Pagan influence on Christianity

[Magus]

Talmud is a list of interpretation or commentaries of the Torah , Quran is also an interpretation of the Torah (and Gospels) and the Gospels themselves are an interpretation of the Torah too, so Judaism-Christianity-Islam are religions, not based on the original meanings of the scriptures, but based on someone else's skewed interpretations.

( example )
Koran 71:25
Because of their sins they were drowned, then made to enter a Fire. And they found they had no helpers in place of Allah.

This reads like a commentary of the story of Noah from the Torah and its suspiciously Christian.

What is Judaism without the Talmud ?

 

[shunyadragon]

I guess if you don't have a strong stance to debate, a strong offense is your only defense along with mine quoting.

IF..............

you bothered to read further you would find:



Views of the Rabbis.

The sin of Adam, according to the Rabbis, had certain grievous results for him and for the earth. The Shekinah left earth after his fall (Gen. R. xix.; Tan., Peḳude, 6). He himself lost his personal splendor, deathlessness, and gigantic stature
see Adam). All men were doomed thenceforth to die; none not even the most just, might escape the common fate: the old temptation of the serpent suffices to bring on death (B. B. 17a; Shab 55b). (emphasis mine)

Please use a little higher standards.

I read the whole thing:

First the Jewish Encyclopedia you cite describes definitions, beliefs and commentary of different religions including Christianity. The section you cite deals specifically with the Christian belief of the Fall, and cites the New Testament, and yes adds commentary. In reality no, this definition describes a Christian belief concerning the Fall, and does not describe the Jewish belief,

 

[Augustus]

What does Islamic sources have to do with it? DNA taken from the Arabs show they are related to the Jews.

Arabs and Jews share almost identical Male ancestry, which means the DNA of Syrian based Sheikh Muhammad al-Yaqoubi, the 34th Grandson of the Prophet pbuh goes back to Abraham pbuh.

I just actually read that properly. You are making another significant mistake.

Palestinian Arabs and Palestinian Jews share the same DNA because they are Palestinians i.e not Arabs.

Arab is mostly a linguistic marker, not a genetic one. We don't call everyone who speaks Latin based languages Italians, but we do call those who speak Arabic based languages Arabs.

Palestinians and Levantines didn't magically change their DNA when they became Muslim and started to speak Arabic, they are the same populations that existed beforehand (with a bit of intermixing with the 'foreigners'). The same is true with North African 'Arabs'.

Many 'Arabs' are more closely related to what we see as Jews, Turks and Southern Europeans than they are to Hijazi Arabs.

The Quraysh were Hijazi Arabs, not the same as the Mediterranean peoples who later learned Arabic and are now though of as 'Arabs'..

 

[Kenny]

I read the whole thing:

First the Jewish Encyclopedia you cite describes definitions, beliefs and commentary of different religions including Christianity. The section you cite deals specifically with the Christian belief of the Fall, and cites the New Testament, and yes adds commentary. In reality no, this definition describes a Christian belief concerning the Fall, and does not describe the Jewish belief,

Then apparently we both see what we want to see since my quote says "Views of the Rabbis" with its proper citations.

However, it is pretty apparent that there was a fall depicted in Gen 3 without having to twist any scriptures or force a square peg into a round hole.

 

[Kenny]

I read the whole thing:

First the Jewish Encyclopedia you cite describes definitions, beliefs and commentary of different religions including Christianity. The section you cite deals specifically with the Christian belief of the Fall, and cites the New Testament, and yes adds commentary. In reality no, this definition describes a Christian belief concerning the Fall, and does not describe the Jewish belief,

Perhaps I have found why we have not come to agreement through finding this quote, although it also mentions some Jewish teachers who hold my view that death was brought on account of Adam's sin as did the Pharisee Saul who is also known as Apostle Paul to which I also subscribe to:

"...Jews believe that man enters the world free of sin, with a soul that is pure and innocent and untainted. While there were some Jewish teachers in Talmudic times who believed that death was a punishment brought upon mankind on account of Adam's sin, the dominant view by far was that man sins because he is not a perfect being, and not, as Christianity teaches, because he is inherently sinful."

