So, if you have points that can be made to prove the Bible's credibility regarding authorship, lets see it.
- In Genesis 2:7 it says that Adam was made from the ground (earth). It's known that the human body is made up of 41 chemical elements. These basic elements---carbon, iron, oxygen, and others---are all present in the "dust" of the earth. Therefore, as Genesis states, humans truly are formed "out of the dust from the ground". This was written around 4,500 years ago (give or take) by Moses. How is it possible that Moses new of this scientific info regarding a humans composition, when in that day this info was not known?
GC/DEA_AGENT
He didn't. But he wrote down what he was told. By him stating we came from the ground, makes his statement accurate. Later, when humans finally figured out the commonalities between the ground and humans, isn't it odd that he could make such an accurate statement?
GC/DEA_AGENT
we came from apes, makes his statement accurate. Later, when humans finally figured out the commonalities between apes and humans, isn't it odd that he could make such an accurate statement?
If "God" himsef actually wrote the Bible, the question becomes why did he plagiarise so much of it from earlier pagan sources?
Huge tracts of Genesis are pagan in origin; mostly astrological metaphor.
Besides, Hebrew tradition has always maintained that Moses (most probably the Semitic Egyptian priest Kamose) wrote the first five books of the Bible.
The Luke
He didn't. But he wrote down what he was told. By him stating we came from the ground, makes his statement accurate. Later, when humans finally figured out the commonalities between the ground and humans, isn't it odd that he could make such an accurate statement?
GC/DEA_AGENT
Read your Genesis McWay.
A tree in the middle of a garden with a snake wrapped around it? Why isn't that an astrological metaphor in Genesis when it most clearly and expressly is in Viking folklore?
The Luke
For the same reason all the foolish supposed astrological metaphor about Jesus Christ don't mesh, whatsoever.
jesus dude that is the most convaluted logic i have yet to witness. You act as if early man was the equivalent of a downs syndrome sufferer. Brilliant people existed in those times, just without the knowledge we have today, im sure that more obvious scientific evidence could have been presented. God should write a second book
...and that reason is?
The Luke
Before any of the Athesist comment on this thread, don't you think you should have studied the bible first? What is the Theme? If you can answer this, then I'll proceede to answer/relpy to your questions. :)
GC/DEA_AGENT
That would be, boy genius, the authorship of Scripture has absolutely NOTHING to do with astrology, despite your repeated and pathetic attempts to paint it as such.
Some Bible study would help. At least then, you can have some interesting conversation. Otherwise, you get tomfoolery, Luke-style, void of accuracy and saturated with silliness.
so the similarities dont strike you as odd between jesus and all the other gods. The stealing of christmas from a pagan tradition along with all the othere issues?
so the similarities dont strike you as odd between jesus and all the other gods. The stealing of christmas from a pagan tradition along with all the othere issues?
so the similarities dont strike you as odd between jesus and all the other gods. The stealing of christmas from a pagan tradition along with all the othere issues?
don't bother man.MCGAY will grasp on to his fable's regardless.They will tell you to study there religion.but if they studied early religion's that predate Christianity they would see not only similarity's but the fallacy that is there make believe religion.as man made god not vice versa...
What part of "a basic examination of the account of Christ and the pagan deities reveals the huge DIFFERENCES, in terms of form, function, purpose (of life and death), and performance" fails to register in that skull of yours, Puppy boy?
The pagan gods from Jesus was supposedly crafted turn out to be NOTHING LIKE CHRIST at all.
jesus christmas is winter solstice for christs sakes.
...ell, let's put it this way: the Vikings had a genesis/creation story in which there was a garden and a snake, a creation mythos which predates not just Christianity, but Judaism itself.
In the Viking story the tree of life in the centre of the garden is called Yggdrasil (spelling?), the world tree. Which the Vikings took as being synonymous with the axis of the Earth, it's leaves were eternally changing between glowing green and fiery orange as they died only to be replenished. Similarly the Vikings associated these burning yet not consumed leaves with the Aurora Borealis at the North Pole.
So the garden is symbolic of the world; the tree is a metaphor for the worlds rotational axis; the burning yet unburnt leaves are a metaphor for the Aurora Borealis.
The Vikings associated this "tree" with knowledge; star lore and astrology, yet maintained the mystery tradition that there as another secret tree at the centre of the garden; a tree of eternal life which was unreachable by man (the southern pole and the Aurora Australis).
Surprise, surprise the Vikings even had a snake entwined about the centre of their mythical tree (or double ended trees if you understood the metaphor): the fabled Midgard Serpent.
Guess what? "Midgard" is Viking for "equator"
Doesn't any of this sound suspiciously familiar to any Christians reading?
A garden, with two trees. A tree of knowlede from which man may eat if he is willing to accept the consequences and an unreachable tree of everlasting life beyond mans grasp. A snake, and the first two people in the world. A garden paradise; and a choice between consciousness and our baser animal existence?
Can't you people comprehend metaphor?
The Luke
Way to go McWay...
Just keep pointing and shouting: "No! No! Not the same! My god has a different hat!"
I see you highlighting differences, but you never address the coincidences.
Whoever wrote the Bible, they were at least plagiarising pagan religions.
Garden paradise; two trees; a snake; the first two people... all the rest is just spin.
I really don't want to get into this again with you McWay.
Last time we had this discussion I mentioned that many ancient pagan deities, especially the mystery solar deities, prefigured the Jesus myth in so many ways that the eary Church had to invent the Doctrine of Diabolical mimicry to explain away the obvious plagiarism. ("Diabolical Mimicry" is the idea that the Devil, capable of seeing the future, invented simulacra gods which pre-emptively paralled Jesus in order to deny Jesus his obvious originality: a doctrine of chronic apologetic bunkum which remains the Church's only defense on this subject).
I mentioned Attis as one of these prefigurers of Jesus: a solar deity who was nailed to a cross after his death.
In response, you posted page after page of cut and paste... these encyclopedia excerpts explained in graphic detail how the Attians (followers of Attis):
-celebrate Attis' suicide at Easter time
-walk a sacred procession to a sacred grove of trees (Gethsemane?)
-cut don a sacred tree so that an Attian priest would carry it on his back through the streets
-the tree would be set up in their temple
-a statue of the dead Attis would be either tied to the tree or nailed to it
-the Attians called this "The Day of Mourning"
-lock themselves in the temple and mourn for three days
-celebrate "The Day of Joy" on the spring equinox/Easter
-restart all their yearly celebrations as if Attis had returned to life
...yet you posted all of this while arguing that Attis in no way coincided or overlapped the "wholely original" Jesus story.
I can't make the blind see, nor those who refuse to open their eyes.
Congratulations McWay, you have won yet another argument by stubbornly refusing to read or comprehend neither the argments of others nor the bullshit you yourself regurgitate to justify your own delusions.
Ignorance wins out.
The Luke
Some Bible study would help. At least then, you can have some interesting conversation. Otherwise, you get tomfoolery, Luke-style, void of accuracy and saturated with silliness.
All we can do my friend is try. Remember the Scribes ,Pharisees ,Sadducees, etc.? Also there are a couple of Scriptures I will PM you with, if you give me the go!. Peace!
BTW, you, Loco, BeachBum and some others are doing a fine job in "defending the faith". When I PM those scripts. am sure you will see why this is going nowhere with these few. Keep up the fine work, my friend!
GC/DEA_AGENT
Why do you continue to hound me McWay?
You've already won me over, I now understand how:
-Attis' body being nailed to a tree at Easter time, symbolising the transfixing of the "dying" setting sun upon the Southern Cross constellation
-Orpheus-Bacchus being lashed to a tree (sometimes an anchor) at Easter time, symbolising the transfixing of the "dying" setting sun upon the Southern Cross constellation
-The dying Hercules lying arms outstretched upon a felled tree, symbolising the transfixing of the "dying" setting sun upon the Southern Cross constellation
...and the other crucified Mystery Religion solar deities similarly crucified in a symbolic representation of the sun "dying" upon the Southern Cross constellation:
-the god Chrishna/Krishna of India, crucified circa 1200 B.C.
