Page 5 of 9

#101

Posted: 24/01/2007 22:00
by Ljubitelj Zabara
Vidim da je potrebno da skrenem paznju @Ljubitelju i istomisljenicima da budu vise fer prema drugim vjernicima—ako je to ikako moguce. Naime, mislim da je vrijeme da muslimani na forumu prestanu zvati Isusa arapskim imenom "Isa a.s." Posebno sa ovim 'a.s.' sto mi zvuci kao kratica za dionicko drustvo.
Da si malo obrazovaniji znao bi da a.s. nije nikakvo vredjanje, vec naprotiv.
To znaci, Isus, neka mu je ime sveto. Nesto u tom kontekstu.
Pozivas se na toleranciju a smeta ti moja ekavica i nazivas me poturicom.

#102

Posted: 24/01/2007 22:05
by Jonx
Ljubitelj Zabara wrote: To znaci, Isus, neka mu je ime sveto.
Nije li to onda vjerovanje u Svetca?

#103

Posted: 24/01/2007 22:09
by digger
Od kako sam dosao u Kanadu 1971, znam za Tom Harpura koji je uredjivao religijsku sekciju za 'The Toronto Star.' Napisao je dosta knjiga i sve religioznog karaktera. I onda se vratio na nekakav materijal koji je imao i citao i poceo je da veze hriscanstvo sa religijom starog Egipta. Kao rezultat je izasla veoma interesantna knjiga "The Pagan Christ" koja je poidigla podosta prasine.

Elem. ovdje je kritika Harpurovih pisanja. Nazalost, ja nemam vremena za prevod ali ko zna Engleskioo, naci ce da je ovo vrijedno procitati.

(vidi http://hnn.us/articles/6641.html )



The Leading Religion Writer in Canada ... Does He Know What He's Talking About?
By W. Ward Gasque


Mr. Gasque holds a Ph.D. from Manchester University (UK). A graduate of Harvard University’s Institute for Educational Leadership (1993), he is President of the Pacific Association for Theological Studies.

Tom Harpur began his career as an Anglican priest and professor of New Testament at Wycliffe College, Toronto. Just over thirty years ago, he moved from academia into journalism. Today, he is perhaps the leading religion writer in Canada.

The Pagan Christ is the story of his discovery of the writings of one Alvin Boyd Kuhn (1880-1963) and two earlier writers (Godfrey Higgins [1771-1834] and Gerald Massey [1828-1907]), who argued that all of the essential ideas of both Judaism and Christianity came primarily from Egyptian religion.

Toward the end of the third Christian century, the leaders of the church began to misinterpret the Bible. Prior to this, no one ever understood the Bible to be literally true. Earlier, in keeping with all other religions, the narrative material of the Hebrew and Greek Bible was interpreted as myth or symbol, read as allegory and metaphor rather than as history.

According to Harpur, there is no evidence that Jesus of Nazareth ever lived. He claims that virtually all of the details of the life and teachings of Jesus have their counterpart in Egyptian religious ideas. He does not quote any contemporary Egyptologist or recognized academic authority on world religions nor appeal to any of the standard reference books in Egyptology or to any primary sources. Rather, he is entirely dependent on the work of Kuhn (and Higgins & Massey).

Who is Alvin Boyd Kuhn? He is given the title ‘Egyptologist’ and is regarded by Harpur as “one of the single greatest geniuses of the twentieth century” [who] “towers above all others of recent memory in intellect and his understanding of the world’s religious.”

As it turns out, Kuhn was a high school language teacher who was an enthusiastic proponent of Theosophy, a prodigious author and lecturer, who self-published most of his books.

Not being myself an expert in Egyptian religion, I consulted those who are about their views of contribution that Kuhn, Higgins and Massey have made to Egyptology and whether they thought some of the key ideas of The Pagan Christ well grounded. So I sent an email to twenty leading Egyptologists — in Canada, USA, UK, Australia, Germany, and Austria.

I noted as a sample the following claims put forth by Kuhn (and hence Harpur):

•That the name of Jesus was derived from the Egyptian “Iusa,” which means "the coming divine Son who heals or saves".

