the nazarenes who wasnt there
-
I give you an A for effort
-
Peace Magi.
Do you have a counterargument to my response? Or are you accepting that the claim you made in your first post was mistaken?
I fail to see how this is an example of "when we dont like it."
The fact is the Qur'an simply says Nasara. Translators, interpreting the text through Judeo-Christian lenses, assumed that Nasara meant Nazarenes. As your post showed, Nazareth did not exist at the time of Jesus. It seems, then, that the Bible as well as the assumptions of the translators who were influenced by the Bible, are flawed.
What does that have to do with the Arabic text of the Qur'an, I ask? You can't force the Qur'an to say something it doesnt, simply to reinforce your claim against it.
So we're back full circle do you have a counterargument? Or do you accept that the claim you made in your first post was mistaken?
I await your answer. Peace.
If it merely as you say, means supporters then. supporters of who, and why?
edit and how come all other translators than you, think otherwise?
peace
This is not my groundbreaking theory. This is simple Arabic. The root Noon-Sad-Ra implies aiding, protecting, supporting. The Quran simply says Nasara. Like I stated above, translators who see the word, mistakenly translate it as "Nazarenes." They likely do this because they assume Nasara had to be a reference to what the Bible called Jesus ("Jesus the Nazareth". Other translators even translate Nasara as Christians (which is actually Masihy), even though Masihy exists nowhere in the Qur'an. The point is these translators impose their own pre-conceived assumptions onto the text. It is their faulty assumption, and it has absolutely no bearing on the Qur'an.
Anyway, you ask supporters of who, and why? The verses I posted in my first post already answered these questions. Here they are, for your review
352 "When Jesus sensed their disbelief, he said, "Who are my supporters towards GOD?" The disciples said, "We are GOD's supporters; we believe in GOD, and bear witness that we are submitters."
6114 "O you who believe, be GOD's supporters, like the disciples of Jesus, son of Mary. When he said to them, "Who are my supporters towards GOD," they said, "We are GOD's supporters." Thus, a group from the Children of Israel believed, and another group disbelieved. We helped those who believed against their enemy, until they won."
Thus, the "supporters" are "supporters" towards God. Why are they called supporters? Because they "believe in God" and "bear witness that are submitters."
Seems clear to me. What do you think?
Peace.
I did look up the verses but fail to see the logic to what you say. So in fact, many verse should read, those who are jews, and supporters? And i think that free minds should change their version of the Quran, as to not mislead any further. I admit to stand corrected here by you.
Peace
-
I give you an A for effort
who dares nothing, wins nothing
-
I did look up the verses but fail to see the logic to what you say. So in fact, many verse should read, those who are jews, and supporters? And i think that free minds should change their version of the Quran, as to not mislead any further. I admit to stand corrected here by you.
Peace
Peace Magi.
I applaud your willingness to admit you made a mistake. Seriously, I thank you for your open-mindedness.
As for "many verse should read, those who are jews, and supporters?" more study needs to be done on this.
I see two possible interpretations
- Nasara, here, is used just like Sabi'eena (some translate this as "followers of other religions" or "converts". That is, they are not necessarily proper names but rather descriptions of peoples.
or
- Nasara, a word that means "supporters," became a proper title given to the followers of Jesus, similar to the use of Muslim as a proper title, while it also simply means "submitter."
Regardless, the Qur'an does not tie Nasara to the city of Nazareth. And I'm glad you see that now. Also, I thank you for pointing this scholarship out to us (though, as arnold said, it is not necessarily agreed upon by all scholars). It shows to me yet again that the Qur'an consistently avoids the pitfalls that the Bible makes. The Qur'an could have easily here repeated the same mistake the Bible did, but curiously it did not. Should raise some eyebrows at the very least.
Peace.
-
peace
we are all on a learning path. I hope nobody here participates merely to "win" discussions bro )
As for scholarships i really enjoys acharaya's work. But she is highly controversial, as is many of the scholars she allign with. I have just come to learn that "controversial" usually just means "Go with other data than allowed by the canons at relegious faculties". Its all history, so there arent really any facits. All we can do, is see where stuff points towards.
I need to give this some more thought, regarding the actual meaning of the term. I dont think its obvious wich it is. Perhaps its both, or something else?
-
Salaamun alaikum,
Cavey, imo you've taken the right approach toward understanding the concept of nasaara (and indeed any concept would be illuminated by this approach).
I would suggest thinking along the lines of Isaa al-masih as an archetpye and in that archetype, there are 'actors' named 'nasaara'. What characteristics do they bear? Answering that will yield an answer at how we can apply that lesson today.