-the god Sakia (Hindu), crucified circa 600 B.C.
-the god Thammuz/Tammuz of Syria, crucified circa 1160 B.C.
-the god Wittoba of the Telinogonesic, crucified circa 552 B.C.
-the god Iao of Nepal (sometimes conflated with Buddha), crucified circa 622 B.C.
-the god Hesus (not to be confused with his namesake Jesus) of the Celtic Druids, crucified circa 834 B.C.
-the god Quexalcote/Quetzylcoatl of Mexico, crucified circa 587 B.C.
-the god Quirinus of Rome (possibly Etruscan in origin), crucified circa 506 B.C.
-the god/titan (Aeschylus) Promotheus, crucified circa 547 B.C.
-the god Thulis of Egypt, crucified circa 1700 B.C.
-the god Indra of Tibet/Bhutan, crucified circa 725 B.C.
-the god Alcestos of Euripides, crucified circa 600 B.C.
-the god Crite/Krite of the Chaldeans, crucified circa 1200 B.C.
-the god Bali of Orissa, crucified circa 725 B.C.
-the god Mithra/Mithras of Persia, crucified circa 600 B.C.
-the god/demigod Ixion, crucified circa 400 B.C.
...all have nothing at all to do with; and in no way resemble the Jesus story in which your particular choice of Mystery Religion solar deity is nailed to a cross at Easter time (Passover). Because in this instance of a dying/resurrecting godman, and in this instance only, the cross/tree is an actual cross/tree and does not symbolise the Southern Cross constellation.
I now understand that Jesus was an actual historical person, whose life just happened to conform to the long established conceits of the popular Middle Eastern solar deity Mystery Religion traditions. He was also magic.
Before I understood this important distinction, I mistakenly interpreted these abundant coincidences as plain old plagiarism. So there is no need to labour the point, I've seen the error of my ways.
The Luke
What this fellow can't quite seem to comprehend is that aa "religion" is defined based on WHAT IS WORSHIPPED, not what isn't.
As I've stated on other occasions, for all practical purposes, atheism is man worshipping.....HIMSELF!!! Therefore, man's "logic and reason" has become effectively his deity or god. It's a mere substitution of a natural deity for a supernatural one.
Christians are deemed such, based on whom they DO worhsip, not on whom they DON'T worship. Same goes for Muslims and Allah, Buddhists and Buddha (or to whomever Buddha answers), etc.
I agree with you that the minutiae of the crucifictions of ALL of the other gods I listed differed from the Jesus myth crucifiction in some tiny detail.
Attis castrated himself, and his dead body was nailed to a tree symbolising the Southern Cross constellation at Easter time (when the sun "overcomes" the night). In tree Jesus was nailed to has no symbolic significance... even if early Christian Church Fathers admitted that it did.
Similarly, just because the pagan Mystery Religion solar deity Hesus of the Druids:
-bears the same name as Jesus
-was the son of "God the Father"
-was a god made human flesh
-was represented as an innocent lamb
-was known as the "Lamb of God"
-was crucified between a lamb (representing his innocence) and an elephant representing the magnitude of the worlds sins (which he wiped clean by taking them upon himself as a substitutional sacrifice)
In conclusion, the Mystery Religion dying/resurrecting godman solar deity Jesus is completely separate from the earlier versions of the Mystery Religion dying/resurecting odman solar deities from which he is plagiarised.
The Luke
I dont know what you're trying to prove here....?
I agree with you that the minutiae of the crucifictions of ALL of the other gods I listed differed from the Jesus myth crucifiction in some tiny detail.
That's why Jesus is wholely orignal and new.... for example, Attis castrated himself, and his dead body was nailed to a tree symbolising the Southern Cross constellation at Easter time (when the sun "overcomes" the night). In tree Jesus was nailed to has no symbolic significance... even if early Christian Church Fathers admitted that it did.
Similarly, just because the pagan Mystery Religion solar deity Hesus of the Druids:
-bears the same name as Jesus
-was the son of "God the Father"
-was a god made human flesh
-was represented as an innocent lamb
-was known as the "Lamb of God"
-was crucified between a lamb (representing his innocence) and an elephant representing the magnitude of the worlds sins (which he wiped clean by taking them upon himself as a substitutional sacrifice)
...none of that has anything in common with Jesus.
In conclusion, the Mystery Religion dying/resurrecting godman solar deity Jesus is completely separate from the earlier versions of the Mystery Religion dying/resurecting odman solar deities from which he is plagiarised.
Jesus is completely original, because as a Jew he wore a yamika.
In short, Jesus is different because he has a funny hat.
That, and he's magic.
The Luke
are you serious? i mean you haven't even made an argument how atheism the opposite of theism is man worshipping himself. You just state it like fact, a clearly erroneous one.
are you serious? i mean you haven't even made an argument how atheism the opposite of theism is man worshipping himself. You just state it like fact, a clearly erroneous one.
Apparently, you need some Visine.
Atheists believe there is no God and thus no being higher than man. Therefore, whose "logic and reason" is it that they cherish so much, in regards to their philosophies of life?
Do you value "logic and reason" from elephants, gnus, moose, elk, butterflies, etc? OF COURSE NOT!! You value such from.......MAN!!!
It's quite simple. Either you believe that a higher being created life on this Earth or you don't. If the latter is true, you are an atheist and regard NO OTHER authority other than your own (as in that of man, versus that of God).
Also,
...self-serving copy and paste; blah; blah; blah.
GC/DEA_AGENT
-the god Chrishna/Krishna of India, crucified circa 1200 B.C.
-the god Sakia (Hindu), crucified circa 600 B.C.
-the god Thammuz/Tammuz of Syria, crucified circa 1160 B.C.
-the god Wittoba of the Telinogonesic, crucified circa 552 B.C.
-the god Iao of Nepal (sometimes conflated with Buddha), crucified circa 622 B.C.
-the god Hesus (not to be confused with his namesake Jesus) of the Celtic Druids, crucified circa 834 B.C.
-the god Quexalcote/Quetzylcoatl of Mexico, crucified circa 587 B.C.
-the god Quirinus of Rome (possibly Etruscan in origin), crucified circa 506 B.C.
-the god/titan (Aeschylus) Promotheus, crucified circa 547 B.C.
-the god Thulis of Egypt, crucified circa 1700 B.C.
-the god Indra of Tibet/Bhutan, crucified circa 725 B.C.
-the god Alcestos of Euripides, crucified circa 600 B.C.
-the god Crite/Krite of the Chaldeans, crucified circa 1200 B.C.
-the god Bali of Orissa, crucified circa 725 B.C.
-the god Mithra/Mithras of Persia, crucified circa 600 B.C.
-the god/demigod Ixion, crucified circa 400 B.C.
...there is a well established statistical correlation between atheism and morally correct behaviour.
There is no denying this, as the sheer weight of evidence is overwhelming... and NOT open to any other interpretation.
The more atheists in a society, the less crime. The more fundamentalist believers; the more crime and antisocial behaviour. This is reality, don't delude yourself into thinking otherwise.
If authorship of the Bible can be ascribed to any particular supernatural entity... it would be Satan.
The Luke
So I cited/quoted a reliable source that would back what I had experienced personally. Again, I'm am sincerely sorry for being to harsh with this post. Peace!
GC/DEA_AGENT
...no offense taken.
It was the blatant factual inaccuracy of the quote that I took issue with. It is simply a sociological fact that athiests are more moral in their behaviour than theists. Fact.
Check the crime statistics for Norway; Sweden; Finland... Scandinavia is over 80% athiest.
