The Woman Who Named God: A Book Report
Here and there on the front lines of the clash of civilizations, we can glimpse a few pockets of compassion. One example is the reading of a neglected passage of Genesis that depicts the tragic fate of an Egyptian slave named Hagar, the mother of Abraham’s first son and, by tradition, the matriarch of the Arab nation. According to the Bible, Abraham (still called Abram at this point in the biblical narrative) is sent into Hagar’s bed by his own wife, Sarah (still called Sarai), because she is incapable of giving him children. But when the fecund young woman gives birth to a son, Ishmael, Sarah turns suddenly jealous and vengeful. And when God later bestows a child on Sarah in advanced old age, Sarah urges Abraham to send Hagar and Ishmael into the desert to die—a demand that God is shown to endorse. Yet God ultimately spares the victims of Sarah’s wrath: “Arise, lift up the lad, and hold him in thine hand,” God tells Hagar in the wilderness, “for I will make him a great nation” (Genesis 21:18). Poet and biographer Charlotte Gordon, author of “The Woman Who Named God,” insists that the story of Hagar is “a creation story as important as the Garden of Eden,” if also “one of the most frequently misinterpreted of all western stories.” She concedes that it is the starting point of the historical enmity between Jews, Christians and Muslims, but she also implores her readers to ask one of those “what-if” questions that reframe all of our conventional wisdom: “What if Abraham had chased after his mistress and firstborn son, begged Sarah to forgive his betrayal, and urged Hagar to forgive Sarah’s jealousy, so that they might raise their sons together? Would we be any better at living in peace?”
Her sources range from Joseph Campbell to Jack Miles, from Mark Twain to William James, from the erotic poetry of the ancient Canaanites to the “Vision Quest” of the Lakota, all in an earnest effort to place the biblical text in a context that includes other moral, philosophical and religious artifacts. But she mostly draws on Jewish, Christian and Islamic exegesis to point out the tendentious meanings that pious readers have extracted from the text over the last 20 centuries and to show why they have created such tensions among the Abrahamic religions.
Thus, for example, Gordon points out that Abraham is shown to dine with an obscure king named Melchizedek in the Hebrew Bible, but the Christian Bible suggests that Melchizedek was actually a mystical precursor of Jesus, thus reducing Abraham to “a primitive example of what is to come in the New Testament.” Gordon cites an Islamic hadith in which Hagar is shown to refer to the God of the Hebrew patriarchs as Allah, and the author points out that “the Muslim portrayal of Hagar is of a woman who is in many ways Abraham’s equal.”
Perhaps the single best example of how Gordon rereads and reinterprets the biblical text is the one that inspired the title of Gordon’s book. According to the Bible, after God encounters Hagar and Ishmael in the wilderness and reveals the nation-building role he has assigned to Ishmael, Hagar is shown to address God using a name that she has apparently coined at that moment: “You are El-roi,” says Hagar to Yahweh. “Thus Hagar reveals an originality, a willingness to break from convention, and an eagerness to connect this bewildering deity that sets her apart from every other Biblical figure, male or female,” writes Gordon. “Clearly, rules did not matter to this servant woman.”
The Bible, it has been said, is the least-read best-seller of all times. But there is a whole literature devoted to reconsidering the ancient text, a literature that is full of shocks and surprises, wholly unexpected cross-wirings of religious traditions, and illuminating flashes of insight and wisdom. On that shelf you will find Gordon’s book, a superb example of how to approach the Bible as a work of human history. Gordon’s provocative question hints at a more intimate aspect of the story of Hagar. She sees it as a wedge that allows us to crack open the politics of human relationships, “the problem of fidelity not only in marriage but also in relation to God...”
|
Change Location:
|
To this day, whenever I contemplate Hagar, I sense her complete despair. She has done nothing more than what was ordered of her by those she served and she produced fruit from that. She loves her son Ishmael. Both are innocent. Because of Sarah's jealousy, a sin, and Abraham's complicity, Hagar is forced out into an unforgiving, harsh, wilderness. Her overwhelming grief at the thought of her son suffering so and her being able to do nothing to save or protect him makes her unable to even look at him. God sees her, takes pity and sends an angel to her with physical relief, comforting her and a promise for her and Ishmael, that gives her hope. Her story is the story of so many...perhaps even the childhood of Jesus...
...To Abraham's credit, Muslims say that Abraham did meet up with Ishmael at a later date...
One has to accept that Jesus is the Messiah to accept the New Testament. Not everyone does.
PS: If you have not read the Passover Plot please do.
This doesn't have anything to do with the New Testament.
The Passover Plot:
* That Jesus was a deeply religious Jewish man, probably well-versed in the teachings of the local northern sects such as the Nazarenes and Essenes.
* That growing up in Biblical Galilee he had a skeptical and somewhat rebellious relationship to the hierarchy and teachings mandated by the authorities (the Pharisees) of the Temple in Jerusalem.
* That Jewish Messianic expectation was extremely high in those times, matched to the despair caused by the Roman occupation of the land, and by their subjugation of the Jews.
* That he was in many ways both typical of his times, and yet extraordinary in his religious convictions and beliefs, in his scholarship of the Biblical literature, and in the fervency in which he lived his religion out in his daily life.
* That he was convinced of his role as the expected Messiah based on the authority of his having been descendant from King David (the royal bloodline of David), and that he consciously and methodically, to the point of being calculating, attempted to fulfill that role, being eminently well-versed in the details of what that role entailed.
* That he was convinced of the importance of his fulfilling the role perfectly (after all prophesy and expectation), and that he could not allow himself to fail, as that would undoubtedly lead to his being declared a false Messiah.
cont...
* That he was perfectly aware of the consequences of his actions all along the way, and that he directed his closest supporters, the original twelve Apostles, unknowingly to aid him in his plans.
* That he involved the least possible number of supporters in his plans ("need to know" basis), therefore very few knew of the details of his final plan, and even then only the least amount of information necessary.
I read the book years ago and I found it to be very interesting. As you said... a "must read."
This post, however, has nothing to do with the New Testament.
Nice story...here and there on the front lines of the clash of civilizations
Birch, I guess her take is okay if you ignore certain parts of the Bible and take others out of context.
Jon - while you are reading, take a look at “The Passover Plot” by By Dr. Norman Geisler.
Obewan: It is a good story... I've always had a soft spot for Hagar and Ishmael. I mean... all's well that end's well, but for a time it seemed that the two were just abandoned. It's good to know that mercy and compassion still has a place in our time.... something all too many of us forget.
Also, Obewan: A deeper reading onto the story reveals a certain level of hypocrisy, bigotry, and chauvinism that is overcome by patient forbearance and trust in God.
British Biblical scholar Hugh J. Schonfield's 1965 book, "The Passover Plot," defends Schonfield's premise that Jesus had planned his own crucifixion in advance.
According to the plan, he would not be on the cross for more than a few hours before the Sabbath arrived when it was required by law that Jews be taken down. One of Jesus' supporters, who was on hand, would give him water (to quench his thirst) that was actually laced with a soporific drug to make him unconscious and apparently dead. Joseph of Arimathea, a well-connected supporter, would collect him off the cross while still alive (but appearing to be dead) so that he could be secretly nursed back to health. The plan went sour when a Roman soldier unexpectedly thrust a spear into him, causing his actual death.
Jews affirmed at least five things about the expected King-Messiah:
(1) He would be a descendant of King-Messiah David;
(2) He would gain sovereignty over the land of Israel by expelling the non-Jews;
(3) He would gather the Jews together from the four corners of the earth;
(4) He would restore the full observance of Torah law; and
(5) He would bring peace to the whole world.
The basic reason for the denial of the messianic claims made on Jesus' behalf is that he did not usher in world peace as Isaiah had prophesied: "And nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore" (Isaiah 2:4). In addition, Jesus did not help bring about Jewish political sovereignty for the Jews, or establish protection from their enemies. Nor did he expel the Roman occupation forces and assume a position of political kingship over a unified Israel.
slapstick - various scriptures talk in terms of a sacrificial lamb, others in terms of the conquering king who would usher in peace. If you focus on some and ignore others, you fail to get the whole picture. He will return as the conquering king, and will usher in peace under His reign.
When we were in Jerusalem last year, we met a Jewish cab driver who we liked very much. We called him on his cell phone so we would get him, except during the Sabbath. He was very religious. One day we talked about the end times. He told us that he and his friends very much believe The Messiah will come soon. He also told us that they can hardly wait to ask Him if He has been here before. They are obviously allowing for the possibility that Jesus is the Messiah.