-
Peace,
The problem with this opinion of the scholar is the claim that the Nazarenes were pointed out by the catholic Church. The problem with this, is that the catholic Church has tried everything to make sure people didn't focus on the Jewish branch of Christianity the Nazarenes refer to. So this claim has no proof or bases, it is exactly the opposite. They couldn't erase them from the scriptures, so they made sure their dogma ignored them. Even till now, with 90% of all Christians, no one is searching for the question of who were the Nazarenes? They just ignore this. Jewish followers of Jesus that i know, call themselves Nazarenes or a branch of the Essenes that is linked to it. They reject trinity and everything. No, if the Church really wanted us to focus on a certain sect, they would have never chosen the Nazarenes. Plus there is so much physical evidence that showes that they were the first followers of Jesus. I don't claim the this theory to be true because of 'scholars' promote it. I can directly point out all the physical evidence that supports this theory. That is why Magi's post is not true and based on faulty thinking. If it had some sense that coincided with physical evidence i would accepted as a possible theory, but that is not the case. So next!
-
Peace,
The problem with this opinion of the scholar is the claim that the Nazarenes were pointed out by the catholic Church.
No a single scholar quoted by another scholar says so.
I can directly point out all the physical evidence that supports this theory.
By all means, feel free to do so. Next!
peace
-
honestly, it piss me off that you make a whole "debinking" based on a single quote in a text. without even looking to the source of where this was found. Do you even know what i cited? This was a small, small part of a larger whole, well documented all the way through.
peace
-
Peace,
Sorry Magi, but i the Nazareth and Betlehem story has nothing to do with the Nazarenes, and this was mostly the biggest part of your post. I agreed with it and also gave the explanation where it came from and that in the Greek Gospel it doesn't say Nazareth but Nazarene, but in the early churches people mixed this up with the area that was formed around 70AD and was an important point from where Nazarenes spread over Arabia and elsewhere. But again this doesn't prove anything about Nazarenes being followers of Jesus or not. This only proves people mix up things.
The second part was about a history of the word Nazarene which is an interresting theory which i'll examine more, but most evidence show that Nazarene was a 'nickname' for the Essenes. But still it has no nothing to do with the claim you make that Muhammed must have copied it. As the origin of the name still doesn't take away their theology and link with Jesus. And scholars always fight about origins of names, so no surprise there.
So what is left?
What makes this very interresting is the fact that God apparently didnt know that this was a construct of the CATHOLIC church when he worded the Quran. thus, constant refferences to the nazarenes as the followers of Jesus. Problem is. Its not true!
What is more likely is that the early outshoots from the catholic church would have reffered to themself as following the prophet from nazareth, not knowing any better. And when our prophet encountered them, he listened and wrote down what he learned.This is the only thing left. And with my last post i have shown already partialy that this is not true, as the catholic Church tried their best that people ignored the term Nazarene, that Jesus had brothers and a sister. That his brother run the synagoge, while the catholic Church is built up on the idea that it was Petrus who got the mission to build his church, and where the catholic Church claim it's origin from. So that it is mentioned Jesus had brothers, that one of them even ran the synagoge in Jesus's name, all of this is written in Acts of the New testament and are very dangerous for the catholic Church and other sects, as this shows it was James that took over after Jesus and not Petrus. This destroys the whole dogma of the origins of the catholic Church. If they made up the Nazarenes, why keep such dangerous information in the New Testament? Why keep a reference to the Jewish Theology and Jewish followers of Jesus? All of this is dangerous information, but the catholic Church had a problem. All the churches had a lot of writings of Jesus and his followers, so they just couldn't make up a new one as every one would demand a proof of authenticy. So the only option left was to make as much manuscripts that refered to the Jewish link, forbidden, and only keep what they could use to promote their doctrine. So people would accept this limiting of scripture for the sake of unity, as was neccesary for the early churches to survive. That is why just couldn't make things up. They tried their best to let people only focus on certain elements of the chosen scriptures. Also by creating a language barriere they made sure, only a minority could read the scriptures. So the behaviour of the church proves the theory wrong, as they don't use Jesus's link to the Nazarenes at all, they even try to ignore as much as they can.
The catholic origins is based on that they were always called catholic and were started by Petrus. Acts(book in NewTestament) tells us that the first followers were called Nazarenes and were the group were Jesus was brought up in, and that it was James the righteous that let the Nazarene synagoge. So the theory of a 'catholic outshoot' is completly wrong as the catholic Church even denies the history recorded in Acts.