Whereas Afghanistan; Pakistan; Iraq; Darfur.... ?
The Luke
Anyway, once I studied the Bible for myself, it was obvious those folks were not following it's teachings. So, I can see your point quiet vividly!. Peace!
GC/DEA_AGENT
Thanks friend!. I will take u up on that. I should have researched before I posted that erroneous info beforehand. I remember your post in the "Brad Pit" thread ref. those stats. I meant to do it then, but forgot. This is one of those cases of "putting the cart before the horse". :-[
It's a shame that religions claiming to represent the "God" of the Bible have skewed/brought reproach on "God's" dear name. I attended so called "Christian" schools for a good portion of my required school years, and I can say that, for the most part, the people in these schools were hypocrites (one of the reasons for my Atheist choice at the time).
Anyway, once I studied the Bible for myself, it was obvious those folks were not following it's teachings. So, I can see your point quiet vividly!. Peace!
GC/DEA_AGENT
the bible states that adulterers should be stoned to death? do you think that is a fair punishment?
also, children who misbehave should be stoned, do you agree with this?
hell, an eternal torture is an immoral punishment for a finite act.
I agree most Christians are hypocrites, but it's an intellectual hypocrisy... not because they read the bible and "were not following it's teachings".
You don't have to read very far into the Old Testament to find Yahweh endorsing slavery; rape; infanticide; genocide and all sorts of other base, depraved... oh so very human cruelties. Those are God's "teachings".
God's failings are mans failings... as god does not exist outside of the human mind. God is a mirror to the human psyche precisely because he is a product of the human psyche... nothing more.
Yahweh never mentions the immorality of slavery because he was invented by primitive superstitious people who saw no moral failing in the practice of slavery.
Likewise, Jesus never mentions the immorality of slavery because he was invented by only slightly less primitive people who still saw no moral failing in the practice of slavery.
The God of the Old Testament cannot progress with man as he is concreted in words and scripture, the GodS (plural) of the Genesis story have at least had a re-write, but not much else of the Bible has been so lucky. It's long overdue.
I don't know why Christian true-believers debate this type of thing... especially considering that they continuously evade every question put to them and persevere in re-framing the argument with impossible to fulfill requirements and preconditions.
For example:
I contend that the entire Jesus story is wholly plagiarised from earlier traditions... I back up this assertion by noting that the Jesus story rigidly conforms to the dying/resurrecting godman blueprint common to dozens of Middle Eastern religions; while simultaneously pointing out that EVERY aspect of the Jesus story can be found in other such Mystery Religion solar deity stories.
But that is refuted on the grounds that there is no other mystery religion solar deity who conforms to EVERY SINGLE MINUTE TRIVIAL detail of the Jesus story.
Didn't I give a huge list of twenty-odd precursor gods from whom Jesus is plagiarised, just a little earlier in this thread...?
-the god Chrishna/Krishna of India, crucified circa 1200 B.C.
-the god Sakia (Hindu), crucified circa 600 B.C.
-the god Thammuz/Tammuz of Syria, crucified circa 1160 B.C.
-the god Wittoba of the Telinogonesic, crucified circa 552 B.C.
-the god Iao of Nepal (sometimes conflated with Buddha), crucified circa 622 B.C.
-the god Hesus (not to be confused with his namesake Jesus) of the Celtic Druids, crucified circa 834 B.C.
-the god Quexalcote/Quetzylcoatl of Mexico, crucified circa 587 B.C.
-the god Quirinus of Rome (possibly Etruscan in origin), crucified circa 506 B.C.
-the god/titan (Aeschylus) Promotheus, crucified circa 547 B.C.
-the god Thulis of Egypt, crucified circa 1700 B.C.
-the god Indra of Tibet/Bhutan, crucified circa 725 B.C.
-the god Alcestos of Euripides, crucified circa 600 B.C.
-the god Crite/Krite of the Chaldeans, crucified circa 1200 B.C.
-the god Bali of Orissa, crucified circa 725 B.C.
-the god Mithra/Mithras of Persia, crucified circa 600 B.C.
-the god/demigod Ixion, crucified circa 400 B.C.
But be careful not to use Christian apologist websites for your info (as McWay does) as many of these gods have different versions: a folklore version; an adapted version; a metaphorical/astrological solar deity version; a fascist version etc etc... the Christian apologists are happy to quote the discrepancies between the Jesus story and (say) the folklore version of whichever god... seldom do they acknowledge the blatant and obvious parallels between Jesus (a Mystery Religion solar deity) and the Mystery Religion solar deity version of some other god.
ALL Mystery Religion solar deities have the same basic blueprint, including Jesus.
For example, I could assert that Jesus never rose from the dead IF I disingenuously referenced the Gnostic/Buddhist version of the Jesus story as practiced and preached by Cathar Christians from 200 AD till the Middle Ages.
The Cathars rejected the resurrection; and Jesus' divinity; and Judas as betrayer; and the Holy Trinity; and heaven and hell; and Saint Peter etc etc
The (common consensus) Biblical version of Jesus is only the last surviving version of this Jesus myth, the Catholic Church wiped out almost all others.
The Biblical version of Jesus as we have it today is a metaphorical solar deity in the tradition of the Mystery Religion... except the revelatory oral tradition which enlightens the symbolism involved has been lost.
The Mystery Religion itself is older than Atlantis or Eden... so 10,500 BC to 12,000 BC at least....but if you want one that predates even Genesis (the founding document of Judaism) you might want to try "Horus, the miracle child" (Egyptian).
Government controlled = McWay
As McWay brought out, there are similarties, yet hardly leading to proof of plagiarism. It would need to be the same in all regards in my opinion.
...even setting aside the FACT that EVERY detail of the Jesus story is preempted by other earlier gods (not even the name is original, nor him being Jewish), what about Issa?
Issa was a Jewish man of the line of David, born circa 5 BC who:
-was recognised by three traveling (Buddhist) sages at birth
-knew everything by age 12
-traveled to the Far East to study Buddhism
-returned in triumph to Jerusalem as an adult
-took twelve disciples
-preached to the masses
-proclaimed himself "Son of God"
-healed the sick
-healed the lame
-healed the blind
-raised the dead
-was betrayed
-was crucified by the Romans under Pilate circa 35 AD
-rose from the dead three days later
It's hard to argue that Jesus wasn't plagiarised/conflated with Issa when every single minute detail of Issa's life matches the Jesus story exactly.
Unless, of course, you believe Issa and Jesus might be the same person?
If you do... congratulations, your god (and his trusty donkey) are buried in Kashmir (twixt India and Pakistan) where he died a very old man.
You can even go visit his grave; just get on the pilgrim trail for Saint Issa's grave... but don't pay any attention to all the inscriptions of Issa's sayings. Luckily for you the inscriptions recording that Issa claimed to actually be the very same Jesus the Nazorite whom the Christians worship have been suitably hacked away by pious Christian pilgrims during the Dark Ages (after Muslim scholars recorded them).
No questions on this post please... I understand if English is not your first language, but your lack of reading comprehension means I'm explaining in vain when you fail to understand what I write.
The Luke
...eh, no one could be that dumb.
If Jesus and Issa are the same person, and lived the same life, at the same time, in the same place... then how does you argument of seventy weeks of years factor into this?
How does this "prophecy" eliminate Issa a source for the plagiarism of the Jesus story?
Didn't I give a huge list of twenty-odd precursor gods from whom Jesus is plagiarised, just a little earlier in this thread...?
Anyway, here goes, knock yourself out.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-the god Chrishna/Krishna of India, crucified circa 1200 B.C.
-the god Sakia (Hindu), crucified circa 600 B.C.
-the god Thammuz/Tammuz of Syria, crucified circa 1160 B.C.
-the god Wittoba of the Telinogonesic, crucified circa 552 B.C.