Interestingly, the Messiah had to come no later than 70 A.D., or not at all.
birch - If Sarah was jealous and vengeful, why did she not expel Hagar and Ishmael earlier? Or could it be that she was protective and saw something in Ishmael’s character that was highly undesirable?
Many believe that Ishmael himself caused his, and his mother’s, expulsion by mocking Isaac, his little brother. Gen. 21:8-10. Some think that this happened on the day that Abraham made the feast for joy that Isaac was safely weaned. The Jews say this was not until he was three years old, but others say five. Sarah herself was an eye-witness of the abuse. She saw the son of the Egyptian mocking Isaac, no doubt, for it is said, with reference to this (Gal. 4:29), that he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit. Ishmael was fourteen years older than Isaac. When children are together, the elder should be careful and tender of the younger. It has been argued that Ishmael had a very base and sordid disposition, to be abusive to a child that was no way a match for him.
Skeptic - You already know that I am not an evangelist for the Catholic Church, although I have a love for much of it. Having said that, is it possible that those prophecies were more spiritual and less literal? I remember what was said in the NT about people who called themselves Jews and were not. It makes me think of people that call themselves Christians and are not. Among true followers of God, there is peace, even in times of great trial, The Ten Commandments are adhered to, even by many non-Jews. They come from all corners of the earth. They look like Jesus, the shepherd, the prophet...the Messiah. It seems to me that if people really thought he was the Messiah, they would imitate him, yet so many do not...just my thoughts
BTW - my venial sins as well as the sometimes mortal sins, keep me in the group that does not imitate Christ wholly. For that, it keeps me at God's Mercy...
The midrash Genesis Rabbah states that Sarai was in the pharaoh's harem. She was Egyptian. Hagar was her slave. Also an Egyptian. Sarai married Avram of Ur, a Mesopotamian (Iraqi) and gave Hagar to her new husband. Abram sired two sons; Yisma-El, by his slave, and Yishaq, by his wife. Who in this story is NOT an Arab?
Very true, Skeptic. The story tries, often at great pains, to paint the "other" Semites as belonging to some sort of lower class and/or a whole different race. As if to say that "these" people are less than us... ipso facto... we are better than them. God's chosen? Not exactly... more like standard fare scapegoating. Not to mention that fact that Ishmael is the first born and therefore the one Abraham took to sacrifice, not Issac.
What we have is the futile attempt of one group needing a reason to feel good about themselves at the expense of another. Sound familiar? It should.
Is it just me or does the story smack a little of anti-Semitism?. What say you, Skeptic?
The story of Hagar, that is.
slapstick - how and when did Sarai become part of pharoah's harem? It might give you some context and a better understanding.
I thought the most interesting moral of the Passover Plot was the notion that Jesus was not the Son of God but a mere mortal. Consider the technology not available 2000 years ago. No TV, Cable News, printing presses, Planes, No AJ Bloggers, etc. And look at the impact Jesus had on Western Society for the last 20 centuries.
Interesting point, but, relatively speaking, we haven't seen anything yet.
Jon: I think what we find in Christianity is a combination of various religions, a little Judaism being one, that has mass appeal. A little Greek mythology, a little Zoroastrianism, a lot of Hinduism, a lot of Greek philosophy, and so on and so forth. It has been very successful in it's ability to adapt to most cultures. Consider the Celtic Druids of Ireland... they had the (almost) exact system in place as Christianity did/does. It was easy to slap the Christian pantheon on top of what already existed. Multiplistic, trinitarian-type deity (deities)? Check. Saints/heroes? Check. Angels/fairies? Check. Cross/Cheilteach? Check. Sacred places? Check... so on and so forth ad infinitum.
Downstairs at the Cathedral of Notre dame in France, in the basement, there is a huge horned god. The church was merely placed over it... "if you build it they will come." It was already sacred. Good move... touché Catholic Church.
In any case... it possesses an uncanny ability to morph itself into most existing systems of thought - it's very transient in it's mobility - and coupled with the promise of eternal bliss... who wouldn't like to join?
hey, birch - did you know they pulled my last blog comparing Muhammed and Jesus because some morose dingle-berries reported it as offensive to their less than stellar sensibilities?
I guess the local bastion of free speech thinks they have the right to decide who should exercise it, even if it means censoring religious freedom. How do you feel about that?
Lant - There are two different stories in Genesis. The passage you refer to (the Elohist) says nothing about Ishmael mocking Issac. In fact, it ends on verse 13 saying that God will also make a great nation for him (Ishmael). The other scripture of this story is found in Genesis 16:5-14, (Yahwist source) where Sarai (Sarah) complains to Abram (Abraham) that ever since Hagar became pregnant she had looked upon Sarai with disdain. Abram tells Sarai that because Hagar is Sarai's maidservant to do with her as she wills. Sarai chooses to abuse Hagar so much that she runs away (verse 6). If you think Hagar and her child were not affected by their lot in life, then perhaps it is because you have never walked in the shoes of someone born in adversity.
Lant - I believe you get your information by quoting Paul in Galatians. The Galatians he was speaking to were pagan converts who had been influenced by Jewish converts (probably austere Essenes, sometimes called "Judaizers) who were telling them they needed to obey certain Mosaic laws. Paul uses the analogy of the two women Sarah and Hagar, to demonstrate the difference between being in the spirit (free) and under the law (slave). Once again Lant, you paint a picture that breeds something Jesus never preached and that tells me why Peter said for us not to interpret these scriptures ourselves.
Lant - Your religious freedom allows you to practice it, without slamming a prophet. God would not like that, Jesus would not like that and I am sure that Muhammad (PBUH) would forgive you for it. You can be a Christian, love Jesus and work on your "salvation with fear and trembling" along with the rest of us.
Observer - good point on Gen. 16:5-14. I will concede that one. And I have no doubt that because of the sin of the three participants in the triangle, the consequences were difficult on all concerned.
However, I have to disagree with the rest of your comment. While God did promise Abraham that He would make a great nation of Ishmael, because he was Abraham's seed, Hagar and Ishmael were sent away because Ishmael mocked Isaac, as clearly stated in Gen. 21:9.
Also, if you read Gal. 4:29 in context, there is no doubt it is taking about Isaac and Ishmael. Start at verse 22 and read through verse 31.
Let's be realistic everyone. I accept and understand people's faith but to talk as if all this is 'gospel' is absurd. There is no historical confirmation of any of it. Let people believe what they choose and accept on faith what they want but to try to explain it all by quoting a book that has been rewritten and retranslated and corrupted so much makes no sense. These works are written by men to control men's behavior and dominate women. No more no less.
Observer - slamming a prophet? Define slamming. Did I say anything that was not true? While I do not believe Muhammed was a prophet, I will say that It seems to me that God had His prophets report the true facts about His prophets, and the heroes of the Bible. The Bible gives us both the good and bad facts. So God and Jesus would be just fine with what I wrote. And thank you. I will continnue running the race with full awe of God and His truth, standing up for the sanctity of His Word.
Bill - retranslated, sure. Rewritten and corrupted? Tell me about the corrution. I hear that bogus argument all the time, but no one ever substantiales it. As I have said before, we have more than 24,000 partial and complete, ancient handwritten manuscript copies of the New Testament alone, not to mention hundreds of Old Testament manuscripts, dating back to the third century B.C. These hand written manuscripts have allowed scholars and textual critics to go back and verify that the Bible we have in our possession today is the same Bible that the early church possessed 2,000 years ago.
Even if we did not have any manuscripts, we have the writings of the church fathers (those leaders in the church, of the first three centuries A.D. that followed the original disciples). Men like Justin Martyr, Eusebius, Tertullian, Polycarp. These men in their writings and correspondence with other believers and other churches quote the Scriptures over and over again. In fact, the early church fathers refer to the New Testament alone more than 86,000 times. There are enough quotations from the early church fathers that even if we did not have a single manuscript copy of the Bible, scholars could still reconstruct 99. 86% of the New Testament that we have today.
Let me try that opening again. Somehow it got corrupted.
Bill - retranslated, sure. Rewritten and corrupted? Tell me about the corruption. I hear that bogus argument all the time, but no one ever substantiates it.
I'll check back tomorrow.
You cannot take a work originally written in a language that does not exist and most of it years after the 'supposed events' and claim it has not been corrupted. There was no resurrection or Virgin Birth in the original gospels. That was added after 380 because the powers that be needed mysticism. These concepts some from ancient Zorastic fables. Faith is a powerful thing and I respect that but leave it at that.
Lant - One has to know they are committing a sin to be held fully accountable for it. This does not mean that we do not have a responsibility to find out. The Ten Commandments hadn't been given to Israel at the time of Abraham.