You say i debunk a whole post based on one quote? No, i based it on that the first part doesn't proof anything at all, and is probably wrong. If your scholar is so good, how come then that she doesn't know the Greek says Nazarene and not Nazareth? And again the second part, even if true, still doesn't proof anything that the Nazarenes where not followers of Jesus. Plus, i wonder, does she mention their connection with the Essenes? If not, how come she missed that to?
No Magi, i didn't debunk anything at all based on one thing. You gave three things, two of them can already be proven to be mostly wrong. Only the origin of the name can be questioned as this is normal scholars fight over this. So i debunked what you posted, and wonder what she has written for the rest, as she doesn't know the mix-up with the Greek for Nazarene and Nazareth, that Nazareth was formed around 70AD after the diaspora. And her theory on the catholic Church using Jesus's Nazarene link has no bases at all. I don't throw away everything she writes as i don't know the whole book of course. I only know what you posted here. But based on that, i'll be highly sceptical when reading her work as she missed important points, but i'll not immediately say she is a fraud or dumb.
The Nazareth mix-up, the uncertainty of Bethlehem and the origin of the name Nazarene all do not disprove the Nazarenes to be followers of Jesus. That is the point. You end your post, that the information mentioned is proof Muhammed copied the Bible, if that was true he would have made a lot more mistakes then just that...
When i have time Godwilling, i'll write something about this, as the Dead Sea scrolls and other manuscripts reveal really important things about the origins of Jesus's thinking and followers. But this is a lot of work, so i can only do this when i have more time.
Peace
-
peace Arnold
do you actually read the posts in a thread. Try and read this one over again, . I did back off as pr.cavemans instructions.
When i have time Godwilling, i'll write something about this, as the Dead Sea scrolls and other manuscripts reveal really important things about the origins of Jesus's thinking and followers. But this is a lot of work, so i can only do this when i have more time.
Peace
The rest of the post is so biased i cant take it seriously. You take for granted in your search that Jesus is real and that the catholic church is promoting what you think they are promoting. The inner circles of the catholic church are without a shred of doubt. sun worshippers, and Jesus is a solar diety. So when you trace sun worship, and end up in places like nazareth, that is what it means. she doesnt, that makes one hell of a difference, right there alone. She is making point towards all the solar worship in the Bible, and takes it in that . And what she is doing is tracing it all over the place. The text is a small part of a whole book debunking the christ myth.
-
The place-name Nazara (which later became Nazareth), as in the Greek form Iesous Nazarenos. This is the traditional interpretation within mainstream Christianity, and it still seems the obvious interpretation to many modern Christians. Matthew 223 reads that "and he went and lived in a town called Nazareth. So was fulfilled what was said through the prophets "He will be called a Nazarene"" (NIV) (Greek is /Nazoraios). Although identification of the prophecy concerned either in the canonical books of the Old Testament or in the midrash traditions has been the matter of recent debate, the phrasing again strongly suggests that the author of Matthew meant Nazarene to refer in some way to Nazara. However, among evidence against this interpretation is that although Origen knew of the gospel story of Nazareth, he had only the vaguest idea where it was, despite living only 30 miles away in Caesarea.
-
The word neitzer meaning "branch" or "off-shoot" (as in Isaiah 111 רand the following 3 verses tell of the seven qualities of Messiah which makes up the Branch. These seven qualities are sybolized in the seven branched menorah which represents the Malchut Elohim (Kingdom of God) or the Tree of Life. This also in turn refer to the claim that Jesus was a "descendant of David", or to the view that Jesus (or rather the teachings he or his followers advocated) were an offshoot from Judaism. Until the 20th century "neitzer" was the undisputed etymology behind Nazareth.
-
The word nazur, meaning separate in Aramaic. The word is related to Nazir. There are a number of references to Nazirites in the Old Testament and New Testament. A Nazirite (ר was a Jew who had taken special vows of dedication to the Lord whereby he abstained for a specified period of time from using alcohol and grape products, cutting his hair, and approaching corpses. At the end of the period he was required to immerse himself in water. Thus the baptism of Jesus by his relative John the Baptist could have been one "to fulfill all righteousness" at the end of a nazirite vow. Luke 115 describes John the Baptist as a Nazirite. James the Just was described as a Nazirite in Epiphanius' Panarion 29.4 . In Acts 21 Paul of Tarsus takes four Nazirite pledges to Herod's Temple. However, following his baptism, the gospels give no reason to suppose Jesus took another Nazirite vow until The Last Supper, see also Mark 1425.
