The Star Of Bethlehem

[LogicalFallacy]

As I have studied the various subjects surrounding religion, mythology, and the existence, or lack thereof of a God I have formed an opinion that what we call myth's and stories are actually usually based on some real natural occurrence or phenomena. Very few stories just pop out of no where with no prior reference or real event to base it off.

 

This brings us to the famed star of Bethlehem. It is mentioned twice in the New Testament, in the same chapter:

 

Matthew 2:2

 

"Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him"

 

Matthew 2:9

 

"When they had heard the king, they departed; and, lo, the star, which they saw in the east, went before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was."

 

To understand why someone would include this event in a story, when other versions of the story do not include it, one must understand the ancient world. In that world astrology was actually a thing. Men studied the 'heavens' and they became quite wise in astronomical movements. However they also lacked our modern knowledge so would assign special significance to events. Thus certain events were thought to foretell coming of good times, of doom, and of kings being born. The writer of Matthew, who was educated, would have known of the significance among the people of having a sign in the heavens and so quite possibly chose a real event to give his version of a King of the Jews.

 

In the story of Jesus, the wise men came from the East, having seen a Star in the east and followed it. This might seem a bit nonsensical until you consider that planets can move in either real or apparent retrograde movement. Thus, according to Prof D A Weintraub:

 

"The portent began on April 17 of 6 BC (with the heliacal rising of Jupiter that morning, followed, at noon, by its lunar occultation in the constellation Aries) and lasted until December 19 of 6 BC (when Jupiter stopped moving to the west, stood still briefly, and began moving to the east, as compared with the fixed background stars). " http://theconversation.com/can-astronomy-explain-the-biblical-star-of-bethlehem-35126

 

This real event gives us a basis for the addition of it into Matthews gospel around the timeframe that Jesus was supposed to have been born. It may also explain why there are contradictions in the gospels of the time of Jesus birth - if Matthew altered his to have the event included, he probably altered the important figures around at the time leading to a contradiction.

 

Thoughts?

[mwc]

     I would think that this ultimately carries as much weight as Luke being a real doctor.  There may be a few terms here and there that were used in that "profession" but it's doubtful it really means much of anything.

 

     I suppose someone could put these clues together but they'd have to know that Jupiter was the one they were supposed to be looking for that had a heliacal rising with a later retrograde motion as opposed to the several other planets and they'd have to know the year so as to not get something too early in Herod's reign or perhaps something later with the wrong Herod.  There's nothing at all indicating any of these things.

 

     I didn't try to hard and maybe this one event by Jupiter is the one and only fit in all of antiquity but I have a feeling that it's the one event that sort of fits into the known gospel jesus timeline.  And that's the real miracle.  That the wisemen simply knew jesus was the real-deal and showed up right on cue.

          mwc

[♦ Fuego ♦]

If the wise men were from the East (Babylon), and the star was in the east, wouldn't that lead them further from Bethlehem?

 

I think the star story goes back to the concept of the firmament and not knowing what those little lights were. Some said they were angels, "When the morning stars sang together" (Job 38:7), "How you are fallen from heaven, O shining star, son of the morning!" (Isaiah 14:12). They knew about "wandering stars" which were planets, so having a star break off and guide them to a particular house wasn't far-fetched. To them it could have simply floated over the house like a porch light instead of an Earth consuming ball of nuclear fire.

 

Since there are no known corroborations of these guys showing up in Jerusalem and causing a stir, I put it down to invention as I do the rest of the story.

[LogicalFallacy]

If the wise men were from the East (Babylon), and the star was in the east, wouldn't that lead them further from Bethlehem?

 

 

Jupiter during earth passing it in its orbit appears in the east but moves west, before stopping (over a house?) and moving back east.

 

So basically I'm proposing that someone would only need to know of such an astronomical event and insert it into the story. I'm not saying it had any actual significance. Only that it was known about and inserted into the Jesus story and thus how it came to be in the bible.