-the god Iao of Nepal (sometimes conflated with Buddha), crucified circa 622 B.C.
-the god Hesus (not to be confused with his namesake Jesus) of the Celtic Druids, crucified circa 834 B.C.
-the god Quexalcote/Quetzylcoatl of Mexico, crucified circa 587 B.C.
-the god Quirinus of Rome (possibly Etruscan in origin), crucified circa 506 B.C.
-the god/titan (Aeschylus) Promotheus, crucified circa 547 B.C.
-the god Thulis of Egypt, crucified circa 1700 B.C.
-the god Indra of Tibet/Bhutan, crucified circa 725 B.C.
-the god Alcestos of Euripides, crucified circa 600 B.C.
-the god Crite/Krite of the Chaldeans, crucified circa 1200 B.C.
-the god Bali of Orissa, crucified circa 725 B.C.
-the god Mithra/Mithras of Persia, crucified circa 600 B.C.
-the god/demigod Ixion, crucified circa 400 B.C.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
...but if you want one that predates even Genesis (the founding document of Judaism) you might want to try "Horus, the miracle child" (Egyptian).
But be careful not to use Christian apologist websites for your info (as McWay does) as many of these gods have different versions: a folklore version; an adapted version; a metaphorical/astrological solar deity version; a fascist version etc etc... the Christian apologists are happy to quote the discrepancies between the Jesus story and (say) the folklore version of whichever god... seldom do they acknowledge the blatant and obvious parallels between Jesus (a Mystery Religion solar deity) and the Mystery Religion solar deity version of some other god.
ALL Mystery Religion solar deities have the same basic blueprint, including Jesus.
McWay often uses this version-swapping tactic... it's disingenuous.
For example, I could assert that Jesus never rose from the dead IF I disingenuously referenced the Gnostic/Buddhist version of the Jesus story as practiced and preached by Cathar Christians from 200 AD till the Middle Ages.
The Cathars rejected the resurrection; and Jesus' divinity; and Judas as betrayer; and the Holy Trinity; and heaven and hell; and Saint Peter etc etc
The (common consensus) Biblical version of Jesus is only the last surviving version of this Jesus myth, the Catholic Church wiped out almost all others.
The Biblical version of Jesus as we have it today is a metaphorical solar deity in the tradition of the Mystery Religion... except the revelatory oral tradition which enlightens the symbolism involved has been lost.
The Mystery Religion itself is older than Atlantis or Eden... so 10,500 BC to 12,000 BC at least.
...eh, no one could be that dumb.
If Jesus and Issa are the same person, and lived the same life, at the same time, in the same place... then how does you argument of seventy weeks of years factor into this?
How does this "prophecy" eliminate Issa a source for the plagiarism of the Jesus story?
The Luke
...even setting aside the FACT that EVERY detail of the Jesus story is preempted by other earlier gods (not even the name is original, nor him being Jewish), what about Issa?
Issa was a Jewish man of the line of David, born circa 5 BC who:
-was recognised by three traveling (Buddhist) sages at birth
-knew everything by age 12
-traveled to the Far East to study Buddhism
-returned in triumph to Jerusalem as an adult
-took twelve disciples
-preached to the masses
-proclaimed himself "Son of God"
-healed the sick
-healed the lame
-healed the blind
-raised the dead
-was betrayed
-was crucified by the Romans under Pilate circa 35 AD
-rose from the dead three days later
It's hard to argue that Jesus wasn't plagiarised/conflated with Issa when every single minute detail of Issa's life matches the Jesus story exactly.
Unless, of course, you believe Issa and Jesus might be the same person?
If you do... congratulations, your god (and his trusty donkey) are buried in Kashmir (twixt India and Pakistan) where he died a very old man.
You can even go visit his grave; just get on the pilgrim trail for Saint Issa's grave... but don't pay any attention to all the inscriptions of Issa's sayings. Luckily for you the inscriptions recording that Issa claimed to actually be the very same Jesus the Nazorite whom the Christians worship have been suitably hacked away by pious Christian pilgrims during the Dark Ages (after Muslim scholars recorded them).
No questions on this post please... I understand if English is not your first language, but your lack of reading comprehension means I'm explaining in vain when you fail to understand what I write.
The Luke
I don't know why Christian true-believers debate this type of thing... especially considering that they continuously evade every question put to them and persevere in re-framing the argument with impossible to fulfill requirements and preconditions.
For example:
I contend that the entire Jesus story is wholly plagiarised from earlier traditions... I back up this assertion by noting that the Jesus story rigidly conforms to the dying/resurrecting godman blueprint common to dozens of Middle Eastern religions; while simultaneously pointing out that EVERY aspect of the Jesus story can be found in other such Mystery Religion solar deity stories.
But that is refuted on the grounds that there is no other mystery religion solar deity who conforms to EVERY SINGLE MINUTE TRIVIAL detail of the Jesus story.
That is tantamount to arguing that Peter Jackson's King Kong is wholly new and original unless a frame-for-frame; pixel-for-pixel; digital-bit-for-digital-bit EXACT duplicate produced earlier than 2004 can be presented...
...that reasoning doesn't win an argument. Jesus is still just a shoddy big-budget remake.
A question you won't see McWay or any of the other fundies answer is which details of the stories of these other gods will they concede DO MATCH the later Jesus fable?
The Luke
McWay,
I'm not responsible for your stupidity.
You're responsible for your own, but that's another issue.
Just a few factual errors in your critique of my assertions:
-Issa is not a dying/resurrecting godman
-the Issa I am referring to is not the Muslim Jesus, but "Saint Issa" of Kashmir
Likewise, when I claim there are parallels between Jesus (a Mystery Religion solar deity) and other Mystery Religion solar deities... you can't discount these assertions by comparing Jesus with the FOLKLORE versions of these other gods.
Will you similarly concede that all the following were crucified in certain traditions?
-the god Chrishna/Krishna of India, crucified circa 1200 B.C.
-the god Sakia (Hindu), crucified circa 600 B.C.
-the god Thammuz/Tammuz of Syria, crucified circa 1160 B.C.
-the god Wittoba of the Telinogonesic, crucified circa 552 B.C.
-the god Iao of Nepal (sometimes conflated with Buddha), crucified circa 622 B.C.
-the god Hesus (not to be confused with his namesake Jesus) of the Celtic Druids, crucified circa 834 B.C.
-the god Quexalcote/Quetzylcoatl of Mexico, crucified circa 587 B.C.
-the god Quirinus of Rome (possibly Etruscan in origin), crucified circa 506 B.C.
-the god/titan (Aeschylus) Promotheus, crucified circa 547 B.C.
-the god Thulis of Egypt, crucified circa 1700 B.C.
-the god Indra of Tibet/Bhutan, crucified circa 725 B.C.
-the god Alcestos of Euripides, crucified circa 600 B.C.
-the god Crite/Krite of the Chaldeans, crucified circa 1200 B.C.
-the god Bali of Orissa, crucified circa 725 B.C.
-the god Mithra/Mithras of Persia, crucified circa 600 B.C.
-the god/demigod Ixion, crucified circa 400 B.C.
...sure, there are versions of these gods stories in which they are NOT crucified. But that doesn't negate the fact that there are traditions/versions in which they ARE crucified.
For example, there are many Cathar traditions in which Jesus did not rise from the dead at all, and these Gnostic traditions are in fact older than Christianity itself.
Saint Issa is a version of the Jesus story in which Jesus/Issa did not ascend into heaven.
But I'm not quoting these versions of the Jesus story as evidence that the Bible account does not exist...
The Luke
Ummm...Einstein. We went over this before. the "Saint Issa" to which you make reference is believed to be THE EXACT SAME JESUS CHRIST from the New Testament. I referenced several links that mention this.
