I just want to comment on your post and say I am impressed with your sense of curiosity and desire to expand your understanding of such topics as you mention.
I have a very simple bit of advice for you with your journey in understanding. Number one keep in mind many things in life are seen from a variety of perspectives and many times issues are not a matter of who is right and who is wrong with a given topic. You mentioned your friend who is "hardcore Christian" This is why I said the former concerning right and wrong. Keep in mind a great quality of learning is sharing differing views with respect and dignity. Discussion of multiple views can really grow or foster understanding on all sides of a debate. After all it is not really a debate rather communication and understanding which lead to wisdom in the end.
I would submit that one thing to consider with all things in life is the concept of "meaning". By this I mean to say you can evaluate ideas and weigh them in terms of construct and how ideas play in accordance with other coefficients. Many people ignore or don't think about the role meaning has regarding a vast array of topics in life.
Deeply held beliefs are not or should not be bought and held to by force or pressure but rather personal findings which generate the belief. We all have our experiences and they vary from person to person. It is a good thing this reality of diversity in experience and thus belief.
If I can serve you in any way it would be to suggest that you explore the world and the information available to you to find the meaning that will give authentic authority to your beliefs however they play out in time.
Ask questions is my motto and by reading your post I have no doubt you are one to do just that. I wish you the best in your journey to understand. Wisdom comes from understanding and time.
1st: Gensis 3: 15 is the first prophecy of the virgin birth.
Let's see:
Quote:
בראשית ג טו
ואיבה אשית בינך ובין האשה ובין זרעך ובין זרעה הוא ישופך ראש ואתה תשופנו עקב
«I shall put hostility between you and between the woman and between your seed and between her seed, he will hit you on the head and you will hit him on the heel.»
(God talking to the serpent).
Not a hint of anything remotely reminescent of a ?virgin birth?.
Quote:
Originally posted by Fangorn
as seed of the woman, the virgin birth was prefigured. It's still an older reference.
Not at all.
The ancient Hebrews (unlike the modern ones) didn't know about the ovum, so they thought that the woman also had seed of her own, which, when combined with the man's semen would result in conception.
Not a hint of anything remotely reminescent of a ?virgin birth?.
Not at all.
The ancient Hebrews (unlike the modern ones) didn't know about the ovum, so they thought that the woman also had seed of her own, which, when combined with the man's semen would result in conception.
The idea of a " Virgin Birth " is not unique to Christian faith.
Predecessors include Buddha, Hercules ( via Zeus ) Karna, ( Krishna' s Cousin ) Mithra, Osiris, Zoraster etc.
Furthermore,
There is some grounds to argue that the concept of " Virgin Birth" has come to be misunderstood in that it originally meant the first conception / birth given to a " virgin " in the sense that it signified the mother's status as " Virgin to the first born " & not an immaculate conception without a man's part in the " Knowing of her in a biblical way "
Socially, a woman thus having a second child would have lost this "Virgin-Birth " tag.
The ancient Hebrews (unlike the modern ones) didn't know about the ovum, so they thought that the woman also had seed of her own, which, when combined with the man's semen would result in conception.
Actually, I don't know if that's correct, mainly because, women were thought to be " barren " or " fertile " in that is was customarily believed that the Man was the only one containing " seed " & that the woman was merely the " ground " into which that seed was sown..
This had a bearing on the ideas that women were " Vessels " to be sold or traded along with other goods and chattels..
Also, I recall Onan was punished by God for having spilled his seed on the ground..Genesis 38-1-30
(1) as seed of the woman, the virgin birth was prefigured. It's still an older reference.
(2) Gen. 20: 12, "And yet indeed she is my sister; she is the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother; and she became my wife." This was the incident with Abimelech, much like pharaoh. (It must have been one heck of a society where one lived in fear that more powerful men would kill you for your wife.) But then scripture never attributes perfection to Abraham, only that Abraham had faith in God and God counted it to Abraham as righteousness.
1)Believe me when I tell you that any competent Egyptologist would laugh you out of his or her office If you attempted to predate Hebrew Religion and culture relative to Egyptian culture. It is clear you have no clue as to the antiquity of Egyptian culture. NOt my fault though.
2) That Gen 20 quotetation, specifically contradicts that of Genesis 12. Where sarai..renamed Sarah is specifically stated to be Abr(ah)am's fathers daughter in law.
So not only is Abraham a liar, but teh Book of Gensis has yet another contradiction.
The idea of a " Virgin Birth " is not unique to Christian faith.
Certainly.