•That the god Horus is "an Egyptian Christos, or Christ.... He and his mother, Isis, were the forerunners of the Christian Madonna and Child, and together they constituted a leading image in Egyptian religion for millennia prior to the Gospels."

•That Horus also "had a virgin birth, and that in one of his roles, he was 'a fisher of men with twelve followers.'"

•That “the letters KRST appear on Egyptian mummy coffins many centuries BCE, and ... this word, when the vowels are filled in., is really Karast or Krist, signifying Christ."

•That the doctrine of the incarnation "is in fact the oldest, most universal mythos known to religion. It was current in the Osirian religion in Egypt at least four thousand years BCE"

•Only one of the ten experts who responded to my questions had ever heard of Kuhn, Higgins or Massey!

Professor Kenneth A. Kitchen of the University of Liverpool pointed out that not one of these men is mentioned in M. L. Bierbrier’s Who Was Who in Egyptology (3rd ed, 1995), nor is any of their works listed in Ida B. Pratt’s very extensive bibliography on Ancient Egypt (1925/1942).

Another distinguished Egyptologist wrote: “Egyptology has the unenviable distinction of being one of those disciplines that almost anyone can lay claim to, and the unfortunate distinction of being probably the one most beleaguered by false prophets. He goes on to refer to Kuhn’s “fringe nonsense.”

The responding scholars were unanimous in dismissing the suggested etymologies for Jesus and Christ.

Ron Leprohan, Professor of Egyptology at the University of Toronto, pointed out that while “sa” means “son” in ancient Egyptian and “iu” means ‘to come,” but Kuhn/Harpur have the syntax all wrong. In any event, the name ‘Iusa’ simply does not exist in Egyptian.

The name ‘Jesus’ is Greek from a universally recognized west Semitic name (“Jeshu’a”), borne not merely by the central figure in the New Testament but also by many other people in the first century.

While all recognize that the image of the baby Horus and Isis has influenced the Christian iconography of Madonna and Child, this is where the similarity stops. There is no evidence for the idea that Horus was virgin born.

There is no evidence for the idea that Horus was ‘a fisher of men’ or that his followers (the King’s officials were called ‘Followers of Horus”) were ever twelve in number.

KRST is the word for “burial” (“coffin” is written “KRSW”), but there is no evidence whatsoever to link this with the Greek title “Christos” or Hebrew “Mashiah”.

There is no mention of Osiris in Egyptian texts until about 2350 BC, so Harpur’s reference to the origins of Osirian religion is off by more than a millennium and a half. (Elsewhere Harpur refers to “Jesus in Egyptian lore as early as 18,000 BCE” and he quotes Kuhn as claiming that “the Jesus who stands as the founder of Christianity was at least 10,000 years of age.” In fact, the earliest extant writing that we have dates from about 3200 BCE.)

Kuhn/Harper’s redefinition of “incarnation” and rooting this in Egyptian religion is regarded as bogus by all of the Egyptologists with whom I have consulted. According to one: “Only the pharaoh was believed to have a divine aspect, the divine power of kingship, incarnated in the human being currently serving as the king. No other Egyptians ever believed they possessed even ‘a little bit of the divine’.”

Virtually none of the alleged evidence for the views put forward in The Pagan Christ is documented by reference to original sources. The notes refer mainly to Kuhn, Higgins, Massey, or some other long-out-of-date work.

Furthermore, Harpur's notes abound with errors and omissions. If you look for supporting evidence for a particular point made by the author, it is not there. Many quotations are taken out of context and interpreted in a very different sense from what their author originally meant (especially the early church fathers).

Acording to Harpur, Christian scholars have a vested interest in maintaining the myth that there was an klix Jesus who lived in history. First, he insists, there was "the greatest cover-up of all time" at the beginning of the fourth century; and thousands of Christian scholars are now participants in this on-going cover-up.

This perspective misses the fact that, for several generations, there have been professors of religious and biblical studies who are Jewish, Unitarian, members of every Christian denomination -- and many of no professed religious persuasion. And there are no religious tests for chairs in Egyptology. Presumably, the Jewish, Unitarian, secular and many very liberal Christians who happen to be recognized scholars have no axes to grind regarding whether or not Jesus actually lived, or whether most of the ideas found in the Bible stem from Egyptian or other Near Eastern religion.

