Subject: Is it a Fact that the Biblical Background is Original?

Below is how I now understand salvation and Christianity and why I'm not worried about a future life in a Heaven or Hell. You will not find this taught in church supported schools (Bible colleges or conservative seminaries) nor mentioned in Sunday School classes as these facts would totally be counter productive in any development of faith.

As a non-Christian (one who was never saved (John Calvin) or one who lost his salvation (Jacobus Arminius)…I’ll leave that up to the theologians to debate) I feel very fulfilled with my life and find the concepts of eternal reward or punishment meaningless now in light of the environment. But just to clarify my view, below is the central reason why I left Christianity.

Some Major Biblical Facts

A. Every major Greek theological term and concept the New Testament and Early Church used to create his or her religious doctrine was taken directly from the Classical “pagan” world. Here are a few: God (Greek: Theos) Church, Faith, Prayer, Salvation, Gospel, Heaven, Hell, Sin, Soul, Spirit, Demon, Forgiveness, Sacrifice, Blood Atonement, the concept of “god” as father, divine punishments and rewards and so on. These terms and concepts were loaded words pregnant with meaning from the so-called “pagan” religious traditions and applied by the early followers of Jesus to their up start religion(s) (Christianity is a “catch all” term for all early Jesus movements whether latter accepted as orthodox or not). As proof, look up any of the above words in Oxford’s Classical Greek Lexicon (A Greek-English Lexicon, Liddell, Scott, Jones) and watch how the word is reapplied latter by the authors of the New Testament in A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature, Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich, Funk and finally the exclusive use in the Christian tradition in Oxford’s A Patristic Greek Lexicon, Lamp. These “pagan” religions used these same terms and concepts for hundreds to thousands of years before Jesus which enabled people like St. Paul proselytize based on the foundations of Classical religious traditions (Paul needs this foundation to preach at Athenians: Acts 17). It is little wonder Christianity was given its name and had great success in Classical pagan Asia Minor while the teachings of Jesus (as found in the Synoptic Gospels and taught by such Jewish-Christian sects as the Ebionites whose terms and concepts where base the Semitic Aramaic language) had mostly died out in Roman Palestine by 400 CE.

Even the first Christian Roman Emperor, Constantine, minted coins with a cross on one side and Apollo, the Sun god, on the other. The New Testament’s concept of judgment where God is seated on a throne with Jesus either standing or seated at His right hand is drawn directly from the court of the Roman Emperor with his son or favorite general seated or standing to his right and set the stage for the imperial cult worship of the Emperor.

Symbolic numbers such as 3, 6, 7, 12, 40, 72 are also given divine meanings and are used repeatedly by Jesus and the writers of the New Testament (especially in the book of Revelation) to reveal divine mysteries. These same six numbers can be found as symbolic and magical numbers in much older stories and religious texts from ancient Semitic language families such as Akkadian, Phoenician, and Ugaritic. In light of this fact (as argued by Christian apologist) to claim that “God” uses known symbols and terms of the ancient pagan world only begs the question as to the exclusive truthfulness of both Judaism and Christianity.

The West Semitic language of Hebrew (of the Israelites) is a direct dialect of the hated Canaanites reed stylus script: Ugaritic (Note: The late Hebrew alphabet script compared to the ancient reed logographic script proves which came first). The symbol used in the Book of Revelation of the seven- headed beast (Rev. 13) was a concept already about 1000 years old when the writer of this Christian book chose to plagiarize it (see: Ancient Near Eastern Text in Pictures Relating to the Old Testament, Princeton University Press). Thus the New Testament writers often depended on, and needed popular pagan symbols to create accepted and factual bases for their new faith so the Christian tradition would fit right in to a competing “pagan” religious context.

In a world in which most people were poor and illiterate, with few living past the age of thirty (where a simple abscessed tooth could cause death), the austere teaching of the Synoptic Jesus on wealth (Matt. 13:22, Mark 10:25, Luke 6:24, 16:19-31) is replaced with promises of “health, wealth and prosperity” in latter works such as the Gospel of John where the faithful will be given many rooms (Greek: mona) in Heaven (John 14:2) or, in the books of Revelation, where the righteous walk on streets of gold in an emerald city (Rev. 21: 9-21).