Ummm...Einstein. We went over this before. the "Saint Issa" to which you make reference is believed to be THE EXACT SAME JESUS CHRIST from the New Testament. I referenced several links that mention this.
...Do YOU believe Saint Issa and Jesus are one in the same person?
What's your take on this prophecy? It kills "The Luke's" 'Issa' link, eh?
...how? It applies equally well to Issa himself.
Remember, McWay thinks Jesus and Issa are the same person.
The Luke
Eh, are you taking medication? Didn't you ask McWay IF he THINKS they are the same? Also, why are you answering for McWay.
...I did, AFTER he asserted Issa was merely the Muslim name for Jesus.
McWay will never answer whether Issa and Jesus are the same person:
-if he differentiates beween them, then he loses his claim that Jesus is original and couldn't have been plagiarised from other deities because the Jesus story and the Issa story are identical in every single respect: there is NO variation, other than the spelling
-if he conflates the two, (as some religious sects do) then he has to account for the fact that Issa is buried in Kashmir, where he retired after his resurrection, living to the ripe old age of 120
Besides, I thought YOU were McWay? I'm not the only one who thinks so either.
Why do you answer for McWay?
...I didn't answer for him, I explained why he can't and won't answer: either option would force him to question Zombie Jeebus.
It's like catching a computer in a logic paradox, it can't think, it can only obey it's programming.
YOU won't answer the question either.
Not really, you would be catching the programmer.
I already did, you didn't understand the answer.
...notice how this question ended the thread?
I suppose McWay googled "Saint Issa" and is now curled up in the corner of the room sobbing.
The Luke
...I didn't answer for him, I explained why he can't and won't answer: either option would force him to question Zombie Jeebus.
Different guys, then Jesus ain't so original no more.
Same guy, then the ascension into heaven never happened and the Bible is wrong.
It's like catching a computer in a logic paradox, it can't think, it can only obey it's programming.
YOU won't answer the question either.
The Luke
The Bible doesn't teach that Christ was born on that date (Dec. 25th). It's definitely not a Bible teaching.
GC/DEA_AGENT
Carl Sagan- You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep-seated need to believe.
As I've said numerous times, there are Buddhist who believe that St. Issa is, in fact, Jesus Christ. Most do not, INCLUDING ME, which is hardly news.
...you're a Buddhist now?
I thought you were a literalist Christian fundamentalist?
The Luke
so the majority decide the truth... :P
I don't understand McWay's position here...?
If there is a guy buried in Kashmir whose life story matches the Jesus story in every single regard right up until the supposed ascension into heaven... why couldn't the Jesus story be copied from this guy?
More importantly, this Issa character sets the precedent for another dying/resurrecting godman being crucified under Pontius Pilate circa 35 AD then rising from the dead three days later.
You can't concede the existence of such a character, stipulate to the claims made about him and then still proclaim the Jesus story to be wholly original.
The Luke
Religion is the opiate of the masses. – Karl Marx
Earth to Luke, there's no precedent to set because (as has been shown repeatedly) the figures you tout DO NOT match, whatsoever.
The Issa guy in Kashmir isn't the same guy. Were that the case, as McDowell and Dr. Meier indicate, the antagonists of late first/second century Christians would have simply produce the body and Christianity would have been DOA.
They knew where Jesus was buried, how He died, who executed Him, when and where. So, your repeatedly silly claims get crushed (yet again) by the historical evidence, regarding Christ.
...they do indeed match. Up until the ascension into heaven anyway... Jesus flies away, Issa retreats to Kashmir.
Prior to that, not even one single detail of their stories differ in any way.
Issa even claimed to be Jesus, and if Issa is Jesus....
Notwithstanding the fact that the bulk of Christians didn't even believe Jesus ever rose from the dead till the triumph of Catholic orthodoxy over Cathar/Bogomil Gnosticism in the thirteenth century...
...how would the critics of Christianity have nown Jesus/Issa was buried in Kashmir?
You have worldwide news media; tv; newspapers; sattellite photography covering the entire planet; GPS mapping; and the god-damn internet... and you didnt know anything about Issa or his burial place till I pointed it out to you.
Either Issa is Jesus, or there was another Jesus... you can't assert one without conceding the other.
The Luke
Once again, Einstein, CLAIMING to be Jesus and actually being Jesus are two separate issues.
From where do you get this comical yet pitiful tripe? Christians believed in the Resurrection of Christ LONG BEFORE THERE EVER WAS A CATHOLIC CHURCH.
First and second century Christians spread the faith, despite facing great persecution. That is well documented. For you to make such a pea-brained statement smacks of your typical yet feeble attempt at revisionist history.
The Roman ruled the planet. If they wanted to know where Jesus was buried (which they already knew, BTW), they would have found Him. They produce the body, kill Christianity by destroying the very foundation of the faith.....GAME OVER!!!
Lay off the weed, Luke. I knew about Issa already (the particulars being that as the Muslim name for Jesus Christ).
Fortunately, I am not beholden to your screwball logic. Whoever that Issa guy is buried in Kashmir, he is NOT (let me say that SLOWLY, since you don't get it) He IS NOT JESUS CHRIST!!!
There is but one Christ and he ain't in Kashmir. Let that sit in your skull and marinate for a while.
Your pathetic claiims don't hold up to the historical evidence or basic common sense. But, if you wish to continue making a fool of yourself, spouting this nonsense which I can easy dismantle with little-to-no-effort, knock yourself out.
...then how did a holy man living in Kashmir (thousands of miles from Judea) know every detail of the Jesus story before any of the Gospels were written? Issa arrived in Kashmir circa 50 AD.
Was he one of the disciples? How else could he know all of Jesus teachings? (even the inimate ones)
More importantly, how did he heal the sick/lame/blind?
Why did he have crucifixion wounds upon his body? (even depicted on his grave)
Why did he claim to have risen from the dead after being crucified by Pilate in Judea?
Why did he claim to be Jesus...? ...and why make such a claim in Kashmir? Why not Judea? Why not Jew-populated southern France? Why stick to the story for 70 years?
Most interestingly, why did some early Christian missionaries recognise him as Jesus and build a new religion around pilgrimage to his tomb?
...not all of them.
The Cathars, Bogomils, Aryans, Old Believers, (some) Albigensians and the Gnostics did NOT hold to the resurrection, nor the divinity of Jesus himself. In fact, a resurrecting divine Jesus was a minority view till the sixth centuy or so.
Read up on it... don't just copy and paste the first screed denouncing this historical act you scrounge off some apologist Christian think-tank website.
...this is patently laughable! The "planet"? China too?
Besides, Kashmir was never under Roman control.
...then why weren't you off to Kashmir post haste to excavate your gods tomb?
...maybe so, but then who is this buried Issa? Another Jesus maybe?
The original version of Jesus maybe?
The source account from which Jesus was plagiarised, perhaps.
Come on McWay, either Issa is Jesus or there was another Jesus.
The Luke
ever notice how mcway and gov controlled are the same person..Mcgay has been posting excessively since sep 17th...care to guess when the last time gov controll posted?yep...you guessed it the 17th...and guess who was on hiatus prior to that when gov was doing all the posting...yep mcgay....
factor in they post at the same time of day and you realize just how pathetic it really is.ha ha
More baloney on your part. The view of a resurrected Christ was part and parcel of the Christian faith, a fact lost on you in your futile attempt to make your lame claims stick.
Who knows and really who cares? Claims alone DO NOT make that guy Jesus Christ.
Because, Einstein, my God is not in that tomb (or any other for that matter)
Who is he makes no difference; who he IS NOT is Jesus Christ, end of story.
Once again, I am not subject to you pea-brained logic. There is only one Jesus Christ and this Issa character, buried in Kashmir, ain't He, pure and simple.
Didn't Paul and the disciples of Christ warn that there would be imposters, claiming to be Jesus Christ?
So, if you have points that can be made to prove the Bible's credibility regarding authorship, lets see it.