The idea of a ?virgin birth? was the opposite of unique, as it was very common in all pantheist and polytheist religions of the ancient world to have virgins impregnated by über-beings. However, as such this idea was frowned upon by the Hebrew religion since its beginning.
So, given how ancient and widespread it was, an attempt to assess the exact origin of the notion of ?virgin birth? in the ancient world is a futile one, trying to tie it to the one religion which distiguished itself by rejecting and dismissing such notions is silly.
Quote:
Quote:
Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein
The ancient Hebrews (unlike the modern ones) didn't know about the ovum, so they thought that the woman also had seed of her own, which, when combined with the man's semen would result in conception.
Originally posted by aquafire
Actually, I don't know if that's correct,?
The expression ?seed of a woman? is not unique to that particular portion of Genesis, and is found in many ancient Hebrew texts referring to what I described.
I think you guys are being superficial here. The idea of Christ, the Johannine god-man prototype, is unique. The Egyptian chain of being is rather different.
I think you guys are being superficial here. The idea of Christ, the Johannine god-man prototype, is unique. The Egyptian chain of being is rather different.
I suppose impregnating your mother and giving birth to yourself is pretty...unique...
It's just that man, God (or the gods) were all aspects of one continuous being. The "Logos" concept more or less put forward by John is not like that at all. Pharaoh was more of less the focal point between man and the gods. The Logos speaks absoute order, or truth, to a creation that has a clean break from God.
2) That Gen 20 quotetation, specifically contradicts that of Genesis 12. Where sarai..renamed Sarah is specifically stated to be Abr(ah)am's fathers daughter in law.
So not only is Abraham a liar, but teh Book of Gensis has yet another contradiction.
You have issues. Sarah married Abraham. Sarah was Abraham's half sister. Thus, Sarah was Terah's daughter and daughter-in-law. I fail to see the contradiction.
Quote:
Originally posted by Sondjata
1)Believe me when I tell you that any competent Egyptologist would laugh you out of his or her office If you attempted to predate Hebrew Religion and culture relative to Egyptian culture. It is clear you have no clue as to the antiquity of Egyptian culture. NOt my fault though.
Your point is rather confused. Israel wasn?t a nation until after Jacob and probably shouldn?t be dated as a nation until about 1700 B.C. when his children had children. Scripture indeed reinforces Egyptian antiquity, given that it was already a nation when Abraham was called out of Ur. But Egyptian "antiquity" is irrelevant. The first promise of a Savior was delivered to Eve, thus all mankind, not the nation of Israel. The promise to Abraham was a) to make him a nation, not that he was one, and b) again, addressed to all mankind. Furthermore, God has not limited Himself to the nation of Israel. Thus God spoke to Pharaoh through dream(s) (Gen. 41: 17-); used Balaam as his prophet (Num. 22); and sent dreams to Nebuchadnezzar (Dan. 2 and others). Thus says the Psalmist: The earth is the Lord?s, and the fulness thereof; the world, and they that dwell therein. For he hath founded it upon the seas, and established it upon the floods. (Psalm 24:1-2)
Your obvious hostility to Judaism and Christianity doesn't help your argument any.
It's just that man, God (or the gods) were all aspects of one continuous being. The "Logos" concept more or less put forward by John is not like that at all. Pharaoh was more of less the focal point between man and the gods. The Logos speaks absoute order, or truth, to a creation that has a clean break from God.
The Pharoah's have absolutly nothign to do with the stuff i posted.
Besides If that is what john was writing than as a disciple of Jesus he sure had some very non-religious ideas in his head.
Anyways. Maat is the Egyptian definition of truth, order, balance and harmony. In thier creation, Maat as Ma-a is the foundation of all creation.
Maat is the Egyptian definition of truth, order, balance and harmony. In thier creation, Maat as Ma-a is the foundation of all creation.
This is just one aspect of that chain of being, and the pharaoh is just one aspect of how that type of metaphysics expresses itself for that culture. There is no break in their chain of being.
To put it in very simple terms, man was able to become one with the gods by works of righteousness.
You have issues. Sarah married Abraham. Sarah was Abraham's half sister. Thus, Sarah was Terah's daughter and daughter-in-law. I fail to see the contradiction.
Clue number one. The statement that Sarah was Abraham's sister comes fully 8 chapters after Sarai is said to be Terah's daughter in law. No-where before that statement is sarai said to be abraham's sister in any capacity. There was ample opportunity when they went through the generations. But it is never stated. It would have made more sense, and indeed made Abraham's character more "truthfull" to make this statement of relation PRIOR to Abraham's stay in Egypt. Rather Genesis 12 ( as written) is a rather lame attempt to cover up a rather obvious problem. It is similar to when Adam and Eve are created and later it is said:
Genesis 5:2 -" Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created."
