Take off your sandals!!

[Andrew007]

I was looking the other day for the story of Moses and the burning bush... Wasn't the bush an angel? And if it was, the angel said "Take off your sandals, for the place where you are standing is holy ground." Isn't that like the same thing lucifer did? He thought he was worthy of praise, when we all know only 1 person is worthy of all our praise... so God cast him down with 1/3 of the angels? Or no? Maybe I have this all wrong... someone enlighten me! And tell me where to find the story! Thanks. :t:

[Blood Stained Soul]

I was looking the other day for the story of Moses and the burning bush... Wasn't the bush an angel? And if it was, the angel said "Take off your sandals, for the place where you are standing is holy ground." Isn't that like the same thing lucifer did? He thought he was worthy of praise, when we all know only 1 person is worthy of all our praise... so God cast him down with 1/3 of the angels? Or no? Maybe I have this all wrong... someone enlighten me! And tell me where to find the story! Thanks. :t:

Greetings in Christ! It was not an "angel" but the Angel of the Lord...which most scholors believe to be Christ before he left Heaven to come to Earth...this case of taking off the Sandles was in repect to the great "I AM", Now Christ made reference to this statement in the Book of John...would Jesus call himself the devil? Certainly not! This was not a case of angel worship...but LORD worship...another case of sandle taking off can be found around the 5th or sixth chapter of Joshua...hope this clears things up some for you...Blessings

[Andrew007]

Thanks Blood Stained Soul... I wasn't sure.. Do you know where the burning bush story is off hand? If not thats fine. Thanks for everything! God Bless.

[tsth]

Here you go Andrew.

Exodus 3

1 Now Moses was tending the flock of Jethro his father-in-law, the priest of Midian. And he led the flock to the back of the desert, and came to Horeb, the mountain of God. 2 And the Angel of the Lord appeared to him in a flame of fire from the midst of a bush. So he looked, and behold, the bush was burning with fire, but the bush was not consumed. 3 Then Moses said, "I will now turn aside and see this great sight, why the bush does not burn." 4 So when the Lord saw that he turned aside to look, God called to him from the midst of the bush and said, "Moses, Moses!" And he said, "Here I am." 5 Then He said, "Do not draw near this place. Take your sandals off your feet, for the place where you stand is holy ground." 6 Moreover He said, "I am the God of your father--the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob." And Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to look upon God.

In His Love,

Suzanne

[Blood Stained Soul]

Greetings in Christ! Glad I could help someone in my brief time here..anytime you got a question just drop me an email...Blessings...

[Andrew007]

Thank you so much Suzanne! God Bless. :t:

[tsth]

Your Welcome!

In His Love,

Suzanne

[nebula]

I was wondering, could "angel" be another name/term for "spirit?"

[Guest Jack Shyte]

The thesis that Jesus never existed has hovered around the fringes of

research into the New Testament for centuries but never been able to

become an accepted theory. This is for good reason, as it is simply a bad

hypothesis based on arguments from silence, special pleading and an

awful lot of wishful thinking. It is ironic that atheists will buy into

this idea and leave all their pretensions of critical thinking behind. I

will follow what has become popular usage and call people who deny

Jesus' existence 'Jesus Mythers'.

A huge amount has been written on the web and elsewhere which you can

find in the further reading section below. Not all Jesus Mythers are

lunatics and one at least, Earl Doherty, is extremely erudite and worth

reading. Nevertheless, he is still wrong and, as I have seen myself, he

reacts badly to those who demonstrate it. It is not my intention to

study the minutiae of the argument but instead focus on three central

points which are often brought up on discussion boards. These are the lack

of secular references, the alleged similarities to paganism and the

silence of Paul. Finally I want to bring all these together to show how

ideas similar to those that deny Jesus' existence can be used on

practically any ancient historical figure. With this in mind I set out to prove

that Hannibal never existed.

Roman Historians

Occasionally people ask why there is no record of Jesus in Roman

records. The answer is that there are no surviving Roman records but only

highly parochial Roman historians who had little interest in the comings

and goings of minor cults and were far more concerned about Emperors

and Kings. Jesus made a very small splash while he was alive and there

was no reason for Roman historians to notice him.

Once Christianity was established as a major cult in the Empire then

Jesus became rather more interesting and he is mentioned by Tacitus in

the early second century. However, Jesus Mythers counter this by

claiming that he could have got his information from Christians which means

his evidence is not independent. So, we have a very convenient situation

for the Jesus Mythers. Until Christianity had spread no one except

Christians would be interested in Jesus but all later records are ruled out

of court as they are tainted by association with Christianity. This

sort of special pleading is one of the reasons that modern historians have

no time for these theories as they are set up to be impossible to

disprove. In fact, Christian evidence for a human Jesus who was crucified is

trustworthy because it ran counter to the myths of the time and

suggested that he had suffered a humiliating death. If they made it up and

then suppressed the truth with clinical efficiency, why did they come up

with a story which even the Christian apologist, Tertullian, admitted

was absurd? It seems far more likely that they had a large number of

historical facts that they had to rationalise into a religion rather than

creating all these difficulties for themselves.

