Pagan influence on Christianity

[Augustus]

Don't forget verse 4 and 5

4 Blessed are those who dwell in your house. They are always praising you. Selah
5 Blessed are those whose strength is in you; who have set their hearts on a pilgrimage.

God's house = Temple in Jerusalem

Till each appears before God in Zion = Jews going to the temple in Jerusalem

Not somewhere Jews went through on the way to Jerusalem = Mecca as it is 1500km in the wrong direction

If you could give me a location for this place, that would be great.

I don't know. A valley with balsam trees on the way to Jerusalem apparently.

Some people have said the Valley of Rephraim which is far more plausible than somewhere 1500km away, especially as it has significance in Jewish history, and it is a Jewish scripture.

I don't know if this is correct or not

The rest of your post is your opinion on the lack of importance given to Mecca, Baca, Macoraba or whatever else people may have called it back then. The important thing is, it existed and was a place housing a Temple.

Baca and Macoraba are in the wrong location and are the wrong words.

It's a bit like saying 'I can prove Hell exists, it's in the North East of England, but it is written Hull'

More evidence for me, thanks.

The German botanist Schweinfurth has reconstructed the ancient process of balsam production.[2]

At present the tree Commiphora gileadensis grows wild in the valley of Mecca where it is called beshem.

If it is 'Valley of the Balsam Trees' rather than 'The valley of Mecca' then how can it be 'more evidence'. This would mean that, even though it isn't referring to the place called Mecca 1500km away, it must be still be Mecca because Mecca is one of the countless places that Balsam trees grow within a 1500km radius.

This is an area of theology, something you're not interested in remember.

I assume it is the 'prophet like Moses' that God promised would arise from among the Jews.

Not the Arabs of Mecca. I've shown 10,000 Roman soldiers had no idea what God had in store for them in the desert. You want me to believe there were Arab soldiers who forgot what the Desert was like.

As I said, the ones who fought with the Romans were mostly North Arabians.

Like I said, if it was that mythical, we would have seen someone say so. Yet the Jews of Medina, living under protection, freely travelled to Palestine, yet not a single one of them or anyone else for that matter thought to mention the 'myths' Muslims were promoting. Even making anonymous mention. Strange that.

Who says they were exaggerating the pre-Islamic status of Mecca that early?

The word Muslim doesn't appear on any inscription until the end of the 1st C AH. No early inscription mentions Muhammad (only 'in the Name of God'). The people conquered by the Arabs had no idea they had been conquered by a people practicing a distinctly new religion (although there are acknowledgements of Muhammad, and a prophet). See Hoyland - Seeing Islam as others saw it for a comprehensive coverage of all of the earliest references (I posted a link in the resources section of the forum a while back).

I'm sure you will agree that with most other religions, orthodoxy doesn't appear overnight but takes decades if not centuries to develop. You certainly believe that about Christianity.

While I agree that the Quran is an early text and took a pretty standardised form far quicker than the Bible did, how it was interpreted, sirah and hadith literature and Islamic law evolved over time.

 

[Muslim-UK]

God's house = Temple in Jerusalem

Till each appears before God in Zion = Jews going to the temple in Jerusalem

Not somewhere Jews went through on the way to Jerusalem = Mecca as it is 1500km in the wrong direction

King David pbuh must have been confused then:

Psalms 84:
1 How lovely is your dwelling place, Lord Almighty!

2 My soul yearns, even faints, for the courts of the Lord; my heart and my flesh cry out for the living God.

If it was in Jerusalem on his doorstep why did he yearn for it and what Temple are you talking about given Solomon pbuh hadn't built the First Temple in Jerusalem yet?

Where is this famous Temple, where a single prayer was worth more than 1,000 elsewhere?

I don't know. A valley with balsam trees on the way to Jerusalem apparently.

Some people have said the Valley of Rephraim which is far more plausible than somewhere 1500km away, especially as it has significance in Jewish history, and it is a Jewish scripture.

I don't know if this is correct or not

Well it's in a valley called Baca that is covered with water in the autumn:

Say, " Allah has told the truth. So follow the religion of Abraham, inclining toward truth; and he was not of the polytheists."

Indeed, the first House [of worship] established for mankind was that at Makkah - blessed and a guidance for the worlds.

In it are clear signs [such as] the standing place of Abraham. And whoever enters it shall be safe. And [due] to Allah from the people is a pilgrimage to the House - for whoever is able to find thereto a way. But whoever disbelieves - then indeed, Allah is free from need of the worlds.

Baca and Macoraba are in the wrong location and are the wrong words.

It's a bit like saying 'I can prove Hell exists, it's in the North East of England, but it is written Hull'

330 B.C Alexandria in Ariana is today called Herat - Afghanistan
11th Century Monkchester is today called Newcastle upon Tyne - England, U.K.

Under Mecca, the Encyclopedia Britannica says:
Alternative Titles: Bakkah, Macoraba, Makkah

Mecca | Saudi Arabia

The Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography says the same thing:

Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography (1854), MAACAH, MAACAH, MACORABA


If it is 'Valley of the Balsam Trees' rather than 'The valley of Mecca' then how can it be 'more evidence'. This would mean that, even though it isn't referring to the place called Mecca 1500km away, it must be still be Mecca because Mecca is one of the countless places that Balsam trees grow within a 1500km radius.

"Among the true balsams are the Balm of Gilead, or Mecca, which is cultivated in Arabia, Egypt, Syria, etc"
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Balsam

Jewish Historian Josephus relates that, according to popular belief, Queen Sheba brought the root from Arabia to King Solomon as a gift, and that the Balsam trees of Jericho yielded the most precious products of the land, the "only balsam in the world,"

BALSAM - JewishEncyclopedia.com

To remove any doubt King David pbuh yearned for Pilgrimage to Mecca

Eleven psalms are attributed to the Sons of Korah Psalm 42, Psalms 44 - 49, Psalm 84, Psalm 85, Psalm 87, and Psalm 88.

In Psalm 42:1 For the director of music. A maskil of the Sons of Korah. As the deer pants for streams of water, so my soul pants for you, my God.

The name ko'-ra-its. Qorchi, , beno Qorach Korahites; Sons of Korah in the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. ; in the King James Version appears also as Korhite, Kohathite, Kore. Is the tribe that are being left in charge of this House of God by King David

We know this by reading Exodus 6: 24 The sons of Korah were Assir, Elkanah and Abiasaph. These were the Korahite clans.