Clearly the writers of Genesis were not as familiar with the original story or that "mistake." would not have been made. But that's the problem with most Christians; they don't know what's to be taken literally and what's to be taken figuratively.
Your point is rather confused. Israel wasn?t a nation until after Jacob and probably shouldn?t be dated as a nation until about 1700 B.C. when his children had children. Scripture indeed reinforces Egyptian antiquity, given that it was already a nation when Abraham was called out of Ur. But Egyptian "antiquity" is irrelevant. The first promise of a Savior was delivered to Eve, thus all mankind, not the nation of Israel. The promise to Abraham was a) to make him a nation, not that he was one, and b) again, addressed to all mankind. Furthermore, God has not limited Himself to the nation of Israel. Thus God spoke to Pharaoh through dream(s) (Gen. 41: 17-); used Balaam as his prophet (Num. 22); and sent dreams to Nebuchadnezzar (Dan. 2 and others). Thus says the Psalmist: The earth is the Lord?s, and the fulness thereof; the world, and they that dwell therein. For he hath founded it upon the seas, and established it upon the floods. (Psalm 24:1-2)
Actually YOUR point is confused. Any competent Egyptologist will predate not only Egyptian civilization, but also it's religion as well. For example the Pyramids are religious symbols not only tombs, And appear in Upper Egypt/Ethiopia prior to Pharaoh Menes. That Egyptian religion predates any Hebrew religion is significant. Your mistake, as is usual for Christians is to believe that the Bible is an accurate account of Humanities origins and development and that it's stories are in fact accurate accounts of history. It is not. This fundamental flaw in your reasoning.
Oh yes and given that all recent evidence back the claim of the beginings of Humanity dead smack in the Rift Valley of East Africa. The Rift Valley's proximity to Ethiopia and Ethiopia's proximity to Egypt, It stands to figure that the Egyptians would have a leg up on the story of creation as supposedly witnessed by Adam.
Also, FCiB she doesn't have a firm grasp of the metaphysics involved---kinda spinning her wheels there. Christian metaphysics is so basic to Western thought that there is a tendency to take a cursory reading of Ancient cultures and their religions and assume that the metaphysics are the same.
But when you are dealing with people who make up there own version of morality as well as their own version of Egyptian metaphysics, it's problematic that civility is optional.
Comments
Originally posted by dieselG4
I am quite interested in this poll/thread....
Welcome to the AI boards dieselG4,
I just want to comment on your post and say I am impressed with your sense of curiosity and desire to expand your understanding of such topics as you mention.
I have a very simple bit of advice for you with your journey in understanding. Number one keep in mind many things in life are seen from a variety of perspectives and many times issues are not a matter of who is right and who is wrong with a given topic. You mentioned your friend who is "hardcore Christian" This is why I said the former concerning right and wrong. Keep in mind a great quality of learning is sharing differing views with respect and dignity. Discussion of multiple views can really grow or foster understanding on all sides of a debate. After all it is not really a debate rather communication and understanding which lead to wisdom in the end.
I would submit that one thing to consider with all things in life is the concept of "meaning". By this I mean to say you can evaluate ideas and weigh them in terms of construct and how ideas play in accordance with other coefficients. Many people ignore or don't think about the role meaning has regarding a vast array of topics in life.
Deeply held beliefs are not or should not be bought and held to by force or pressure but rather personal findings which generate the belief. We all have our experiences and they vary from person to person. It is a good thing this reality of diversity in experience and thus belief.
If I can serve you in any way it would be to suggest that you explore the world and the information available to you to find the meaning that will give authentic authority to your beliefs however they play out in time.
Ask questions is my motto and by reading your post I have no doubt you are one to do just that. I wish you the best in your journey to understand. Wisdom comes from understanding and time.
I wish you the very best,
Fellowship
Originally posted by Fangorn
1st: Gensis 3: 15 is the first prophecy of the virgin birth.
Let's see:
בראשית ג טו
ואיבה אשית בינך ובין האשה ובין זרעך ובין זרעה הוא ישופך ראש ואתה תשופנו עקב
«I shall put hostility between you and between the woman and between your seed and between her seed, he will hit you on the head and you will hit him on the heel.»
(God talking to the serpent).
Not a hint of anything remotely reminescent of a ?virgin birth?.
Originally posted by Fangorn
as seed of the woman, the virgin birth was prefigured. It's still an older reference.
Not at all.
