The Chat Thread (Read OP)

[Sir Adrian]

Fair enough that it's mostly protestants, that's what the majority of my experience has been with (yay Southern Baptists!) but really even the King James is a stretch when it comes to textual accuracy. I've always appreciated that Catholics more-so than most other Christian sects have seemed to be more about the message of Christ rather than the literal textual interpretation.

Biblical literalism is a late 19th - early 20th century heresy developed in the american midwest, it's never been a part of christian doctrine. Do not judge Christianity by what the evangelicals do, most of them are no longer even christian.

If you are interested in the original Christian message I would suggest either catholicism - for a modern very legalistic take on it - or orthodoxy - for the old school mystical version. Euro-protestants also have a good take if you ignore the BS about how wealth and wordly success = salvation and everybody can interpret the bible. Most evangelical cults are extremist churches and should be ignored.

You can't just grab a random quote and try to twist it to about TWC. We're talking about aliens, this is serious business.

Did they ever announce the loot drops for this raid? Do I get to walk home with a legendary iron man suit or not?

[Sar1n]

Did they ever announce the loot drops for this raid? Do I get to walk home with a legendary iron man suit or not?

I think the only loot you can expect to take home is few grams of lead.

[AqD]

source: I'm an American from the South.

Shotgun it is!

[Akar]

Biblical literalism is a late 19th - early 20th century heresy developed in the american midwest, it's never been a part of christian doctrine. Do not judge Christianity by what the evangelicals do, most of them are no longer even christian.

If you are interested in the original Christian message I would suggest either catholicism - for a modern very legalistic take on it - or orthodoxy - for the old school mystical version. Euro-protestants also have a good take if you ignore the BS about how wealth and wordly success = salvation and everybody can interpret the bible. Most evangelical cults are extremist churches and should be ignored.

I really like how you called it a heresy because that's really what it's felt like to me as someone who's grown up around it. As a law-nerd I've always felt comparisons between protestant textualism and conservative constitutional textualism. Although I'm an atheist now when I was religious I always felt like the Orthodox and Catholic churches were the closest things to what the Jesus of the bible talks about the Christian church being. I personally feel like a mixture of Orthodoxism and Catholicism is the closest thing to what Christ intended, with the pentarchies of Orthodoxism and the iconoclasm of the Catholic church. I've also personally got some issues with the interpretation of the holy trinity and I've always sided more with Arius with regards to the trinity. I would be interested in seeing church leaders of today get together for another council of Nicea sort of situation and sit down and talk about whats what.

It's about time the Christian church spiced things up. I mean isn't it about time for us to declare another anti-pope?

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

I don't get what you guys mean Biblical literalism but... I don't see how Catholicism is anywhere close to the original Christianity. Catholicism is largely a Roman invention in which Constantine et all infused Roman pagan concepts and statism. The Orthodox church is closer to the Judaic ideal of what a Christian church would be like, maybe what Jesus and James had in mind in so far as temporal authority with Judaic traditions. Actual Christianity is probably closer to some of the Protestant churches that are really laid back and hippie like or that one guy who really hates gays. It is kind of hard how much of the Old Testament Jesus wanted to keep although what is definitely clear is that Jesus only intended his religion to be for the Jews. It was an attempt to collect all of the Jews in Judea and abroad and unite them under a new reformed church. How pacifistic Jesus intended to be is also up for debate and what punishments there would be for sinners if any. But Jesus makes it clear that he isn't all about forgiveness either, how that fits with his message of peace I can't really say (I assume that sinners would just be ostracized).

The problems with all of this? I don't think the actual Jesus really had a long term plan. He just unexpectedly got killed and his followers retconned the whole scenario as this having been his plan all along and that he had ascended into heaven. What is certain is that Christianity was just a Jewish sect and was therefore tied to Judaic traditions. Though it seems that even Jesus played loosely with scriptural interpretation, as did many Christians later on, which is the source of our confusion. So we can't really know what Jesus intended and how many of the theological claims of the Bible were actually made by Jesus himself or if it was some other retconner like Paul. However the Old Testament was meant to be taken literally for the most part, whether Jesus or Christianity intended or not. Ultimately it is hard for Christians to reconcile the New Testament with the Old Testament while still remaining consistent, unless they engage in some pretty autistic mental gymnastics and claim that "akchuyally the Old Testament was just a metaphor"... which really isn't the case but okay. These sorts of contradictions were probably the reason that Jesus never got a major following among the Jews, and why they decided to take him out.