Actually, I don't find that the two views are contrary to each other but rather both are in harmony

Although this is an obvious Jewish viewpoint of Christians, they point to a Catholic view that requires a baptism for the removal "original sin" for which, as a Christian, I disagree. (they also mention the disagreement among Christians)

The soul does enter into the world with a soul that is pure, innocent and untainted. Any child, as many Christian view it (although like Jews there are a full spectrum of beliefs), will be with God if he/she would die. There is a time of accountability.

Perhaps our disconnect is in the interpretation of "Original Sin".


Judaism's Rejection of Original Sin

 

[Muslim-UK]

I just actually read that properly. You are making another significant mistake.

Palestinian Arabs and Palestinian Jews share the same DNA because they are Palestinians i.e not Arabs.

Arab is mostly a linguistic marker, not a genetic one. We don't call everyone who speaks Latin based languages Italians, but we do call those who speak Arabic based languages Arabs.

Palestinians and Levantines didn't magically change their DNA when they became Muslim and started to speak Arabic, they are the same populations that existed beforehand (with a bit of intermixing with the 'foreigners'). The same is true with North African 'Arabs'.

Many 'Arabs' are more closely related to what we see as Jews, Turks and Southern Europeans than they are to Hijazi Arabs.

The Quraysh were Hijazi Arabs, not the same as the Mediterranean peoples who later learned Arabic and are now though of as 'Arabs'..

That's good to know, as it means those Palestinians spread throughout Arabia and elsewhere. All brethren to each other and all candidates for God to use as possible Prophets.

 

[Augustus]

That's good to know, as it means those Palestinians spread throughout Arabia and elsewhere.

Source?

Your article says nothing about Hijazi Arabs being genetically Palestinian.

 

[Muslim-UK]

Source?

Your article says nothing about Hijazi Arabs being genetically Palestinian.

 

[Augustus]

Did that video say anything about Hijazi Arabs being genetically Palestinian?

Someone who is 34 generations removed from an Arab could look like a Han Chinese or a Blonde Swede or any other ethnicity in the world.

 

[Muslim-UK]

Did that video say anything about Hijazi Arabs being genetically Palestinian?

Someone who is 34 generations removed from an Arab could look like a Han Chinese or a Blonde Swede or any other ethnicity in the world.

Only his lineage is proven through a succession of Scholars and goes back to the Prophet pbuh:

Blessed lineage of Sayyidina Shaykh Muhammad al Yaqoubi al Hasani

Here's another:
This is Crown Prince Hussein bin Abdullah, who is the heir apparent to the throne of the Kingdom of Jordan and the eldest child of King Abdullah II and Queen Rania.of Jordan,

Here's his Lineage back to the Prophet pbuh:

In Egypt there is a orginasation called (Al-Ashraf) consists of the Prophet's descendants. They have certificates giving the names in their family history going back to Mecca:

DNA proves the Palestinian brethren of the Israelites lived in and around Mecca.

 

[Augustus]

Only his lineage is proven through a succession of Scholars and goes back to the Prophet pbuh:

My point was that it matters little who your grandfather 34 generations ago looked like because you are so distantly related to them.

If I had 3 kids, and one married an African, on married a Chinese and one married a Northern European, and each of their kids married an African, Chinese , N European in turn, etc.

34 generations later their offspring would look like Africans, Chinese and Northern Europeans. All would still be descended from me though.

DNA proves the Palestinian brethren of the Israelites lived in and around Mecca.

What proof? You haven't offered any evidence, let alone proof.

If he was called Spiros Spiradon, was from Crete, and was 34 generations removed from an Arab you wouldn't be talking about how Greeks lived near Mecca.

Why do you think the Quraysh were of Palestinian origin, rather than Southern, Central or Northern Arabian origin?

It is possible that they were of North Arabian origin as the Quran seems to reflect a Syriac religious tradition rather than a Hebrew one and the sirah traditions seem to carry hints of loose connections with the Romans (although this is far from definitive), but you haven't presented any DNA evidence or other reasoning to support the link to Palestinians.

 

[Muslim-UK]

My point was that it matters little who your grandfather 34 generations ago looked like because you are so distantly related to them.