Even recent major archaeological discovery now shows, more than ever, that the Hebrews are themselves part of their hated neighbors: the Canaanites. The lack of any archaeological sites that are linked to the Israelites in the Sinai over their forty year journey under a man called Moses are proving there was never an exodus form Egypt as stated in the Bible (for a review of the facts see: America’s leading archeologist William Dever in his book: Who Were the Israelites and Where Did They Come From? Eerdmans, 2003). In fact, the old lunar calendar of the Canaanites and their religious festivals to their gods is the same basic calendar of dates for many of Israel’s major festivals: Rosh ha-shanah, Sukkot, Pesach and Shavu’ot. Shav’uot.

It’s very interesting that while so called Bible Believers (as such, Bob Jones University) claim to accept the Bible at face value and follow Jewish tradition (and that of Jesus himself) that Moses wrote the Pentateuch, they never explain why an earlier text such as Deuteronomy 18:10 is not followed or accepted by Yahweh Himself in a much latter time/text such as the burning of Jephthah’s daughter in Judges 11:29-40 (and notice that the English word used here: Lord is the direct rendering of Hebrew Yahweh in the Masoretic Hebrew text ). Even if the text of Deuteronomy 18 is dated into the Josianic reforms, Yahweh Himself has both prohibited and accepted human sacrifice as a burnt offering! It’s now just a small step from accepting a human burnt offering (that of Jephthah’s daughter) to the human crucified offering: Jesus. One thing being equal, Israel’s god Yahweh and the Canaanite gods (Baal / El) both accepted human flesh and blood as a sacrifice!

19 comments:

akakiwibear said...

Harry, you said "Every major Greek theological term and concept the New Testament and Early Church used to create his or her religious doctrine was taken directly from the Classical “pagan” world. Here are a few: God (Greek: Theos) Church, Faith, Prayer, Salvation, Gospel, Heaven, Hell, Sin, .... "

Since Christian doctrine was being developed during the currency of such language and philosophical discussion would it not have struck you as odd if an alternative frame of reference had been used?

Emanuel Goldstein said...

The real question is whether we will have any ultimate responsibility for our deeds.

If so, and you have led a great life of being kind to everyone and helping humanity to the best of your ability, what's to worry.

If you have gone through life doing people as you please, and rationizes hurting them, and think you will never be held accountable by God, go for it!

We all find out soon enough.

GordonBlood said...

Alot of problems with this essay, akakiwibear has noted a major one. Concerning the killing of the daughter issue, if im correct God never demands that act to actually happen so I dont see why this would be any more of an issue then those persons who drown their children saying God told them to do so.

akakiwibear said...

Harry said " just to clarify my view, below is the central reason why I left Christianity."

I never paid enough attention to this sentence in my previous comment. I am going to make some assumptions about you Harry, but rather than address them to you personally I will make them in the third person about a Harry that may or may not be you.

Interesting that Harry has made a major life change decision based on what seems to a flawed belief in an inerrant bible ... the majority of Christians (by denomination anyway) recognise that the bible is neither inerrant or literal.

So it looks like Harry gave up Christianity for the wrong reason ... perhaps all that was needed was change denomination.

Harry's case looks a lot like a case of the baby going out with the bathwater ... it certainly highlights the importance for a sceptical approach to religious matters. Harry seems not have asked:
i) how millions (or is it billions?) of Christians can be both Christina and accepting that the bible is not literal?
ii) recognising that his questions are neither new nor unique, how have they been answered by Christian theologians without destroying Christian theism?

I can understand Harry's reaction to finding out that what he had been taught (I assume he comes from an inerrant, literal bible tradition) was flawed. I can understand an emotional reaction of rejection. Those who so narrowly taught Harry have a lot to answer for. They should read DC often to see the fruits of their labours falling victim to the false logic and irrationality of atheism.

Certainly Harry is right to question! But it would be said if he were simply to be duped again, this time by the slick atheist evangelists!

I am again compelled to repeat the quote on my blog "An unflinching determination to take the whole evidence into account is the only method of preservation against the fluctuating extremes of fashionable opinion” Alfred North Whitehead

Mwezzi said...

