Posted on 12/29/2013 1:56:59 AM PST by GonzoII
Tim Staples believes that? Or someone you know? Or who?
I don’t know what Tim Staples believes. However, the book of Genesis and some of the stories there are also found in the Epic of Gilgamesh which contains the fall of Man, A Flood, an Ark built with specific dimensions that contained all the animals of the earth, a Tree with the Fruit of eternal life, stolen by a snake, the release of a bird from the ark, and offering to God [in Genesis] to the Gods in Gilgamesh.
So there are some similarities in book of Genesis and the Epic of Gilgamesh. that does not shatter my faith because I believe the underlying theology of Genesis and its prefiguration of Christ is the theological perspective that gives Divine truths.
So Zionist, have you read the Epic of Gilgamesh?
I like this one
Consider these historical facts:
1. St. Irenaeus, writing in AD 180, saw Christ’s conception as being on March 25th and; therefore, the Feast Day of the Nativity would fall nine months later on December 25.
Supposedly this guy Irenaeus make this claim...
2. We’ve already seen St. Hippolytus do the same in ca. AD 200.
20 years later, someone copies what Irenaeus supposedly said...
3. Julius Africanus repeats this in AD 221, in his Chronographai.
And 21 years after that, another copycat from the same group...
4. By the fourth century, there is little doubt in the Christian world as to when Christ was born. St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Augustine and more would begin a symphonic proclamation.
And that my friends is how history is made...One guy copying what someone else said...But then we have a blip on the radar screen...
For these and other reasons, modern scholar, S.E. Hijmans, admits:
While they (the Christians) were aware that pagans called this day the “birthday of Sol Invictus,” this did not concern them and it did not play any role in their choice of date for Christmas (Hijmans, S.E., Sol, the Sun in the Art and Religions of Rome, p. 595).
Yup...Uh hum...Sure thing Jethro...
2. The rapid diffusion of this custom proved its genuineness via the “sensus fidelium,” i.e., the “sense of the faithful” that will not steer the church awry.
So there you have it...It's genuine history since the Catholic religion wouldn't steer anybody wrong...(So says the Catholic religion)...
You two don’t think that a scholar giving a precise date in AD 180 is an evidence of anything?
Interesting that the our 9th month September (=7) is the 7th month of the Jewish calendar...October, our 10th month (=octagon=8) is the eighth month of the Jewish calendar...
I don't know about November but our 12th month, December, =Deci.=10...Our December is the 10th month of the Jewish calendar...
No, we should just all listen to Iscool and his views. Yes right.
I am amazed how people like you read the Bible and think they have it all right and those within 100 to 150 years of the Apostles got everything wrong...
There were different calendars being used by the Jews, Egyptians, the Romans had their calendar, etc. St. CLement of Alexandria gives an account in his work in 200 AD. St. Hippoytus of Rome in 205AD gives his account. Given the fact that by the time a later monk tried to set the calendar based on Christ’ Birth, there were some miscalculations so the dates are somewhat off.
Still, the Church did get Christ Death pretty close dating it in Late March and Early Spring. Most Scholars now put Christ Death in either 30 or 33 AD, most likely around what we would say is April 5 to 7. So the March 25 date is a few days off.
Two traditions emerged, in the Greek East, January 6 and in the West December 25. Today, these 2 dates are linked into the Christmas Liturgical season. As stated in an earlier thread, St. Clement of Alexandria in Stromates Book 21 Chapter 21 gives 3 dates that various CHristians in Alexandria celebrate Christmas, one of them corresponds to our January hence where the January 6 Fest of the Epiphany came from.
Most of the Church Fathers believed in the theology of the integral age where a great King-Prophet’s birth or conception and death were on the same date and as alluded to earlier, that date of Christ Death was believed to be March 25. So if Christ was conceived on that date, 9 months puts his birth and Christmas at December 25.