A brief recap, before coming to the science. DNA shows some Muslims can trace their roots back to Arabia, South, East, West Arabia matters not. The link is established, as you said..

Palestinian Arabs and Palestinian Jews share the same DNA because they are Palestinians i.e not Arabs.

This article backs up your claim of Palestinians and Jews sharing same genetic code:
Blood brothers: Palestinians and Jews share genetic roots

Most of these DNA studies are done between Israeli Jews and Palestinians.

Nathan Shlomo Valadez, Degree in Judaic studies. Rabbi. Jewish outreach professional. Writer. says,

"Yes. Jews and Arabs are both descendants of peoples originating from the fertile crescent."

"Regarding Ishmaelite Arabs (Not all Arabs) these come from Abraham and are very proud of this fact. They and Jews are very close in DNA. Until the forced conversion to Islam these Arabs had been converts to Judaism for over 300 years. Many Jewish-Arab families are therefore closely related since during this 300 year period Jewish Arabs and Hebrew Jews mixed especially in Mecca and Medina (Jewish Cities at that time), Yemen, and The Holy Land, as well as Iraq."

"Therefore Jews are very closely related to Arabs. Our DNA is very close."

"We are family!"

But what does this Rabbi know right?

Well DNA studies done in 2008 on Saudi Arabians shows....

Results
Saudi Arabia differentiates from other Arabian Peninsula countries by a higher presence of J2-M172 lineages. It is significantly different from Yemen mainly due to a comparative reduction of sub-Saharan Africa E1-M123 and Levantine J1-M267 male lineages. Around 14% of the Saudi Arabia Y-chromosome pool is typical of African biogeographic ancestry, 17% arrived to the area from the East across Iran, while the remainder 69% could be considered of direct or indirect Levantine ascription. Interestingly, basal E-M96* (n = 2) and J-M304* (n = 3) lineages have been detected, for the first time, in the Arabian Peninsula. Coalescence time for the most prominent J1-M267 haplogroup in Saudi Arabia (11.6 ± 1.9 ky) is similar to that obtained previously for Yemen (11.3 ± 2) but significantly older that those estimated for Qatar (7.3 ± 1.8) and UAE (6.8 ± 1.5).

Saudi Arabian Y-Chromosome diversity and its relationship with nearby regions

However we want to look at it, the Arabs/Palestinians/nomads of Muhammad's pbuh time are brethren of the Israelites.

 

[Kenny]

Interesting... I have my own line to the prophet...

 

[shunyadragon]

Perhaps I have found why we have not come to agreement through finding this quote, although it also mentions some Jewish teachers who hold my view that death was brought on account of Adam's sin as did the Pharisee Saul who is also known as Apostle Paul to which I also subscribe to:

"...Jews believe that man enters the world free of sin, with a soul that is pure and innocent and untainted. While there were some Jewish teachers in Talmudic times who believed that death was a punishment brought upon mankind on account of Adam's sin, the dominant view by far was that man sins because he is not a perfect being, and not, as Christianity teaches, because he is inherently sinful."

Actually, I don't find that the two views are contrary to each other but rather both are in harmony

Although this is an obvious Jewish viewpoint of Christians, they point to a Catholic view that requires a baptism for the removal "original sin" for which, as a Christian, I disagree. (they also mention the disagreement among Christians)

The soul does enter into the world with a soul that is pure, innocent and untainted. Any child, as many Christian view it (although like Jews there are a full spectrum of beliefs), will be with God if he/she would die. There is a time of accountability.

Perhaps our disconnect is in the interpretation of "Original Sin".


Judaism's Rejection of Original Sin

No, I do not think so. Your citing a reference in the Jewish Encyclopedia primarily describing a traditional Christian belief with some commentary from 'some' Rabbis of Talmudic times does not support your contention the 'Original Sin and the Fall' is 'very Jewish' or even Jewish. The Talmudic times were heavily influenced by Hellenist philosophy. If you cite like Rabbi Saul, than of course, Saul was Hellenist Jew.

The by far dominant view of Jews in history I reject all versions of 'Original Sin and the Fall.'