- In (Genesis 2:7) it says that Adam was made from the ground (earth). It's known that the human body is made up of 41 chemical elements. These basic elements---carbon, iron, oxygen, and others---are all present in the "dust" of the earth. Therefore, as (Genesis) states, humans truly are formed "out of the dust from the ground". This was written around 4,500 years ago (give or take) by Moses. How is it possible that Moses new of this scientific info regarding a humans composition, when in that day this info was not known?
- Believe it or not, some people are surprised to learn that Adam and Eve are mentioned repeatedly throughout the Bible. What insight do these references shed on the historicity of the Genesis account? Consider, for example, the Jewish ancestral lists recorded in the Bible book of (1 Chronicles 1-9) and in the Gospel of (Luke chapter 3). These remarkably detailed genealogical recrods span 48 and 75 generations respectively. Luke traces the genealogy of Jesus Christ, while (Chronicles) records the royal and priestly ancestral lines for the nation of Israel. Both lists include the names of such well-known figures as Solomon, David, Jacob, Isaac, Abraham, Noah, and finally Adam. All the names in the two lists represent real people, and Adam was the original real person on each list. The Greek scriptures confirms the historicity of the account given in the early chapters of (Genesis).
- Regarding the shape of earth ,the Bible reports that the planet was ROUND. (Isaiah 40:22) - "He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth,and its people are like gasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy,and spreads them out like a tent to live in". It was not until over 200 years after this Bible text had been written that a school of Greek philosophers reasoned that the earth likely was spherical, and in about another 300 years a Greek astronomer calculated the approximate radius of the earth. But the idea of a spherical earth was not the general view even then. Only in the 20th century has it been possible for humans to observe the shape of the earth. How did the Bible know this?
- (Lev. 11:6) - "The rabbit, though it chews the cud, does not have a split hoof; it is unclean for you." Critics attacked this for quite some time, yet the rabbit's cud chewing was finally observed by William Cowper (Englishmen) in the 18th century. The unusual way in which it is done was described in 1940 in Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, Vol. 110, Series A, pp. 159-163. (Leviticus) was written by Moses. Again, how would Moses know this info? He wrote this around 1512 B.C. If you think Moses got fortunate again or observed this, then why did he give God the credit? Did Moses lie?
- The internal harmony is staggering/significant, to say the least. This is especially so in view of the fact that the books of the Bible were written by 40 men as different as night and day such as king, prophet, herdsman, tax collector, and physician. They did the writing over a period of 1,610 years; so there was no opportunity for collusion. Yet their writings agree, even in the smallest detail. Isn't this a little to coincidental?
_________________________________________________________________________________________
(Isa. 44:24, 27, 28; 45:1-4) - (24) "This is what the LORD says— your Redeemer, who formed you in the womb: I am the LORD, who has made all things,who alone stretched out the heavens, who spread out the earth by myself, (27) who says to the watery deep, 'Be dry, and I will dry up your streams,' (28) who says of Cyrus, 'He is my shepherd and will accomplish all that I please; he will say of Jerusalem, "Let it be rebuilt," and of the temple, "Let its foundations be laid." '
(1) "This is what the LORD says to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I take hold of to subdue nations before him and to strip kings of their armor, to open doors before him so that gates will not be shut: (2) I will go before you and will level the mountains ; I will break down gates of bronze and cut through bars of iron. (3) I will give you the treasures of darkness, riches stored in secret places, so that you may know that I am the LORD,the God of Israel, who summons you by name. (4) For the sake of Jacob my servant, of Israel my chosen, I summon you by name and bestow on you a title of honor, though you do not acknowledge me". (The book of (Isaiah) was finished around 732 B.C.)
* Fulfillment: It's known that Cyrus had not been born when this prophecy was written. The Jews were exiled to Babylon in 617-607 B.C., the temple and Jerusalem were not destroyed until 607 B.C. The prophecy was fulfilled in detail starting in 539 B.C. The river gates of Babylon were carelessly left open during feasting in the city allowing Cyrus to divert the waters of the Euphrates River into a fake lake, thereby Babylon was overtaken by the Medes and Persians under Cyrus. So then, Cyrus liberated the Jewish exiles and sent them back to Jerusalem with instructions to rebuild the God of Abraham's temple there. - The Encyclopedia Americana (1956), Vol. III, p. 9; Light From the Ancient Past (Princeton, 1959), Jack Finegan, pp. 227-229.
(Luke 19:41-44; 21:20,21) - (41) "Now as He drew near, He saw the city and wept over it, (42) saying, 'If you had known, even you, especially in this your day, the things that make for your peace! But now they are hidden from your eyes. (43) For days will come upon you when your enemies will build an embankment around you, surround you and close you in on every side, (44) and level you, and your children within you, to the ground; and they will not leave in you one stone upon another, because you did not know the time of your visitation.
(20) But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation is near. (21) Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those who are in the midst of her depart, and let not those who are in the country enter her'". (Jesus stated this Prophecy in 33 A.D.)
* Fulfillment: In 66 A.D., Jerusalem rebelled against Rome. Cestius Gallus (Roman army officer) attacked the city. However, Gallus without hesitation stopped the attack. As Josephus stated - "suddenly called off his men, abandoned hope though he had suffered no reverse, and flying in the face of all reason retired from the City". (Josephus, the Jewish War, Penguin Classics, 1969, p. 167)
This gave the Christians time to leave the city, which they did, moving to Pella, beyond the Jordan. (Eusebius Pamphilus in his Ecclesiastical History, which was translated by C. F. Cruse, London, 1894, p. 75).
General Titus took the city around Passover time in 70 A.D. He did this by installing fence 4.5 miles long around the city in three days, thereby after five months Jerusalem was conquered. "Jerusalem itself was systematically destroyed and the Temple left in ruins. Archaeological work shows us today just how effective was the destruction of Jewish buildings all over the land". (The Bible and Archaeology [Grand Rapids, Mich.; 1962], J. A. Thompson, p. 299).
Jer. 49:17, 18 - “‘Edom must become an object of astonishment. Everyone passing along by her will stare in astonishment and whistle on account of all her plagues. Just as in the overthrow of Sodom and Gomorrah and her neighbor towns,’ the God of Israel has said, ‘no man will dwell there.’” (Completed by 580 B.C.)
* Fulfillment: "They [the Edomites] were driven from Palestine in the 2nd century B.C. by Judas Maccabaeus, and in 109 B.C. John Hyrcanus, Maccabaen leader, extended the kingdom of Judah to include the w. part of Edomitic lands. In the 1st century B.C. Roman expansion swept away the last vestige of Edomitic independence . . . After the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 A.D. . . . the name Idumae [Edom] disappeared from history." (The New Funk & Wagnalls Encyclopedia, 1952, Vol. 11, p. 4114) This realization extends down to our day. In no way can it be argued that this prophecy was written after the events had taken place.
- How about the Bible's knowledge of mountains? Here is a quote on geology from a textbook - “From Pre-Cambrian times down to the present, the perpetual process of building and destroying mountains has continued. . . . Not only have mountains originated from the bottom of vanished seas, but they have often been submerged long after their formation, and then re-elevated." This is what the Bible says - (6) "You [God] covered it with the deep as with a garment; the waters were standing above the mountains. (Eight) The mountains rose; the valleys sank down to the place which You [God] established for them." (Psalms 104:6,8)
- The Bible speaks about the earth's water cycle. (Ecclesiates 1:7) - "All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again". (This was written before 1000 B.C.)! Did the Bible get fortunate again?
- What about the laws that govern the universe? Take a look see at what (Jeremiah 33:25) has to say -(24) "Haven't you noticed what these people are saying? They say, 'The Lord once chose the two kingdoms of Israel and Judah. But now he has turned his back on them.' So they hate my people. They do not think of them as a nation anymore. (25) I say, 'What if I had not made my covenant with day and night? What if I had not established the laws of heaven and earth? Again, did the Bible get fortunate? (This was written before 580 B.C.)
