Christianity and pagan concepts?

[Luvtosew]

If it's not historically accurate, it's a lie.

"I belive the nativity stories are made up."

So the Bible made it up?

If the virgin birth did not occur as the Bible said it did, it's a lie.

Well its not a lie if other stories are not lies, but if one reads a fairy tale, that is what they call it a fairy tale, not a lie. Due to the face that no one, ever mentions the virgin birth again till 150 Ad by whom right now I can't remember, and the fact that Mary is barely mentioned, I doubt it all. Was Matt and Luke present when Mary and Joseph heard the angel talk? This mainly stems from ISA7:14, and if one reads even the Nabre 2011 revised edition it will state the woman with child. The God I envision is not one that Impregnates a virgin woman, none were before her and none after.

To me a sign, is not a sign unless everyone knows and seems like no one did.

 

[Albion]

Well its not a lie if other stories are not lies, but if one reads a fairy tale, that is what they call it a fairy tale, not a lie. Due to the face that no one, ever mentions the virgin birth again till 150 Ad by whom right now I can't remember, and the fact that Mary is barely mentioned, I doubt it all. Was Matt and Luke present when Mary and Joseph heard the angel talk? This mainly stems from ISA7:14, and if one reads even the Nabre 2011 revised edition it will state the woman with child. The God I envision is not one that Impregnates a virgin women, none were before her and none after.

To me a sign, is not a sign unless everyone knows and seems like no one did.

Well, this is in line with what I was saying recentlhy in another thread. What is served by the doctrine? What does it accomplish? What difference would it make if it were true?

The fact is that nothing is accomplished one way or the other. No, it's not a sign. It's not needed for the birth of Jesus. It's not essential for anything.

It is, IOW, just another of those cases of people heaping honors upon someone long after their death as we do with MLKing, Jr. or the Chinese did with Confucius. In time, the honors become more and more fabulous in the telling and retelling of the legends.

 

[Luvtosew]

Well, this is in line with what I was saying recentlhy in another thread. What is served by the doctrine? What does it accomplish? What difference would it make if it were true?

The fact is that nothing is accomplished one way or the other. No, it's not a sign. It's not needed for the birth of Jesus. It's not essential for anything.

It is, IOW, just another of those cases of people heaping honors upon someone long after their death as we do with MLKing, Jr. or the Chinese did with Confucius. In time, the honors become more and more fabulous in the telling and retelling of the legends.

I agree.

 

[steamforthis]

Well its not a lie if other stories are not lies, but if one reads a fairy tale, that is what they call it a fairy tale, not a lie. Due to the face that no one, ever mentions the virgin birth again till 150 Ad by whom right now I can't remember, and the fact that Mary is barely mentioned, I doubt it all. Was Matt and Luke present when Mary and Joseph heard the angel talk? This mainly stems from ISA7:14, and if one reads even the Nabre 2011 revised edition it will state the woman with child. The God I envision is not one that Impregnates a virgin woman, none were before her and none after.

To me a sign, is not a sign unless everyone knows and seems like no one did.

A) Did you seriously compare the Bible to a fairy tale?If a fairy tale is proposing itself to be the truth, it is a lie. If the Bible is at all unreliable in one setting, the rest is untrustworthy.

B) Did Moses witness creation? Luke was not a disciple, does that eliminate his testimony for a gospel account? I am sure I trust the Bible over you.

 

[steamforthis]

By the way, only those who adhere to the Nicene Creed can post here.

 

[Albion]

A) Did you seriously compare the Bible to a fairy tale?If a fairy tale is proposing itself to be the truth, it is a lie. If the Bible is at all unreliable in one setting, the rest is untrustworthy

B) Did Moses witness creation? Luke was not a disciple, does that eliminate his testimony for a gospel account?

Consider the point more carefully. There is no reason for there to have been an Immaculate Conception and no scriptural evidence that such a thing happened. With Creation, that is one of the cardinal events in all history and naturally deserves a treatment in any religious system of thought.

 

[steamforthis]

Consider the point more carefully. There is no reason for there to have been an Immaculate Conception and no scriptural evidence that such a thing happened. With Creation, that is one of the cardinal events in all history and naturally deserves a treatment in any religious system of thought.

I'm not talking about the Immaculate Conception.

Matthew 1.

It differs from the virgin birth.

 

[Luvtosew]

Immaculate Conception is that Mary was conceived and sinless at birth, conceived without sin, and well they say she never sinned.

Do you believe that as well, that is not in the Nicene Creed though, but sorry,

I will only post in the unorthodox theology forum, but I will say I consider myself a Christian, spending over 50 years in the RCC.

 

[Albion]

I'm not talking about the Immaculate Conception.

Sorry. The reference to the angel speaking to Mary made me think that that was also under consideration.

 

[steamforthis]

Immaculate Conception is that Mary was conceived and sinless at birth, conceived without sin, and well they say she never sinned.

._.

We were never talking about the Immaculate Conception.

The Immaculate Conception has no Scriptural support.

 

[KNOWLEDGE BOMB]

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ.