If you want to do some super intense meta analysis Jesus' weird theological interpretations of scripture sounds more like pre-Judaic Canaanite paganism. Which incidentally was one of the claims levied by the Jews against the Christians. The fact that an all powerful divine being would have a son is already reason enough to suspect this. To make it worse the Christians seemed to prove their suspicion by attempting to recruit gentiles.

[Akar]

I would really love to hear more about the Judaeo-Canaanite paganism claims that were brought against Jesus if you know any more about that. From my limited understanding of the subject wasn't much of the early old testament religion co-opted from parts of the local Canaanite religion? I know that at some point Yahweh was part of the Canaanite pantheon. As for Biblical Literalism, it's exactly what it sounds like and exactly what you described with "actually the old testament was a metaphor", except the opposite. Lots of protestant churchs will preach that every part of the Bible is literal, none of it is allegorical aside from the allegories that Jesus specifically tells as allegories. The creation and so on is all 100% true and accurate as well as the 6000 year old age of the earth. From my understanding (again pretty limited) the old testament was supposed to be more for the Jews, while the new testament was for his Gentile followers as they weren't Jewish they wouldn't have to follow all the Jewish laws. Granted that's probably biased by my protestant upbringing so I'd love to hear your take on that

[Diamat]

All this is very interesting. Unless, of course, Jesus was the actual son of God and did indeed rise again. I wouldn't mind if this were true. But damn, I'd feel so bad for having been an atheist all my life.

[Akar]

That would be quite the plot twist wouldn't it? Imagine how smug all the Christian's would be once they're proven right. They'd be absolutely insufferable for the brief hell-on-earth of the Revelations Apocalypse.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

I would really love to hear more about the Judaeo-Canaanite paganism claims that were brought against Jesus if you know any more about that.

The general claim was that the Christians were heretical blasphemers. Although the Talmud or one of those books calls Jesus a pagan bandit or something. I don't remember if it says Jesus by name or uses some kind of alias instead.

Also the fact that Paul left the Bible culturally ambiguous so that he could preach to pagans. This was bothersome to some of the original apostles like Peter and James but also the Jews picked up on this and used it against Christians. Paul's claims being that he saw Jesus in a vision or something. Besides Paul was a cosmopolitan Jew who spent lots of time around gentiles to begin with and was kind of an anti-Semite, which probably explains his mindset. He never met Jesus and lived mostly around Tarsus and Antioch, which had Jewish communities sure, but were gentile cities.

From my limited understanding of the subject wasn't much of the early old testament religion co-opted from parts of the local Canaanite religion? I know that at some point Yahweh was part of the Canaanite pantheon.

I'm not sure if YHWH was an obscure local deity or if it was a retcon of El. But much of the Old Testament is based on this old Canaanite religion as well as influences from the Sumerians, which were widespread throughout the Middle East. A lot of the assumptions which the Old Testament makes are based on these, such as the Creation or Flood myths. The Satan thing is based directly on Canaanite myth; Lucifer is a later retcon, the actual term used is "Heylel" which is also what the enemy deity of El was called. Just before the first century the Jewish view of dualism develops and Satan is turned into a figure that keeps showing up, but this is not consistent with the original position. Even today most Jews don't believe in Satan outside of the origin myth. Also the serpent in the garden is a literal serpent, which itself is based on some kind of previous animism, because obviously snakes are deceitful and dangerous. The sneaky serpent also comes from Sumerian myth and/or ancient traditions passed down by nomads.

So given all of this context, if Jesus is the son of God (impossible by Jewish standards) then that would make him the equivalent of Baal, a pagan idol which must be smashed. Since the pagan gods were like humans. But the Jewish god is a different type of being that is perfect and completely divine. In a way the Jewish god is like a very cynical and theocratic interpretation of religion. Sort of like "what? you worship these imperfect material idols that don't actually have power, fool". Likewise Christianity is very cynical towards Jews and the Jewish way of life. I think this is called the self deprecating Jew trope, also the subversive canard. Meaning that Jesus was very subversive and the Jews disliked him for it. Being subversive was also a Roman criticism of Christianity. I find it ironic that Semites are being anti-Semitic towards Christians.