- How about the earth being suspended in space! (Job 26:7) - "He stretcheth out the north over empty space, And hangeth the earth upon nothing". (Written about 1613 B.C.) These men never took credit for this info!
- According to the book of (Daniel), Babylon's last leader was named Belshazzar this is of course before it (Babylon) fell to the Persians. (Daniel 5:1-30) Critics claimed the Bible was wrong about the existence of Belshazzar, since only the Bible mentioned him. However in the 19th century, several cuneiform were discovered in some ruins in southern Iraq. In these (cuneiform) writting's a prayer for the health of the oldest son of Nabonidus, king of Babylon. Belshazzar was his name.
So there was a Belshazzar! But was he a king, when Babylon fell? Most documents subsequently found referred to him as the son of the king, the crown prince. But a cuneiform document described as the “Verse Account of Nabonidus” shed more light on Belshazzar’s true position. It stated - “He (Nabonidus) entrusted the ‘Camp’ to his oldest (son), the firstborn, the troops everywhere in the country he ordered under his (command). He let (everything) go, he entrusted the kingship to him.” So Belshazzar was entrusted with the kingship. This relationship between Belshazzar and his father, Nabonidus, explains why Belshazzar, during that final banquet in Babylon, offered to make Daniel the third ruler in the kingdom. (Daniel 5:16) Since Nabonidus was the first ruler, Belshazzar himself was only the second ruler of Babylon.
- The Bible's account regarding the ORGIN OF THE UNIVERSE conforms to astronomical evidence! (Gen. 1:1) “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth". Robert Jastrow stated - “Now we see how the astronomical evidence leads to a biblical view of the origin of the world. The details differ, but the essential elements in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same: the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy.” - God and the Astronomers (New York, 1978), p. 14.
GC/DEA_AGENT
I think you'll find that this assertion is patently untrue as a matter of historical fact.
Quoting a verse from a book of the New Testament doesn't really suffice as evidence here, as it is well known that the current Christian canon of four agreed-upon Gospels were gleaned from more than 80 source gospels at the Council of Nicea (325 AD I think).
I live in Ireland, where a variant of Aryan Christianity was esablished circa 500 AD and persisted right up until the Albigensian Crusade in the Middle Ages.
Right throughout the Dark Ages a bodily resurrection of Christ was a minority view among Christians worldwide. As I said, many groups such as the Cathars, Bogomils, Aryans, Old Believers, (some) Albigensians and the Gnostics did NOT hold to the resurrection. Mandeans (Iraqi Swamp Kurds) deny such an occurrence to this day.
The Hibernian Church (Ireland) certainly didn't preach a bodily, earthly resurrection... neither did they believe in a holy trinity, nor the divinity of Jesus. In fact there is good evidence they retained many pagan aspects of early Christianity, they even practiced divorce and gay marriage.
Read up on this, Im not making it up... in fact, I think you might find that St Paul (Saul of Tarsus) was seemingly unaware of the vast majority of the Jesus story himself.
But this type of dismissal is probably the most dishonest tactic:
...but your claim makes Jesus into Christ?
...why even bother to discuss these topics if dismissal is your preferred tactic?
None of this will persuade any undecided person reading this thread. Why even bother quoting my points if you can't even address them?
Personally I dont see why this Issa character couldn't be Jesus... at the very least he seems to have been some sort of proto-Jesus, if not the source of the Jesus myth itself. You haven't provided any argument beyond your steadfast insistence to the contrary.
After all:
...we must consider that the orthodox New Testament Jesus is the imposter?
Ater all, isn't it far more likely that a holy man who had luckily survived three hours on a cross might run off to Kashmir (supposed homeland of the lost tribe of Israel whom the messiah was prophecised to find), more likely than him floating into the air leaving no trace?
]
A body is some sort of proof after all... better than no proof.
One thing I think we can all agree upon... if McWay had been born in this remote part of Kashmir, he'd be the one making the argument for Issa.
And he'd have better evidence than he has for American Jesus.
The Luke
McWay, dude, you are hilarious... so many lies, so many excuses. Cognitive dissonance much?
The Luke
One, the canonical Gospels were written before the council of Nicea. And those Gospels clearly preach a resurrected Christ. This is what the first and second century AD Christians preach, simple fact.
Stop skimming and start reading.
...this is not a logical argument.
All 80-odd gospels predate the Council of Nicea... so what type of argument is that?
The Nag Hamadi scrolls, Gnostic Gospels and Qumran writings also predate the Council of Nicea and they're full of crazy shit: Gospel of Pontius Pilate; Gospel of Mary Magdalene; sixteen different disciples between the various writings (no set of twelve the same); The Wisdom of Jesus (a word for word copy of The Wisdom of Plato with "Jesus said:" inserted before every paragraph); there's even an account of a young Jesus striking his playmates and teachers dead with lightning bolts.
You can't honestly argue selective provenance.
The Gospel of Judas (yes Judas) has equally as authentic provenance as any of the canonical gospels... in fact, probably the oldest and therefore most authentically early Christian writing is the Gospel of Mary Magdalene.
Remember, the Emperor Constantine, (who is still a saint in the Christian Church today) recognised Jesus as an alter ego of Sol Invictus (the invincible sun); a conflation god encompassing all the Mystery religion solar deities on the very grounds that most of the Christian gospels (most of the 80) were simply reworkings of long established pagan traditions.
Obviously there must be some truth to this if we now know that Plato's writings were being appropriated by early Christians and (falsely) attributed to Jesus.
Besides, this is the crux of this thread... the Bible is not infallible, it changes with the times as it is rewritten and redacted.
The very oldest Christian traditions are the Cathars (Bogomils) and the Catholics; Catholics hold to the bodily resurrection of Jesus... most Cathars did not (maybe still don't).
Sure the Catholic/Pauline tradition was founded by St Paul (and claims a dubious link to Peter) with a founding document (the Gospel of Mark) which may have been written as early as the first century, and the oldest copy of which can be dated to approx 155 AD.
But compare that to the Cathars, who were founded by the Virgin Mary and Mary Magdalene only a couple of years after the crucifixion; have a founding document (Gospel of Mary Magdalene) which we can date to 60 AD (-ish) and maintained an unbroken tradition of early Christian beliefs up until the Crusades.
In fact, the only two Christian sects who had copies of the Secret Gospel of Mark (that we know of) were the Pauline Catholics and the Carpocratians, a document exclusive to the original disciples.
The Carpocratians believed in reincarnation; communism; rejected the divinity of Jesus; denied the resurrection and advocated sexual deviancy... where did that stuff come from if their only source documents were the gospels... and this Secret Gospel of Mark?
McWay, I don't think you know as much about Christianity as you think... maybe widen your sources beyond the work of Christian apologists and believers justifying their own delusions.
The Luke
No, they don't! That's your first of several mistakes on this post.
STRIKE TWO!!! The Gospel of Judas is hardly as authentic as the canonical Gospels and sure ain't the oldest. The earliest known copy is dated late 3rd/early 4th century A.D. The canonical Gospels date much earlier than that.
I beg to differ. Scholars cite the "Gospel" of Mary Magdalene to 2nd century AD, AT BEST. More likely, it is a 3rd century work.
Plus, the early Christians traditions (which date FAR EARLIER than the Catholic church) had, at the center of its teachings, the death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ.
As for the Cathars, their origins begin around 10th century A.D.
Furthermore, the citing of Mary as a perpetual virgin stems more from the Catholics. Nowhere in Scripture is Mary stated to have remain in such a state, especially with the Gospels giving the names of Jesus' brothers as well as referencing his sister (not to mention the non-Christian references to at least one of Jesus' siblings).