I looked the passage up and apparently yours is a translation that uses the word mock. Others say he was making fun of him and yet others do not say at all. The conclusion is that they are brothers, which makes Jews, Christians and Muslims...brothers. Treat them how you will...
Maybe they all led very simple lives and were not corrupted by TV, music and right wing radio... therefore their imagination could only be realized in what they dreamed was the way life should be and then they wrote it down...thus the flyingsurgeon's response....may make perfect sense.
You may be on to something, Obewan. An uncorrupted mind can certainly see farther.
I accept on faith that E=MC2. There is proof, but still more questions, and it does not confirm or deny the existence of God. I see a young man with special needs murdered by someone evil, and I wonder where God is. Then I look at my special needs child, and I see exactly where God is right now. And I hope he will never leave him. For all the evil in this world, there is hope, faith, and love. I find the arguments to be not relevant to the needs of our soul. The spirtual journey begins when you are really tested. Like when a loved one jumps off a bridge. Or your special needs child is beaten to death. Most of us have never had such tests. May we all find the peace that passes understanding.
lant - I have lots of examples. Here's one.
lant - (sorry, I hit the wrong button)
A classic example:
".. it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.’ (Matthew 19:24). The word ‘camel’ is in fact a mistranslation of the Hebrew word "gamel" which ican mean a thick rope, like a ship's hawser. Considering Jesus' audience were composed of fishermen, the latter makes more sense. In any case, "gamel" was translated into Greek as "camel," when it should instead read "rope." On the weight of this some English versions of Matthew now read "cable" instead of "camel.
(contd.)"
(contd.)
Every Christian is familiar with the story of the "virgin birth" (actually a virgin conception, not birth unless you're a Catholic), but what is not so familiar is the fact that only in the Gospels of Luke and Matthew is the virgin birth mentioned at all. Neither Mark nor John makes any mention of itl, nor is it mentioned by Paul. Such an event would have surely enhanced Jesus' image and supported the claim that he was a Messiah, yet it is never mentioned by the earliest of NT Gospels, those of Mark and Paul. Why?
The prophecy is from Isaiah (7:14) - "The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Emmanuel."
Unfortunately, there was a mistranslation. The original Hebrew word used in Isiah is "almah" (a young girl), which was mistranslated into Greek as "parthenos" (a virgin), so that the original prophesy did not, in fact, call for a "virgin" to conceive but simply for a young woman to become pregnant. The Hebrew word for virgin is "bethula" not "almah."
Isaiah's scribe knew the difference between "bethula" and "almah". Matthew's didn't. Also, Isaiah was talking about an 8th century BCE sign that would appear to King Ahaz. The prophecy wasn't just an error in translation, it was 800 years too late.
Lint -
Genesis Rabba (Heb. B'rsheet Rabbah) is an expository aggada midrash on the first book of the Torah. It's a mix of line-by-line commentary, parables, stories, popular sayings and legal principles expounded by learned rabbis. Many of the best known midrashim, including the story of Abraham breaking his father's idols, appear in B'rsheet Rabbah. Read. Learn.
Observer - All "sins", whether they're called original, venial or mortal, are nothing more than invented nonsense. The only real sin lies only in hurting other people unnecessarily.
lantbarney - Ishmael’s character? Ishmael was a newborn infant when he and Hagar were unceremoniously dumped in the desert to die, for Crissakes! What undesirable character flaws could an infant have? Get real.
Skeptic: Let's not forget the "throwing stones" story in the Gospel of John. That story is not actually part of the Bible... it's from a more recent date. John itself has at least three authors, the person who wrote the first chapter, the person who wrote the main body, and the person who wrote the finale.
Don't get me wrong... I love the story of the woman caught in adultery and it's probably along the lines of the thought of Jesus. I can understand why it was added. It just isn't "true".
I think to read the Bible clearly we need to put aside all pretensions of knowing it all and read deeper into the text. The Bible, Old and New, is a wonderful book that has enough meaning in it to give some of the greatest minds, artists, and holy men and women the ability to transcend this mortal world and pierce into the very heart of God Himself. Sadly, it is also used by civilized medicine men to make God a means into their own ends. For that... there will be a reckoning.
Skeptic - Thanks for the "further education". I would love to read all those sidenotes of the Midrash. In the Ten Commandments, the first four are how we hurt God. The last six are how we hurt each other. Even when a person carefully analyzes their sin (BTW,the Catholic instruction is excellent on this subject :-) ), it is hard to repent and not repeat, without alot of effort, unless one gets a lot of Grace. This requires prayer. I lived with a person who was a saint, who only spoke of God at the end of her life, didn't go to church, was one of the most humble souls who ever lived and only preached through her example. She was and is an amazing person. It took me 5 years of intense study to realize who she was and I am still learning about her to this day. She was filled with Grace. According to the teaching of Christianity, the fruit that should be there through a life of "running the race", is in some people who appeared to be walking. It is profoundly in others who take a much different route. This tells me that God has a sense of humor. Oh how smart we think we are :-)
Bill, “corrupted” means containing errors or alterations. If you have the early manuscripts you know where there are any alterations or errors in later versions. Disagreement on interpretation is not the same as corruption. When there have been later additions, they are noted in any good study bible and the reader is cautioned to beware. Interestingly, none of the later additions introduce new doctrine or anything essential to salvation. They seem to elaborate on doctrines found in the earliest texts.
While Bible critics in the 1800's argued that certain parts were not added until the 4th century, later discoveries have made it pretty clear that the entire New Testament was probably completed before 80 A.D. I suggest that you read “The Physical Resurrection of Jesus Christ Is Historical Fact” by Randy Singer. It gives a thorough treatment of the subject of the resurrection that dispenses with the argument that there was no resurrection in the original gospels. The writings of St. Ignatius, dated around 100 A.D., quoting the early gospels, make it clear that the virgin birth was in the original texts.
Skeptic - `almah {al-maw'} from 5958; TWOT - 1630b; n f AV - virgin 4, maid 2, damsels 1; 7 1) virgin, young woman 1a) of marriageable age 1b) maid or newly married. There is no instance where it can be proved that this word designates a young woman who is not a virgin. Strong’s concordance gives a lengthy and thorough discussion on the meaning of the word and why it is interpreted to mean virgin. Does it surprise you that Rabbi’s who want to deny Jesus is the Messiah would focus only on a possible meaning that would say otherwise?
My understanding is that most, if not all, of the New Testament was originally written in Greek, then later translated into Hebrew. Regardless, “gamel” actually means “to deal out, deal with, wean, ripen.” On the other hand, the Greek “kamelos” comes from a Hebrew word meaning “a bearer, carrier,” and is properly interpreted as “camel.” Either way, we are talking interpretation, not corruption, and the gist of the saying would be the same.
As far as Ishmael’s character is concerned, it was not the issue in the passage you cite. True, he was a newborn infant when he and Hagar were sent to the desert to die, the first time, as a result of Hagar’s contempt for Sarah, but he was about 14 when he mocked Isaac, resulting in the second expulsion. I thought observer and I had cleared that up earlier. Is that real enough for you?
Birch - as I told Bill, when there have been later additions, they are noted in any good study bible and the reader is cautioned to beware. None of them introduce new doctrine essential to salvation. They seem to elaborate on doctrines found in the earliest texts.
Personally, I am glad we have the early manuscripts. We can argue about their meaning and we can see that the Bible has not been corrupted.
Wish I could stick around but I have a busy day and will not be back until Monday. Have a great weekend.
The greatest tragedy of the world is the lack of general evolution...
- Hazrat Inayat Khan
It appears by the comments above we are making head way though....I still vote for BB and Skeptic...Lant is coming along.
Why is it that the earliest NT sources, such as the gospel of Mark and the epistles of Paul, are silent on the "virgin birth."
There is nothing in Paul's letters (AD51-64) and Mark's gospel (cAD70) about Jesus' "miraculous conception." This silence is actually strong testimony against the historic reality of Jesus' parthenogenesis. Mark and Paul were both convinced believers and if it HAD occurred they would surely have written something about it.
The gentile religions of that time were filled with stories of divine incarnations. Among the Greeks, Perseus was born of the virgin Danae. Danae was conceived by the God Zeus who took the form of a shower of gold. Dionysius was born of the virgin Semele. Semele was impregnated by Zeus with a bolt of lightning.
Mithra, an derivative of Persian sun-worship whose cult surpassed Christianity during the first few centuries of its existence, was conceived when god himself, in the form of light, entered into a virgin.
Phoenecian mythology had Adonis being born of the virgin Myrrh.
Parthenogenesis was also the explanation for the birth of the Phyrgian deity, Attis from his mother, Cybele. And so on.
