To me it makes no difference if Christ actually existed? If he did, good, he was a philosopher who taught morality. But it does not prove anything about the biblical myths that surround him.
One fact is abundantly clear, he was not conceived of a “physical” virgin. Else he’d be a clone of Mary.
Below is picture of a true virgin, conceived by a virgin and a perfect clone of its mother.
If you read EVERYTHING ‘Jesus’ said, I would be loathe to follow his morals. He encouraged men to abandon their families, and said that he brought war not peace. Like the rest of the bible, you can pick and choose the warm fuzzies, but to honestly read what he had to say, front to back, he was an ineffective and plainly horrid person.
To me it makes no difference if Christ actually existed? If he did, good, he was a philosopher who taught morality. But it does not prove anything about the biblical myths that surround him.
One fact is abundantly clear, he was not conceived of a “physical” virgin. Else he’d be a clone of Mary.
Below is picture of a true virgin, conceived by a virgin and a perfect clone of its mother.
If you read EVERYTHING ‘Jesus’ said, I would be loathe to follow his morals. He encouraged men to abandon their families, and said that he brought war not peace. Like the rest of the bible, you can pick and choose the warm fuzzies, but to honestly read what he had to say, front to back, he was an ineffective and plainly horrid person.
You may be correct, but that may also be part of the mythology which pervades most of the bible. But as his legacy generally is good, I was generous and gave him some (perhaps too much) credit for trying. As I said, to me it makes no difference one way or the other. I can find better philosophers of morality.
You may be correct, but that may also be part of the mythology which pervades most of the bible. But as his legacy generally is good, I was generous and gave him some (perhaps too much) credit for trying. As I said, to me it makes no difference one way or the other. I can find better philosophers of morality.
And most of them include a “golden rule” in their philosophical teachings. Even animistic beliefs include a rule for living within the tribe or clan. This is done for mutual cooperation and no “sacred collection of rules” was needed, with no supernatural reward in place as an incentive. I have definitely become jaded on this subject with the exception of how it fits into the historical narrative of Western thought. One final shot, the Hebrew word Almah means “young girl of marriageable age not “virgin”. Therefore, no virgin birth.
You may be correct, but that may also be part of the mythology which pervades most of the bible. But as his legacy generally is good, I was generous and gave him some (perhaps too much) credit for trying. As I said, to me it makes no difference one way or the other. I can find better philosophers of morality.
And most of them include a “golden rule” in their philosophical teachings. Even animistic beliefs include a rule for living within the tribe or clan. This is done for mutual cooperation and no “sacred collection of rules” was needed, with no supernatural reward in place as an incentive. I have definitely become jaded on this subject with the exception of how it fits into the historical narrative of Western thought. One final shot, the Hebrew word Almah means “young girl of marriageable age not “virgin”. Therefore, no virgin birth.
Cap’t jACK
Too bad no one speaks Jewish anymore. The Christians “believe” in the “immaculate conception” , i.e. “virgin birth”.
That’s the problem, they “believe”. It’s easier than doing the research. Someone is designated as an expert (preacher) so I’ll trust him to tell me the truth. That way I won’t have to study those musty old texts with their cryptic meanings.
Yes, parts of the Bible are in Aramaic, large parts in Hebrew and parts (the NT in particular, IIRC) in Greek. All three are known languages, and there are modern versions that people speak today.
Yes, parts of the Bible are in Aramaic, large parts in Hebrew and parts (the NT in particular, IIRC) in Greek. All three are known languages, and there are modern versions that people speak today.
Then why this:
“In the fullness of time, God sent his son, born of a virgin”
Thanks for that link Cap’t Jack, I looked everywhere and it does seem that the Church is content to let this myth flourish in spite of its duplicity.
Must maintain the magic at all costs…..
Thanks for that link Cap’t Jack, I looked everywhere and it does seem that the Church is content to let this myth flourish in spite of its duplicity.
Must maintain the magic at all costs…..
To be clear, that myth isn’t dependent upon the mistranslation, only the claim that the myth is a fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy is.
Yes, parts of the Bible are in Aramaic, large parts in Hebrew and parts (the NT in particular, IIRC) in Greek. All three are known languages, and there are modern versions that people speak today.
Really? Can you name some of the books which are in Aramaic rather than Hebrew? Because I seem to have missed those. Along with ... every scholar of the Bible in the whole of history. You might want to check your facts on that one. You’ve also got the “the NT in particular” part wrong. The OT is wholly Hebrew and the NT is wholly Greek. That’s it. No Aramaic at all.
Yes, parts of the Bible are in Aramaic, large parts in Hebrew and parts (the NT in particular, IIRC) in Greek. All three are known languages, and there are modern versions that people speak today.
Really? Can you name some of the books which are in Aramaic rather than Hebrew? Because I seem to have missed those. Along with ... every scholar of the Bible in the whole of history. You might want to check your facts on that one. You’ve also got the “the NT in particular” part wrong. The OT is wholly Hebrew and the NT is wholly Greek. That’s it. No Aramaic at all.
He never said ‘books’ he said ‘parts.’ The Book of Daniel from 2:4b to 7:28 is in Aramaic. Certain words and phrases in the N.T as well.