 

Of course, the ancients did know that the lights in the sky moved so maybe it was just a made up star for 'significance' purposes.

[mwc]

     So, really, to make sense of this theory you have to just read Molner here.

 

     I'm more inclined to accept the general ancient Jewish lore that stars were angels and this was an actual angel that led the way.  So one of the eastern angels help lead them west.  Then it reappeared and led them to the specific house.

          mwc

[LogicalFallacy]

Thanks for the link mwc.

 

Hmm just reading the accounts from Matthew and Luke - Matthew has the star and the wise men, then the subsequent slaughter of children. Luke has shepherds visited by an angel, then the ceremony in Jerusalem 8 days later. No mention of fleeing to Egypt - in fact Luke says they went to the passover each year.

 

mwc, I'm a bit confused about your line about Jewish lore - there is nothing the Jews say about Jesus other than he wasn't the messiah. So why would they have a story of an angel? Or have I misunderstood?

[rjn]

mwc, I'm a bit confused about your line about Jewish lore - there is nothing the Jews say about Jesus other than he wasn't the messiah. So why would they have a story of an angel? Or have I misunderstood?

 

To me it was crystal clear what he meant. He simply implied Jewish lore played a big part in the symbolism of the Gospels, which makes sense, obviously. I suspect a lot of Christians are missing the mark a lot of the time, because they can not relate to themes that are strictly Jewish in nature.

[mwc]

     I was speaking to the idea that the Jews could see the stars as, or relating to, angels.  Fuego touched on this in his post.

     But in xian lore we have things like Revelation 9 "1 The fifth angel sounded his trumpet, and I saw a star that had fallen from the sky to the earth. The star was given the key to the shaft of the Abyss. ² When he opened the Abyss, smoke rose from it like the smoke from a gigantic furnace."

 

     There's a star clearly falling to earth, getting a key and opening the abyss.  This cannot happen if you believe stars are simply tiny points of light.  They must be some type of able-bodied being. 

     What I'm getting at is that it doesn't take much imagination to think that stars were angels, or some form of being on-par with angels (xians seem to differentiate between the two so angel may be a misnomer), that could act of their own accord to lead people to discover the birth of their messiah.  Now, whether whether this was somehow placed in there anachronistically, based on actual astronomical events, to bolster some nebulous claims, I couldn't say but I wouldn't put it past anyone.  I have serious doubts that anything took place on the ground as described in the gospels in 6 BCE.

          mwc

[Joshpantera]

The nativity as whole can viewed in the sky every year. I was just looking at it last night. Everything takes place in the eastern sky. First the three kings or wise men rise in the south east starting at sun set. They form a vertical line pointing to where the sun will rise during the winter solstice. It's a convenient marker for the suns southern most rising. After the three kings the brightest star in the sky, Sirius, rises in the same general area. The three kings point a line down towards the brightest star. Later, Virgo rises in the east. The whole procession goes by until finally, the sun rises behind it all. The virgin born king of kings whose hailed by the belt stars of Orion and the brightest star in the sky, Sirius.

 

http://freethoughtnation.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=3606

 

The nativity was obviously added a long time after the supposed events and well after Paul. The writer is basically making use of a pagan appeal. The nativity has correspondences to Egyptian symbolism. There's a nativity scene on a wall in Luxor. And with the Egyptian version it's more apparent that the story is about the new born baby sun born about the winter solstice.

 

http://www.stellarhousepublishing.com/luxor.html

I've explained this many times to friends and family while watching the night sky in real time around Christmas looking east from the Florida Keys, or the Central Florida east coast depending on where we were that year. Every year the whole nativity scene parades across the sky from east to west. Bethlehem, meaning house of bread, is also associated with Virgo. The whole story appeals towards the aim of drawing in pagans with familiar symbolism. There's no reason for the anonymous writer of Matthew to try and quote mine a virgin birth out of context from Isaiah, aside from trying to appeal to the well known virgin birth of leaders or Gods in the pagan world and make it appear acceptable to Judaism at the same time. 