First, the belief in the 'Original Sin and the Fall' fails due to the known scientific documented history of humanity,

Second, the belief center around the assumption that God Created everything perfect, without suffering, death? and sin, than why is there suffering, death? and sin? The answer 'Original and the Fall' was a way to answer the question, which is a serious problematic answer, because other than mythology there is no evidence of any such perfect world.

Third, it is bizzare at minimum to blame two fallible human beings succumbed to temptation that God 'set them up' in a situation where they would ultimately fail regardless.

Fourth, what you describe as a view of the 'Fall and Original Sin' does not reflect any of the beliefs of the traditional Christian churches, which I argue against. Arguing against a personal view has no context, because as an individual you could believe in anything.

 

[Kenny]

***sigh***

OK

No, I do not think so. Your citing a reference in the Jewish Encyclopedia primarily describing a traditional Christian belief with some commentary from 'some' Rabbis of Talmudic times does not support your contention the 'Original Sin and the Fall' is 'very Jewish' or even Jewish. The Talmudic times were heavily influenced by Hellenist philosophy. If you cite like Rabbi Saul, than of course, Saul was Hellenist Jew.

It was a Jewish Encyclopedia and then confirmed by the second one I gave.

You propose that all Jewish thought is the same. Keep thinking that as there are atheists Jews all the way to Orthodox Jews and each with a different position.

The by far dominant view of Jews in history I reject all versions of 'Original Sin and the Fall.'

Here you have supported my case... "The by far dominant" implies there are others. And you have yet to support that in Gen. 3 there wasn't a fall. If not, what happened? What did they say happened? What is your supportive documentation of what the dominant view says? Does today's "dominant view" equal the same "dominant view" or 2,000 years ago? 4,000 years ago?

First, the belief in the 'Original Sin and the Fall' fails due to the known scientific documented history of humanity,

Great statement ???????? Do I believe every statement because you say so?

Second, the belief center around the assumption that God Created everything perfect, without suffering, death?

Perfectly created? yes. It is as He made it before and it will be after He fixes it?

and sin, than why is there suffering, death? and sin? The answer 'Original and the Fall' was a way to answer the question, which is a serious problematic answer, because other than mythology there is no evidence of any such perfect world.

No evidence does not translate into "not there". How much does man know in comparison to what there is to be known? Because we don't know it does not translate that it isn't there.

Third, it is bizzare at minimum to blame two fallible human beings succumbed to temptation that God 'set them up' in a situation where they would ultimately fail regardless.

In your viewpoint, yes.

But like Jewish thought, there are many viewpoints.

Fourth, what you describe as a view of the 'Fall and Original Sin' does not reflect any of the beliefs of the traditional Christian churches, which I argue against. Arguing against a personal view has no context, because as an individual you could believe in anything.

Thank you for misquoting me. Please let me know where I said "does not reflect any of the beliefs of the traditional Christian churches" and I will show you where I didn't say it.

 

[shunyadragon]

It was a Jewish Encyclopedia and then confirmed by the second one I gave.

No, it did not confirm your view, because it was primarily a description of the Christian belief of the Fall with references to the Bible, Yes there was Jewish commentary, but that was not the purpose of the entry in the Encyclopedia.

You propose that all Jewish thought is the same.

Absolutely not!

Keep thinking that as there are atheists Jews all the way to Orthodox Jews and each with a different position.

Like the view of the 'Fall and Original Sin,' any person can disagree and personal propose a belief, but that is not meaningful in a discussion.

Here you have supported my case... "The by far dominant" implies there are others. And you have yet to support that in Gen. 3 there wasn't a fall.

If not, what happened? What did they say happened? What is your supportive documentation of what the dominant view says?

The Christian belief in the 'Fall and Original Sin' is an interpretation of Genesis 3, It does not reflect the Jewish interpretation of Genesis 3.

Does today's "dominant view" equal the same "dominant view" or 2,000 years ago? 4,000 years ago?

Question too vague and ambiguous to answer.

Great statement ???????? Do I believe every statement because you say so?

Are you not aware of the overwhelming archaelogical evidence, and paleontological evidence going back consistently concerning the history of humanity, and all life going back hundreds of thousands of years, if not millions of years.

