over before it begins. 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.
As I understand it, the general claim by some is that many Christian elements were recognizably present in pagan form, not that they exactly corresponded. 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.
Perhaps we can focus on one element at a time, beginning with virgin birth. Let's take this example from my lengthy quote from infidels.org:
Zoroaster, the Persian prophet and patriarch who lived and preached in ancient Babylon, was said to have been God-begotten and virgin born. Do you accept the accuracy of this statement about Zoroaster's tradition? I have no idea what to make of it. But I think the best I can do with this subject I just stated above.
By the way: 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.
It would be quite remarkable to learn a language without experiencing any other influence. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 91 days) Posts: 34140 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Certainly Christianity borrowed from and adopted traditions from other cultures and religions. Much of Paul's ministry was based around identifying those facets of other religions and cultures that were a barrier to joining Christianity and adopting them or tossing out the existing ones.
Paul went through the list of Christian practices, customs and traditions and threw out those he felt were a barrier. But he also adopted practices from other religions. One good example is found in the story of "the unknown God" where he simply adopted an existing facility. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1696 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 91 days) Posts: 34140 From: Texas!! Joined: |
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. You keep saying that even when you contradict yourself in the same post.
Faith writes: 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. And that is the whole point. The history of religions, including Christianity, does not exist in a vacuum. Religions, including Christianity are the creation of man, and they borrow. Religions are influenced by the cultures of the peoples in an area and in an era. The Christians built on a basis of the Jews who in turn were influenced by earlier civilizations and religions. In time they borrowed from other religions and peoples, the Greeks, the Romans, the Celts, the Druids, the Norse. As you said, "You use what comes to hand to communicate." Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1696 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 864 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
You will have to remember, that the concept of SATAN was taken from the persians.. and the 'salvation' was actually retrofitted onto the old testament when it comes to translations from the hebrew, even though there are other terms that are just as good or not better.
There is no concept of 'salvation' as the christian knows it in the Jewish faith. The Latin terms for salvation and savior came directly from cult of Ceasar Augustus. As for Satan, the Jews took the concept from Persia. The concept that Satan was this demigod that was seperate from God came from Greek influnces. In the Jewish religion, Satan was just an angel of god, and (this is an important thing), angels did not have free will, therefore they could not revolt against god. The term 'satan' might have come from Judaism, but the nature of Satan came from the persians. And let us look at the concept of "Hell". There is no concept of "hell" as a place of eternal torture, but the Roman Catholic Church adopted the concept from Zoroastrianism, mixed in the concept of Sheol (the grave) from Judaism, and made 'hell' a place of eternal torment. Now, you might say that 'almah' means 'virgin' because it was translated to pathenos in the greek. I happen to disagree. If you look at rape of Dianah in Genesis 34, she was referenced as 'parthenos' even after she was raped by Shechem. There is also the use of 'almah'in the song of solomon, which a young lady is refered in a very erotic and sexual manner (and most assurdly not a virgin). So, to claim that the concept of a virgin birth for the messiah is in the old testament is just plain incorrect. There are many other sources for that concept, but not from the passage you are pointing too. Besides, if you read Isaiah 7:14 in context, it is fairly obvious that Isaiah was refering to his own wife (the prophetess), and not someone who was born 600 years later.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1696 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Actually, the terms used in the New testament are directly the latin terms used by Ceasar AUgustus. The New Testament is in Greek.
The hebrew translations into Latin (and then english) was sort of retrofitted.. 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.
and whne there were multiple words to use with similar meanings, 'salvation' and 'savior' were chosen, even if they were not the best fit for the Hebrew. Translators aren't idiots. They know the languages they are dealing with, no doubt far better than you do. They used the proper equivalents.
The Jewish faith got the concept of Satan and dualism from the Persians. I have no idea where "the Jewish faith" got anything, but the Hebrew Bible got its stuff straight from the mouth of God Himself.
And no, the 'messiah', according to the Jewish texts, was not supposed to be 'god made flesh'. That was a Christian concept that came from the Greek gentil converts. 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.
The Jewish expectation for the Messiah was just a man who would kick the foreign invaders out, and become a home grown king over Israel. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1696 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
You will have to remember, that the concept of SATAN was taken from the persians.. This is ridiculous. Satan is a real being. Who cares where the terminology came from to describe him?
and the 'salvation' was actually retrofitted onto the old testament when it comes to translations from the hebrew, even though there are other terms that are just as good or not better. There is no concept of 'salvation' as the christian knows it in the Jewish faith. The Latin terms for salvation and savior came directly from cult of Ceasar Augustus. 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.
As for Satan, the Jews took the concept from Persia. The concept that Satan was this demigod that was seperate from God came from Greek influnces. In the Jewish religion, Satan was just an angel of god, and (this is an important thing), angels did not have free will, therefore they could not revolt against god. The term 'satan' might have come from Judaism, but the nature of Satan came from the persians. 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.
And let us look at the concept of "Hell". There is no concept of "hell" as a place of eternal torture, but the Roman Catholic Church adopted the concept from Zoroastrianism, mixed in the concept of Sheol (the grave) from Judaism, and made 'hell' a place of eternal torment. 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.
Now, you might say that 'almah' means 'virgin' because it was translated to pathenos in the greek. I happen to disagree. If you look at rape of Dianah in Genesis 34, she was referenced as 'parthenos' even after she was raped by Shechem. There is also the use of 'almah' 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:
in the song of solomon, which a young lady is refered in a very erotic and sexual manner (and most assurdly not a virgin). The term "virgin" is not applied to the Shulamite, but to the "virgins" plural:
quote: So, to claim that the concept of a virgin birth for the messiah is in the old testament is just plain incorrect. 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.
There are many other sources for that concept, but not from the passage you are pointing too. Besides, if you read Isaiah 7:14 in context, it is fairly obvious that Isaiah was refering to his own wife (the prophetess), and not someone who was born 600 years later. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 864 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
The terms where known by their greek equivilants.. yes..
But, no... when it comes to the Hebrew, the original hebrew often meant' helped'. There is no concept of 'salvation' for the afterlife in Judaism. There is no 'savior' except for soemone who helps for this life.. not the next. And, I am sorry, but the tanakh is quite clear. You are retrofiting Christina concepts that do not fit into the Jewish scriptures. You are going to have to do better that make the blanket claim that OT is quite clear. I gave examples in specific passagages in the Tanakh, with specific words. You will have to refute what I said using the terms used in the Greek and the Hebrew, or show how I am mistaken in context. Merely proclaiming the OT is clear, and I am wrong is a little like sticking your hands in your ears and yelling 'I can't hear you'
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024