And when we read, 1 Chronicles 6:31

31 These are the men David put in charge of the music in the house of the LORD after the ark came to rest there.

32 They ministered with music before the tabernacle, the tent of meeting, until Solomon built the temple of the LORD in Jerusalem. They performed their duties according to the regulations laid down for them

33 Here are the men who served, together with their sons: From the Kohathites: Heman, the musician, the son of Joel, the son of Samuel,

34 the son of Elkanah the son of Jeroham, the son of Eliel, the son of Toah,

35 the son of Zuph, the son of Elkanah, the son of Mahath, the son of Amasai,

36 the son of Elkanah, the son of Joel, the son of Azariah, the son of Zephaniah,

37 the son of Tahath, the son of Assir, the son of Ebiasaph, the son of Korah,

When we read Number 26: 11 The line of Korah, however, did not die out. meaning they survived as the righteous will survive.

Hence it is clear the Ark came to rest in the House of the Lord prior to it being moved to Jerusalem by Solomon from above verses. Meaning the House of God was not in Jerusalem

So who were the ko'-ra-its, Qorchi, , beno Qorach looking after The House of God?

Quraysh - Wikipedia

There is also further evidence from the Torah showing a Prophet with a New Covenant would come from Arabia, from amongst their brethren, specifically from Medina, which is where the Jews were waiting in anticipation.

 

[shunyadragon]

I said "I'm no Hellenist" in a context that suggest that while I do not worship the Greek gods, I know a fair amount of Greek mythology and have interaction with actual Hellenists.

You also still seem to be treating it like a negative thing, as though I would be offended, using words like "denied" and "accused".

Your overstating the issue. If rewording helps. I never 'said' you were a Hellenist.

I do believe Greek Hellenist beliefs corrupted Christianity primarily through Paul and Saint Augustine's influence, but also the fact that by the time Christianity became Roman the dominant influence was no longer jewish,

It sure would be great if I could find just what that book says. Because what you quoted about cursed families is not the same thing as Original Sin. It is not one couple screws up, and curses all of mankind forever until some divine figure conditionally fixes it. You also give this one line here: "tragedy is a medium that fuses the conceptual with the provoking and exciting of emotion". This gives the understanding that it's not doctrine, but - as I've said - fiction.

Of course, it is not the same thing, but the concept of the Fall and Original Sin originated with Augustine and Paul who believed in the Greek concept of 'inherited guilt.'

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Your overstating the issue. If rewording helps. I never 'said' you were a Hellenist.

Shun, go back and read the original post. Now imagine that we're talking about airplanes, and you're trying to pitch a ridiculous design. I say "I'm no flight mechanic, but that doesn't look like it will fly." That's the same context in which I said "I'm no Hellenist." I have not claimed or accused you of saying that I'm a Hellenist; you're being ridiculous.

I do believe Greek Hellenist beliefs corrupted Christianity

Why corrupt? Given the time frame, it would also be Roman beliefs that would have influenced Christianity, not exactly Greek.

...the concept of the Fall and Original Sin originated with Augustine and Paul who believed in the Greek concept of 'inherited guilt.'

No, I'm fairly certain that the concept of mankind's "fall from grace" and original sin originate with the Christian interpretation of Hebrew myths. The Greek's "inherited guilt" - if applied to Christian mythology - would narrate Yahweh intentionally (and frankly pettily) seeking out the children of Adam and either making their lives miserable or actually trying to kill them because Yahweh is still angry at Adam.

Which is so far separated from the concept of Original Sin - that the deception and betrayal in Eden (and consumption of the fruit) forever tainted the very core being of mankind, and thus necessitates certain measures of salvation - that the two are not even comparable to anyone who is being honest about it.

 

[Augustus]

Well it's in a valley called Baca that is covered with water in the autumn:

It's in a Valley called Mecca that doesn't have any springs, otherwise there would be little need for the famous Zamzam well and is the destination of the pilgrimage not just somewhere people 'pass through' otw to Zion.

Most of the world sometimes gets covered in puddles in the Autumn

If it was in Jerusalem on his doorstep why did he yearn for it and what Temple are you talking about given Solomon pbuh hadn't built the First Temple in Jerusalem yet?

Where is this famous Temple, where a single prayer was worth more than 1,000 elsewhere?

Sorry, my Jewish theology is not perfect.

If it is David, then he was forced to flee after his brother Absolom revolted.

Can you find other examples of Arabia being referred to as Zion to bolster your argument? The verse is pretty clear about the destination.

Queen Sheba brought the root from Arabia

Arabia Felix/Yemen

Under Mecca, the Encyclopedia Britannica says:
Alternative Titles: Bakkah, Macoraba, Makkah

Based on an error that has simply been repeated over time. Pretty common in history when people simply quote what people have said before without additional analysis.

They are doing what you are doing, starting with an assumption then fudging the evidence to fit into what you have already decided must be true, rather than looking at the evidence and drawing a conclusion based on that. If people thought Mecca had always been a famous place then they would assume it must appear in historical record, and make assumptions based on this.

The only 'evidence' is that it, while it is not in the right place, it isn't that wrong, and the first half of the word is sort of like Mecca and the last bit must be another word which we don't know what is but will just make a few guesses based on the assumption we have made.


Macoraba’s etymologies have often been adduced to show that Mecca was a prominent holy site long before Islam. In practice, scholars have assumed that Mecca was an ancient holy site, they have assumed that Mecca is Macoraba, and they have gone looking for etymologies to cohere with those assumptions. It is telling that after 350 years of experimentation we have a handful of incompatible etymologies, none of which quite fits. It is also telling that five very different interpretations have resorted to languages that flourished outside ancient Mecca: Aramaic from Sprenger, Hebrew from Bochart and Dozy, and Old South Arabian from Glaser and Ali. Why, then, is there still a consensus that Macoraba is Mecca?

Unless I am mistaken, the idea was first noted in the seventeenth century; in the eighteenth century it found its way into encyclopaedias; and in the nineteenth, it was fairly common knowledge among Orientalists

Mecca before Islam: 2) Macoraba – Ian D. Morris

Orientalists usually treated the 'history' part of Islamic theology as being fact, one even saying 'Islam was born in the full light of history' while modern scholarship has shown that there is actually a paucity of hard evidence from this period.

Western scholars were far more credulous as to the origins of Islam than they were to the origins of Christianity until relatively recently. There wasn't much else to go on.

Do you really consider pre-20thC Orientalists as being reliable sources for Islam? Usually these are the people who Muslim historians have the most scorn for as they generally had a strong pro-Christian agenda.

o who were the ko'-ra-its, Qorchi, , beno Qorach looking after The House of God?