Sometimes Jesus Mythers will produce long lists of writers none of

whom have the slightest reason to mention an obscure Jewish miracle

worker and somehow think this strengthens their point. In fact, it has all

the relevance of picking fifty books off your local library shelf and

finding that none of them mention Carl Sagan. Does that mean he did not

exist either? Jesus was not even a failed military leader of the kind

that Romans might have noticed - especially if he had been defeated by

someone famous.

Josephus

The only historian who we might expect to mention Jesus is Josephus,

a Jew who wrote a history of his people up to 66AD, which is called

'Jewish Antiquities'. In fact, Josephus does mention Jesus twice and so

Jesus Mythers have to devote a lot of attention to attacking the relevant

passages. Their job is made easier because Josephus, a Pharisee,

probably felt nothing but contempt for Jesus which meant later Christians

tried to 'correct' his negative wording.

The majority opinion on Josephus is that the parts of the passage

from book 18 of 'Jewish Antiquities' which are in red below are the

additions of a Christian scribe trying to make Jesus appear in a better

light.

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to

call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such

men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many

of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ. And when

Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him

to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him;

for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets

had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning

him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at

this day.

Josephus, Jewish Antiquities, 18, 3, 3

To support this idea we can look at the works of the Christian father

Origen who was writing in the mid-third century. This was while

Christianity was still a minor cult with no power or influence. It was

generally ignored by the authorities as long as it kept its head down.

Therefore there is no way that Christians this early could have either

knobbled Josephus so that no undoctored copies were available or got away with

quoting something from Josephus that was not there. We have no reason

to suppose that a bright chap like Origen would even have tried and so

can be sure that the copy of Josephus he read and quoted from was

unamended by earlier Christians. We can be doubly sure of this because Origen

flatly contradicts the modern version of Josephus where the Jewish

historian is made to say Jesus was the Messiah. Origen makes clear he said

no such thing.

What use would the early fathers have had for a passage in Josephus

saying Jesus was not the Messiah? An educated Jew saying this would not

be helpful in an apologetic sense as it would demonstrate that the

prophecies in the Old Testament were not nearly as clear cut as early

Christians would have liked to have believed. And because no one ever

challenged Jesus' existence, they never had reason to point to a critical

Jewish source to prove he did. Hence Josephus was not quoted by the few

earlier Christian writers.

So what exactly did Origen say? Here are two passages which say

basically the same thing and which reinforce each other:

And to so great a reputation among the people for righteousness did

this James rise, that Flavius Josephus, who wrote the "Antiquities of

the Jews" in twenty books, when wishing to exhibit the cause why the

people suffered so great misfortunes that even the temple was razed to the

ground, said, that these things happened to them in accordance with the

wrath of God in consequence of the things which they had dared to do

against James the brother of Jesus who is called Christ. And the

wonderful thing is, that, though he did not accept Jesus as Christ, he yet gave

testimony that the righteousness of James was so great; and he says

that the people thought that they had suffered these things because of

James.

Origen - Matthew X, XVII

For in the 18th book of his Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus bears

witness to John as having been a Baptist, and as promising purification

to those who underwent the rite. Now this writer, although not

believing in Jesus as the Christ, in seeking after the cause of the fall of

Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple, whereas he ought to have said

that the conspiracy against Jesus was the cause of these calamities

befalling the people, since they put to death Christ, who was a prophet,

says nevertheless-being, although against his will, not far from the

truth - that these disasters happened to the Jews as a punishment for the

death of James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus (called Christ) -

the Jews having put him to death, although he was a man most

distinguished for his justice.

Origen, - Against Celsus I, XLVII

This tells us that the later passage about 'James, brother of Jesus

called Christ' certainly existed in Josephus in Origen's time because he

uses the phrase 'called Christ' twice. It cannot be a Christian

interpolation as they called James either 'James the Just' or 'James the

Brother of the Lord'. The reference to 'James, brother of Jesus called

Christ' is still found in Antiquities 20 and this by itself torpedoes the

idea that Jesus never existed. The fact idea that Christians were going

around doctoring copies of Josephus while they were still a persecuted

minority is just laughable. Origen also says that Josephus did not

believe Jesus was the Messiah so our present day passage on Jesus in

Antiquities 18 cannot have existed although the passing reference to Jesus in

Antiquities 20 is further evidence that he was actually mentioned in

less flattering terms. It should be pointed out that Origen himself reads

too much into Josephus who does say the people thought the killing of

James was wrong but does not go quite so far as to blame the entire

Jewish War on the event.