-
The word nosri which means "one who keeps (guard over)" or "one who observes" the same name used by spiritual leaders (see for example Yeshu Ha-Notzri) of a pre-Christian gnostic sect which evolved into the Mandaean religion (as in Jeremiah 315-6 ם. This explanation had become popular among Protestants towards the end of the 20th century.
-
The word nazara, "truth", another gnostic concept popularised through the Gospel of Philip "The apostles that came before us called him Jesus Nazarene the Christ ..."Nazara" is the "Truth". Therefore 'Nazarenos' is "The One of the Truth" ..." (Gospel of Philip, 47)
And if you wanna talk dead sea scrolls and their creditability. I hope you like mushrooms, and reincarnation because that is what youll find,. I know that is not what the allowed translations, as given to the universitys say. But try and read the translation from e.g John Allegro, and he is far from the only one making these claims. The early christians were a fertility cult, that ate shrooms. Jesus was a symbol of several things to them. But a person, he never was.
Peace
-
-
Peace,
You think the catholic Church is the only one who has writings on him? In your first post you mention Josephus, did you know that he also talks about Jesus? The catholic Church only came into being 200 years later. So if all the writings came out of that period, you had a point, but that is not the case. There are to many links with Jewish history to just ignore certain things. You had a point if all the elements of the story were usefull for the Church, but a lot of things are even threatening for the Church.I know a lot of things are based on sun-worship. Also a lot of concepts of heaven and hell and angels directly come from the Egyptians where also this sun-worship comes from. And i have read the thread, but what does that have to do with me answerring or not? I know the theory of Nasara meaning supporters, i know that for almost a year now already. And i know the Essenes had theories on reincarnnation and were a bit hippie. And i know a lot more. But i see it doesn't matter. There is a big difference in debunking a dogma and debunking a historical person that was used for the dogma.
Peace
-
You think the catholic Church is the only one who has writings on him? In your first post you mention Josephus, did you know that he also talks about Jesus?
yes 13 Jesus'es no less. WIch is why you have paul talking about those who promote "the other Jesus". However all scholars i have talked to and that i know, concider it fraudulent. Im not educated enough to know their reasons why.
The catholic Church only came into being 200 years later.
I disagree entirely. The churich of rome took a new name for their sun worship. Took a few scriptures here a few there and compiled it into the Bible.
So if all the writings came out of that period, you had a point, but that is not the case. There are to many links with Jewish history to just ignore certain things. You had a point if all the elements of the story were usefull for the Church, but a lot of things are even threatening for the Church.
You take it for granted that the church belive in Jesus. They dont, they belive in the sun, and calls it Jesus. It is another thing entirely with the catholics, who have been taught that the storys are to be taken litteraly. The 4 gospels are incredible through the astrologers glasses. that is their master work.
I know a lot of things are based on sun-worship. Also a lot of concepts of heaven and hell and angels directly come from the Egyptians where also this sun-worship comes from.
subnship was a phase of human history. The norse did it, the goths did it, the celts did it, the egyptians did it, the babylonians did it, the stone age people did it. I think its time to move on. Because the common denominator is that the story of the sun is always told as a story of a person. He dies for 3 days, then resurects. Nothing but sun worship and its the same lame story world wide with next to no variation. The more paranoid scholars i know think its a conspiracy. No doubt it is on a church level, but other than that it is just humans developing their understanding of what is around them. In the Quran i love the example of Abraham, who figured out that these stellar constelations and planets wasnt God by a long shot. The clue is the things he realise before he go and confront the idols. The tale of the sun and the moon, tells us what those idols he confronted represented.
And i have read the thread, but what does that have to do with me answerring or not? I know the theory of Nasara meaning supporters, i know that for almost a year now already. And i know the Essenes had theories on reincarnnation and were a bit hippie. And i know a lot more. But i see it doesn't matter. There is a big difference in debunking a dogma and debunking a historical person that was used for the dogma.
The only actual clue i belive about Jesus, is the talmud. If he wasnt real, he would have made it in there, unless, the rabbis knew he was a solar diety worshipped by the people(not that their faith is based on monotheism mind you, look up el and saturn in this regard) and i havent seen any evidence that it is so. So there is no doubt that regardless of the some 20 registered different Jesus'es. One of them must have been a person that did one hell of an impression on those he came in contact with. Problem is, we dont know wich one it is, or what his story really is. Btw. i love this debate more and more. You are really doing your homework, and i am eagerly learning. i didnt know about the greek messup, and im going to confront acharaya with it.