If one were able to survey of the members of the major learned societies dealing with antiquity, it would be difficult to find more than a handful who believe that Jesus of Nazareth did not walk the dusty roads of Palestine in the first three decades of the Common Era. Evidence for Jesus as a historical personage is incontrovertible.

Rather than appeal to primary scholarship, Tom Harpur has based The Pagan Christ on the work of self-appointed "scholars" who seek to excavate the literary and archaeological resources of the ancient world the same way an avid crossword puzzle enthusiast mines dictionaries and lists of words. In short, Harpur's book tells us more about himself than it does about the origins of Christianity (or Judaism).

#104

Posted: 24/01/2007 22:12
by Ljubitelj Zabara
Jao bre Joxn, ti si bas neki klinac. Naravno da nije. Sveto, blazeno, uzviseno, to su sve sinonimi, na taj kontekst se misli. Iskreno druze, mislio sam da mozes da mi pariras u znanju, bar si mi tako delovao, ali... :-?
Prethodni post o tumacenju Kur`ana sam sam pisao. Naravno, koristio sam se literaturom. Procitaj ga.
Mogu sad iz takta da ti navedem 10 neslaganja u Bibliji, ali veruj mi to mi uopste nije cilj. To mi izgleda kao omalovazavanje, pa se zbog toga suzdrzavam. ;-)

#105

Posted: 24/01/2007 22:16
by Dolina avalona
@Digger-u, uz svo postovanje ali...

Ako je Isus(Isa) bio sin Boziji, kako onda moze biti i Bog(svoj otac) u isto vrijeme??

Ako se smatra da je Isus(Isa) bio jedini sin Boziji, zasto onda Krscani sve ostale ljude na zemlji nazivaju djecom Bozijom??

Isusova majka se naziva Bogorodicom, po tome ispade da je ona rodila Boga(Isusa), ako je rodila Boga(Isusa) zasto se onda Isus naziva sinom Bozijim. Logika ovdje ne radi...??

Ako je Isus bio Bog, zasto i kojem Bogu se on molio??

Morate se odluciti, ili je bio Bog ili sin Boziji, ...obadvoje nije moguce, nema logike!!

#106

Posted: 24/01/2007 22:17
by digger
Ljubitelj Zabara wrote:
Vidim da je potrebno da skrenem paznju @Ljubitelju i istomisljenicima da budu vise fer prema drugim vjernicima—ako je to ikako moguce. Naime, mislim da je vrijeme da muslimani na forumu prestanu zvati Isusa arapskim imenom "Isa a.s." Posebno sa ovim 'a.s.' sto mi zvuci kao kratica za dionicko drustvo.
Da si malo obrazovaniji znao bi da a.s. nije nikakvo vredjanje, vec naprotiv.
To znaci, Isus, neka mu je ime sveto. Nesto u tom kontekstu.
Pozivas se na toleranciju a smeta ti moja ekavica i nazivas me poturicom.
Pa ako sada mozes da napises da je Isus, sto si ga ranije pisao sa 'Isa'?!? :roll:

I ne brini, znam ja sta a.s. znaci. Al' bi crk'o kada ne bi malo... :D

#107

Posted: 24/01/2007 22:24
by Ljubitelj Zabara
Ljubitelj Zabara wrote: Ja verujem u Isu a.s. , odnosno Isusa Hrista... ali verujem u njega kao u pretposlednjeg Bozjeg poslanika. Takodje verujem u sve Bozje poslanike koji su poslati pre. Negde sam procitao da ih je pored ovih koji se danas praktikuju u judeizmu, hriscanstvu i islamu, bilo oko 50 000.
Znaci bilo je 50 000 poslanika. Muhamed s.a.v.s je bio poslednji.
Dakle na Isusa gledam kao na pretposlednjeg Bozjeg poslanika.
:)
Da malo pazljivije citas? Moze? Ok?

#108

Posted: 24/01/2007 22:25
by digger
Dolina avalona wrote:@Digger-u, uz svo postovanje ali...

Ako je Isus(Isa) bio sin Boziji, kako onda moze biti i Bog(svoj otac) u isto vrijeme??