The ancient Hebrews (unlike the modern ones) didn't know about the ovum, so they thought that the woman also had seed of her own, which, when combined with the man's semen would result in conception.
Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein
Let's see:
(God talking to the serpent).
Not a hint of anything remotely reminescent of a ?virgin birth?.
Not at all.
The ancient Hebrews (unlike the modern ones) didn't know about the ovum, so they thought that the woman also had seed of her own, which, when combined with the man's semen would result in conception.
The idea of a " Virgin Birth " is not unique to Christian faith.
Predecessors include Buddha, Hercules ( via Zeus ) Karna, ( Krishna' s Cousin ) Mithra, Osiris, Zoraster etc.
Furthermore,
There is some grounds to argue that the concept of " Virgin Birth" has come to be misunderstood in that it originally meant the first conception / birth given to a " virgin " in the sense that it signified the mother's status as " Virgin to the first born " & not an immaculate conception without a man's part in the " Knowing of her in a biblical way "
Socially, a woman thus having a second child would have lost this "Virgin-Birth " tag.
Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein
The ancient Hebrews (unlike the modern ones) didn't know about the ovum, so they thought that the woman also had seed of her own, which, when combined with the man's semen would result in conception.
Actually, I don't know if that's correct, mainly because, women were thought to be " barren " or " fertile " in that is was customarily believed that the Man was the only one containing " seed " & that the woman was merely the " ground " into which that seed was sown..
This had a bearing on the ideas that women were " Vessels " to be sold or traded along with other goods and chattels..
Also, I recall Onan was punished by God for having spilled his seed on the ground..Genesis 38-1-30
Originally posted by Fangorn
(1) as seed of the woman, the virgin birth was prefigured. It's still an older reference.
(2) Gen. 20: 12, "And yet indeed she is my sister; she is the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother; and she became my wife." This was the incident with Abimelech, much like pharaoh. (It must have been one heck of a society where one lived in fear that more powerful men would kill you for your wife.) But then scripture never attributes perfection to Abraham, only that Abraham had faith in God and God counted it to Abraham as righteousness.
1)Believe me when I tell you that any competent Egyptologist would laugh you out of his or her office If you attempted to predate Hebrew Religion and culture relative to Egyptian culture. It is clear you have no clue as to the antiquity of Egyptian culture. NOt my fault though.
2) That Gen 20 quotetation, specifically contradicts that of Genesis 12. Where sarai..renamed Sarah is specifically stated to be Abr(ah)am's fathers daughter in law.
So not only is Abraham a liar, but teh Book of Gensis has yet another contradiction.
Originally posted by aquafire
The idea of a " Virgin Birth " is not unique to Christian faith.
Certainly.
The idea of a ?virgin birth? was the opposite of unique, as it was very common in all pantheist and polytheist religions of the ancient world to have virgins impregnated by über-beings. However, as such this idea was frowned upon by the Hebrew religion since its beginning.
So, given how ancient and widespread it was, an attempt to assess the exact origin of the notion of ?virgin birth? in the ancient world is a futile one, trying to tie it to the one religion which distiguished itself by rejecting and dismissing such notions is silly.
Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein
The ancient Hebrews (unlike the modern ones) didn't know about the ovum, so they thought that the woman also had seed of her own, which, when combined with the man's semen would result in conception.
Originally posted by aquafire
Actually, I don't know if that's correct,?
The expression ?seed of a woman? is not unique to that particular portion of Genesis, and is found in many ancient Hebrew texts referring to what I described.
Originally posted by ena
I think you guys are being superficial here. The idea of Christ, the Johannine god-man prototype, is unique. The Egyptian chain of being is rather different.
I suppose impregnating your mother and giving birth to yourself is pretty...unique...
Originally posted by Sondjata
unique how? in it's presentation? Maybe.
It's just that man, God (or the gods) were all aspects of one continuous being. The "Logos" concept more or less put forward by John is not like that at all. Pharaoh was more of less the focal point between man and the gods. The Logos speaks absoute order, or truth, to a creation that has a clean break from God.
Originally posted by Sondjata
2) That Gen 20 quotetation, specifically contradicts that of Genesis 12. Where sarai..renamed Sarah is specifically stated to be Abr(ah)am's fathers daughter in law.
So not only is Abraham a liar, but teh Book of Gensis has yet another contradiction.
You have issues. Sarah married Abraham. Sarah was Abraham's half sister. Thus, Sarah was Terah's daughter and daughter-in-law. I fail to see the contradiction.
Originally posted by Sondjata
1)Believe me when I tell you that any competent Egyptologist would laugh you out of his or her office If you attempted to predate Hebrew Religion and culture relative to Egyptian culture. It is clear you have no clue as to the antiquity of Egyptian culture. NOt my fault though.