Denial gets you nowhere. You need to do your homework and not rely on me,

Perfectly created? yes. It is as He made it before and it will be after He fixes it?

Yes, this is the very Christian interpretation of the Fall and Original Sin'. It is not a 'very Jewish' interpretation of Genesis 3. Your reference to commentary in the Jewish Encyclopedia that some Talmudic Rabbis believed what? does not support your case. Again, again, and again the reference primarily describes a Christian belief, and not a Jewish belief,

No evidence does not translate into "not there". How much does man know in comparison to what there is to be known? Because we don't know it does not translate that it isn't there.

This only represents a foolish vague argument from ignorance.

In your viewpoint, yes.

It remains a problem regardless!

Third, it is bizzare at minimum to blame two fallible human beings succumbed to temptation that God 'set them up' in a situation where they would ultimately fail regardless.

But like Jewish thought, there are many viewpoints.

Too high a fog index, and we are not discussing a diversity of personal views.

Thank you for misquoting me. Please let me know where I said "does not reflect any of the beliefs of the traditional Christian churches" and I will show you where I didn't say it.

Here

The soul does enter into the world with a soul that is pure, innocent and untainted.

From: Does The United Methodist Church believe that babies are born in sin? - The United Methodist Church

"Does The United Methodist Church believe that babies are born in sin?

SHARE:

Yes, we do believe that babies, at birth, are contaminated by sin. The ancient teaching of the church on this is called the doctrine of original sin."

From: Original sin - Wikipedia
Original sin, also called ancestral sin,[1] is the Christian doctrine of humanity's state of sin resulting from the fall of man, stemming from Adam and Eve's rebellion in Eden, namely the sin of disobedience in consuming from the tree of knowledge of good and evil.[2] This condition has been characterized in many ways, ranging from something as insignificant as a slight deficiency, or a tendency toward sin yet without collective guilt, referred to as a "sin nature", to something as drastic as total depravity or automatic guilt of all humans through collective guilt."

 

[Kenny]

No, it did not confirm your view, because it was primarily a description of the Christian belief of the Fall with references to the Bible, Yes there was Jewish commentary, but that was not the purpose of the entry in the Encyclopedia.

It is very dishonest to omit the Jewish reference on both sites that supported my position.

Like the view of the 'Fall and Original Sin,' any person can disagree and personal propose a belief, but that is not meaningful in a discussion.

A meaningful discussion is what I had attempted to have... obviously you don't.

The Christian belief in the 'Fall and Original Sin' is an interpretation of Genesis 3, It does not reflect the Jewish interpretation of Genesis 3.

Since you haven't supported any evidence of what Genesis. 3 deals within the Jewish thought, your statement are irrelevant.

Question too vague and ambiguous to answer.

Great two step.

Are you not aware of the overwhelming archaelogical evidence, and paleontological evidence going back consistently concerning the history of humanity, and all life going back hundreds of thousands of years, if not millions of years.

Absolutely.

Denial gets you nowhere. You need to do your homework and not rely on me,

Exactly!!

Yes, this is the very Christian interpretation of the Fall and Original Sin'. It is not a 'very Jewish' interpretation of Genesis 3. Your reference to commentary in the Jewish Encyclopedia that some Talmudic Rabbis believed what? does not support your case. Again, again, and again the reference primarily describes a Christian belief, and not a Jewish belief,

And yet, in very STARK contrast to your statement,

1. Pharisee Saul disagreed
2. Gen 3 disagreed
3. Gospel of John disagreed
4. my Jewish references disagreed.

This only represents a foolish vague argument from ignorance.

That, my young man, is an ignorant statement

Third, it is bizzare at minimum to blame two fallible human beings succumbed to temptation that God 'set them up' in a situation where they would ultimately fail regardless.

That is your viewpoint. I disagree just as much as you setting your child up for failure would be a wrong statement.

Too high a fog index, and we are not discussing a diversity of personal views.

Another two step

From: Does The United Methodist Church believe that babies are born in sin? - The United Methodist Church

"Does The United Methodist Church believe that babies are born in sin?

SHARE:

Yes, we do believe that babies, at birth, are contaminated by sin. The ancient teaching of the church on this is called the doctrine of original sin."