Quraysh - Wikipedia

I'm not sure that even Islamic sources claim the Quraysh existed in 1000BC.

People have spent the last 1200 years scouring the Bible and Jewish scriptures for any 'proof' for Islam. You are bound to find a couple of specious similarities and coincidences.

The problem is, to make them more than specious similarities and coincidences you have to isolate them from any context and do a bit of fudging. It is the very definition of confirmation bias.

Passing through some valley on the way to Zion becomes a pilgrimage to Mecca (even though the similar place name is clearly not the destination).

A Jewish tribe who lived near Galilee becomes the Quraysh, even though the Quraysh probably didn't exist at that point and certainly weren't ever a Jewish tribe who lived near Galilee.

These Jewish stories cross reference and overlap, you just cherry pick the isolated coincidence and disregard the whole context to justify a preconceived belief.

Everything is the narrative is wrong except the isolated kernel of convenience.

There is also further evidence from the Torah showing a Prophet with a New Covenant would come from Arabia, from amongst their brethren, specifically from Medina, which is where the Jews were waiting in anticipation.

'Prophet like Moses' yes? Again you really have to mangle the context to get an Arab prophet rather than a Jewish one.

This is generally what supersessionist faiths do, redefine the original material to suit their new goals and needs. The Christians did it also.

 

[Kenny]

Your overstating the issue. If rewording helps. I never 'said' you were a Hellenist.

I do believe Greek Hellenist beliefs corrupted Christianity primarily through Paul and Saint Augustine's influence, but also the fact that by the time Christianity became Roman the dominant influence was no longer jewish,




Of course, it is not the same thing, but the concept of the Fall and Original Sin originated with Augustine and Paul who believed in the Greek concept of 'inherited guilt.'

I understand your point of view.

Needless to say, I hold to your understanding since Paul quoted from the prophets therefore suggesting that he wasn't the originator of the concept of the fall.

Actually, it seems to be right there in Genesis 3 along with a blood covenant, a sacrifice and a promise of a Messiah.

 

[Muslim-UK]

It's in a Valley called Mecca that doesn't have any springs, otherwise there would be little need for the famous Zamzam well and is the destination of the pilgrimage not just somewhere people 'pass through' otw to Zion.

Most of the world sometimes gets covered in puddles in the Autumn

What does having a fresh water source have to do with temporary occasional flooding in Autumn? Would the floods be able to provide water all year round?

You can not find another Valley with Balsam trees that flooded in Autumn and had a House of God, so blessed that a single prayer is worth 1,000 elsewhere.

Sorry, my Jewish theology is not perfect.

If it is David, then he was forced to flee after his brother Absolom revolted.

Again there was no Temple at that time in Jerusalem.

Can you find other examples of Arabia being referred to as Zion to bolster your argument? The verse is pretty clear about the destination.

Zion is the land promised in Genesis to Abraham's descendants. It stretches from the land between the Nile and the Euphrates.

Type 'greater map Israel' and view the images on Google. Their are various interpretations and almost all include large parts of, yes you've guessed it, Saudi Arabia. This would all be classed as Zion.

Arabia Felix/Yemen

Based on an error that has simply been repeated over time. Pretty common in history when people simply quote what people have said before without additional analysis.

Yes easier to imagine Mecca magically came down from Heaven in the 7th Century. No Jew, Pagan, Christian or Muslim noticed. That's quite a conspiracy you want us to swallow. Why would they even need to invent Mecca if Macoraba was someplace else? Petra would have been perfect to use as a site steeped in History. Simply remove the idols and dedicate worship to the God of Abraham pbuh.

I'm not sure that even Islamic sources claim the Quraysh existed in 1000BC.

The Israelites managed to remember the name of their Tribe for 2000 B.C. but no other tribe managed it :/

People have spent the last 1200 years scouring the Bible and Jewish scriptures for any 'proof' for Islam. You are bound to find a couple of specious similarities and coincidences.

Why does anyone need proof of Islam from the Bible? Does anyone deny Ishmael pbuh had a covenant and was promised a Great Nation?

Passing through some valley on the way to Zion becomes a pilgrimage to Mecca (even though the similar place name is clearly not the destination).

Show me a Temple from the time of David pbuh were a single prayer was worth 1,000.

A Jewish tribe who lived near Galilee becomes the Quraysh, even though the Quraysh probably didn't exist at that point and certainly weren't ever a Jewish tribe who lived near Galilee.

The descendants of Ishmael were cousins of the Israelites, they inter-married and pooled their resources together. This is all recorded in the Torah. I've shown the ko'-ra-its, Qorchi, beno Qorach were left in charge of the Holy Temple, in a valley of Balsam Trees called Beca.

These Jewish stories cross reference and overlap, you just cherry pick the isolated coincidence and disregard the whole context to justify a preconceived belief.

Everything is the narrative is wrong except the isolated kernel of convenience.

Feel free to offer counter proof.

'Prophet like Moses' yes? Again you really have to mangle the context to get an Arab prophet rather than a Jewish one.

This is generally what supersessionist faiths do, redefine the original material to suit their new goals and needs. The Christians did it also.

You like history. Find a old Biblical Dictionary and tell us all what the term 'Brethren' means.

Recall earlier you wrote, "How can such an important place, close to the 'centre of the world', not be mentioned?"

GOD Himself made it known to all mankind.

 

[Augustus]

Zion is the land promised in Genesis to Abraham's descendants. It stretches from the land between the Nile and the Euphrates.

Type 'greater map Israel' and view the images on Google. Their are various interpretations and almost all include large parts of, yes you've guessed it, Saudi Arabia. This would all be classed as Zion.

Zion = Jerusalem

Zion - Wikipedia

Yes easier to imagine Mecca magically came down from Heaven in the 7th Century. No Jew, Pagan, Christian or Muslim noticed. That's quite a conspiracy you want us to swallow. Why would they even need to invent Mecca if Macoraba was someplace else? Petra would have been perfect to use as a site steeped in History. Simply remove the idols and dedicate worship to the God of Abraham pbuh.

Who said that?

I just find a) far more plausible than b)

a) Mecca was a smallish settlement with a sanctuary that was of local significance. After the rise of Islam its status became exaggerated to make it seem like it had always been important.
b) Mecca was always important as the most significant and remarkable place in the Hijaz, was holy to all Arabs, yet, at best, there are 2-3 very oblique references to it in 1000+ years all of which are problematic.