BTW, when you dive deep into these issues it becomes more and more apparent why the Jews never accepted any of this. The nativity, or quote mining Isaiah completely out of context to try and insert a virgin birth prophecy fulfillment is something that any learned Jew would have seen as complete bull shit. Much of the NT is so blatantly a hack job. These things are only there because some writer wanted to make it look as if these popular pagan themes are compatible with Judaism. And they won over the ignorant common folk in droves. Until the Roman Empire had to try and embrace and control this new little hybrid religion...

[mwc]

     How many early writers actually made a big deal about the magi (and their GPS system)?  I haven't looked in years but I don't recall any of note right off-hand.

 

     I don't think anyone was really selling xianity using this story.  I think it was a sort of "value-added addition" at best.  Just like most of these things that we make a big deal about.

 

     These little add-ins/throw-away items are the things that the whole magical messiah thing got built up on in the first place.  Some guy wrote something in the OT but since it wasn't complete people down the road felt it must mean something and decided to figure it out.  And they did using all the best tools they had.  And now we've got a real mess.  I guess it's no real surprise we're still at it.

          mwc

[LogicalFallacy]

     I was speaking to the idea that the Jews could see the stars as, or relating to, angels.  Fuego touched on this in his post.

     But in xian lore we have things like Revelation 9 "1 The fifth angel sounded his trumpet, and I saw a star that had fallen from the sky to the earth. The star was given the key to the shaft of the Abyss. ² When he opened the Abyss, smoke rose from it like the smoke from a gigantic furnace."

 

     There's a star clearly falling to earth, getting a key and opening the abyss.  This cannot happen if you believe stars are simply tiny points of light.  They must be some type of able-bodied being. 

 

     What I'm getting at is that it doesn't take much imagination to think that stars were angels, or some form of being on-par with angels (xians seem to differentiate between the two so angel may be a misnomer), that could act of their own accord to lead people to discover the birth of their messiah.  Now, whether whether this was somehow placed in there anachronistically, based on actual astronomical events, to bolster some nebulous claims, I couldn't say but I wouldn't put it past anyone.  I have serious doubts that anything took place on the ground as described in the gospels in 6 BCE.

 

          mwc

 

Thanks for clarifying mwc. I agree, highly unlikely that either shepherds or magi worshiped any Jew. All that was needed was an event to insert into the story that had some significance to the people that the writer intended to read. So if the writer knew that the people had a belief that stars were angels, which is a position supported by old testament versus as well, or that they attached significance to astrological events then that would make it useful for the story.

 

 

BTW, when you dive deep into these issues it becomes more and more apparent why the Jews never accepted any of this. The nativity, or quote mining Isaiah completely out of context to try and insert a virgin birth prophecy fulfillment is something that any learned Jew would have seen as complete bull shit. Much of the NT is so blatantly a hack job. These things are only there because some writer wanted to make it look as if these popular pagan themes are compatible with Judaism. And they won over the ignorant common folk in droves. Until the Roman Empire had to try and embrace and control this new little hybrid religion...

 

I agree there, and that's why the early Christians (and later ones) basically turned against the Jews for rejecting their message. The Jews would have known that Isaiah's prophesy related to the time and was 'for-filled' in that time. In fact if you look at Jesus story they shoe horned in many OT scriptures "They pierced my hands and my feet" from the Psalmist, "they gave me gall and bitterness to drink" Depending on which version you like Jesus was offered wine or vinegar on the cross. Today these are scriptures that Christians use to 'prove' that Jesus was the one because he fulfilled the prophesies.

[Joshpantera]

It's so revealing to take the blinders off. Reading through the old or NT as a non-believer is just mind boggling. The intent of the writers during these quote mines is so transparent. 