It was inevitable that Christianity, which counted on converts taken from these earlier religions, would itself become imbued with magical doings, portents and supernatural elements just like the others.
Betulah definitely means virgin, and Isaiah certainly would have used this word had he described a virgin birth. According to the myth, Immanuel was obviously born in Isaiah's time and the deliverance that his name represents ("El is with us") was fulfilled in those days. Mary has no more to do with Immanuel than does the mother of Bill Maher.
skeptic - I decided to go to late service so came by the office to talk to my daughter on Skype. She wasn't home, so I took the time to address your first post.
No respectable Jew would have ever condescended to buy into a Greek/Babylonian mythological base for an account dealing with the birth of his/her Messiah. Let me turn your question about Mark and Paul around. Both Paul and Mark were alive and quite familiar with the Gospel accounts written by Matthew and the physician, Luke, yet neither of them questioned or refuted the accounts of the virgin birth. Why not?
In addition, since Paul’s mentioning of an occurrence is important to you, what do you make of the fact that appearances of the resurrected Jesus are mentioned throughout Paul’s writings? The most extensive and non-disputed creed on the resurrection is found in Paul’s letter to the Corinthian church (1 Corinthians 15:1-8). This creed mentions a total of six different resurrection appearances and can be traced back to be composed within a few years of the date of the resurrection.
Bill - On the corruption issue, it seems to me that, other than a few scribal errors, the few alterations, or additions, are well known because we have the early manuscripts, so God's Word stands in tact and we are left to discuss meaning.
Obe - fortunately, God’s existence is not determined by popular vote.
Now, I really won't be back until Monday.
lantbarney -
You appear believe that pre-Rabbinic Judaism was monolithic and autonomous, when in fact mythology and belief in the supernatural are historically driven by religious syncretism. History provides plenty of examples. In the case of Judaism, it evolved from the ongoing interaction with Canaanite, Hittite, Babylonian and Hellenistic peoples. Perhaps because of the frequent Jewish diasporas, Judaic literature incorporated the earlier myths of their host cultures.
lantbarney - I could be mistaken, but I think I've already disclosed what I think of Paul. Also I'd like to correct something in your last post. The antiquity of the synoptics, from earliest to latest, is generally accepted by biblical scholars as:
- Mark, probably written in Rome c. 70 CE
- Matthew, written in Antioch, Syria, c. 95 CE
- Luke, written c. 70 CE, and
- John, written in Ephesus, Turkey, c. 90 CE.
The synoptics were originally untitled and the names by which they are now known didn't appear until the late second century. No one knows the actual identity of the scribes who wrote them.
Lant...that would appear to be up for ones interpretation...
Popular
adjective
1 liked, admired, or enjoyed by many people or by a particular person or group
Vote
ORIGIN late Middle English : from Latin votum ‘a vow, wish,’ from vovere ‘to vow.’ The verb dates from the mid 16th cent.
vow
noun
a vow of silence oath, pledge, promise, bond, covenant, commitment, avowal, profession, affirmation, attestation, assurance, guarantee; word, word of honor; formal troth.
Wish
noun
1 his wish to own a Mercedes desire, longing, yearning, inclination, urge, whim, craving, hunger; hope, aspiration, aim, ambition, dream; informal hankering, yen, itch.
LB-
You stated: "since Paul’s mentioning of an occurrence is important to you, what do you make of the fact that appearances of the resurrected Jesus are mentioned throughout Paul’s writings?"
Don't assume facts not in evidence. I couldn't care less what Paul wrote.
Solon/Paul was a self-loathing toady who became an opportunistic faith-huckster with help from his Herodian kinsmen. He was a phony. A charlatan preaching to the credulous. Think of him as the L. Ron Hubbard or Joseph Smith of the ancient world.
And how would Paul recognize Jesus? He never met him. But if Paul truly did imagine he saw six zombies, it may have been simple ergot poisoning, or poppy juice in his wine.
Bill - Upon further review, I discovered I was partially mistaken about Mark 16:9-20. While readers of the Bible are cautioned that there is a question about its origin because it isn't in some of the early manuscripts, the question arises because the verses are not in the Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Vaticanus, both dating back to the 5th century A.D.. However, Iranaeus, writing in the second century, does quote from the verses. So the evidence from early manuscripts seems to support the contention that those verses were in. Regardless, it is clear that there has been no corruption.
skeptic - you wanted to know why Paul's writings were silent on the virgin birth. That means you, at least for the sake of your weak argument, were attaching some importance to Paul's writings. If you want to disparage him, that is your choice. As usual, when confronted with arguments you do not like, you turn to a barage of diarrhea in response. So, like many others before me, I am through wasting my time with your bs. I will, however, respond to Bill if he choses to call me.
Skeptic - While I have yet to see Paul in the words you describe, I have to admit I have never been a big fan of Paul. It may be because of his legalistic background and how he carried it into his brand of Christianity that turns me off. I don't know. While I understand his tenacity and the penance he felt compelled to perform, considering the depth of his arrogant and murderous heart, I have my heros, and Paul isn't one of them. I like Peter much better :-)
Jeepers, peepers, observer - maybe this will help. On 10/24/09 at 04:41 PM, Skeptic wrote: Why is it that the earliest NT sources, such as the gospel of Mark and the epistles of Paul, are silent on the "virgin birth."
"5959. {7x} 'almâh, al-maw'; fem. of 5958 a lass (as veiled or private): -virgin {4x}, maid {2x}, damsels {1x}.
'Almah means virgin; maiden. (1) That 'almah means virgin is quite clear in (1a1) Gen 24:43 the word describes Rebekah, "Behold, I stand by the well of water; and it shall come to pass, that when the virgin cometh forth to draw water, and I say to her; Give me, I pray thee, a little water of thy pitcher to drink;" (1a2) and that she was a "maiden" with whom no man had had relations; "And the damsel was very fair to look upon, a virgin, neither had any man known her: and she went down to the well, and filled her pitcher, and came up" (Gen 24:16).
Then again in (1b) Song 6:8: "There are threescore queens, and fourscore concubines, and virgins without number." (1b1) Thus all the women in the court are described. (1b2) The word 'almah represents those who are eligible for marriage but are neither wives (queens) nor concubines.
(1b3) These "virgins" all loved the king and longed to be chosen to be with him (to be his bride), (1b4) even as did the Shulamite who became his bride (1:3-4)...."
"(2) It is used more of the concept "virgin" than that of "maiden", (3) yet always of a woman who had not borne a child. (4) Solomon wrote that the process of wooing a woman was mysterious to him (Prov 30:19). (4a) Certainly in that day a man ordinarily wooed one whom he considered to be a "virgin." (4b) There are several contexts, therefore in which a young girl's virginity is expressly in view. ...]"
“Genesis 3:15, "And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel." . . . The reference here is to the woman's seed, not to the seed of the man. This is unique because the common reference is always to the seed of the man– "the seed of Abraham" (Isaiah 41:8), not the seed of Sarah, "the seed of David" (Romans 1:3), not the seed of Bathsheba, and so on.
Something extraordinary is referred to, for only a unique seed, a special seed, a supernatural seed, could accomplish that unique, special and supernatural triumph "the bruising of the serpent's head." Every effect must have an adequate cause and no son by ordinary generation of Adam's ruined race could accomplish the effect here spoken of. The adequate cause is found in the woman's seed, a Virgin-born Savior.”
" . . . the Holy Spirit used the word "almah" seven times in the Old Testament. . . . The word "almah" occurs in the following Old Testament verses: Genesis 24:43-- "Behold, I stand by the well of water; and it shall come to pass, that when the virgin cometh forth to draw water, and I say to her, Give me, I pray thee, a little water of thy pitcher to drink."; Exodus 2:8--"And Pharaoh's daughter said to her, Go. And the maid went and called the child's mother."; Psalm 68:25-- "The singers went before, the players on instruments followed after; among them were the damsels playing with timbrels."; Proverbs 30:19– "The way of an eagle in the air; the way of a serpent upon a rock; the way of a ship in the midst of the sea; and the way of a man with a maid." Song of Solomon 1:3-- "Because of the savour of Thy good ointments Thy name is as ointment poured forth, therefore do the virgins love Thee."; Song of Solomon 6:8-- "There are threescore queens, and fourscore concubines, and virgins without number."; Isaiah 7:14-- "Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel."
There is no place among the seven occurrences of 'almah' in the Old Testament where the word is clearly used of a woman who was not a virgin."