The Israelites managed to remember the name of their Tribe for 2000 B.C. but no other tribe managed it :/

Now you are mangling Islamic history as well. AFAIK, no Islamic sources name the Quraysh as existing 1000BC.

Why does anyone need proof of Islam from the Bible?

Well this is exactly my thought. You have your own holy scriptures that you believe in so why the need to distort those of the Jews?

That the Torah contains no prophecies of Muhammad nor references to Mecca doesn't mean Islam loses any 'points'.

It does make individual Muslims look a bit desperate though when they make such tenuous claims though.

Show me a Temple from the time of David pbuh were a single prayer was worth 1,000.

Show me some evidence that there was one in Mecca 1000 years ago.

According to Wikipedia:

At the beginning of his reign, King David removed the Ark from Kirjath-jearim amid great rejoicing. On the way to Zion, Uzzah, one of the drivers of the cart that carried the Ark, put out his hand to steady the Ark, and was struck dead by God for touching it. David, in fear, carried the Ark aside into the house of Obed-edom the Gittite, instead of carrying it on to Zion, and there it stayed three months (2 Samuel 6:1-11; 1 Chronicles 13:1-13).

On hearing that God had blessed Obed-edom because of the presence of the Ark in his house, David had the Ark brought to Zion by the Levites, while he himself, "girded with a linen ephod," "danced before the Lord with all his might" and in the sight of all the public gathered in Jerusalem—a performance that caused him to be scornfully rebuked by his first wife, Saul's daughter Michal (2 Sam. 6:12-16, 20-22; 1 Chron. 15). In Zion, David put the Ark in the tabernacle he had prepared for it, offered sacrifices, distributed food, and blessed the people and his own household (2 Sam. 6:17-20; 1 Chron. 16:1-3; 2 Chron. 1:4).

The Levites were appointed to minister before the Ark (1 Chron. 16:4). David's plan of building a temple for the Ark was stopped at the advice of God (2 Sam. 7:1-17; 1 Chron. 17:1-15; 28:2, 3). The Ark was with the army during the siege of Rabbah (2 Sam. 11:11); and when David fled from Jerusalem at the time of Absalom's conspiracy, the Ark was carried along with him until he ordered Zadok the priest to return it to Jerusalem (2 Sam. 15:24-29).

The descendants of Ishmael were cousins of the Israelites, they inter-married and pooled their resources together. This is all recorded in the Torah. I've shown the ko'-ra-its, Qorchi, beno Qorach were left in charge of the Holy Temple, in a valley of Balsam Trees called Beca.

You are ignoring both Islamic and Jewish history simply because the word Kohathites (named after a person Kohath) very tenuously resembles the word Quraysh. You then ignore all other details of the story, and claim a longer history of the Quraysh than even Islamic historians do.

You like history. Find a old Biblical Dictionary and tell us all what the term 'Brethren' means.

What do you find problematic with the following?

Jewish understanding
Akh, or brother in English, appears 94 times in the last 4 books of the Torah, yet it never once describes the descendants of Ishmael (AS).

• 53 times it describes kinsmen (Jews)
• 30 times it describes biological brothers
• 8 times it describes tribesmen (12 Jewish tribes)
• 3 times it describes Edomites

Al-Maghribi correctly states that the Torah refers to the Edomites as brothers, but he fails to mention that each time it says “brother” the text goes on to explicitly name them as “the Edomites”. In the absence of this name, like in our verse, brother only ever refers to the Children of Israel (AS). That said, even if we were to use al-Maghribi’s logic, the brother of Israel (Jacob) is not Ishmael but Edom.

His theory that the use of brother in the singular infers tribe, takes advantage of the reader’s ignorance of Hebrew (which often uses the singular collectively). A mere twelve verses earlier the Torah states, “When the Levite [singular] will come from one of your cities”, yet this verse is clearly referring to the Levites collectively. So too in our verse, the word brother is used collectively to refer to the Israelites.

This verse like the ones before and after it, is not documenting an individual prophet, but promising there will be future Jewish prophets and providing the criteria to identify them.

 

[Muslim-UK]

Zion = Jerusalem

Zion - Wikipedia

How does that account for the borders running from Egypt to the Euphrates?

Who said that?

I just find a) far more plausible than b)

a) Mecca was a smallish settlement with a sanctuary that was of local significance. After the rise of Islam its status became exaggerated to make it seem like it had always been important.
b) Mecca was always important as the most significant and remarkable place in the Hijaz, was holy to all Arabs, yet, at best, there are 2-3 very oblique references to it in 1000+ years all of which are problematic.

Again we're back to you believe it is A and I say between A & B. Pointless discussion really.

Now you are mangling Islamic history as well. AFAIK, no Islamic sources name the Quraysh as existing 1000BC.

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.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/05/000509003653.htm

Harry Ostrer, director of the Human Genetics Programme at New York University School of Medicine. The team analysed regions of the Y chromosome in 1,371 men from 29 populations worldwide. The Y chromosome passes largely unchanged down the male line.

The results, published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, show that the difference between Jewish and Arab populations is extremely small, considerably smaller than that between North and South African populations, for example. The study confirms that both Arabs and Jews owe their genes to a common ancestor population that predated the Jewish religion.

DNA proves the Quresh are descendants of ko'-ra-its, Qorchi, beno Qorach

Show me some evidence that there was one in Mecca 1000 years ago.

The material conditions under which the Arabs lived began to improve around 1000 B.C. About this time, a method for saddling camels had been developed to transport large loads. The camel was the only animal that could cross large tracts of barren land with any reliability. The Arabs could now benefit from some of the trade that had previously circumvented Arabia. The increased trans-Arabian trade produced two important results. One was the rise of cities that could service the trains of camels moving across the desert. The most prosperous of these — Petra in Jordan, associated with the Nabatean Kingdom, and Palmyra in Syria, for example—were relatively close to markets 5 Saudi Arabia: A Country Study in the Mediterranean region, but small caravan cities developed within the Arabian Peninsula as well. One of the ancient cities that formed part of the Nabatean Kingdom from about 25 B.C. to the end of the first century A.D. was Madain Salin, the ruins of which still exist. The most important of these caravan cities was Mecca, which also owed its prosperity to certain shrines in the area that were visited by Arabs from all over the peninsula.