 

Another one, John 10:30 and forward. The writer has Jesus claiming, "I and the Father are one!" Then the writer double backs and looks for an OT passage that may seem to justify this claim. He goes back to Psalms (I don't have the verse on hand, I think it's 82 or 83) and quotes the passage out of context. Isn't it written that you are gods? And if God called the people of Israel sons of god then why condemn Jesus for saying he is the son of God? Well the passage in Psalms doesn't say that the people are gods and doesn't justify Jesus saying what he said in the context that the writer was reaching for.

 

It's actually evidence for the older polytheism to monolatry to monotheism evolution in Judaism. It's where El Elyon, the most high God of the Elohim pantheon of gods, is telling these lesser gods of the pantheon, "haven't I said you are gods?" And then goes on to send them stumbling in the darkness of Sheol for their mismanagement. One God addressing the other gods. There was a good video on this with Robert Price that doesn't seem to be on youtube anymore...

 

Christians need to pay attention to these things. The mystical writer of John didn't seem to know that he was quoting from damming evidence in Psalms that exposes ancient Israel's evolution from polytheism, to monolatry and finally monotheism. He just wanted to claim that Jesus was God and thought he found a clever passage that gave him the green light to try and do so. But it actually comes back to bite Christianity and Judaism hard in the ass. It draws attention to those ancient roots of polytheistic pantheons and a supreme God prior to the elevation of Yahweh to universal status. 

 

What blatant idiocy passed off as spiritual and superior. The credulous pagan public accepting these hack jobs. The majority of Jews, not so much. 

[LogicalFallacy]

Psalm 82King James Version (KJV)

 

82 God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods.

2 How long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked? Selah.

3 Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy.

4 Deliver the poor and needy: rid them out of the hand of the wicked.

5 They know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in darkness: all the foundations of the earth are out of course.

6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.

7 But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.

8 Arise, O God, judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations.

 

Christians of course try and explain this by saying its a foreshadowing of the elect being gods.

Hmm interesting if we go to Genesis 3:5 the serpent says "For God doth know in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

So it would seem at the time Genesis 3 was written there already was the concept of their being "gods" and "God".

[Joshpantera]

Genesis is all about the Elohim pantheon. Originally their myths were something like the Greek or Roman pantheons. The plural use of, "let us create man in our image," is read over by Christians as referring to the trinity. But there was no trinity in Genesis. There was only this ancient pantheon of gods called the "Elohim" or "Sons of El." This is an entire topic of it's own really. The video with Robert Price dealing with Psalms 82 is apparently not up anymore. But luckily someone mirrored another candid video on the topic:

 

 

See what he showed about Psalm 82 in the original?

 

The translators of the Bible have very dishonestly colored the Bible with generic terms like, God, Lord, Almighty, Lord of Hosts, etc. etc. They've actually tried disguising all of these references to the other gods with generic terms. They've tried to after the fact make the Bible appear to read as if it was monotheistic all along, or at least as if its Yahweh who's being referred to all along by these various other god names. There's so many layers to the dishonesty and misconduct...

[LogicalFallacy]

Hmm I argued in another topic... somewhere on here, that the phrases "us" and "our" referred to multiple gods. However responders said it was used in the royal form like the royal "we". "We think" which really means I think. So the argument refuting my position of multiple gods was that “us” and “our” in Genesis is God referring to himself in a royal sense. It would seem based on your info that this is not the case, and that Us and Our is indeed referring to multiple gods. Thus when the biblical writers are writing “let us make man in our image”, they are actually thinking of the pantheon of gods, or at least it’s a carry-over from the pantheon. We know at some point Judaism went from a pantheistic religion to a monotheistic religion. (Incidentally an Egyptian Queen tried this one and ended up failing and Egypt went back to pantheistic)

 

It is also interesting to note that Genesis changes its terms. You start off with God said in chapter 1, and by chapter 2 or 3 you have the ”Lord God”. When you look at the translations this is taking the terms YAWH and Elohim and combining them. (My description could be off a bit there, but that’s the basic gist.)