The Church Fathers by setting these Feasts at the times they set, March 25, the Feast of the Annunication [Incarnation, the light of the word is conceived], Pascha [Easter], the Resurrection occurring in the spring and Christ Birth [between December 25 to January 6] in the Winter, darkest time of the year allowed the Church Fathers to point out that the Cosmos points to Christ and they could then challenge the Sun Cult of Mithras [see Pope Benedict in Spirit of Liturgy, p. 108]
Pope Benedict cites St. Jerome in preached a Christmas sermon stating “Even creation approves our preaching. The Universe bears witness to the truth of our words. Up to this day dark days increase but from this day the darkness decreases..The Light advances while night retreats” He also quotes St. Augustine and a Christmas Sermon “Brethren rejoice. The Heathen, too, may still make merry, for this day concecrates for us, not the visible sun, but the sun’s invisible Creator”
Pope Benedict notes that the Church Fathers constantly used Psalm 19 which speaks of the Sun manifesting God’s Glory and Law and they applied this Psalm to the Christmas Liturgy and their sermons stating the sun, that is CHrist, is like a bridegroom coming forth from his chamber
In summary, you constantly never disappoint and your religion and is ultimately one constructed by you apart from the many orthodox Christians who came thousands of years before you.
It's evidence alrighty. This early century blogger Irenaeus had an opinion . . a thought or perhaps a feeling about something he thought was important and wrote it down. It has nothing to do with the Salvation message and is a distraction from it. Therefore it needs shelved and read by those who have nothing better in their life but to speculate on the unproveable and trivial.
I think the title is wrongly phrased. By definition, Jesus was born on Christmas Day. They mean to question whether h was born on December 25th.
Your home at Christmas sounds lovely. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!
So?
So there are some similarities in book of Genesis and the Epic of Gilgamesh. that does not shatter my faith because I believe the underlying theology of Genesis and its prefiguration of Christ is the theological perspective that gives Divine truths.
It doesn't shatter your faith because the Bible never meant anything to you to begin with other than as chr*stological allegory.
So Zionist, have you read the Epic of Gilgamesh?
No. Do you name yourself after the Council of Trent because your belief in the documentary hypothesis is exactly the same as that of the Council fathers? Certainly you don't claim your beliefs differ in the slightest than those held by Catholics for two thousand years? That is what "semper idem" means, isn't it?
Meanwhile you completely ignored my point, which is that there is a dissonance between believing as you do about Genesis and then turning around and being a slobbering fundie about 12/25 and the Masonic conspiracy.
Maybe the Masons are plotting to spread Biblical literalism?
You and I are bloggers with opinions. St. Ireneaus was a bishop of a major city and a scholar, author of several books, among them the encyclopedic Adversus Haereses; we would not know half of what we do of the intellectual movement in the Early Church but for his work.
So when an author with excellent scholarly reputation mentions a precise date of an event means that he likely not pulled it out of the air, but rather knew it for a fact. That is, in other words, historical evidence.
As to your blogger opinion, a thought or perhaps a feeling about what matters and what does not matter for salvation, I don't give a rat's rear end what that might be.
No I know your point well. And you make some very strong statements about what I believe about the Bible which are absolute BS.
Your arrogance is astounding in that just because I don’t interpret the OT in the same fashion as you do does not mean the Bible does not mean anything to me.
Just who in the Hell do you think you are to make statements like that? And for the record, I have no interest in Masons and will never associate with them in the context of joining their club and I also did not go into a fundie rant although I do have serious disagreements about their doctrines on many issues.
Of course he was. We may not have the day correct so we decide on one. Problem?
Your arrogance is astounding in that just because I don’t interpret the OT in the same fashion as you do does not mean the Bible does not mean anything to me.
You haven't explained yet how higher criticism is identical to the beliefs of Catholics for two thousand years. We are talking about a totally unchanging religion, are we not? Isn't that one of the selling points? "We believe exactly as our predecessors believed about everything?" I'd really like to see your "Genesis was adapted from 'Emuna Elish'" position defended as part of that unchanging, historical belief.
Just who in the Hell do you think you are to make statements like that? And for the record, I have no interest in Masons and will never associate with them in the context of joining their club and I also did not go into a fundie rant although I do have serious disagreements about their doctrines on many issues.