The pagan origins of Christianity are the subject in Chapter One of Zeitgeist (http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/ - free to watch!). The biggest coincidence? The Biblical teachings, such as the Ten Commandments, and the life and times of Jesus are all in Ancient Egyptian Mythology, sometimes word-for-word, which of course was all arounf thousands of years before the supposed birth of Jesus or, indeed the creation of the Old Testament. Various famous events - including Jesus' exact miracles, the virgin birth, mass exoduses - all appear in older myths of different religions. I'd be surprises if anything other than the names in the bible was original material, as it were. All the symbols - such the cross, the death and resurrection - are found in ASTROLOGY. I'm not worried about a future in a Christian Heaven or Hell because, quite frankly, if there is something out there it's probably not the Christian God (who appears to be an amalgam of everything before) and it could well be offended if I assumed it was. It's probably offended (or doesn't care) that I don't believe in its existence anyway.

akakiwibear said...

Mwezzi you really do need to apply a bit of scepticism to your viewing. Even a half hearted check of the first few “facts” in Zeitgeist would show it to be mix of half truths, outright errors and blatant logical non-sequiturs.


I could point out the fallacies to you, but I trust you can do your own research. As a starter try the stories of the ancient gods or perhaps where in the world you would have to be to observe the southern cross phenomenon as described.

If you are really lazy then
http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com
/forum/index.php?showtopic=98970

put more effort into debunking Zeitgeist than I think it's worth.

It is however interesting that while DC has a debunking mission none of its contributors are sufficiently offended by the seriously flawed nature of Zeitgeist to respond to it been cited as gospel. I guess your work load makes you very selective, or perhaps the parallels ....

Hamba kahle

GordonBlood said...

Hey if you want to use Zeitgeist as your source for ancient material on Christianity thats fine with me. Just be reminded that doing that is like reading the most young-earth creationist book available and calling it science. sigh...

Harry H. McCall said...

Akakiwibear, you stated:

Interesting that Harry has made a major life change decision based on what seems to a flawed belief in an inerrant bible ... the majority of Christians (by denomination anyway) recognise that the bible is neither inerrant or literal.

So it looks like Harry gave up Christianity for the wrong reason ... perhaps all that was needed was change denomination.

I had a discussion with Sam Harris (The End of Faith)on this issue. I agree with Sam that liberal Christianity does more harm than good in its resentation of Christianity. If mor read my last to post, I don't think I'll get "duped again, this time by the slick atheist evangelists!" I think for myself now.

Andrew:
"ultimate responsibility for our deeds."
I was once asked by a Christian (base on a claim from CS Lewis) why (as an Atheist) I was "not out stealing and raping?" If Christianity really produced moral and eithics, than why do I hear almost weekly on my local TV news that some preacher molested a child or is stealing money under the name of charity?

Hey, my dog is good without religion, and so am I!

akakiwibear said...

Harry said: "I don't think I'll get "duped again, this time by the slick atheist evangelists!" I think for myself now."

... your only reply to my point is to say you agree with Sam Harris (got ya name dropping an' all) - is that supposed to impress me? Sam Harris is the authority on what is and is not? ... now that is blind faith at work

I think my point is proven.

Be kind to your dog.

Hamba kahle - peace

Harry H. McCall said...

akakiwibear: you stated: "your only reply to my point is to say you agree with Sam Harris (got ya name dropping an' all) - is that supposed to impress me? Sam Harris is the authority on what is and is not? ... now that is blind faith at work "

Name dropping to the layman is known as footnoting sources in academic discussion. Sam Harris...lets give credit where credit is due (unlike the Biblical authors). Since Sam is the target for debates and attacks, it is obvious he is viewed as an authority on anti-religion by many.

akakiwibear said...

There is a big difference between an activist and an authority.

Still no reply to my first comment?

Harry H. McCall said...

OK Akaiwbear: "Since Christian doctrine was being developed during the currency of such language and philosophical discussion would it not have struck you as odd if an alternative frame of reference had been used?"

Not odd in that Christianity (as I stated with references to the 3 Greek Lexicons) used the Greek language which came with a price; the terms and symbols of the so-called pagan world. (And, by the way, I view the term “pagan” just like the racial term “nigger”; a term used by Christian apologists to degrade valid Greco-Rome religious traditions.)