[Joshpantera]

And they were incorrect. That's an apologetic, not academic perspective. You had correctly figured it out intuitively without even knowing about the academic perspective. As you can see academics have mapped it all out, methodically. I could tell by your other posts that you probably haven't entered this specific rabbit hole yet. So I mean to invite you in. 

 

 

Once you see the pantheon emerge you can follow it right on through the OT. The Tower of Babel, "Let us go down and confuse their language." Once again, the Elohim pantheon of "gods." If you noticed in the video, Yahweh started out as one of the sons of the most high god, El. This is just like some lesser god to Zeus. At some point they started combining terms, like you mention. Yahweh-Elohim. Monotheism was the result of a political motivated undertaking. The evolution is still there in the Bible. You just have to get the names back to their originals and you're looking at a polytheistic religion.

 

I have a Bible entitled "The Sacred Scriptures: Bethel Edition" which is the work of some fundamentalist sect that believe all of the pagan influenced and unoriginal terms like "God" and such ought to be eliminated from the Bible. And that the original names should be translated directly to English from the original language. The result is a glaringly obvious reading of an ancient polytheistic religion when you're armed with the academic interpretation.

 

Psalm 82:1

 

Elohim stands in the congregation of El; He Judges among the elohim. 

 

verse 6

 

I said, You are elohim, And all of you sons of the Most High (meaning El Elyon who was the father above the lesser gods).

 

verse 7 

 

Nevertheless you shall die like men, And fall like one of the princes.

 

Bam!!!

 

That really clarifies the argument about the writer of John quote mining Psalm 82 completely out of context and thinking that he'd found a way of justifying the character of Jesus claim that he was equal to God. This guy was a mystic. The mystical realization is oneness with the god. He wanted to bring that to the table through the Jesus myth and thought that Psalm 82 was his ticket to make the mystical realization appear consistent with Judaism. 

 

The fundies who produced this direct Hebrew to English translation subscribe to the sort of apologetics that you described above, so the real meaning is entirely lost on them. But what a useful translation of the Bible for intellectual purposes.  

[readyforchange]

It's so revealing to take the blinders off. Reading through the old or NT as a non-believer is just mind boggling. The intent of the writers during these quote mines is so transparent.

Yes, I think many Christians read the NT and either have a Bible that does not provide the Hebrew bible / OT references to the prophecies and/or never specifically go back and read the full context of the Hebrew bible passages. Many of the OT messianic prophecies cited in the NT as being fulfilled by Jesus are taken out of their original contexts or were not prophecies.

 

From a Christian apologist perspective, I think the prophecies would need to be interpreted as the gospel authors writing as midrash. One apologist explanation is to cite Paul, who states that God had a hidden plan and message to humankind, and this hidden message was revealed to him. For example, in Ephesians 3:1-12, verses 8-10 state "Although I am the very least of all the saints, this grace was given to me to bring to the Gentiles the news of the boundless riches of Christ, 9 and to make everyone see[c] what is the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in[d] God who created all things; 10 so that through the church the wisdom of God in its rich variety might now be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly places."(NRSV). Elsewhere, Paul claims in 2 Corinthians 4:3-4 that God intentionally hides the true message from non-believers (3 And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. 4 In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.) and that God hid the true message from the Jews. Paul also claims that God intentionally hardened the Jews to this hidden message (Romans 11:7-8). From Paul's perspective, he is saying that when the Jews read the Hebrew bible, they do not recognize that it speaks of Jesus because that was part of God's plan all along.

 

Curious as to what others think?

[Joshpantera]

What's happening here is that you're starting from square one, the general Christian perspective. The early writers like Paul and the anonymous gospel writers were bringing something new to the table and claiming that it had been there all along. That's really where it all begins. And addressing the apologetic argument is worthwhile. 