I'll tell you who the "Hell" I am. I'm consistent. That's who the "Hell" I am. Unlike you Catholics with your scientific irreverence toward the Hebrew Bible and your childlike peasant fundamentalism with regard to the historical and scientific impossibilities of the "new testament."
Your church is in the shape it is today precisely because it bought into and is peddling this stuff. It deserves every Nancy Pelosi it has until it cuts out the hypocrisy.
Zacharias served as a high priest [fn](1:14) Or, tabernacled; i.e. lived temporarily The verse also provides illumination as to Shekhinah means the dwelling or settling, and denotes the dwelling
The article raises red flags "John Chrysostom" John Chrysostom was a rabid anti-semite and thus someone The rest of the article is a masterful display of Eisegesis Here is a very visual source: Just based on scripture. Again the first clue to the birth of Yah'shua is John 1:14 as cited above. OBTW Important events in the life of Yah'shua occurred Conceived as the light entering the temple (John 10:22 / John 8:12) Who knows if the final trump will occur on the Feast of Trumpets Seek YHvH in His WORD. Zacharias was not THE HIGH PRIEST, but
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
Luke 1:9 according to the custom of the priestly office,
I start by reading John 1:14 under the illumination of the Ru'ach HaKodesh.
he was chosen by lot to enter the temple of the Lord and burn incense. John 1:14 And the WORD became flesh,
The word for Tabernacle, mishkan, is a derivative of the
and [fn]dwelt among us,
and we saw His glory,
glory as of the only begotten from the Father,
full of grace and truth. σκηνόω Strong's G4637 - skēnoō
1) to fix one's tabernacle,
have one's tabernacle,
abide (or live) in a tabernacle (or tent),
tabernacle
2) to dwell
same root and is used in the sense of dwelling-place in the Bible
Yah'shua being the Shekhinah glory.
or settling of the divine presence of God, especially in the Temple in Jerusalem.
who would have hated Yah'shua the JEWISH MESSIAH
and coming King on the throne of David in Jerusalem.
ju-jitsu from many extra-scriptural sources.
Jesus' date of birth
on YHvH commanded Feast days as metaphors of the feast.
Born on the Feast of Tabernacles.(John 1:14)
Circumcised on the Feast of Simchat Torah ( Joy of the WORD)
Bread and wine of the Pesach.
Death as the Lamb of G-d on Hag Matzoh.
Rising on the Feast of First Fruits.
Sending the Ru'ach HaKodesh on the Feast of Shavuot(Pentecost).
Higher Criticism is a method of Biblical scholarship that uses modern scientific and archeological discovers that helps us understand the ancient cultures when the scriptures were written. It is a “Method” not the only method. My view of Scripture is and its interpretation is that it is to be interpreted inside the Church. For example, Pope Benedict in his Letter Verbum Domini writes:
30. Saint Jerome recalls that we can never read Scripture simply on our own. We come up against too many closed doors and we slip too easily into error. The Bible was written by the People of God for the People of God, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Only in this communion with the People of God can we truly enter as a “we” into the heart of the truth that God himself wishes to convey to us.[89] Jerome, for whom “ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ”,[90] states that the ecclesial dimension of biblical interpretation is not a requirement imposed from without: the Book is the very voice of the pilgrim People of God, and only within the faith of this People are we, so to speak, attuned to understand sacred Scripture. An authentic interpretation of the Bible must always be in harmony with the faith of the Catholic Church. He thus wrote to a priest: “Remain firmly attached to the traditional doctrine that you have been taught, so that you may exhort according to sound doctrine and confound those who contradict it”.[91]
So that is my belief about scripture. You are confusing higher criticism as it is a doctrine or dogma of the Church. For the record, IT is Not. It is a method of biblical scholarship. To the degree that it is not consistent with the Creed and Doctrine, then it is problematic, if it is used to challenge Doctrine or Dogmas that are expounded in the Creeds of the Church, for example.