Akaiwbear simply look up a Greek word taken over by the Church Fathers and compare it back in time to the classical Greek lexicon. This was one of my points in my first post.

akakiwibear said...

Harry, we seem to be a cross purposes - Not odd in that Christianity (as I stated with references to the 3 Greek Lexicons) used the Greek language which came with a price; the terms and symbols of the so-called pagan world.

I agree, why would they not have used Greek, why invent a new vocabulary?

Peace

Harry H. McCall said...

Akakiwibear: Chrisitianity emerged with the Classical Greek tradition. The Aramaic / Semitic world expressed in the language Jesus and his apostles was now eclipsed with the Greek terms (Hellinistic) terms of myth and logic.

Harry H. McCall said...

akakiwibear lets dig deeper academically and see how the Greek language was already at work more than 250 years before Jesus and Paul. It is highly significant that most all quotations in the New Testament or not taken from the Hebrew text, but for a text written in the Hellenistic city of Alexandria, Egypt: The home of Philo and Origens (known for his Hexapla). This Greek Old Testament (know as the Septuagint (LXX)) renders God in a language suited for the push west into Asia Minor or the Greco-Roman empire. As to you specific question, had Christianity not used Paul’s Hellenistic rhetoric, the Gospel of Christ would have died with Jesus and thus the failure I discussed in my first post.
The Aramaic / Semitic language of Jesus could have continued on after his and Paul’s death via the Targum and into the early Church by way of the Syraic text of the Peshitta as neither of these Semitic languages had the backing of the Greek philosophical tradition.

You seem to confuse the subject of my post about religious terms into the Greek language as a secondary random event. Not so. Greek was the only language Christianity could continue to growth and it was thus so chosen over the limited languages of West Semitic.
Want Proof? Why did the Christian message fail to the east, north and further south of Palestine? They did not speak Greek and have the Classical philosophical tradition!

akakiwibear said...

Harry, your post is clearly intended to discredit Christianity .. OK .. and you infer that adopting the Greek language contributes to discrediting Christianity.
"Every major Greek theological term and concept the New Testament and Early Church used to create his or her religious doctrine was taken directly from the Classical “pagan” world. Here are a few: God (Greek: Theos) Church, Faith, Prayer, Salvation, Gospel, Heaven, Hell, Sin, .... "

You have produced no argument to substantiate that use of the Greek language in any way demeans Christianity - in fact you seem to concur with my original comment that the use of Greek was to be expected ..."Greek was the only language Christianity could continue to growth and it was thus so chosen over the limited languages of West Semitic."

Since we seem to agree, I accept that I must confess to being confused by your original post. I still am. It conveys no clear explanation for what you state to be a central reason for leaving Christianity. You seem to have based your decision on a flawed position.

Lets get back to your main reason:

A. (there is no B) Use of Greek terms - that you acknowledge is to be expected "Greek was the only language Christianity could continue to growth and it was thus so chosen over the limited languages of West Semitic."

I certainly see no problem in adopting the "currency" of the day to expound Christianity - even if this results in the inevitable semantic parallels with the other religions of the time. - you put it this way ... used the Greek language which came with a price; the terms and symbols of the so-called pagan world. OK so there was a price – did that to some measure influence the way the message of Christianity was transmitted? – yes, translation and language has that effect – no surprise there and hardly a reason to throw the toys out of the playpen.

You appear to see problems for the emerging & evolving Christian religion in comments like “The symbol used in the Book of Revelation of the seven- headed beast (Rev. 13) was a concept already about 1000 years old when the writer of this Christian book chose to plagiarize it Why should it bother anyone? Simple logic says that the use of an image understood by the person being communicated to will improve understanding over an image totally foreign to them.
Perhaps you feel that because this is presented as a vision from God, that God should have used a different image – I guess you could argue that till you have run out of images - but it what way does it distract from Christianity?

Your comment Why did the Christian message fail to the east, north and further south of Palestine? They did not speak Greek and have the Classical philosophical tradition! highlights a need for a ready means of communication – fairly obvious really – yet you seem to see it as distracting from Christianity. Greek seems like as good a choice of language for that time as any other – its just practical.