"The only two narratives we have of the birth of Jesus tell us that He was born of a Virgin. The Gospels containing these narratives are genuine documents of the Apostolic age. The texts of these narratives have come down to us in their integrity. The two narratives of the Virgin Birth are independent. The narratives, nevertheless, are not contradictory, but are complementary and corroborative of each other. There are the strongest reasons for believing that Matthew's narrative comes from the circle of Joseph, and Luke's from the circle of Mary. The Gospel of Mark, which embraces only the public ministry of Jesus, does not contradict the other narratives. The Gospel of John does not contradict the other narratives, but presupposes them. John unquestionably knew the earlier Gospels, and is traditionally identified with opposition to the earliest known impugner of the Virgin Birth, Cerinthus. Paul does not contradict the Virgin Birth. On the contrary, Luke, a chief witness of the Virgin Birth, was the companion of Paul, and Paul's language seems to presuppose some knowledge of the fact. The doctrine of Paul and John-- as of the New Testament generally-- implies a miracle in the origin of Christ. The Gospels containing the narratives of Christ's birth were, so far as known, received without question by the Church from their first appearance"
"Joel 1:8 clearly unravels the argument that "betulah" can only mean a virgin. "Wail like a virgin (betulah) girded with sackcloth for the husband of her youth." In this instance "betulah" is clearly used for a married woman. The eminent scholar, W.E. Vine, notes that the word "betulah" also appears in Ugaritic literature where it is frequently used of the goddess Anat, the sister of Baal, and hardly a virgin.
Unger, in about 1000 AD, made this observation about the text in question - "The Holy Spirit through Isaiah did not use betulah, because both the ideas of virginity and marriageable age had to be combined in one word to meet the immediate historical situation and the prophetic aspect centering in a virgin-born Messiah." The difference between "almah" and "betulah" is highly exaggerated and vainly too, by those want to discredit the Mashiachship of Lord Yeshua. However, a simple word study is all it takes to realize that Isaiah indeed referred to a virgin - who would conceive and bear a son. Language depends on context for meaning - and a text without a context is a pretext."
Lant - Honestly, it has never mattered to me whether Mary was a virgin or not. I know the person of Jesus and can easily see the importance of what he had to say and demonstrate. I didn't need to be convinced. I have paid attention to the prophets and their MO. It is quite revealing. I also know Mary very well but not through what anyone has physically taught me. I think that these "signs", like virgin births are for unbelievers so that they could trust the words that would come from prophets as well as having the hope in waiting for them. Virgin births were much more important before Jesus was born than afterwards. I have a great love for Mary as do many who aren't Christian.
Lant -
What you're doing is a logical fallacy called circular reasoning.
You're attempting to use the Bible to prove that the Bible says what it says, under the assumption what it says is literally true because every jot and tittle is exactly as it was written by the Hebrew sky god six thousand years ago, in 17th century English.
All that siliness about God the pedophile rapist and his magic mamzer who grew up to be a demi-god hanged on a tree for our bad karma is a fairy tale. It was designed to scare the bejeezus into the Goyim, so they would believe that unless they did whatever the Hebrew god (or his spokesmen) said, they would suffer indescribable tortures by burning in boiling sulfur in Hell forever. Because the Hebrew sky god is a god of infinite justice, love and compassion. That dreck may be acceptable for Bronze Age goat herders or the Taliban, but this is 21st century America.
Of course, America's Mormons believe that errors have crept into the copying of the Bible throughout history and that additional errors have been caused by faulty translation of the Bible into English from the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. Isn't that true?
"Attention all passengers: Guilt Airlines will now be boarding at Gate zero."
RantBlarney -
Every Muslim has the same reasons for being a Muslim as you have for being a Christian. But you do not find their reasons compelling.
The Qu'ran repeatedly declares it is the perfected word of the Creator of the Universe, as dictated to Muhammad, the last in a long line of God's prophets.
Muslims believe this as sincerely as you believe what the Bible says about itself.
Muhammad also assured his followers that Jesus was NOT divine (Qur'an 571-75; 19:30-38), and that anyone who believes otherwise will spend eternity in Hell. Muslims are certain that on this issue, as with all others, the Qur'an is the infallible source.
Yet you do not lose sleep over their revelation.
You cannot prove that Allah is not, in fact, the One True God any more than you can prove that Jesus is. But you "don't need to prove" anything to know Islam is a "false religion". Muslims, and most of Earth's living population feel the same way about your religion.
slapstick - as usual, you are wrong from the beginning. Our reasons are not the same. Satan is a copycat and a liar. Muhammed was a disciple of Satan, whether he did it intentionally or was fooled by Satan appearing as an angel of light. Jesus is the real deal and always told the truth. Fulfilled prophecy sets the Bible apart from the Quran. Remember my comparison or Muhammed and Jesus?
Muhammed’s father died before his birth while his mother died when he was six. Jesus was born of a virgin to Joseph and Mary. Muhammed claims to be the sixth and final prophet sent to defend monotheism (Surah 48:8-9). Jesus is God and Savior, sent to forgive the sins of the
world, offering eternal life to anyone who will trust in Him. (John 1:29; 3:16).
Muhammed married 10 women and had 2 other concubines. In fact, his youngest wife, Aisha, was six when they engaged and nine when consummated in marriage. (Surah 33:28) Jesus never married.
Muhammed doubted whether the revelation he received was divine or demonic. Jesus Himself was the divine revelation, knowing that His purpose for being born was to die. (Luke 19:10) Muhammed judged men and women according to their obedience to him and Allah. (Surah 9:5; 9:29; Persian Poet) Jesus judges men and women according to grace and His work on the Cross.
Muhammed won a following by military victory and/or forced conversion. Jesus won followers by miracles and unconditional love. Muhammed viewed men as superior to women. (Surah 4:34) Jesus viewed men and women as equal. (Ephesians 5)
Muhammed died peacefully in the arms of his young wife, Aisha. Jesus died cruelly at the hands of the Romans on a rugged cross. Muhammed did not know his eternal destiny. (Hadith 5.266) Jesus is the Creator and Sustainer of the Universe, Himself Judge. (John 1:1-18)
Muhammed shed other people’s blood. Jesus shed His own blood on the Cross.
Any claim that the Quran is inspired can not be substantiated.
Lant - No one disputes who Jesus is. In fact, the Qu'ran/Hadith is quite clear about the fact that Jesus is the Messiah, a great prophet, etc.
Jesus is the King of Kings. No, He never married...He is High Priest.
The Bible actually tells of the coming of more prophets and Muhammad (PBUH) is one, not the only one, who fulfills that Bibical prophecy, and additionally, goes back to the OT. Muhammad (PBUH) was very possibly the prophet spoke of in Dueteronomy because he was like Moses and from among Moses's brothers. This is not a prophecy that competes with Jesus and any Muslim who knows their stuff would tell you the same thing. God, in His Wisdom, is a living Being. He did not "die" 2 thousand years ago and neither did His Word. He is always in the "present", and not bound by time and space, like we are. Like Christians, Muhammad believes that he is the last prophet, but there is every sign pointing to the fact that Bahaullah is the last one. It is even clear, according to the Bible, that this is true. Jesus said greater things would be done, not by Himself, but by those who followed. This is true. Muhammad was a defender of women and children. Women and children had no voice in his time. A married woman had security, rights and were in a much better place than single women. Muhammad married multiple women to protect them. Knowing Muhammad (PBUH), even as sparsely as I do, I can see that he would nver have consumated marriage to a 6 year old. That is perverted and not
cont - That is a sick thing to believe of him. You say that Muhammad (PBUH) doubted his revelation and visit by Gabiel. All the prophets did. Obedience to God is a wonderful thing. As a Christian, you should know that, Lant. Try truely following it and you will see how difficult it is, even with much Grace. Muhammad (PBUH) would have wanted people to listen to the words he spoke, as given to him by Gabriel, not to worship him. That would be blasphemy. Only God deserves to be worshipped. Lant, if you ever understood the essence of the Gospels, you would see more clearly when you read the Qu'ran. Jesus, an innocent, holy holy compassionate man whose death on the Cross, rejected by those he was trying to save, should bring us to ask the question "How have I contributed to the death of the innocent?"
Muhammad (PBUH) endured 13 years of persecution before he finally started fighting back. Even today, we would not stand by and watch our innocent be slaughtered...or would we? The Old Testament is full of bloodshed, violence and theft. Did Jesus not come to try and put an end to the violence we mortals so easily adhere to? Human sacrifice was, prior to Jesus, a norm among tribes of people. They did it to appease an angry God and win favor from Him. You could say that whether one was sacrificing humans or animals, they found and used a scapegoat. Someone to attone for their own bad behavior.
cont - Jesus's yoke is easy and his burden is light because to follow Him, to be like Him, brings reconcilliation with God and that, my friend, brings Peace. It does not mean that we won't find it difficult, because when we face ourselves, in the light of this man, Jesus, and see ourselves in that mirror which is so darkened by our sinful, arrogant and unloving hearts and the actions that go with it, we must come to truths about ourselves that we don't want to look at. We still tend to look for a "scapegoat", whether that scapegoat is another human being to take the punishment we ourselves deserve , an excuse for our thoughts and behavior, the devil or even God Himself.