So with respect to Level 1 Truths, Doctrines that are articulated again in the Creeds, those have not changed and will not change. What the ancients believed about Genesis could have been different, and there is room for difference of opinion, as long as it does not contradict central Doctrines. So if someone reads Genesis and tries to say God did not create the world from nothing, that would contradict a fundamental article of Faith. If someone denied “original sin” was the result of Human Pride and temptation from the evil one, that would contradict an fundamental Doctrine of the Faith.
Whether Genesis is a Literal 6 days or not, or whether it is an exact Scientific account and thus one has to either accept Genesis and reject Science or accept Science and reject God, I find that nonsense.
I never said Genesis was adapted from Gilgamesh. I said there were similarities. In fact, I think it actually affirms there was some primordial event in the Middle East, i.e. a Flood that occurred. The Babylonians gave their account of why it happened and the Hebrews gave an account that is the Theologically orthodox one, i.e. God who is pure existence created the world in an orderly fashion, man rebelled and thus the fall yet God promises he would send a redeemer [Gen 3:15].
I don’t have irreverence for the OT, it is that as Pope Benedict and countless theologians down thru the centuries have stated, the entire Bible, OT included, must be read with Christ, his person, his teachings, and his ministry, as the hermeneutic key.
your problem with me is that I reject how you interpret the OT, particularly Genesis. Well that is your problem. I don’t accept that “American Protestants” somehow got the key to all knowledge and somehow the King James version of the bible dropped down from Heaven sometime in the 19th century and American Fundalmentalist Protestantism has the correct interpretation of Sacred Scripture and correct Doctrine. They do have some of it but I don’t accept the American fundamentalist Protestant conflict thesis that Faith and Science are at odds and there can be no reconciling the two.
You and I have been here before. If you have problems with my views, than on this question, no need for you and I to continue on this discussion.
I read at a web site by Jack Kelly. He has an article on his site where he also says Christ was probably born in the fall of the year sometime. You can find it at gracethrufaith.com if interested.
Interesting...Curious for sure...
thanks for the link,
That's what I thought. So much for "always the same." But then, who wants to believe the same as people who live in trailer parks?
Whether Genesis is a Literal 6 days or not, or whether it is an exact Scientific account and thus one has to either accept Genesis and reject Science or accept Science and reject God, I find that nonsense.
Does it matter to you if J*sus was literally born of a virgin? That he literally worked miracles? That he literally rose from the dead? Each and every one of those things is contradictory to science. So how about it? Want to man up and be consistent? (Don't bother. I know what your answer will be.)
I never said Genesis was adapted from Gilgamesh. I said there were similarities.
And I think there are similarities between the "new testament" and other stories of demigods who die and rise again. What do you think of that? Guess you're the hillbilly and I'm the "respectable" person now.
I don’t accept that “American Protestants” somehow got the key to all knowledge and somehow the King James version of the bible dropped down from Heaven sometime in the 19th century and American Fundalmentalist Protestantism has the correct interpretation of Sacred Scripture and correct Doctrine.
Why are you bringing American Fundamentalist Protestantism and the King James Bible into this? What has that got to do with anything? And if you're so hostile to American Protestants, why are you so in love with radical German Protestants who invented higher criticism in the first place? So long as you have your head jammed up the nubbins of Wellhausen and company, don't talk to me about Protestantism.
They do have some of it but I don’t accept the American fundamentalist Protestant conflict thesis that Faith and Science are at odds and there can be no reconciling the two.
Oh come now. You won't let science tell you that it's impossible for a man to be born of a virgin (outside of some sort of artificial insemination). You're a "fundie" when it comes to that. And for your information, the creation of the universe occurred before there was a universe or natural laws, and so is completely and totally outside the purview of science. Just like the alleged "new testament miracles" you're such a fundie about.
You and I have been here before. If you have problems with my views, than on this question, no need for you and I to continue on this discussion.
If you think I'm arguing for the KJV or for American Protestantism then you don't know me at all. Until you stop arguing for radical German Protestantism you might as well stop the anti-Protestantism altogether, especially since the ancient church's rejection of the immemorial Sinaitic Tradition paved the way for Protestant rejection of the fraud that took its place.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.