Your point is rather confused. Israel wasn?t a nation until after Jacob and probably shouldn?t be dated as a nation until about 1700 B.C. when his children had children. Scripture indeed reinforces Egyptian antiquity, given that it was already a nation when Abraham was called out of Ur. But Egyptian "antiquity" is irrelevant. The first promise of a Savior was delivered to Eve, thus all mankind, not the nation of Israel. The promise to Abraham was a) to make him a nation, not that he was one, and b) again, addressed to all mankind. Furthermore, God has not limited Himself to the nation of Israel. Thus God spoke to Pharaoh through dream(s) (Gen. 41: 17-); used Balaam as his prophet (Num. 22); and sent dreams to Nebuchadnezzar (Dan. 2 and others). Thus says the Psalmist: The earth is the Lord?s, and the fulness thereof; the world, and they that dwell therein. For he hath founded it upon the seas, and established it upon the floods. (Psalm 24:1-2)
Your obvious hostility to Judaism and Christianity doesn't help your argument any.
Originally posted by ena
It's just that man, God (or the gods) were all aspects of one continuous being. The "Logos" concept more or less put forward by John is not like that at all. Pharaoh was more of less the focal point between man and the gods. The Logos speaks absoute order, or truth, to a creation that has a clean break from God.
The Pharoah's have absolutly nothign to do with the stuff i posted.
Besides If that is what john was writing than as a disciple of Jesus he sure had some very non-religious ideas in his head.
Anyways. Maat is the Egyptian definition of truth, order, balance and harmony. In thier creation, Maat as Ma-a is the foundation of all creation.
Originally posted by Sondjata
Maat is the Egyptian definition of truth, order, balance and harmony. In thier creation, Maat as Ma-a is the foundation of all creation.
This is just one aspect of that chain of being, and the pharaoh is just one aspect of how that type of metaphysics expresses itself for that culture. There is no break in their chain of being.
To put it in very simple terms, man was able to become one with the gods by works of righteousness.
Originally posted by Fangorn
You have issues. Sarah married Abraham. Sarah was Abraham's half sister. Thus, Sarah was Terah's daughter and daughter-in-law. I fail to see the contradiction.
Clue number one. The statement that Sarah was Abraham's sister comes fully 8 chapters after Sarai is said to be Terah's daughter in law. No-where before that statement is sarai said to be abraham's sister in any capacity. There was ample opportunity when they went through the generations. But it is never stated. It would have made more sense, and indeed made Abraham's character more "truthfull" to make this statement of relation PRIOR to Abraham's stay in Egypt. Rather Genesis 12 ( as written) is a rather lame attempt to cover up a rather obvious problem. It is similar to when Adam and Eve are created and later it is said:
Genesis 5:2 -" Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created."
Clearly the writers of Genesis were not as familiar with the original story or that "mistake." would not have been made. But that's the problem with most Christians; they don't know what's to be taken literally and what's to be taken figuratively.
Your point is rather confused. Israel wasn?t a nation until after Jacob and probably shouldn?t be dated as a nation until about 1700 B.C. when his children had children. Scripture indeed reinforces Egyptian antiquity, given that it was already a nation when Abraham was called out of Ur. But Egyptian "antiquity" is irrelevant. The first promise of a Savior was delivered to Eve, thus all mankind, not the nation of Israel. The promise to Abraham was a) to make him a nation, not that he was one, and b) again, addressed to all mankind. Furthermore, God has not limited Himself to the nation of Israel. Thus God spoke to Pharaoh through dream(s) (Gen. 41: 17-); used Balaam as his prophet (Num. 22); and sent dreams to Nebuchadnezzar (Dan. 2 and others). Thus says the Psalmist: The earth is the Lord?s, and the fulness thereof; the world, and they that dwell therein. For he hath founded it upon the seas, and established it upon the floods. (Psalm 24:1-2)
Actually YOUR point is confused. Any competent Egyptologist will predate not only Egyptian civilization, but also it's religion as well. For example the Pyramids are religious symbols not only tombs, And appear in Upper Egypt/Ethiopia prior to Pharaoh Menes. That Egyptian religion predates any Hebrew religion is significant. Your mistake, as is usual for Christians is to believe that the Bible is an accurate account of Humanities origins and development and that it's stories are in fact accurate accounts of history. It is not. This fundamental flaw in your reasoning.
Fellowship
But when you are dealing with people who make up there own version of morality as well as their own version of Egyptian metaphysics, it's problematic that civility is optional.