As for Biblical Literalism, it's exactly what it sounds like and exactly what you described with "actually the old testament was a metaphor", except the opposite. Lots of protestant churchs will preach that every part of the Bible is literal, none of it is allegorical aside from the allegories that Jesus specifically tells as allegories. The creation and so on is all 100% true and accurate as well as the 6000 year old age of the earth. From my understanding (again pretty limited) the old testament was supposed to be more for the Jews, while the new testament was for his Gentile followers as they weren't Jewish they wouldn't have to follow all the Jewish laws. Granted that's probably biased by my protestant upbringing so I'd love to hear your take on that

My take is just that the lore itself was based on the understanding of that time. So I'm sure if you traveled back in time and said that the Earth was slightly older than 6000 years or something like that they wouldn't really care. What is meant to be taken literally are the commands and spiritual aspects. It is pretty easy to track the development of Judaic doctrine and lore because the people that collected all the holy books were kind enough to put them chronologically. Even so there are instructional aspects to the Old Testament which get kind of mixed in. Islam for example decided to write the Koran based on instructions and doctrines rather than chronologically. Although there are other instructional Jewish texts, these are meant to be followed to the letter.

That would be quite the plot twist wouldn't it? Imagine how smug all the Christian's would be once they're proven right. They'd be absolutely insufferable for the brief hell-on-earth of the Revelations Apocalypse.

As much as this is treated as a meme, the Anti-Christ is actually meant to be Nero. 666 means Nero, in one of the more esoteric books which was not included in the Bible, Nero is literally resurrected, attempts to create a world empire with himself as a god and then the stuff in Revelations happens. That aside the actual Book of Revelations doesn't work because the events were supposed to take place during the first century or so. They kind of did but it just didn't turn out the way people expected. Simon Bar Kochba declared himself King of the Jews, led a savage 5 year uprising, was killed by the Romans and the Jewish people were ethnically cleansed and scattered to the Four Corners. This is like the ending of 1997 Berserk. Except instead Jesus never came down from the Heavens at any point, neither did an actual Jewish Messiah. Something that the Jews have never been able to deal with and modern Judaism is full of copes and attempts to analyze for possible reinterpretations. After the first century Judaism became more localized to specific communities and rule by the clergy which attempted desperately to keep cohesion and faith. It seems that Zionism and secularism were the logical conclusion of these failed policies and prophecies.

The actual Messiah in the Old Testament is similar to what Simon Bar Kochba aspired to. Basically there isn't really one Messiah, since a Messiah is anyone who saves the Jewish people. "The coming Messiah" is usually taken to be the same as THE Messiah. Really all that guy has to do is restore the Jewish nation, rebuild the temple and "bring peace to the Jews", which basically just means ensure that the Jewish state is safe from foreigners. The original notion of a Messiah comes from the Assyrian and Babylonian invasions. The criteria being that the Messiah had to (or has to depending on one's view), be a king of Judea (not Samaria because Samaritans are filthy Pagantic-Jews who won't even send tribute to Jerusalem), be from the line of David (because only David is a legitimate king chosen by God), rebuild the temple destroyed by the Assyrians, and finally defeat the Assyrians and restore the glory of the Jewish nation-state by making the gentiles pay tribute. So it is quite literal and earthly, the justification for Jesus is some esoteric ramblings.

[Akar]

Amazing post man, I've got to ask where you've learned all this stuff because I'd love some further reading so I can dig deeper into this. This is somehow the first I'm hearing of Simon Barr Kochba, so I'm definitely going to have to read more about him. I agree with what you said about there not being a specific messiah. Messiah in Hebrew just means "anointed" so it's not specifically referring to a specific person, just like with "Satan" just meaning "adversary" until it was reinterpreted to be a specific figure. I wonder if the same thing has happened to the idea of the messiah over the years.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

What if Simon Bar Kochba was the Messiah but he failed?

I have a few books on Syro-Canaanite myths.