 

1) The Jews don't accept any of this because it's more than obvious that their assertions are so out of context that the claim doesn't hold up.

 

2) The Christians retort by saying that God hid this secret message from the Jews and hardened their hearts.

 

3) The Christian message spreads out to the Roman Empire and eventually the world and goes pretty much unquestioned for a long time.

 

4) Fast forward several thousand years and we're going back trying to piece it all together and expose the various intention and bias at play.

 

Let's make an example of Paul and Jesus sort of fused together. I could right now take both the OT and NT and work my way through it claiming that the mystery wasn't even completely revealed through the NT and that there's even more that God had saved for our future generation. Both the Christians and Jews were only tools the entire time. And this message is that we are all God. It was foreshadowed in Psalms, and then again in John. But it wasn't complete. God came to me personally in vision and said, "We are one! Open your hardened eyes and see me in yourself! This message has been spread throughout the world all along. I made sure to infuse this absolute message into the western religions because I found them lacking in true self awareness. Look closer, the message has been there all along going unnoticed by the unwary. The time has finally come for all to awake, and realize their own godhood."

 

Then I go out to all the churches and proclaim this vision from God, that we are all God and the message had been hidden right before our eyes all along. And I can then quote Psalms and John out of the original context and claim that my way is the right way and all of the Jewish and Christian leaders are vipers. I can associate them with satan and claim that they represent repression of true self awareness, and stand to oppose God, the Light, and all things Good. And they no doubt would lash out and retaliate against me. And I can claim persecution. And if others join me in this, they will be persecuted. I can tell everyone to stand tall and unwavering. Then some other people could come in behind me and start up a new series of gospels that try and fill in the blanks and further what my rudimentary epistles to the early congregations failed to explain about the story. Then perhaps my followers will claim that a great celestial event foretold my birth. I was born on the bicentennial anniversary of the US of A, also the oriental year of the Dragon. And my message hails in the new "age" of Aquarius, reveling the real mystery of the "ages," which Paul was born too prematurely to be able to comprehend. I'm sure that would suffice as a good starting point for mythologizing. Maybe someone could even write an apocryphal book about my ideas after I'm long gone.

 

This whole thing boils down to self evident common sense. What is obvious about my story being completely made up and after the fact, is also obvious about Paul's. There's no end to what some one can claim by taking little cut outs here and there from some already existing religion, piecing it together to say something that it never said originally, and then claiming that the new way of interpretation is the only true way of interpreting it and those who won't get on board, will burn in eternal flame...   

[readyforchange]

Joshpantera, that's a great scenario you laid out to address the apologetic explanation.  I can see your example playing out under the right circumstances.  With the supernatural claims of divine revelation, the new message becomes unfalsifiable, or at least difficult to completely refute. 

I think from a Christian's perspective, to accept what Paul says about hidden, secret messages and double meanings / double fulfilments in the Bible opens up a several challenges.  For one, and as you said, it has to open the possibility that there could be other hidden meanings and messages from God in the Biblical text that can be interpreted out of context. From what I understand, Muslims will sometimes cite John 14:16 as evidence for Mohammed as divine, when Jesus says that the Father will give you another Advocate. Even though in context is clearly referring to the Holy Spirit, they claim something of a double fulfilment, that it also refers to Mohammed.

Are you familiar with cargo cults? I did not know about them until I read Richard Dawkins’ God Delusion. They seem to be something of a modern day equivalent similar to your scenario in some respects. If not, look up the name “John Frum”. There is an isolated island in the South Pacific, where the natives believe that a man named John Frum is something of an exalted figure who will return to the island one day to bring shiploads of cargo. They have a celebration on February 15 each year in honor of John Frum, so the next one is coming up in about 2 weeks. Here is an article - http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/in-john-they-trust-109294882/

[LogicalFallacy]

Let's make an example of Paul and Jesus sort of fused together. I could right now take both the OT and NT and work my way through it claiming that the mystery wasn't even completely revealed through the NT and that there's even more that God had saved for our future generation.