From: Original sin - Wikipedia
Original sin, also called ancestral sin,[1] is the Christian doctrine of humanity's state of sin resulting from the fall of man, stemming from Adam and Eve's rebellion in Eden, namely the sin of disobedience in consuming from the tree of knowledge of good and evil.[2] This condition has been characterized in many ways, ranging from something as insignificant as a slight deficiency, or a tendency toward sin yet without collective guilt, referred to as a "sin nature", to something as drastic as total depravity or automatic guilt of all humans through collective guilt."

As I said...

Any child, as many Christian view it (although like Jews there are a full spectrum of beliefs), will be with God if he/she would die.

Baptists and Assemblies of God would disagree on this point with my brothers in the Methodist Church.

 

[shunyadragon]

It is very dishonest to omit the Jewish reference on both sites that supported my position.

It is very dishonest and unethical for you to reference a definition of the Christian Fall to support a Jewish belief.

Your citing that some Jewish Rabbis believed that Adam and Eve? were at fault does not translate into the belief that humans are born tainted by 'Original Sin.'

A meaningful discussion is what I had attempted to have... obviously you don't.

Obfuscating with the misuse of definitions, and injecting personal opinions is not a meaningful discussion.

Since you haven't supported any evidence of what Genesis. 3 deals within the Jewish thought, your statement are irrelevant.

I gave Jewish references, and there are many more.

Great two step.

It is your Great Two Step appealing to a diversity of 'personal opinions to justify your position.

Pharisee Saul disagreed

Saul does not represent Jewish beliefs

Gen 3 disagreed

It is a Christian interpretation of Genesis 3, and as cited not a Jewish interpretation.

Gospel of John disagreed

Gospel of John is a Christian reference and not a Jewish reference.

my Jewish references disagreed.

False misuse, and misrepresentation

That, my young man, is an ignorant statement.

This only represents a foolish vague argument from ignorance.

That is your viewpoint. I disagree just as much as you setting your child up for failure would be a wrong statement.

No it is a fact as a literal interpretation of Genesis 3 as believed by most traditional Churches believe.

Another two step

Obfuscation avoiding a coherent response.

As I said...

Baptists and Assemblies of God would disagree on this point

I am not arguing against the Baptists and Assemblies of God who like the Jews, and I do not believe in 'Original Sin and the Fall.'

. . . with my brothers in the Methodist Church.

Personal opinion of individuals does not represent a coherent argument. Nonetheless the Methodist Church sincerely teaches and believes in the Doctrine of Original Sin and the Fall' as cited.

Your statement remains in contradiction with the doctrine of the 'Fall and Original Sin.'

The soul does enter into the world with a soul that is pure, innocent and untainted.

You cite churches that do not believe in the 'Fall and Original Sin doctrine.' I agree with them to some extent concerning Genesis 3, which is relevant to my argument.

The Methodist, Roman Church, Anglican, Lutheran and other churches that believe in the doctrine of the 'Fall and Original Sin' as described in the citation.

Your responses are obfuscating and blurring the argument,

 

[shunyadragon]

As far as Pagan influence which I specifically refer to Babylonian, Canaanite, Ugarit, Geek and Roman influence and corruption of Christianity avoiding other definitions that may create misunderstandings.

The known Hebrew version of Genesis and the rest of the Pentateuch is late compilation no older than ~600 BCE by the evidence at a stretch. The evidence demonstrates that Genesis and much of the Pentateuch is progressive compilation and editing of older Babylonian, Ugarit, and Canaanite texts found on cuneiform tablets, much older than any known Hebrew Biblical text. The Creation myths and flood myths are clearly present in these older forms.

 

[Magus]

The Christian notion of Sin, Heaven, Hell, Original Sin and Fall of Man are oddly absent in the Torah.

Satan makes no appearance in the Adam-Eve story, but Christians likes to believe he does and Quran states Satan disguised himself as a Snake .

The New Testament authors invented the notion of 'Hell', by misinterpreting 'Gai Enm' ( Hinnom Valley) as Hell ( an actual place, near the Dead Sea) , the Arabic word for hell is 'Jahannam', it seems Islam was inspired by Christianity .