Pagan similarities

Allegations that Christianity is an adaptation of a pagan religion

have been around for ages. In the 19th century, Kersey Graves wrote his

notorious The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviours

<http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/kersey_graves/16/> - a book

so poor that even the Internet Infidels admit (in rather more

diplomatic language) that it is a load of old cobblers. Just recently the

tradition was carried on in The Jesus Mysteries

<http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0609807986/bedeslibrary> by

Peter Gandy and Timothy Freke. These two amateurs are equally willing to

play fast and loose with the facts using carefully pruned quotations,

mis-translation and anachronism to produce a woefully inaccurate picture.

With this is in mind I present "Bede's Guide to the Production of a

Best-seller that Undermines the Roots of Christianity". With this I can

guarantee that you will be able to find all the parallels you like

between paganism and Christianity or indeed, properly adapted, between any

other two unrelated subjects that you care to name.

1. The first thing to do is ensure you cast your net as widely as

possible. So within Christianity you should include every cult, heresy and

sect you can get your hands on. Gnosticism will be particularly helpful

as they did indeed borrow large chunks of pagan thought which is partly

why they were considered heretics in the first place. As for paganism,

this can include just about everything. Freke and Gandy comb not only

Greek cults (Oedipus) but also Egyptian (Horus and Osiris), Roman

(Bacchus) and Persian (Mithras). Elsewhere you will find Celtic deities,

Norse beserkers and Indian mystics pulled into the fray. Now, with this

vast body of writing, finding parallels will not be too challenging

provided you are willing to wade through it all.

2. But don't restrict yourselves to pagan religions from before the

time of Christ. Remember your methodology should be that Christians

copied pagans and not the other way around. This is useful because you can

now point to similarities between paganism and Christianity after the

latter was already widespread. So if, like Freke and Gandy, you can find

a picture showing Bacchus on a cross dating from two hundred years

after Jesus was crucified you can still claim that the Christians copied

the pagans and not the other way around.

3. Language is important. Christian terms such as 'salvation',

'Eucharist', 'word made flesh' and 'lamb of god' are common currency today.

Therefore when translating or paraphrasing pagan sources always use

modern Christian language. Never mind that the ancient pagans would not

have known what you were on about - you are not talking to them. In this

way you can call a woman being raped by various kinds of wildlife a

'virgin birth', you can call having ones body parts stuck back together a

'resurrection' and you can call just about every Greek hero a 'son of

god'. Also it is helpful to use King James Bible phrases and style when

quoting pagan texts. It gives them some more gravitas.

4. Do try to confuse liturgy and practice with history. For instance

the mystery religions and Christianity were both underground movements

so they had to operate in similar sorts of ways. Sacred meals and

ritual washing are as old as religion itself so the Christianity using them

as well as pagans is not surprising at all. Make it sound like a

complete revelation.

5. Say totally different things are in fact closely related. For

instance, Mithras was sometimes represented by a bull. Say this is the same

as Jesus being called the lamb of God (ignoring that one is a symbol of

sexuality and strength and the other of innocence and humility).

Compare the Mithric ritual of taking a shower in the warm blood of the

aforementioned bull with Christian baptism with water. Claim that the thieves

crucified with Jesus are the same as a pair of torch bearers that

appear on some illustrations of Bacchus.

6. For goodness sake do not mention the things that really made the

pagan mysteries interesting. After all your work of showing that Jesus

and Bacchus are one and the same, you will lose everything if you let on

that Bacchus was the god of drunkenness and his worship involved

getting plastered and having sex with anything in sight (goats being a

particular favourite). In fact, keep sex out of it altogether. Yes, sex was

the central feature of an awful lot of these pagan rituals but that is

not the point your are trying to make.

7. Avoid up to date scholarship which will probably pour cold water

over your vaunted theories. You will find plenty of nineteenth and early

twentieth century writers with a bone to pick that can support your

wildest speculations. And do not worry if not everyone agrees with you -

you can always dismiss the dissenters as apologists or as those unable

to cope with your earth shattering ideas.

Using this guide you should be able to produce as many parallels as

you require to convince even the most blinkered of readers. As you can

probably tell from the above I am not impressed by the pagan myth

hypothesis. It is interesting to note that despite his vast amount of

reading, hostility to orthodox Christianity and willingness to allege that

most the New Testament is fictional, not even John Dominic Crossan has any

time for the idea that Jesus was made up of pagan motifs. Nor indeed do

the vast majority of liberal scholars - the pagan myth hypothesis is

firmly outside the pale of scholarship and with good reason.

[Blood Stained Soul]

Greetings in Christ! Welcome to this site...what a very informative post....though I believe it should have been a thread of its own...well actually there is a whole wealth of topics with your topic to discuss..Blessings