This is eerily similar to what is happening in my church at the moment. The Pastor is claiming that not all mysteries have been revealed, and quotes Revelation 10:4 which says "and when the seven thunders uttered I was about to write, and I heard a voice from heaven saying seal up the things which the seven thunders uttered and write them not." (Incidentally it's sad I can rehearse that verse without reference to a bible)

 

Revelations goes on to say that in the last days the mystery would be revealed.

 

So this is the basis for the pastor to claim that there is stuff not written in the bible that the 'bride' needs to know to go in the rapture, be translated, or have some quantum gimmicky thing done to them. You get the idea. Of course this pastor has this one true final message so on and so forth - nothing new, we've heard this before - except it's happening right now in my church community of which I am the resident atheist.

 

@ Readyforchange - this claiming of revelation then people believing that the messenger will return happens quite a bit. There is a following of William M Branham who believe that he was Gods last messenger, and was the spirit of Elijah etc for the last days.

 

What is interesting about this is the similarities between Branham and Jesus - in fact some followers were claiming he was Jesus returned. Now Christians like to claim that there is no way Jesus could have gone from stories of ordinary teacher to Son of God. It had to be 'real' or people wouldn't have believed him. However if one studies Branham quite closely we can see that the claimed miracles etc never actually happened. Yet in his own lifetime this man was being worshiped as Jesus, and within a few short years of his death a movement generated - today there are 2 -4 million members. These members believe, almost without question that he was a prophet of God, come at the end times, who wrought miracles etc. And this is in a time where we have recent recorded history - we can go back and see the claims are false.

 

Like Jesus, Branham had a 'light' appear over him at birth, witnessed by his mother and grandmother. As a child he saw visions, heard God speak etc.

 

This all occurred in the 20th century from 1906 to 1965. Camera and voice recordings of him are available as are living witnesses.

 

So the argument that legend status for Jesus couldn't have arisen in such a short time fails. All you need is a person with a message, who claims something, and for someone to believe that claim irrespective of whether it is evidence based or not.

[readyforchange]

It's so revealing to take the blinders off. Reading through the old or NT as a non-believer is just mind boggling. The intent of the writers during these quote mines is so transparent. 

 

Another one, John 10:30 and forward. The writer has Jesus claiming, "I and the Father are one!" Then the writer double backs and looks for an OT passage that may seem to justify this claim. He goes back to Psalms (I don't have the verse on hand, I think it's 82 or 83) and quotes the passage out of context. Isn't it written that you are gods? And if God called the people of Israel sons of god then why condemn Jesus for saying he is the son of God? Well the passage in Psalms doesn't say that the people are gods and doesn't justify Jesus saying what he said in the context that the writer was reaching for.

 

It's actually evidence for the older polytheism to monolatry to monotheism evolution in Judaism. It's where El Elyon, the most high God of the Elohim pantheon of gods, is telling these lesser gods of the pantheon, "haven't I said you are gods?" And then goes on to send them stumbling in the darkness of Sheol for their mismanagement. One God addressing the other gods. There was a good video on this with Robert Price that doesn't seem to be on youtube anymore...

 

Christians need to pay attention to these things. The mystical writer of John didn't seem to know that he was quoting from damming evidence in Psalms that exposes ancient Israel's evolution from polytheism, to monolatry and finally monotheism. He just wanted to claim that Jesus was God and thought he found a clever passage that gave him the green light to try and do so. But it actually comes back to bite Christianity and Judaism hard in the ass. It draws attention to those ancient roots of polytheistic pantheons and a supreme God prior to the elevation of Yahweh to universal status. 

 

What blatant idiocy passed off as spiritual and superior. The credulous pagan public accepting these hack jobs. The majority of Jews, not so much.