Ako se smatra da je Isus(Isa) bio jedini sin Boziji, zasto onda Krscani sve ostale ljude na zemlji nazivaju djecom Bozijom??

Isusova majka se naziva Bogorodicom, po tome ispade da je ona rodila Boga(Isusa), ako je rodila Boga(Isusa) zasto se onda Isus naziva sinom Bozijim. Logika ovdje ne radi...??

Ako je Isus bio Bog, zasto i kojem Bogu se on molio??

Morate se odluciti, ili je bio Bog ili sin Boziji, ...obadvoje nije moguce, nema logike!!
Najprije, kada je religija u pitanju nemoj da razmisljas po logici... jerbo ces otici stranputicom.

Ali nije valjda da mislis da ja vjerujem u tu troclanu ujdurmu? Geeez...Bolje nadji ko je to napisao pa udari po njemu. :D

#109

Posted: 24/01/2007 22:27
by Jonx
Dolina avalona wrote:@Digger-u, uz svo postovanje ali...

Ako je Isus(Isa) bio sin Boziji, kako onda moze biti i Bog(svoj otac) u isto vrijeme??

Ako se smatra da je Isus(Isa) bio jedini sin Boziji, zasto onda Krscani sve ostale ljude na zemlji nazivaju djecom Bozijom??

Isusova majka se naziva Bogorodicom, po tome ispade da je ona rodila Boga(Isusa), ako je rodila Boga(Isusa) zasto se onda Isus naziva sinom Bozijim. Logika ovdje ne radi...??

Ako je Isus bio Bog, zasto i kojem Bogu se on molio??

Morate se odluciti, ili je bio Bog ili sin Boziji, ...obadvoje nije moguce, nema logike!!
Zar je tako tesko shvatiti da iako ima tri lista, jedna je djetilina!!!

#110

Posted: 24/01/2007 22:31
by Ljubitelj Zabara
Nije te to pitala. Pitala te kome se Isa a.s. ( Isus Hrist ) molio, ako je on Bozje otelotvorenje.

#111

Posted: 24/01/2007 22:39
by digger
Jonx wrote:
Dolina avalona wrote:...Isusova majka se naziva Bogorodicom, po tome ispade da je ona rodila Boga(Isusa), ako je rodila Boga(Isusa) zasto se onda Isus naziva sinom Bozijim. Logika ovdje ne radi...
Zar je tako tesko shvatiti da iako ima tri lista, jedna je djetilina!!!
E vala ga ti Jonx bas pretjera.

Kada sam bio mali—a bome je to bilo jaaaako davno—onda Isus nije bio bog nego bozji sin. Bar me moja baba tako ucila a nju valjda njena baba... i sve tako.

Ko ga je promovisao i zasto, ne znam. I znam da je on bog ovdje u Americi.

Ali moras priznati da je to bila neka muckalica svoje vrste.

I onda se pitate kako neko moze biti skeptican prema organizovanoj religiji? :roll:

#112

Posted: 24/01/2007 22:42
by Jonx
Ljubitelj Zabara wrote:Nije te to pitala. Pitala te kome se Isa a.s. ( Isus Hrist ) molio, ako je on Bozje otelotvorenje.
Covjece nisi u stanju shvatiti da iako ima tri lista, jedna je djetilina a navodis temu na Bogocovjeka, Sveto Trojstvo istovremeno ocekujuci misticno prosvjetljenje.... Uozbilji se... kako opet ne bi dosli do sv. Augustina.

#113

Posted: 24/01/2007 22:58
by Ljubitelj Zabara
Ne druze, ja to savrseno razumem, ali vidim da tebi tesko ide.
Znas kako se danas popularno kaze, ne bih ja vise trosio tvoje dragoceno vreme. Procitaj malo tumacenje Kur`anskih ajeta sa prethodne stranice. Mozda ti se razjasne pojedine stvari.
Lep poz.
:)

#114

Posted: 24/01/2007 23:06
by Dolina avalona
Ljubitelj Zabara wrote:Nije te to pitalo. Pitao te kome se Isa a.s. ( Isus Hrist ) molio, ako je on Bozje otelotvorenje.
Jonx, jeli znas odgovor na ovo pitanje ili ne??