Repentance, whether it be for the first time or the thousandth time, keeps us humble, or returns us to it. Jesus would have told you the same thing and so would have Muhammad (PBUH).
Lant - I do trust Jesus.It is those who do not know Him, who I do not trust...
Observer - As you might imagine, you and I disagree on many things. Let's review your claims, one at a time.
Are you saying that Christians and Muslims share identical views as to who Jesus is? I was under the impression that Christians see Jesus as God and Muslims do not.
Lant - Geez Lant - Even Christians don't view Jesus the same way. I would say, that as a Catholic, Catholics and Muslims share more similar views as to his person. No, Muslims don't believe Jesus is God, but they do see him as prophet, his goodness, his holiness and they do believe he is a great teacher, They also believe he is the Messiah and await his return. There's much more to it than that.
As a Catholic, God is three persons, not one, except in Spirit. You know, Father, Son & Holy Spirit. What type of Christian are you? What is the doctrine of the Trinity, atleast in your understanding?
Observer - if someone does not see that Jesus is God, as in "God the Son," they are not Christian, regardless of what they call themselves. As a Catholic, you should believe that God has revealed Himself to be in the co-eternal/co-equal Godhead composed of the divine Persons of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. My favorite picture of the Trinity is at Jesus’ Baptism when the voice of the Father is heard from Heaven while the Spirit descends on the Son in the form of a dove. If we are to love God in truth we must love Him in the way He has revealed Himself to us.
As you have agreed, Muslims deny the Deity of Jesus. But the Messiah of the Bible has to be God. He is the Son of God which is the same as God the Son. "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God . . . And the Word became flesh and dwelt amongst us and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth." So to say that Muslims believe Jesus to be the Messiah requires a redefinition of terms, since they deny His Deity.
Well, gotta go. See you tomorrow.
Lant - When I "see" Jesus, I do "see" God. What is so complex about that? I also "see" Jesus when I "see" Mary, Muhammad, Bahaullah, Ghandi, Hazrat Inayat Khan, St. Francis of Assisi, Fr Peyton, Mother Teresa and so many more. I also "see" Jesus when I "see" the innocent ones nailed, humiliated, mocked, forgotten, oppressed, lied to, backs turned toward them, rejected, unloved, misunderstood...
..."seeing" is seeing through the eyes of the Spirit. One needs to be washed clean of their sins before they can see with those eyes. The Bible tells us so and this is Truth. One needs Grace from God and it is ok to ask for that Grace. He gives it abundantly. I have to ask for it quite often for I do want I do not want to do and do not do what I want to do. I am "saved", only by His Grace...
Lint - More circular arguments. You're simply quoting the Bible to try to prove that the Bible says what it you think it should.
The issue is not your biblical literacy, nor is it Hebrew myth or Christian doctrine. The issue is comparative piety.
Translated, Sura 33:28 says: "O Prophet, say to your consorts: "If you desire a worldly life with its glitter, then come! I will provide for your enjoyment and set you free in a handsome manner." Nothing in there about number or ages of wives. As Joe Heckling Wilson (R-Tourette's) said, "You Lie!" You made up phony Quranic scripture to bolster your antisemitic accusation.
Skeptic - You are a sage!
Lant - I want for nothing more than to hear from God. Nothing else. How exciting it is as God reveals His sons and daughters!!
slapstick - the referenced verse was justification for Mu's lifestyle. While the number of wives is not found therein, all you have to do is google "how many wives did Muhammad have" and you can verify the information.
observer - your understanding is more like new-age mysticism than Christianity.
You lied. The referenced verse does not exist. That you lied to "prove" yourself is the issue here.
And you don't get to define what constitutes true "Christianity." (it's yours, of course). Observer has shown she understands theological concepts you can't even begin to comprehend or pronounce.
I didn't lie, but then I do not think you would recognize one if you saw one, since you lie with regularity. My resource for the comparison between Jesus and Muhammed obviously used the verse as stated. The fact is that Mu had the wives cited. Why would I intentionally misquote a verse, you dope?
Lant - The Church is not dead, but alive and evolving. Many say that the prophets were mystics, as well as Jesus, Himself. Perhaps that is why the Bible says that He uses the foolish to confound the wise. I don't know. It is God's Light that I follow...you're going to have to take that up with Him.
Why do you keep comparing Jesus to Muhammad (PBUH). They do not compete with each other...then why do you?
Lant - Afterthought...in all fairness to you, you do not have a Catholic understanding of your Christianity. That would make it hard to understand mine. Pax Vobiscum
Observer - I do not understand your version of Catholicism, but I do understand that there are many doctrines that Evangelical, Bible believing Christians, and Catholics agree upon.
Both Protestants and Catholics are supposed to believe: that the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is the sovereign creator and sustainer of the universe; that there is one God that exists eternally in three separate, but co-equal persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; that Jesus was born of a virgin, lived a sinless life, rose bodily from the grave, ascended into Heaven, and is returning in glory to judge mankind; that there is a future resurrection of the bodies of both the righteous and the wicked; and that the Old and New Testaments are the inspired and infallible Word of God.
For some reason, you seem to reject many of these beliefs.
I compare Jesus and Muhammad to point out the chasm between the two and the error in following Muhammad. There is no one who can compete with Jesus, since He is God the Son. Muhammed, being dead, cannot compete with anyone anyway. However, the followers of Muhammed obviously try to compete with Christianity, or hadn't you observered that? :) I will continue to proclaim the Gospel and differentiate it from religions that point people toward a false god with no real hope of salvation.
Bill had stated earlier that we should "let people believe what they choose and accept on faith what they want but to try to explain it all by quoting a book that has been rewritten and retranslated and corrupted so much makes no sense." He was obviously wrong on the corruption issue and I disagree with him on letting people just following any faith they want. If you care about people's eternal lives, you will follow Christ's great commission and proclaim the gospel. It is that simple. Why sit back and let people you care about follow a path that leads to eternal torment and separation from God?
Lant,
Maybe Observer rejects those doctrines because she isn't the lock-step Christo-Nazi you assumed she was. After all, it's only sheep that require a shepherd.
FYI, the Symbolum Apostolorum (6th cent. CE), the Roman creed which all Christians must swear. It attests:
"Credo in Deum Patrem omnipotentem; Creatorem coeli et terrae. Et in Iesum Christum, Filium eius unicum, Dominum nostrum; qui conceptus est de Spiritu Sancto, natus ex Maria virgine; passus sub Pontio Pilato, crucifixus, mortuus, et sepultus; descendit ad inferna; tertia die resurrexit a mortuis; ascendit ad coelos; sedet ad dexteram Dei Patris omnipotentis; inde venturus (est) judicare vivos et mortuos. Credo in Spiritum Sanctum; sanctam ecclesiam catholicam; sanctorum communionem; remissionem peccatorum; carnis resurrectionem; vitam oeternam. Amen.
Notice that there is nothing said about Jesus from the time of his birth to his execution by Pontius Pilate ( "Iesum Christum... natus ex Maria vergine; passus sub Pontio Pilato") It's as though Jesus' entire life and ministry was without any significance, except for his magic birth and death. One can only deduce that Christianity is little more than a morbid death cult.
lantbarney -
There are two academically excellent and highly entertaining books about the corruption of Christian scripture; "Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why" and the sequel "Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (And Why We Don't Know About Them)"
Both are by Prof. Bart Ehrman, Ph.D., professor of Religious Studies at the Univ. of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. (http://www.bartdehrman.com/curriculum.htm) Ehrman also authored "Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew" and "Lost Scriptures: Books That Did Not Become the New Testament."
Even if you disagree with his theses, I think you'll really enjoy reading them.
Lant - I agree with you on everything but the last part about the infallible Word of God. This would lead to private interpretations which there have been many. I was just doing a study today on Susanna, found in the Book of Daniel, which has words that were removed by Prostestant scribes. Then we have some of the most magnificent words & stories of the Bible, found in 7 books, that thank God, non-Catholic Christians are starting to read. These words were taken out by Jewish scribes because their original language was Greek (perhaps for other reasons also?). Man is so faulty, so guilty of things that violate God that we need more than the Bible. Even the Bible says of itself, that it is a useful tool meant to inspire and teach, not the sole authority. That debate is for another day. I am encouraged for you that you read The Early Church Fathers which makes me wonder why you aren't Catholic, but then who knows?