Some Arabs, particularly in the Hijaz, held religious beliefs that recognized a number of gods as well as a number of rituals for worshiping them. The most important of these beliefs involved the sense that certain places and times of year were sacred and must be respected. At those times and in those places, warfare, in particular, was forbidden, and various rituals were required. Foremost of these was the pilgrimage, and the best known pilgrimage site was Mecca. The second result of the Arabs' increased involvement in trade was the contact it gave them with the outside world. In the Near East, the Persians and the Romans were the great powers in the centuries before the advent of Islam, and the Arab tribes that bordered these territories were drawn into their political affairs. After A.D. 400, both empires paid Arab tribes not only to protect their southern borders but also to harass the borders of their adversaries.

http://cdn.loc.gov/master/frd/frdcstdy/sa/saudiarabiacount00metz_0/saudiarabiacount00metz_0.pdf

The source comes from the following book:
Arabia and the Arabs

According to Wikipedia:

At the beginning of his reign, King David removed the Ark from Kirjath-jearim amid great rejoicing. On the way to Zion, Uzzah, one of the drivers of the cart that carried the Ark, put out his hand to steady the Ark, and was struck dead by God for touching it. David, in fear, carried the Ark aside into the house of Obed-edom the Gittite, instead of carrying it on to Zion, and there it stayed three months (2 Samuel 6:1-11; 1 Chronicles 13:1-13).

This is about the stone tablets given to Moses pbuh. Nothing here about a House of God, a Temple for Pilgrimage.

On hearing that God had blessed Obed-edom because of the presence of the Ark in his house, David had the Ark brought to Zion by the Levites, while he himself, "girded with a linen ephod," "danced before the Lord with all his might" and in the sight of all the public gathered in Jerusalem—a performance that caused him to be scornfully rebuked by his first wife, Saul's daughter Michal (2 Sam. 6:12-16, 20-22; 1 Chron. 15). In Zion, David put the Ark in the tabernacle he had prepared for it, offered sacrifices, distributed food, and blessed the people and his own household (2 Sam. 6:17-20; 1 Chron. 16:1-3; 2 Chron. 1:4).

Still no Temple in sight.

 

[Muslim-UK]

The Levites were appointed to minister before the Ark (1 Chron. 16:4). David's plan of building a temple for the Ark was stopped at the advice of God (2 Sam. 7:1-17; 1 Chron. 17:1-15; 28:2, 3). The Ark was with the army during the siege of Rabbah (2 Sam. 11:11); and when David fled from Jerusalem at the time of Absalom's conspiracy, the Ark was carried along with him until he ordered Zadok the priest to return it to Jerusalem (2 Sam. 15:24-29).

So the Temple of God he yearned to make Pilgrimage to was not in Jerusalem.

So what else does the Torah tell us about this Temple to help identify it:

Isaiah 60

The Future Glory of Israel
1 Arise, shine, for your light has come,
and the glory of the Lord has risen upon you.
2 For behold, darkness shall cover the earth,
and thick darkness the peoples;
but the Lord will arise upon you,
and his glory will be seen upon you.
3 And nations shall come to your light,
and kings to the brightness of your rising.
4 Lift up your eyes all around, and see;
they all gather together, they come to you;
your sons shall come from afar,
and your daughters shall be carried on the hip.
5 Then you shall see and be radiant;
your heart shall thrill and exult,[a]
because the abundance of the sea shall be turned to you,
the wealth of the nations shall come to you.
6 A multitude of camels shall cover you,
the young camels of Midian and Ephah;
all those from Sheba shall come.
They shall bring gold and frankincense,
and shall bring good news, the praises of the Lord.
7 All the flocks of Kedar shall be gathered to you;
the rams of Nebaioth shall minister to you;
they shall come up with acceptance on my altar,
and I will beautify my beautiful house.
8 Who are these that fly like a cloud,
and like doves to their windows?
9 For the coastlands shall hope for me,
the ships of Tarshish first,
to bring your children from afar,
their silver and gold with them,
for the name of the Lord your God,
and for the Holy One of Israel,
because he has made you beautiful.
10 Foreigners shall build up your walls,
and their kings shall minister to you;
for in my wrath I struck you,
but in my favor I have had mercy on you.
Isaiah 60:11 Your gates shall be open continually;
day and night they shall not be shut,
that people may bring to you the wealth of the nations,
with their kings led in procession.
12 For the nation and kingdom
that will not serve you shall perish;
those nations shall be utterly laid waste.
13 The glory of Lebanon shall come to you,
the cypress, the plane, and the pine,
to beautify the place of my sanctuary,
and I will make the place of my feet glorious.
14 The sons of those who afflicted you
shall come bending low to you,
and all who despised you
shall bow down at your feet;
they shall call you the City of the Lord,
the Zion of the Holy One of Israel.
15 Whereas you have been forsaken and hated,
with no one passing through,
I will make you majestic forever,
a joy from age to age.
16 You shall suck the milk of nations;
you shall nurse at the breast of kings;
and you shall know that I, the Lord, am your Savior
and your Redeemer, the Mighty One of Jacob.
17 Instead of bronze I will bring gold,
and instead of iron I will bring silver;
instead of wood, bronze,
instead of stones, iron.
I will make your overseers peace
and your taskmasters righteousness.
18 Violence shall no more be heard in your land,
devastation or destruction within your borders;
you shall call your walls Salvation,
and your gates Praise.
19 The sun shall be no more
your light by day,
nor for brightness shall the moon
give you light;
but the Lord will be your everlasting light,
and your God will be your glory.
20 Your sun shall no more go down,
nor your moon withdraw itself;
for the Lord will be your everlasting light,
and your days of mourning shall be ended.
21 Your people shall all be righteous;
they shall possess the land forever,
the branch of my planting, the work of my hands,
that I might be glorified.[d]
22 The least one shall become a clan,
and the smallest one a mighty nation;
I am the Lord;
in its time I will hasten it.

There is no Temple in Jerusalem which is looked after by the Descendants of Kedar, (Son of Ishmael pbuh) where Millions come from all over, including by plane, 'Who are these that fly like a cloud, and like doves to their windows? A Temple dedicated to the God of Israel, which is open day and night, has several gateways leading to it, and never closes. I can think of one outside of Jerusalem though.

You are ignoring both Islamic and Jewish history simply because the word Kohathites (named after a person Kohath) very tenuously resembles the word Quraysh. You then ignore all other details of the story, and claim a longer history of the Quraysh than even Islamic historians do.

DNA put paid to this argument.

What do you find problematic with the following?

Jewish understanding
Akh, or brother in English, appears 94 times in the last 4 books of the Torah, yet it never once describes the descendants of Ishmael (AS).