#115

Posted: 24/01/2007 23:14
by Ljubitelj Zabara
da editujem. Ruzno mi izgleda ovako sa greskama.
Nije te to pitala. Pitala te kome se Isa a.s. ( Isus Hrist ) molio, ako je on Bozje otelotvorenje.

#116

Posted: 24/01/2007 23:19
by Jonx
Dolina avalona wrote:
Ljubitelj Zabara wrote:Nije te to pitalo. Pitao te kome se Isa a.s. ( Isus Hrist ) molio, ako je on Bozje otelotvorenje.
Jonx, jeli znas odgovor na ovo pitanje ili ne??
Isus se molio Ocu jer je bio čovjek. Isus je rastao, učio se, napredovao u mudrosti (Lk 2:52), iskustveno učio poslušnost (Heb 5:8), jer je bio
čovjek. Nazivao je Izraelce braćom (Ps 22:23), jer je bio čovjek. Ali ne samo čovjek, nego čovjek i Bog - Bogočovjek.

#117

Posted: 24/01/2007 23:28
by Ljubitelj Zabara
Ustvari, sve se svodi na to da se u coveku otelotvorio Bog, koji je progovorio.
Zar ne?
U islamu se to ne priznaje i na to se gleda kao na zabludu nastalu pogresnom interpretacijom. Dozvoljeno je misliti da su Bozje reci izgovorene od strane poslanika, i da je to ustvari Objava Bozjih reci, a ne njega samog.
Zato i verujem u Bozje jedinstvo, nikako u trojstvo.

#118

Posted: 24/01/2007 23:29
by Dolina avalona
Jonx wrote:
Dolina avalona wrote:
Ljubitelj Zabara wrote:Nije te to pitalo. Pitao te kome se Isa a.s. ( Isus Hrist ) molio, ako je on Bozje otelotvorenje.
Jonx, jeli znas odgovor na ovo pitanje ili ne??
Isus se molio Ocu jer je bio čovjek. Isus je rastao, učio se, napredovao u mudrosti (Lk 2:52), iskustveno učio poslušnost (Heb 5:8), jer je bio
čovjek. Nazivao je Izraelce braćom (Ps 22:23), jer je bio čovjek. Ali ne samo čovjek, nego čovjek i Bog - Bogočovjek.
Ako se molio Ocu jer je bio covijek, znaci nije bio Bog...

Ups..., ipak nije covijek, vec Bogcovijek...

Ako je Bogcovijek, kome se molio taj Bogcovijek?? Bog se molio Bogu, Isus se molio Isusu(sebi)... :-D

Zbunjujes me Jonx :D

Znam ja Jonx da si i ti zbunjen i da nemas odgovor,i nije mi cilj da pametujem i da od tebe pravim manje pametnu osobu, samo onako diskutujemo, no hard feelings...

#119

Posted: 24/01/2007 23:36
by Jonx
Dolina avalona wrote:
Jonx wrote:
Dolina avalona wrote: Jonx, jeli znas odgovor na ovo pitanje ili ne??
Isus se molio Ocu jer je bio čovjek. Isus je rastao, učio se, napredovao u mudrosti (Lk 2:52), iskustveno učio poslušnost (Heb 5:8), jer je bio čovjek. Nazivao je Izraelce braćom (Ps 22:23), jer je bio čovjek. Ali ne samo čovjek, nego čovjek i Bog - Bogočovjek.
Ako se molio Ocu jer je bio covijek, znaci nije bio Bog...

Ups..., ipak nije covijek, vec Bogcovijek...

Ako je Bogcovijek, kome se molio taj Bogcovijek?? Bog se molio Bogu... :-D

Zbunjujes me Jonx :D
Iskreno, nisam ni sumnjao da ce biti drugacije. Rekao sam ti molio se Ocu!