As for your many reference to biblical accuracy, I restate my earlier point: Interesting that Harry has made a major life change decision based on what seems to a flawed belief in an inerrant bible ... the majority of Christians (by denomination anyway) recognise that the bible is neither inerrant or literal. - I can’t put it any simpler

Hamba kahle - peace

Harry H. McCall said...

Akakiwibear: You have produced no argument to substantiate that use of the Greek language in any way demeans Christianity.

Thus you re-enforce my thesis that Christianity was just one of many religious traditions in the Greco-Roman world as it spread west with just simple repackaged and restated themes. But counter to this, I have been told by repeatedly by Christian professors: “While other religions have some of the truth, Christianity has ALL the truth.” All of what? How the world was formed? Just another religious idea gleamed from its religious neighbors such as found in Akkadian texts like the Enuma Elis. How morally and ethically humans should live? The law codes of the ancient Near East and the Greek stories of Homer do that. That a sacrifice is needed (animal or human) to atone for sins and appease some god? Blood atonement (including human sacrifice) was standard not only in Israel’s Semitic world, the Greco-Roman world, but even with the indigenous people of Central and South America. In fact akakiwibear, as the writer of Ecclesiastes laments, “Is there anything new under the sun?” No there is not, just repackaged religious traditions.

My point is that the Bible and Christianity are no “truer” that any other ancient growing religious traditions, just a greener religious tradition which was able to repackage and reformulate its self with the language tools around it. With no Copyrights or Patens on religious ideas, any and everything is up for grabs.

You stated: “As for your many reference to biblical accuracy, I restate my earlier point: Interesting that Harry has made a major life change decision based on what seems to a flawed belief in an inerrant bible ... the majority of Christians (by denomination anyway) recognise that the bible is neither inerrant or literal. - I can’t put it any simpler.”

Akakiwibear, my religious tradition was in the Southern Baptist Convention where I preached, taught Sunday School classes and lived the Baptist “Canon Law Code” better know as the “Baptist Faith and Message” which states very defiantly that “the Bible is the inerrant word of God.” Just look at the purge of liberal professors from their seminaries, colleges and Bible schools. Akakiwibear, why was I brought before a Sunday School Board 3 times and told not to teach outside of the Southern Baptist Quarterly. I’m not sure where you live, but I live in the “Buckle on the Bible Belt” where the 99% of the preachers on the Christian AM stations would strongly beg to differ with your views on the Bible. As Bob Jones, Jr. of BJU would say: akakiwibear “has sold out wholesale to compromise and apostasy.”

While I admire your views on the Bible and Christianity, you would be strongly resisted and even attacked here in the upstate of S.C.

In the end, I restate my original post to…not to akakiwibear, but to the Southern Baptist Convention, Christian 660 Talk radio with programs like “Truth Talk Live”, “The Christian World View”, R.C. Sproll, and the rest of the Bible inerrancy broadcasted daily on the AM stations here in my area which were sent a copy of my post and refused to even attempt to answer it. This is the context of my dialogue and not you.

SpongJohn SquarePantheist said...

"Even if the text of Deuteronomy 18 is dated into the Josianic reforms, Yahweh Himself has both prohibited and accepted human sacrifice as a burnt offering!"

Read Gill's commentary. She was probably forced to lead a life of virginity, in which case your argument falls flat. Assuming she was literally sacrificed, you are reading something into the text that is not there when you say "Yahweh... accepted human sacrifice". This is a narrative and not a didactic passage - this is an elementary difference you should know about.

Harry H. McCall said...

SpongJohn, Correction in your quote. I stated: “they never explain why an earlier text such as Deuteronomy 18:10 is not followed or accepted by Yahweh Himself in a much latter time/text such as the burning of Jephthah’s daughter in Judges 11:29-40”.

That “She was PROBABLY forced to lead a life of virginity” really? In an ancient Near Eastern patriarchal society where a barren womb is view as a curse of Yahweh…Not!

Yahweh DID accept human sacrifice! Just look at what happen to Achan and his entire estate in Joshua 7: 19-26 “and they burnt them with fire” as a sacrifice unto Yahweh. Earlier, in verse 15, the Hebrew word for “ban” is for a burnt (including human) offering.

I’m not sure who Ms. Gill is, but it would be good for her to read “Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel” by Frank Moore Cross: Hancock Professor of Hebrew and Other Oriental Languages, Emeritus, Harvard University.