• 53 times it describes kinsmen (Jews)
• 30 times it describes biological brothers
• 8 times it describes tribesmen (12 Jewish tribes)
• 3 times it describes Edomites

Al-Maghribi correctly states that the Torah refers to the Edomites as brothers, but he fails to mention that each time it says “brother” the text goes on to explicitly name them as “the Edomites”. In the absence of this name, like in our verse, brother only ever refers to the Children of Israel (AS). That said, even if we were to use al-Maghribi’s logic, the brother of Israel (Jacob) is not Ishmael but Edom.

His theory that the use of brother in the singular infers tribe, takes advantage of the reader’s ignorance of Hebrew (which often uses the singular collectively). A mere twelve verses earlier the Torah states, “When the Levite [singular] will come from one of your cities”, yet this verse is clearly referring to the Levites collectively. So too in our verse, the word brother is used collectively to refer to the Israelites.

This verse like the ones before and after it, is not documenting an individual prophet, but promising there will be future Jewish prophets and providing the criteria to identify them.

You have confirmed the Edomites (Arabs) are considered brethren to the Israelites.
Rahab married the Canaanites and their children were considered Jewish
Ruth the Moabitess married a Jewish man, their children were fully Jewish even though the wife was a gentile

Brethren:

(1) Abram's nephew, Lot, is termed "brother" (Genesis 14:14);

(2) Moses' fellow-countrymen are "brethren" (Exodus 2:11; Acts 3:22; compare Hebrews 7:5);

(3) a member of the same tribe (2 Samuel 19:12);

(4) an ally (Amos 1:9), or an allied or cognate people (Numbers 20:14);

(5) used of common discipleship or the kinship of humanity (Matthew 23:8);

(6) of moral likeness or kinship (Proverbs 18:9);

(7) of friends (Job 6:15);

(8) an equal in rank or office (1 Kings 9:13);

(9) one of the same faith (Acts 11:29; 1 Corinthians 5:11);

(10) a favorite oriental metaphor used to express likeness or similarity (Job 30:29, "I am a brother to jackals");

Brother - International Standard Bible Encyclopedia


The Ishmaelites are described as Bedouin who live in the desert, raise camels (see especially the inclusion of Obil the Ishmaelite, who was "over the camels," among David's officers, I Chron. 27:30), are desert robbers (cf. Gen. 16:12), and periodically overrun the permanent settlement and plunder it (Ps. 83:7; Judg. 8:24). In addition, the Ishmaelites engaged in caravan trade (Gen. 37:25). (For relations of kinship and intermarriage between the Ishmaelite groups, who were close to the borders of settled areas, and the permanent inhabitants cf. Gen. 28:9, 36:3; I Chron 2:17.)
Page Not Found

Abigail bore Amasa, and the father of Amasa was Jether the Ishmaelite. Jether the Ishmaelite — By birth or habitation, but by profession an Israelite, 2 Samuel 17:25.

2 Samuel 17:25 (25) Amasa.—Joab having adhered to David and gone away with him, Absalom chose his cousin to succeed him as commander-in-chief.

Esau, Isaac's son married an Ishmaelite from his uncle Ishmael's side.

Clearly the Israelites and Ishmaelites were considered one Brethren in the past who intermarried.

 

[Augustus]

How does that account for the borders running from Egypt to the Euphrates?

Which still don't include Mecca...

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

People who live in close proximity to each other tend to share a common genetic heritage.

DNA proves the Quresh are descendants of ko'-ra-its, Qorchi, beno Qorach

No, it proves that Arabs and ME Jews are closely related peoples.

This doesn't mean that specific Arab tribe X are descendants of Specific Jewish tribe Y, and therefore a reference to specific Jewish tribe Y is actually a reference to specific Arab tribe X. It doesn't even mean Arabs are descendants of ME Jews in a general sense, just that they share a common ancestry.

David Beckham probably shares much of his DNA with William Shakespeare, that doesn't mean the Beckhams are the descendants of the Shakespeares.

This is getting a bit bizarre.

You have confirmed the Edomites (Arabs) are considered brethren to the Israelites.
Rahab married the Canaanites and their children were considered Jewish
Ruth the Moabitess married a Jewish man, their children were fully Jewish even though the wife was a gentile

In theory, the word brethren could be used for other tribes, however in this case the context is pretty clear. Words exist in a context, not in isolation and meaning should be derived from context, not cherry picking from every potential meaning of a word abstracted from context. The verse is about new Jewish prophets arising to guide the Jews after Moses as the whole context is about Jews. Brethren = Jews.

 

[Augustus]

The source comes from the following book:
Arabia and the Arabs

Interestingly, I own that book. Good that you consider it a reliable source as it agrees with me:

The picture they present is, however, frequently unclear and incomplete, and so we will sometimes draw upon the vast compilations of early Muslim authors on pre-Islamic history in order to elucidate and supplement this picture. But for two reasons we will not use Muslim authors as our primary resource. Firstly, as noted above, they chiefly focus on the lifetime of Muhammad (c. AD 570–632). This is because they were mostly either storytellers wishing to instruct converts in the essentials of Islam or lawyers seeking to formulate Islamic law, and in both cases the Quran and the sayings and deeds of Muhammad were their two major concerns. Secondly they entertained a certain ambivalence towards the age preceding that of the Prophet... To them this literature smacked of a pagan era when impetuous passions (jahl) were, from a pious Muslim point of view, little tempered by wise forbearance (h.ilm)... Consequently these Muslim histories of pre-Islamic Arabia offer us a presentation of the past that reflects the changes that Islam had wrought upon Arab society. It is clear from the above list of sources that our knowledge of ancient Arabian history rests on meagre foundations... There is no Arabian Tacitus or Josephus to furnish us with a grand narrative. Rather we have to piece a picture together from a snippet of verse here, a chance comment of a foreign observer there, perhaps a hint from an inscription or an object from a datable context, and so on. This makes source criticism difficult to practise, since one will often have only one reference for a particular event or phenomenon and so lack the means properly to assess its worth, or else two or three references but of such different natures that they are almost impossible to compare.

And as I said about the many sanctuaries throughout Arabia:

The idea that certain spaces – whether because of their great height, outstanding beauty, lush vegetation or the like – are occupied by divinities is very ancient, and such spaces were legion in Arabia. The terms for them had usually to do with protection and prohibition , for within them all living things were considered inviolable and all use of violence was forbidden. In much of Arabia sanctuaries would be open-air, the natural features of the spot being sufficient to distinguish it. This might be a spring with its margin of rich vegetation, a patch of forest haunted by lions, a shady cleft in the mountainside or a solitary eminence rising from the desert. The borders of the holy ground would usually be drawn somewhat widely, skirting the sacred centre on all sides, the whole roughly marked off by pillars or cairns.