Peace
-
Peace,
Yes, i also like this discussion. The thing is you think i let the Churches decieve me that is certainly not the case, i study Theology on the Amsterdam University and this is certainly no Christian Theology Study, but a scienitic objective study, that is why i choose it. I know the roman catholic Church was just a bunch of sun-worshippers who took advantage of a Jewish controversial person. And yes there are a lot of Jesus's in the Talmud, Josephus and other historical writings as Yoshua(=hebrew for Jesus) is a normal Jewish name, there are several Yoshua's in the Bible even. But the roman church wasn't the only branch that believed in Jesus. There were in the first hundred years more then 50 different branches and schools. All differeing on details. One of the main wrong points of that the roman Church 'made up' Jesus, is that there already was an early Jewish-Christian group in Ireland that came there through trade with Egypt, which was known to be a Nazarene branch. When the roman Church took control, it took them more then 200 years to take over this branch and destroy it's Jewish roots. Because they rejected the mitra-worship the Roman Church did,so they were a thread. The theory is a nice one, but there are still to many details ignored which shows that a non-sun-worship Christianity existed before the mitra-Roman Church, and the Roman Church who indeed are sun-worshippers tried their very best to eliminate every trace of Jewish churches.
The Jesus of the Gospels wasn't always seen as the sun. Also these Gospels were choosing carefully by the Romans. That is why the Nag-Hammaddi scriptures were so revealing.And the reason for that this Yoshua is not really recorded in the Talmud is because the Jews after the descturction of the Temple in 70AD blamed the Essenes(=Nazarenes=Zadokhites=Maccabees) to be the source of rebbelion which created their outcast of Jerusalm by the Romans. This is why the Jews made the canon of Jewish writing and casted anything non-hebrew out of the writings. They erased any trace with the Nazarenes and with Jesus as they were seen as the curse that caused the desctruction of their precious Temple. Because of this rebellion against the Romans, Jews were forbidden to enter Jerusalem and were only allowed back in when Omar took Jerusalem. It is because of the Muslims that the Jews were allowed again in Jerusalem, well isn't that funny!
But it is normal that 'false' prophets or people seen as curses or blasphemy were not recorded and made non-excistant. So that he isn't recorded in the Talmud is no surprise at all. There were many that proclaimed being the Messiah, and most are not recorded in the Talmud.
This theory has some bases, but it ignores the first branches of the messiah-synagoges and only focusses on the mitra-cult that took over the messiah-cult. That is why i'm not convinced yet. A lot of factors are ignored as the Jewish-messiah-synagoges that believed in the Gospel Yoshua and are not connected with sun-worship, and existed before the mitra-cult took over the messiah-cult. All this about the mitra-cult taking over Jesus as their new 'son of God(=sun)' is old-news. Nothing special. But there are indeed a lot of details hidden i agree. I wish we could brake into the library-vault under the vatican.....
Peace
-
...Also these Gospels were choosing carefully by the Romans. That is why the Nag-Hammaddi scriptures were so revealing.
thank you for the first part of the quote. that was enlightening But what i have learned from the nag hammadi scriptures doesnt reveal an actual Jesus by a longshot. I know that Allegro was totally discredited. But of you look into the characters involved. Allegro is the only one who had no personal interrest besides scientfic to share his study. Not ONE has attacked his study but rather his creditability as a scientist. It is ludicris, he was concidered brilliant when he got the assignment. Someone just didnt like his conclutions. We are talking sun worshop, sex, drugs and rock'n'roll. and the cults knew that the the romans didnt like them. Afterall, to the romans it was cash money driving the relegion, and a monopoly doesnt like free or shareware. Besides, these guys was cool. they were the new shit in town, and if you werent in it, you where a bore. So the system, just like they do on youth culture today. Went hardball on them. I mean these god damn hippies became such a problem that the city was set ablaze to discredit them. (where have we heard that crap before, in todays terms =/)
And the reason for that this Yoshua is not really recorded in the Talmud
He is in e.g Sanhedrin 43a. as yeshu. I know this is open to debate. But given that it is open to debate, we cannot dismiss it just like that untill conclutions are made. and i have seen none.
...but it ignores the first branches of the messiah-synagoges and only focusses on the mitra-cult that took over the messiah-cult.