Just from personal experience, I do not think many Christians are familiar with the polytheistic roots of the Israelites, the original meaning/contexts of passages like Psalms 82, Psalms 29:1, and Deuteronomy 32:8-9, or that El was the head god of the Canaanite pantheon. If anyone is interested, Dr. Steven DiMattei goes into the background of El and Yahweh in these passages on his website at http://contradictionsinthebible.com/are-yahweh-and-el-the-same-god/

[LogicalFallacy]

This Canaanite pantheon is also supported by archaeologist Israel Finkelstein whose new work indicates that the Israelites, far from being outsiders conquering the land, were already local residents who started a new religion that came out of the old Canaanite gods. Hence the tie over of the pantheon.

[Joshpantera]

 

It's so revealing to take the blinders off. Reading through the old or NT as a non-believer is just mind boggling. The intent of the writers during these quote mines is so transparent. 

 

Another one, John 10:30 and forward. The writer has Jesus claiming, "I and the Father are one!" Then the writer double backs and looks for an OT passage that may seem to justify this claim. He goes back to Psalms (I don't have the verse on hand, I think it's 82 or 83) and quotes the passage out of context. Isn't it written that you are gods? And if God called the people of Israel sons of god then why condemn Jesus for saying he is the son of God? Well the passage in Psalms doesn't say that the people are gods and doesn't justify Jesus saying what he said in the context that the writer was reaching for.

 

It's actually evidence for the older polytheism to monolatry to monotheism evolution in Judaism. It's where El Elyon, the most high God of the Elohim pantheon of gods, is telling these lesser gods of the pantheon, "haven't I said you are gods?" And then goes on to send them stumbling in the darkness of Sheol for their mismanagement. One God addressing the other gods. There was a good video on this with Robert Price that doesn't seem to be on youtube anymore...

 

Christians need to pay attention to these things. The mystical writer of John didn't seem to know that he was quoting from damming evidence in Psalms that exposes ancient Israel's evolution from polytheism, to monolatry and finally monotheism. He just wanted to claim that Jesus was God and thought he found a clever passage that gave him the green light to try and do so. But it actually comes back to bite Christianity and Judaism hard in the ass. It draws attention to those ancient roots of polytheistic pantheons and a supreme God prior to the elevation of Yahweh to universal status. 

 

What blatant idiocy passed off as spiritual and superior. The credulous pagan public accepting these hack jobs. The majority of Jews, not so much.

Just from personal experience, I do not think many Christians are familiar with the polytheistic roots of the Israelites, the original meaning/contexts of passages like Psalms 82, Psalms 29:1, and Deuteronomy 32:8-9, or that El was the head god of the Canaanite pantheon. If anyone is interested, Dr. Steven DiMattei goes into the background of El and Yahweh in these passages on his website at http://contradictionsinthebible.com/are-yahweh-and-el-the-same-god/

 

Excellent article. That should be the starting point for a thread of it's own introducing the topic of polytheism in ancient Israel. And then go into Finkelstein as LF mentions. The Bible Unearthed touches on this topic. 

 

It's interesting how a question about the NT can open such a rich area of academic study ranging all the way back to ancient Israel. And for a Christian this can become overwhelming real quick. Deer in the headlights! 

[LogicalFallacy]

Fascinating the way a conversation can start at one place and go back to its roots.

 

I second a a topic on the origins of Judaism and even the origins of the polytheistic predecessors of Judaism.

[BlackCat]

The Star of Bethlehem has proved to be for me, one of many 'wake up' clues to the mythology and human origin of the Bible and its claims.  I recall starting a similar thread to this a few years back when the spell of Christianity was strong on me.  I thought I'd broken the spell but it persisted strongly up to recently but that's for another thread.

 

I'm thinking that 'Christmas' cards for this year could feature the night sky resplendent with the constellations etc you mentioned Josh, ie: the real wise men etc. 

 

It's good to see familiar folk still posting here.