No, Muslims do not compete with Jesus. Muhammad (PBUH) is the first prophet (and final according to Islam) after Jesus. yes, the Bible has been corrupted very much, in many versions and the teaching has taken Christianity in extreme polar directions. The worst of it is that people teach things to each other that are only manifestations of their own unloving hearts, not the Gospel of Christ.
Salvation starts with repentance, feeling guilty for our sins against each other and against God. It can come gradually or instantly, but it changes the thinking direction of ones actions, atleast for Christians. Muslims share in this understanding. Perhaps, whether we know it or not, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are guiding them also. It sure looks like it to me and I have no doubt that many who profess their faith, whether Christian, Muslim or ???, including myself, could very easily end up in Hell...so I walk in fear and trembling as I work my salvation out...
Lant - An afterthought...on the comment about Early Church Fathers...it might be even more evident if you have ever been to a Greek Orthodox or Eastern Catholic liturgy. The descriptions of some of the debates of Justin Martyr and a few others would leap out at you, since you are a student of those writings. It is quite an eye-opener and a very beautiful way of worship. They have changed the least of any of the American versions of Christianity and the Spirit of Christ, the Holy Spirit are definitely among them. I highly recommend it :-)
The early manuscripts are always there for comparison. The Old Testament points the way to Jesus and the New Testament shows how Jesus fulfills the Old Testament. You guys keep spouting your baloney about corruption but cannot substantiate it. There is a good reason certain books are not scripture. They do not reflect inspiration and contain obvious errors. No corruption, bad theology by Erdman and the Catholic church.
Salvation starts with accepting Jesus as Lord and Savior as well as repentance. Repent and believe. What you believe is as important as repentance.
Lant - You are only getting part of the story. Ok - So Jesus is the One who fulfills all that God was trying to tell man...So tell me Lant, who is this Jesus? What kind of person is He? How does He follow God's Will? How does He look towards His fellow man? What are His virtues? Where does He look for His help, His endurance, His patience, His answers? When you say "accept Jesus"...what are you accepting?
I can give you a list of books, writings, teachings, all in agreement with the Words of God, too many words to be contained in one book, that are inspirational...of the Holy Spirit. Because they were not attributed to the twelve apostles, they are not in the Bible, not part of the Canon, but they are no less the inspiration of God. Even the Bible tells me so.
..."unless you come to me as one of these little children, you will not enter the Kingdom of God"
Lant...Jesus is God-centered...he is an imitator of God...God is Love...it is by your love that you will be judged
Observer - if you agree that Jesus was born of a virgin, lived a sinless life, rose bodily from the grave, ascended into Heaven, and is returning in glory to judge mankind, and is God the Son, why do you think the Muslim religion is okay and that Muhammad is a prophet? Mu and his followers deny that Jesus is God. They also say that allah, whoever he is, had no sons. You seem to want to have warm fuzzy feelings for all religions and bad theology, and to attack anyone who believes the Bible to be the inspired word of God.
Skeptic - Erdman takes the position that since we don't have the original manuscript, we can throw the Bible out. What a farce. Based on the early manuscript pieces that we do have, and based on the first and second century writings of the early church fathers that we do have, we can be very sure as to what the original manuscripts said.
Bottom line is that if you do not want to believe, you won't. You will accept any weak argument that you think supports your choice, and reject anything that does not support your choice, no matter how persuasive it is. I am through spending my time on you. Maybe God will send someone else, or maybe He will decide that your heart is too hard and that you value whatever it is that you cherish more than you could ever value a relationship with him.
Lant - You judge me in error. It is not my calling to dispute another's religion, but I do see the Gospel message in other texts. To say otherwise would be a lie. I also see the fruit thereof and to deny it, would also be a lie. I also study the increasing message of the prophets, which do not deny Christ but embellish His message. I have an immense love for all people, Lant, and even greater love for God. That is really the crux of it all
Lant - "Allah" is the word Jesus used for God. It is the Aramaic word, used by Arab speaking people, Muslims, Christians and Jews and it simply means God. While I will admit, Sceptic might seem, to the unlearned, to be somewhat anti-Christ, but he is not. He is far, far, from that. Skeptic is one who cuts through religion to the heart of the Gospel. He lives it well and those around him know it. His education is perhaps greater than many theologians.
Do you know what "anti-Christ" is, Lant? It is my bet that you don't and that it is worth your time to look into, as we all should. As an observation... it appears that your beliefs are more in-line with pre-Christ Judaism. Perhaps your beliefs are really Jewish?
lant - Also, I attack no one, only defend those who are misunderstood, ask for patience with others and try to shed a little light. It is a thankless task but one I feel called to. I have a feeling you would have told Jesus he had "warm fuzzy feelings." :-)
RantBlarney -
In MT 1:6-7 The lineage of Jesus is traced through David's son, Solomon.
In LK 3:23-31 It is traced through David's son, Nathan.
(Some apologists say Luke traces the lineage through Mary. That this is untrue is obvious from the context, since Luke and Matthew both clearly state that Joseph was Jesus' father.)
MT 1:16 Jacob was Joseph's father.
LK 3:23 Heli was Joseph's father.
MT 1:17 There were twenty-eight generations from David to Jesus.
LK 3:23-38 There were forty-three.
MT 1:18-21 The Annunciation occurred after Mary had conceived Jesus.
LK 1:26-31 It occurred before.
MT 1:20 The angel spoke to Joseph.
LK 1:28 The angel spoke to Mary.
(contd.)
MT 2:13-16 Following Jesus' birth, Joseph and Mary flee to Egypt to avoid the slaughter of their firstborn. Herod slaughters all male infants younger than two years. (John the Baptist who is under two years is somehow spared without fleeing to Egypt.)
LK 2:22-40 Following Jesus' birth , Joseph and Mary remain in Jerusalem for the Presentation (about forty days), then return to Nazareth. They never go to Egypt. There is no slaughter of the infants.
MT 3:11-14, JN 1:31-34 John realizes Jesus is the "messiah" before baptizing him (or after). The purpose of John's baptism was to reveal Jesus as messiah.
MT 11:2-3 After the Baptism John sends his disciples to see if Jesus is the Messiah.
MT 3:12, 13:42 Hell is a furnace of fire (and therefore is light).
MT 8:12, 22:13, 25:30 Hell is an "outer darkness" (and therefore is dark).
MT 3:16, MK 1:10 Jesus saw the Spirit descending.
JN 1:32 John saw the Spirit descending.
MT 3:17 A voice addressed the crowd: "This is my beloved son."
MK 1:11, LK 3:22 A voice addressed Jesus only: "You are my beloved son...."
MT 4:1-11, MK 1:12-13 Following baptism, Jesus spent forty days in the wilderness.
JN 2:1-11 After baptism, Jesus was at the wedding in Cana.
MT 5:1 - 7:29 Jesus delivers the sermon on the mount.
LK 6:17-49 Jesus delivers the sermon o0n the plain.
MT 5:16 Good works should be seen.
MT 6:1-4 They should be kept secret.
MT 5:17-19, LK 16:17 Jesus said he did not come to abolish the law.
EP 2:13-15, HE 7:18-19 Others say Jesus did abolish the law.
MT 5:22 Jesus says anger by itself is a sin.
MT 11:22-24, LK 10:13-15 Jesus curses the inhabitants of several cities who are not sufficiently impressed with him.
MT 21:19, MK 11:12-14 Jesus curses a fig tree when it fails to bear fruit out of season.
MK 3:5 Jesus looks around "angrily."
MT 7:1-2 Do not judge anyone.
MT 7:15-20 Instructions for judging a false prophet.
MT 7:21, LK 10:36-37, RO 2:6, 13, JA 2:24 We are justified by works, not by faith.
JN 3:16, RO 3:20-26, EP 2:8-9, GA 2:16 We are justified by faith, not by works.
MT 10:2, 5-6 Peter was to be an apostle to the Jews and not go near Gentiles.
AC 15:7 Peter was an apostle to the Gentiles.
MT 12:39, MK 8:12, LK 11:29 Jesus says that he will give no "sign."
JN 3:2, 20:30, AC 2:22 Jesus gives many "signs."
MT 21:12-13 The cleansing of the temple occurs at the end of Jesus' career.
JN 2:13-16 It occurs near the beginning of his career.
MT 26:52 All who take the sword will perish by it.
LK 22:36-38 Go buy swords.
MT 27:5 Judas threw down the pieces of silver then departed.
AC 1:18 Judas used the silver coins to buy the field.