THey are the same. Its the same tune, but microsoft won. Unfortunally, the other stuff was a lot more fun. I think we just have to take the Qurans words for that the teachings of Christ is utterly lost. And anything connected to this guy is blurred so bad, that its not even funny. That is my own personal conclution. But ofcourse, it stand to change obviously
I wish we could brake into the library-vault under the vatican.....
http//www.aqsu08.dsl.pipex.com/DIBB/homer-drool.gif
peace
-
Peace,
If you want you can PM your mail, i got some books on the sun-cult also that are interresting.
-
Peace,
If you want you can PM your mail, i got some books on the sun-cult also that are interresting.
Peace
I did. im looking forward...gimme gimme ;D
-
I'm not at home now, but i'll send it tonight Godwilling. I also have a book on the influences of the Church on Archeology to make them coincide with the Biblical myths, very interresting....
But i didn't hear you say please.....
P.S. can you give me the titles of the books you work with, and also are these the only professional works you have read on this subject?
Peace
-
peace...puleaaase!! yay
I often find scholars that interrest me, and then check them out for a while, while confirming the facts they point at. The more i can confirm the more weight i give their theories. One of my favorites is Jordan Maxwell. He has a very high rate of truths, but the stuff i cant confirm is so nuts, i think it puts most people of.
An example. Jordan claims that most of what we see as relegion today is based upon the worship of saturn and the heavens. And this is symbolised through all relegion one way or the other. all relegions based on judaism anyway. Well, he did say anyone should spend time with the jedeic refference works, found only in the main centers of judaism. not in the libraries and faculties ?!
Well, as said, so done. LO and behold these refference works does excist, and they are (alltho i only spend time checking out his facts for now) saying what he says. And one can only conclude what he did. Saturnism, or EL worship is a major part of today relegions. The black cube in mecca, nuns in black, prists in black. On top of it i find Maxwell to stand out as a God fearing individual always promoting God alone from a Biblical viewpoint (he is not christian). This has done that on certain subjects, i will take his "word for it".Acharya S. As i said, controversial. Coloured by her extreme hate to relegion, and therefore she often "cut corners". She is still in possesion of sound reasoning, interresting theories and she altso belive in God. She says she doesnt but keep arguing that the god person of relegions is a joke and then talks about a spiritual concept no different from what i think we share. A long way down the line i will take her words for it.
Michael tsarion. A total screwball but is knowledge on symbolism is only matched by heavyweights like maxwell. Thus there is a lot to learn from his symbology stuf. But i find his case about atlantis and aliens ridiculous. Interresting but ridiculous. His material on Ireland and its actual palce in world history is very very interresting. I am stil going through sources, so i dont know if this is for the woo woo basket or is actual great scholarship.
Most of the scholars i like are controversial, and often looked down upon by "the educated" scholars. But what these faculty idiots tend to forget. Is that they all have the same material avaible. The controversial ones just refuse to have canons dictate what they are to make of it. And all scientists who think like that, is not part of the cool crowd.
relegion and modern law is connected, so i have spend time with Blacks law dictionary. Especually before the introduction of weasel words in around 1900. Interresting stuff that. I am a concordance whore, i love em. And spend a lot of time with strongs. And wish a similar thing had been done with the Quran.
To list all the books is not possible. But the last books has been strongs, and blacks. These are some heavy works, and doesnt invite to reading for hours on end. Altso maxwells, "that old time relegion".
The reason i use scholars like that is that there is no reason for me to spend 40 years reading the same material as they did. But if im in doubt of the creditability of the information, i will investigate it myself. Scholars be they from faculties or selvtaught are just humans, and therefor personal oppinion will always add flavour to each individuals works.
But i can compile a list for you with scholars that are worth checking out, and then take it from there. Go to the library and get the books they tell about, wich i ahve done several times, to fact check. And found similar litterature to see if there is flavouring inolved.
-
Peace,
There conclusions will not surprise me as i also don't believe in ritual religion. The Quran doesn't promote that. And yes, a lot of ancient symbolism we can see in the clothes and symbols of all religions, this is logical as they can only talk in the language they inherited from their ancestors, they are to blind to see that. But that is also the danger in judging if these people also worship saturnus because they use saturnus symbols. The symbols got new meanings over time, so that is why i'm carefull with linking them so fast with certain idol-worship. The symbols for one idol-worship are taken over by other idol-worshippers.
I have similair conclusions on the origins of religions, that is why i study Theology. And most of my teachers are people who are not the typical scholar. They don't care what other scholars say and that is why i like them and they me. So i know and don't care what other scholars think about these people, i judge them by their work, not on their 'reputation'.
Peace