KNOWLEDGE BOMB replies: Josephus was a Jew and STAYED a Jew - if he really did say (believe) that Jesus was the Christ, he would of accepted Jesus as savior and we would of heard about it - as a Jew he would of NEVER referred to Jesus as the Christ... You cannot trust anything from this man.

As far as Jesus being crucified on a stake - this is correct - this is what the BIBLE says - All references to cross in NT are the same (4716(stauros) a stake or post (set upright) - a more painful crucifixtion.

You go by what the bible says not other accounts you can't verify... The small case "t" cross came in through the Catholic church... One of many pagan ways about her.....

 

[Luvtosew]

By the way, only those who adhere to the Nicene Creed can post here.

Where does it say that, that leaves a lot of Chrisitans out.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Where does it say that, that leaves a lot of Chrisitans out.

The rules say that to post in the Christians only parts of the forum means agreeing to the site's statement of faith, which is the Nicene Creed. The Unorthodox Theology subforum is designed for those who disagree with the Creed.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

You go by what the bible says not other accounts you can't verify... The small case "t" cross came in through the Catholic church... One of many pagan ways about her.....

The word stauros refers to any number of instruments of crucifixion employed, from a crux simplex to a t-cross.

Given what we know about Roman crucifixion, and how the New Testament describes Jesus' crucifixion, it's safe to assume that Jesus was crucified on a cross that had a patibulum, or cross beam. There's no reason to believe Jesus carried the entire instrument of His execution, the Romans were efficient in their means of torture and execution, not wasteful, as such it was far more efficient to keep the upright stake fixed in its location, and have the condemned carry their patibulum (if there was a patibulum used).

If Jesus had been crucified on a crux simplex--a simple upright stake--then He probably wouldn't have been carrying anything. But the Gospels agree that He carried His cross.

The Roman Catholic Church didn't invent the patibulum as some crazy pagan conspiracy; indeed earlier in this thread I presented ancient anti-Christian graffiti dated to the 2nd-3rd century that places a mocking picture of Jesus on a standard T-shaped cross.

Having an ideological bias against the historic Christian symbol of the cross isn't going to change basic historical facts.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Luvtosew]

The rules say that to post in the Christians only parts of the forum means agreeing to the site's statement of faith, which is the Nicene Creed. The Unorthodox Theology subforum is designed for those who disagree with the Creed.

-CryptoLutheran

Oh Thank you, I see that now.

 

[pshun2404]

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ.

KNOWLEDGE BOMB replies: Josephus was a Jew and STAYED a Jew - if he really did say (believe) that Jesus was the Christ, he would of accepted Jesus as savior and we would of heard about it - as a Jew he would of NEVER referred to Jesus as the Christ... You cannot trust anything from this man.

As far as Jesus being crucified on a stake - this is correct - this is what the BIBLE says - All references to cross in NT are the same (4716(stauros) a stake or post (set upright) - a more painful crucifixtion.

You go by what the bible says not other accounts you can't verify... The small case "t" cross came in through the Catholic church... One of many pagan ways about her.....

Archaeological discoveries of 1st century Christian grave markers and ossuaries are replete with engravings of the symbols of the cross (t) and the fish...(saying things like Y;shua is Lord, He is Risen, and more...

Therefore the Cross is not a later RC invention but was in fact exactly as we now perceive it and as the eye witness generation drew it (and it was used as a symbol for the church)...reality trumps misinformation every time. See the work of Sukinek and that of Bagatti as openers (there is however more)...

Paul

 

[thetraveledsoul]

It is true that Jesus did not die on a cross but he died on a tree Due 21:22 a stake. They did not nail 2 trees together to make a cross his hands was not stretched out.

His feet was nailed together below him and his hands was nailed together above him.

the cross actually stands for the intials of Nimrod son. Nimrod means against God he was a hunter and he married his mother they had a son name was Tammus or something like that. And when Nimrod died his mother/wife told the people that the son was Nimrod reincarnated and that the people worshipped the son Tammus and that is what the cross people wear around their necks stands for really

 

[Albion]

It is true that Jesus did not die on a cross but he died on a tree Due 21:22 a stake. They did not nail 2 trees together to make a cross his hands was not stretched out.

His feet was nailed together below him and his hands was nailed together above him.

the cross actually stands for the intials of Nimrod son. Nimrod means against God he was a hunter and he married his mother they had a son name was Tammus or something like that. And when Nimrod died his mother/wife told the people that the son was Nimrod reincarnated and that the people worshipped the son Tammus and that is what the cross people wear around their necks stands for really

You're one of those "Bible Students" I see. Too bad that none of that stuff is in accord with what the Bible says.

 

[HonestTruth]

The shatkona or Star of David is also of pagan origin.

 

[Knee V]

It is true that Jesus did not die on a cross but he died on a tree Due 21:22 a stake. They did not nail 2 trees together to make a cross his hands was not stretched out.

His feet was nailed together below him and his hands was nailed together above him.

the cross actually stands for the intials of Nimrod son. Nimrod means against God he was a hunter and he married his mother they had a son name was Tammus or something like that. And when Nimrod died his mother/wife told the people that the son was Nimrod reincarnated and that the people worshipped the son Tammus and that is what the cross people wear around their necks stands for really

So what exactly is the correlation between Tammus and the cross?