To a number of these holy places pilgrimages would be made at certain fixed times of the year. The Sabaeans were, for example, cemented by an annual procession to the temple of Almaqah in Marib at the time of the summer rains. Not only did the people of Saba attend, but also all their allies were at least expected to send delegations, as the tribe of Sam‘ay were reminded in an edict of their patron god Ta’lab (RES 4176). The Tal’ab was also an object of pilgrimage at his mountain abode in the land of Hamdan (Gl 1361; Hamdani 8.82–83). And people went in honour of Dhu Samawi at Yathill (CIS 4.547) and of Sayin at Shabwa (Ir app. B3). For as long as these ceremonies lasted pilgrims were obliged to set aside their weapons (CIS 4.548) and to abstain from sexual relations (CIS 4.533),



And this one might interest you:


Most of the Saracens, both those in the Palm Grove and those beyond it and the so-called Taurenian mountains, consider as sacred a spot dedicated to one of the gods, gathering there twice each year. The first of these assemblies extends over a whole month and takes place about the middle of the spring, when the sun passes through the sign of Aries, while the other assembly lasts two months; this they celebrate after the summer solstice. In these assemblies they observe a complete peace, not only towards each other, but also towards all men living in their country.
Nonnosus cited in Photius


Nonnosus was writing in the 3rd C, and at this time Saracen was generally used to refer to those from North Arabia & Sinai regions. Even though Saracens was later used as a generic term for all Arabs, at this point Saracen was still being differentiated from Arab by the Romans. Diodorus referred to a popular holy site near the Gulf of Aqaba, perhaps they are the same place.

 

[Muslim-UK]

Interestingly, I own that book. Good that you consider it a reliable source as it agrees with me:

The picture they present is, however, frequently unclear and incomplete, and so we will sometimes draw upon the vast compilations of early Muslim authors on pre-Islamic history in order to elucidate and supplement this picture. But for two reasons we will not use Muslim authors as our primary resource. Firstly, as noted above, they chiefly focus on the lifetime of Muhammad (c. AD 570–632). This is because they were mostly either storytellers wishing to instruct converts in the essentials of Islam or lawyers seeking to formulate Islamic law, and in both cases the Quran and the sayings and deeds of Muhammad were their two major concerns. Secondly they entertained a certain ambivalence towards the age preceding that of the Prophet... To them this literature smacked of a pagan era when impetuous passions (jahl) were, from a pious Muslim point of view, little tempered by wise forbearance (h.ilm)... Consequently these Muslim histories of pre-Islamic Arabia offer us a presentation of the past that reflects the changes that Islam had wrought upon Arab society. It is clear from the above list of sources that our knowledge of ancient Arabian history rests on meagre foundations... There is no Arabian Tacitus or Josephus to furnish us with a grand narrative. Rather we have to piece a picture together from a snippet of verse here, a chance comment of a foreign observer there, perhaps a hint from an inscription or an object from a datable context, and so on. This makes source criticism difficult to practise, since one will often have only one reference for a particular event or phenomenon and so lack the means properly to assess its worth, or else two or three references but of such different natures that they are almost impossible to compare.

And as I said about the many sanctuaries throughout Arabia:

The idea that certain spaces – whether because of their great height, outstanding beauty, lush vegetation or the like – are occupied by divinities is very ancient, and such spaces were legion in Arabia. The terms for them had usually to do with protection and prohibition , for within them all living things were considered inviolable and all use of violence was forbidden. In much of Arabia sanctuaries would be open-air, the natural features of the spot being sufficient to distinguish it. This might be a spring with its margin of rich vegetation, a patch of forest haunted by lions, a shady cleft in the mountainside or a solitary eminence rising from the desert. The borders of the holy ground would usually be drawn somewhat widely, skirting the sacred centre on all sides, the whole roughly marked off by pillars or cairns.


To a number of these holy places pilgrimages would be made at certain fixed times of the year. The Sabaeans were, for example, cemented by an annual procession to the temple of Almaqah in Marib at the time of the summer rains. Not only did the people of Saba attend, but also all their allies were at least expected to send delegations, as the tribe of Sam‘ay were reminded in an edict of their patron god Ta’lab (RES 4176). The Tal’ab was also an object of pilgrimage at his mountain abode in the land of Hamdan (Gl 1361; Hamdani 8.82–83). And people went in honour of Dhu Samawi at Yathill (CIS 4.547) and of Sayin at Shabwa (Ir app. B3). For as long as these ceremonies lasted pilgrims were obliged to set aside their weapons (CIS 4.548) and to abstain from sexual relations (CIS 4.533),



And this one might interest you:


Most of the Saracens, both those in the Palm Grove and those beyond it and the so-called Taurenian mountains, consider as sacred a spot dedicated to one of the gods, gathering there twice each year. The first of these assemblies extends over a whole month and takes place about the middle of the spring, when the sun passes through the sign of Aries, while the other assembly lasts two months; this they celebrate after the summer solstice. In these assemblies they observe a complete peace, not only towards each other, but also towards all men living in their country.
Nonnosus cited in Photius


Nonnosus was writing in the 3rd C, and at this time Saracen was generally used to refer to those from North Arabia & Sinai regions. Even though Saracens was later used as a generic term for all Arabs, at this point Saracen was still being differentiated from Arab by the Romans. Diodorus referred to a popular holy site near the Gulf of Aqaba, perhaps they are the same place.

So I have shown Israelites and Ishmaelites intermarried. A prophet from amongst their brethren extends to more than 12 tribes of Israel.
You are showing me about pre-Islamic civilisations around the north of Arabia and Yemen together with their practices and beliefs:

Impressive and perhaps once dedicated to the God of Abraham pbuh. You have explained open spaces could also be used as gathering points and dedicated to the worship of God. Later these look like they were polluted with pagan practices.

As your book shows, the Arabs in and around South Arabia did not have distinguished Historians amongst them. They were a simple folk getting by doing simple trade, limited farming and raiding for spoils. Quite a regressive bunch, left to their own devices awaiting a very specific purpose. God took them and fashioned them into a people, who will be remembered as starting the biggest group of Monotheists on the Planet, dedicated to the worship of the ONE God of Abraham pbuh.