A lot of it is just reading texts and understanding the Biblical contexts. Just compare various texts. Like the Story of Utnapishtim is almost verbatim copied by the Biblical Flood Myth. Or Biblical contradictions between the Old Testament and New Testament, or just within the New Testament itself.

[Akar]

Well doesn't that beg the question of whether you can be a Messiah and still fail? Or does a Messiah not become a Messiah unless he's accomplished some degree of success, and if so, how is that success measured and quantified? Are Jesus and Simon both Messiahs, and if so, which is more Messiah?

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

The Messiah does need to accomplish some of the criteria. In theory there could be an unlimited amount of people called Messiah. If I remember correctly Judah Maccabee was called Messiah. So was Cyrus and he wasn't even a Jew. Given that Simon failed I wouldn't consider him a Messiah, although he did come pretty close. Simon was acknowledged as king by the foremost religious authority in Judea at the time. After his revolt was crushed by Hadrian the Jews just conveniently forgot. Although for once the Christians lacked a common foe with the Jews (as they both hated Nero) because Simon persecuted the Christians and other Jewish sects, and they defected en masse to Hadrian. I don't really get why the specific dislike of Nero, I guess he persecuted them but... didn't everyone? Among the Jews I think Hadrian is probably despised the most.

The Christian concept of Messiah is full of pagan ideas. The notion that there could be a single holy Messiah as some kind of divine being and god is total blasphemy. But was lifted directly from pagan ideas of apotheosis and rebirth. For example Hercules' being able to speak to the dead, bringing people from the dead and traveling to the netherworld of the Hesperides and Tartaros, then finally becoming a god. Which themselves are borrowed from the story of the Phoenician god Melqart and probably other sources, which then influenced the Greeks during the Archaic period. Also making Jesus a divine king and being is taken directly from Divus Julius Caesar. Julius Caesar was not only a ruler but he was also the Pontifex Maximus. When he died he was hailed as a god and son of Venus. The extremely large and frightening cosmic event that happened a day after Caesar's death was interpreted as a powerful omen. Likewise Jesus is called a king, a god and a priest and in some of the gospels they attempt to legitimize this with the Star of Bethlehem (which unlike Caesar's Comet was not a real occurrence). Jesus' Biblical position is therefore intended as a direct challenge to Divus Julius Caesar and his heirs Augustus and Tiberius. Although it was most likely created by Paul in order to appeal to the pagans.

[Akar]

That's a great point about Cyrus, I'd say he definitely would number among the messiahs. It would say a Jewish messiah doesn't necessarily need to be Jewish so much as help the Jews. My understanding of the Star of Bethlehem is that the only time it's referenced is in the nativity story, which is only found in the gospel of Mark. We don't know the authorship of but as far as I know most scholars don't think it was written by Paul, although that doesn't mean its author didn't intend the same pagan syncretism that you suggested Paul might have done.

The specific hate for Nero is probably due to him having been lambasted by his immediate successors and like most Roman Emperors who were less than liked many downright questionable stories and accusations were made up about him. He persecuted Christians but like you said, who didn't back then? I've heard it claimed that he blamed Christians and killed them for causing the fire but as far as I know that's just considered to be one of the stories spread by his successors. People associate him with burning down Rome but the general consensus these days seems to be that Nero wasn't responsible for the burning of Rome, even if he did capitalize on the aftermath with the construction of his palace.

[Flinn]

I preferred when we were talking about roaming dark forests with shotguns and such..

you killed the magic, you know

[Akar]

What's your favorite forest and shotgun, Flinn?

[Flinn]

I don't mind about the forest, as long as it is dark, wet, stinky and filled with paranoiac dudes

as for the shotgun, this suits me well for sure

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[Akar]

Ahh yes, a man of practicality and taste. I wonder if they drew straws to see how had their ear drums ruptured by the sound of that firing

[Flinn]

lol if I was actually firing that cannon I don't think I would be much concerned about my ear drums, but rather about my arms and head

[Akar]

Come to think of it, I think the photographer is probably the only winner here. What's the actual story behind that picture? Did they ever get the balls to fire the gun, and if so did they fire their own massive balls through it? I have to imagine that kind of weapon would only be for show or something like that but who knows OSHA wasn't around back that.