#120

Posted: 24/01/2007 23:40
by Dolina avalona
Jonx wrote:
Dolina avalona wrote:
Jonx wrote: Isus se molio Ocu jer je bio čovjek. Isus je rastao, učio se, napredovao u mudrosti (Lk 2:52), iskustveno učio poslušnost (Heb 5:8), jer je bio čovjek. Nazivao je Izraelce braćom (Ps 22:23), jer je bio čovjek. Ali ne samo čovjek, nego čovjek i Bog - Bogočovjek.
Ako se molio Ocu jer je bio covijek, znaci nije bio Bog...

Ups..., ipak nije covijek, vec Bogcovijek...

Ako je Bogcovijek, kome se molio taj Bogcovijek?? Bog se molio Bogu... :-D

Zbunjujes me Jonx :D
Iskreno, nisam ni sumnjao da ce biti drugacije. Rekao sam ti molio se Ocu!
Pa zar nije Isus Bog?
Ako je Isus Bog, i molio se Ocu, znaci molio se sebi??
Ili su Bog i Otac dvije osobe, dva Boga??

#121

Posted: 24/01/2007 23:45
by sojka

#122

Posted: 24/01/2007 23:46
by Jonx
Dolina avalona wrote:
Jonx wrote:
Dolina avalona wrote: Ako se molio Ocu jer je bio covijek, znaci nije bio Bog...

Ups..., ipak nije covijek, vec Bogcovijek...

Ako je Bogcovijek, kome se molio taj Bogcovijek?? Bog se molio Bogu... :-D

Zbunjujes me Jonx :D
Iskreno, nisam ni sumnjao da ce biti drugacije. Rekao sam ti molio se Ocu!
Pa zar nije Isus Bog?
Ako je Isus Bog, i molio se Ocu, znaci molio se sebi??
Ili su Bog i Otac dvije osobe, dva Boga??
Isus je Bogocovjek i molio se Ocu, znaci molio se Ocu!!!!!!

Kako brate dva!?

Samo je jedan Bog, a tri su božanske osobe: Otac i Sin i Duh Sveti. :-D

#123

Posted: 24/01/2007 23:49
by Dolina avalona
Po cemu je Isus Bogocovijek??

#124

Posted: 24/01/2007 23:57
by digger
@Jonx, ne znam da li vidis sta se desava.

Nekada, najbolje visoko religiozno skolovani bili su katolicki kadrovi. Katolicka je crkva—opet se vracam na marketing—znala dobro da bez poznavanja materije sa svoje strane kao i onih 'anamo' nije lako polemisati. Mislim da su jezuiti nosioci tog sirokog znanja za sta u sekularnom svijetu dijele PhD ili MBA titule. Razlog je bio jednostavan: Drz' prijatelja blizu sebe a neprijatelja jos i blize.

Istovremeno znam da je pravoslavna crkva imala grdnih problema sa kvalitetom kadra. Malo visokih skola uz interes da se ostane i radi samo u svom dvoristu. Pa jos pravo na brak. Vrrrlo los marketing. :D

Sada mora da ti je jasnije da medrese poducavaju svoje kadrove ne samo u znanju na vlastitom terenu nego i oko interesa drugih. Ko zna: mogu jednog dana dostici jezuite!

Prema tome, za ovdasnje diskusije valja ti se bolje pripremati i imati jako solidnu podlogu. Inace bogami, nece valjati. :D

#125

Posted: 25/01/2007 00:00
by Jonx
Dolina avalona wrote:Po cemu je Isus Bogocovijek??
Osim sto je Isus vjecni Bog, On je i covjek. Biblija jasno pokazuje da je vjecni Bog Sin u jednom trenutku povijesti postao covjek.
Apostol Ivan je zapisao:''U pocetku bijase Rijec i Rijec bijase u Boga i Rijec bijase Bog.'' (Iv 1:1)
''I Rijec tijelom postade i nastani se medu nama...''(Iv 1:14)
Ili kako je Pavao pisao Filipljanima:''On, trajni lik Bozji, nije se kao plijena drzao svoje jednakosti s Bogom, nego sam sebe 'oplijeni' uzevsi lik 'sluge,'
postavsi ljudima slican; oblicjem covjeku nalik, ponizi sam sebe, poslusan do smrti, smrti na krizu.'' (Fil 2:6-8)
Biblija je puna tekstova koji govore o Isusu kao Bogu, ali i kao covjeku.