You haven't objectively offered a reasonable alternative for Mecca, as a site of worship dedicated to the God of Abraham pbuh. A Temple that would be open day and night, for people to come by aeroplane and perform Pilgrimage. You made out you had a neutral positions to Religions and were just interested in examining History. You stepped into the domain of theology and argued the Prophet spoken about in Deut 18:18, could not refer to a non Jew. I think whether you like it or not, you have a distinct bias against Islam.

None the less, I look forward to further discussions with you on this site.
Peace

 

[Augustus]

So I have shown Israelites and Ishmaelites intermarried. A prophet from amongst their brethren extends to more than 12 tribes of Israel.

All sorts of people intermarry. Marriage doesn't change the context of the verse though.

Instead of arguing that brethren could theoretically mean Arabs, what about the context makes you believe that is the most plausible explanation when brethren is never used to mean Arabs and the few times it is used to mean non-Jews it is clearly specified and the entire book is focused on the Jews, their laws and their society?

Impressive and perhaps once dedicated to the God of Abraham pbuh. You have explained open spaces could also be used as gathering points and dedicated to the worship of God. Later these look like they were polluted with pagan practices.

It shows that sanctuaries and pilgrimages were numerous and tended to be localised and that there are references to them. There are even 2 references to a significant pilgrimage site in North Arabia (perhaps the same, perhaps different), whereas references to the 'major' trade centre and mother of all pilgrimage sites at Mecca is strangely missing.

All of which makes it highly probably that Mecca was simply one of many sites with limited significance.

You haven't objectively offered a reasonable alternative for Mecca, as a site of worship dedicated to the God of Abraham pbuh.

Major cities such as Carthage and Ctesiphon no longer exist. Places change and disappear.

When there is a major pilgrimage site near the Gulf of Aquba, just because we can't identify it any more doesn't mean it 'must be Mecca' simply because a tradition emerged 500+ years later and in modern times only one major pilgrimage site out of the many remains.

You made out you had a neutral positions to Religions and were just interested in examining History. You stepped into the domain of theology and argued the Prophet spoken about in Deut 18:18, could not refer to a non Jew. I think whether you like it or not, you have a distinct bias against Islam.

Just because someone doesn't start with a pro-Islam bias and accept all Islamic apologetics at face value, doesn't mean they are biased against Islam. I am biased against things I think are obviously wrong.

You have to be an Islamic apologist to believe that it is more plausible that the verse is referring to a non-Jewish prophet. I said it was theoretically possible, but extremely unlikely due to the context. Not sure how this could be seen as 'anti-Islam' because Deuteronomy is not an Islamic scripture and it referring to Jews takes away nothing from Islamic scriptures.

In other threads the person I am debating with might be attacking Islam and if I think they are wrong it doesn't mean I have a 'pro-Islam bias' (for example I've argued against the 'world's biggest genocide' by Muslims against Hindus in India because it's clearly false)

If it makes you feel better, I don't believe the Jewish narrative reflects accurate history either, nor the Christian gospels I'm just far more interested in early Islamic history though so tend to discuss that more.

None the less, I look forward to further discussions with you on this site.
Peace

 

[Kenny]

You haven't objectively offered a reasonable alternative for Mecca,

Actually, having read all the discussions, you really haven't offered any objective evidence that Ps 84 is talking about Mecca. It looked more like someone trying to force a square peg in a round whole.

 

[Muslim-UK]

Actually, having read all the discussions, you really haven't offered any objective evidence that Ps 84 is talking about Mecca. It looked more like someone trying to force a square peg in a round whole.

For sure psalms 84 doesn't say Baca later to be known as Mecca at the following map co-ordinates.

How many places in the World fit the following description: Contains Balsam trees in a valley called Baca, housing a Temple dedicated to the worship of the GOD of Abraham pbuh, a Temple open day and night for Pilgrimage bringing people from near and far?

We know it was not in Jerusalem, as David pbuh longed to make Pilgrimage to it. We also know David pbuh told a people of the ko'-ra-its, Qorchi, beno Qorach tribe to be guardians over it. It is close to the people settled near Kedar, a son of Ishmael pbuh

As a Judeo Christian can you show me where we can find this House or did God change his mind and let it be forgotten to History?

When you put forward a viable, 'round pegged' site, I'll bring further evidence from the Torah that narrows things down even further.

 

[Muslim-UK]

Ken, perhaps I'm not understanding the language of the Torah correctly. Maybe you can show me a Prophecy attributed to Jesus pbuh, and demonstrate how clear and concise your understanding of Torah is?

 

[shunyadragon]

More on the origin of 'Original Sin' and the 'Fall' from Greek influence and Saint Augustine's reference to Paul's view in the New Testament:

From: The Original View of Original Sin
"Augustine was challenged by the question that philosophers inevitably posed to Christians: “How could sin have entered the world, if God is good?” Augustine sought to answer this challenge and in so doing adopted many of the philosophers’ ideas.

The result, as evidenced by his writings, was that Augustine reinterpreted the Bible in light of philosophy. With respect to original sin, he understood the account of Adam and Eve as a description of humanity’s fall from grace. They sinned and were punished by God, and thus all subsequent humanity, being at that time biologically present within Adam, was party to the sin. The idea of innate sin and guilt became a widespread doctrine, as is shown by the following words from a popular American schoolbook used in the 17th and 18th centuries: “In Adam’s fall, we sinned all.”

But Augustine did not devise the concept of original sin. It was his use of specific New Testament scriptures to justify the doctrine that was new. The concept itself had been shaped from the late second century onward by certain church fathers, including Irenaeus, Origen and Tertullian. Irenaeus did not use the Scriptures at all for his definition; Origen reinterpreted the Genesis account of Adam and Eve in terms of a Platonic allegory and saw sin deriving solely from free will; and Tertullian’s version was borrowed from Stoic philosophy.

Though Augustine was convinced by the arguments of his earlier patristic peers, he made use of the apostle Paul’s letters, especially the one to the Romans, to develop his own ideas on original sin and guilt. Today, however, it is accepted that Augustine, who had never mastered the Greek language, misread Paul in at least one instance by using an inadequate Latin translation of the Greek original."

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

More on the origin of 'Original Sin' and the 'Fall' from Greek influence

What you've quoted still has zero bearing on Greek myth, or ancient Greek paganism.

 

[shunyadragon]

What you've quoted still has zero bearing on Greek myth, or ancient Greek paganism.

Your stone walling and ignoring actual reference that support Greek influence based on the belief of Inherited guilt.

More to follow , , ,