MT 27:11-14 Jesus answers not a single charge at his hearing before Pilate.
JN 18:33-37 Jesus answers all charges at his hearing before Pilate.
MT 28:9 On his first appearance to them, Jesus lets Mary Magdalene and the other Mary hold him by his feet.
JN 20:17 On his first appearance to Mary, Jesus forbids her to touch him since he has not yet ascended to the Father.
JN 20:27 A week later, although he has not yet ascended to the Father, Jesus tells Thomas to touch him.
MK 3:29 Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is an unforgivable sin.
AC 13:39, CN 2:13, 1JN 1:9 All sins are forgivable, including blasphemy of the Holy Spirit
MK 6:52 The people were so unimpressed with "the Feeding of the Multitude" that they did not even understand the event.
JN 6:14-15 They were so impressed that they tried to force Jesus to be their king.
LK 14:26 No one can be a disciple of Jesus unless he hates his parents, his wife, his children, his brothers and sisters.
JN 3:15 Whoever hates his brother is a murderer.
JN 4:20 If anyone hates his brother, he is a liar.
2CO 12:16 Paul says that he does use trickery.
1TH 2:3 Paul says that he does not use trickery.
The answer to that one should be obvious. If Rant wants fifty or sixty more examples of NT contradictions, he has but to read the Bible and find them. If he is unable to read, I can provide more.
Skeptic - Ah yes grasshopper...different eyes, different hearts for which we have different memories. Still...one can see that Jesus had a message of love and devotion. He didn't care much for the separtists, but preferred those that others so willingly cast off. He ate with the ritually unpure and his words affected those who came to hear, so much so, that they brought out the food they had brought and shared in full communion, one with the other. Everyone had something to eat that day, pure and unpure as they were. Oh how the Jews of his time needed to hear his cleansing words, to change their hearts. How happy the outcasts must have been to know that God loved them, he saw them and heard their cries, when all the religious leaders said they were poor, unclean, unlearned, unwanted...it was already a sign from God that they would burn in eternal hellfire. After all...wealth, good health and the such are the results of God's favor and if you didn't have it, you were possessed of demons and damned.
The Bible is a collection of books written over centuries by different authors with differing political and theological goals. These books were chosen, after a lot of fighting, by the Roman Catholic Council of Carthage in 397 A.D., more than three hundred years after the execution of Jesus.
No original biblical manuscripts exist. There is not one manuscript which survives in anything like its "original" form. And there are hundreds of differences between them. These differences prove that numerous additions, alterations, glosses, mistranslations and adaptations -- some accidental and some not -- were made by various church authorities, editors, scribes and copyists to make the Bible say what they thought it SHOULD say, not what it actually DID say.
The Flood story is an example of biblical adoption of an earlier myth. Its migration from the earliest Sumerian clay tablet of the Epic of Gilgamesh, (c. 1600 BCE) to the Bible, can be traced historically. Of course, the Hebrews spent a lot of time hanging with their Sumerian brethern (Adam & Eve and even Abraham were Sumerians) so when they recycled the Flood story it was altered to tell of Hebrew gods and heroes. You can read the oldest surviving written version of the Flood myth here: http://www.ancienttexts.org/library/mesopotamian/gilgamesh/tab11.htm
Note: In the Hebrew version, Utanapishtim was morphed into Noah.
Observer -
Yesh'ua (Jesus) the Prophet transmitted an ancient and universal wisdom tradition to his people and, in so doing, to the whole world. His message of human equality was truly inspired. Unfortunately, when Paul's "Christians" were offered the choice of either the spirit of Jesus or the idiotic morality of Paul, they rejected the higher inspiration. So, by following Paul, Christian fanatics turned the nobility of human compassion for the less fortunate into a philanthropic weakness for social failures, and degraded the prime impulse of human love into a dirty joke.
Skeptic - I think that is why my focus has stayed on Jesus. Those who have followed him are evident by their fruit. What a wonder it is that so many of them are not Christian...Same Spirit...different religion. God must love all people and give freely to whom He wishes... :-) 3 more days, Skeptic! Whoo Hoooooo!
Observer:
"Baruch Atah Adonai, mesame'ach chatan v'kalah."
Observer - if you or anyone else is impressed by slapstick's rendition of the alleged contradictions in the Bible, you might want to read "101 'Cleared-Up' Contradictions In The Bible" by: Jay Smith, Alex Chowdhry, Toby Jepson, James Schaeffer and edited by Craig Winn. Slapstick won’t care because he is not searching for truth, but you might.
They break the categories of alleged errors down as follows:
-he misunderstood the historical context - 25 times
-he misread the text - 15 times
-he misunderstood the Hebrew usage - 13 times
-the texts are compatible with a little thought - 13 times
-he misunderstood the author's intent - 12 times
-these were merely copyist error - 9 times
-he misunderstood how God works in history - 6 times
-he misunderstood the Greek usage - 4 times
-he didn't read the entire text - 4 times
-he misquoted the text - 4 times
-he misunderstood the wording - 3 times
-he had too literalistic an interpretation - 3 times
-he imposed his own agenda - 3 times
-he confused an incident with another - 1 time
-we now have discovered an earlier manuscript - 1 time
The rest of his alleged errors have been addressed by others, but as he invited me to do, he can search them out himself. Keep in mind that every problem he raises is not new and has been answered by others. All you have to do is look.
Skeptic "Baruch Atah Adonai Eloheinu Melech Ha-Olam, yotzer ha-adam"
Lant - Thank you for your hard work. I am not much of a deconstructionist...for Christ on the Cross says it all to me. This is why he said "It is finished." It transcends all words, when one contemplates it, prays about it and God sends the Spirit to understand it. Whoever is willing to sacrifice the innocent and call it "sacred violence", ordained by God, does not know the meaning or the power of the Cross, much less the message of the Gospels. For some, it brings us to our knees when we ask the question "How have I crucified an innocent one." To others, they see the innocent one sacrificed by God to justify their own murderous hearts...so willing to sacrifice the innocent in the name of ? To those on their knees, it changes their hearts, turns their hatred into love, which is the true miracle that Jesus performs...he causes the blind to see, the deaf to hear, the lame to walk...here is where Jesus defeats the devil...
This is why, in order to be a true disciple, we must bear the Cross. We must face the truth about ourselves in the light of this Christ, endure the trials, in His Spirit, not our selfish ways. We tend to run away from it, many times at the expense of another, usually those without the power, strength, ability...to defend themselves. The God we cling to is a giver of life, not a destroyer of the innocent. Only one whose father is the father of lies, believes the lie. Jesus came to put an end to violent sacrifice and we still aren't there...
lantbarney -
Simply repeating "no it's not" isn't a valid rebuttal. More importantly, it does nothing to advance your argument.
I'm "not searching for the truth?" I object to your assuming facts not in evidence.
Author Craig Winn is a failed entrepreneur and anti Semite who writes hate books on Islam. His latest screed, "Prophet of Doom", describes Muhammad's creation of Islam as a religious scam, and presents lurid tales of Muslim pedophilia, incest, rape, piracy, slave trading, terrorism and tracking sand all over his mom's clean kitchen floor. Mr. Winn formerly ran an $11 million dot com company into the ground. So now he has latched on to another get-rich-quick scheme, fear-mongering and fomenting hatred against Muslims, even though Winn quickly admits "my credentials have no bearing on the material contained in either book." Indeed.
Here's a thought - - Why not just lie? Say whatever you want to. It has the advantages that you (1) don't need to memorize any facts and (2) you can make up new facts when the existing ones don't suit your purpose.
After thought...I want to add that I have been on my knees at the foot of the Cross, a great sinner, greatly selfish towards others and towards God and still am afraid at how I may be driving one of those nails in a little deeper, and don't yet see it. I also have been the victim of horrific mob violence, undeserved...that kind that leaves one completely abandoned, the scapegoat by those I was trying to serve. In essence, I found my only source of comfort with the One who understood my suffering. It helped me understand His. The forgiveness I received helped me to forgive others and honestly pray for my enemies...
Sceptic - As a Catholic Christian, who prays occasionally at the Mosque, with Muslims, I will say to anyone who speaks against Muslims, they need to witness the call to prayer. The love and devotion to God and the humility and beauty of the people towards each other will leave the critics dumbfounded...
...Jesus and Mary come with me
It's the absence of compassion and the raw hypocrisy of self-congratulatory "Christians" that galls me.
Skeptic - Me too! The very things that Jesus condemns the most...are best practiced by Christians! :-(
That is why I tend to stand with Ghandi when he said...I am Christian, I am Muslim, I am Jewish, I am Hindu...