All of which were grossly CONTRARY to, not only the teachings of Jesus Christ, but to the teachings of God, prior to Christ's appearance. That among other reasons is why this got scrapped. The people who walked and talked with Christ and their followers KNEW that this mess did not come from Jesus.
...then how did they pick the canonical gospels from these 80 gospels at the Council of Nicea?
...I thought only Mark dates to earlier than that?
Aren't the earliest extant copies of Matthew, Luke and John likewise 3rd/4th century?... validating my claim?
...even accepting such an assertion (I've read differently), Mary Magdalene's tomb in southern France dates to the first century?
...except for the Gnostics, and the Gnostics made up the majority of Christians up until the Dark Ages.
Bodily resurrection of Jesus was the minority opinion among Christians worldwide until the Catholic Church established its hegemony.
...so terribly wrong.
Read up on this... you don't really believe the Cathars originated in the 10th century only to be exterminated in the 12th and 13th centuries do you?
We had Cathar-style Christianity in Ireland by the sixth century, spread by Cathar/Aryan Gnostic missionaries from Britain, who got it from France. The French Cathar tradition goes back all the way to the first century, certain paganistic Cathar sects are even known (to this day) as "Old Believers" due to their religion predating the newer Pauline Christianity.
...what are you reading? I never made any such claim, I just used the title.
You're scanning, not reading.
By the way, the Cathars claim to have been founded by the Virgin Mary and Mary Magdalene and seem to have buried both as holy saints in the first century.
That's a lot earlier than the tenth century... or the Council of Nicea, or even Pauline Christianity itself.
...then why did they keep this Secret Gospel of Mark under wraps? Even after acknowledging the existence of such a secret tradition. I'd believe the Carpocratians, they weren't keeping it a secret... why would they have any incentive to lie?
Maybe it's true, giving the Pauline Christians an incentive to keep it secret, as they have.
Have you read the Secret Gospel of Mark?
Why is it so secret?
More interestingly, why did so many of these Early Church Fathers abandon Christianity in favour of joining the Gnostics? Did they read this secret gospel?
The Luke
Listen to what you just said. You think that Cathars and their doctrine date earlier than their established dates in 10th century.
Yet, for some reason, the concept of a Christian church (with the Resurrection as its primary message) dating earlier than the Roman Catholic church seems to be a tough pill for you to swallow.
One, the early Fathers didn't abandon Christianity.
Two, those who did likely fled, due to their refusal to abandon certain sinful practices. Of course, Paul mentioned several instances of such happenings in the letters he wrote to his fellow believers.
...both existed: both trace their roots all the way back to the first century.
What you have done is pick four of the 80 or so gospels (all with equal claims to authenticity) and decide that the four you read and chose to believe are infallibly correct.
You're just siding with the winning sect... had the Cathars won out you'd be arguing Cathar dogma.
If a book is rewritten, and rewritten and edited and redacted... stitched with interpolations and translated over and over again, what arrogance is it to believe that such a book reached a divine state of being perfectly true and historically accurate only when YOU chose to read it.
One, they did not... two, they did...?
Come on, more of the Early Church Fathers died as Gnostics than founding members dropped out of the Church of Scientology.
I think your argument betrays the method of brainwashing that produces such contradictory dismissive reactions. Read this sentence very carefully...
"...those who did likely fled, due to their refusal to abandon certain sinful practices."
...remember you are explaining away something you refuse to concede. That's very telling.
What would cause someone to dismiss in a reactionary way, then immediately seek to justify, then only look to rationalise last of all? Defend; excuse; rationalise.
Well let's stick with our Scientology parallel... those who left Scientology after the death of L Ron Hubbard were subject to the very same reaction.
Firstly, it was denied that they left Scientology at all. (Defend)
Then it was admitted that some of them had indeed left because they couldn't accept the immortal L Ron had ascended to a higher plane of existence, which of course he did because as an immortal he couldn't die. (Excuse)
Finally, it became Scientology doctrine that only criminals worried they would be found left the Church of Scientology. Now Scientologists are taught that none of the founding members of Scientology ever left the church because only criminals leave Scientology and criminals cannot rise up the ranks of Scientology.
(Rationalise)
That's how delusional reinforcement works.
Lucky you recognised the one and only true version of the 34,000 variants of Christianity and didn't end up in something whacky like Scientolgy: with it's ridiculous tenets and rewritten history.
The Luke
luke is attempting to use facts and logical arguments and mcway resorts to denial, ad hominems and dishonest tactics.
Funny thread to read.
And these alleged "dishonest" tactics would be what?
As for Luke's "facts", I'm still waiting for him to explain exactly how, if this Issa/Yuz Asaf fellow is supposedly Jesus Christ, how he supposedly got off that cross alive.
As I've stated earlier, Luke's "facts" are usually anything but that. He has yet to produce the "mystery religion" versions of these other figures, demsontrating that their accounts are the ones from which Jesus Christ was supposedly crafted.
When the actual accounts are brought to the surface (and it's shown that they hardly match that of Christ), Luke runs, hides, and generates a ton of excuses. He still spouting that mess about three "kings" (oops, at last check, he referred to them recently as "sages") meeting Jesus Christ at birth. ::)
He's gaffed on Attis, Horus, Osiris, Dionysus, and now this Issa fellow (notice how he hops between them, once I get to dissecting his takes).
And, to this day, he can't explain exactly how these guys (among others) fit this so-called "dying/resurrecting godman blueprint" he keeps espousing, when they DO NOT RISE FROM THE DEAD. But don't take my word for it:
The Dying and Rising Gods
This is an older category, originally brilliantly championed by Frazer in The Golden Bough, that has been abandoned by scholars in that field:
The Frazerian construct of a general ‘Oriental’ vegetation god who periodically dies and rises from the dead has been discredited by more recent scholarship. There is no evidence for a resurrection of Attis; even Osiris remains with the dead; and if Persephone returns to the world every year, a joyous event for gods and men, the initiates do not follow her. There is a dimension of death in all of the mystery initiations, but the concept of rebirth or resurrection of either gods or mystai is anything but explicit. – Walter Burkert, “Ancient Mystery Cults”, Harvard:1987
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/copycatwho1.html (http://www.christian-thinktank.com/copycatwho1.html)
Worst of all, not only are his facts off, regarding Christ, they are also inaccurate regarding these other figures and I've shown the references and accounts to prove it (unlike Luke who cowardly refuses to divulge any of his sources in his weak attempt to show that he knows all of this from memory).
The Dying and Rising Gods
The Frazerian construct of a general ‘Oriental’ vegetation god who periodically dies and rises from the dead has been discredited by more recent scholarship. There is no evidence for a resurrection of Attis; even Osiris remains with the dead; and if Persephone returns to the world every year, a joyous event for gods and men, the initiates do not follow her. There is a dimension of death in all of the mystery initiations, but the concept of rebirth or resurrection of either gods or mystai is anything but explicit. – Walter Burkert, “Ancient Mystery Cults”, Harvard:1987
christian-thinktank[/b].com/copycatwho1.html]http://www.christian-thinktank.com/copycatwho1.html (http://www.[b)
...well there's your problem.
Necrosis,
The last time we had this agument I had to give up in disgust.
McWay posted reams and reams of copy and paste articles from Christian apologist websites detailing the practices of the worshippers of Attis.
HE (McWay) posted all the evidence from Roman sources of how the Attians:
-celebrated the death of Attis each year at Easter
-held a processional march to a sacred grove
-cut down a sacred tree symbolic of the tree under which Attis died (to which his body was nailed)
-carried the sacred tree back to their temple on the back of the high priest (sometimes with a statue of Attis nailed to it)
-stood up the tree in the temple
-hoisted a wooden statue of the dead Attis into the tree (via the nail holes in his hands)
-tied or nailed the statue of Attis to the tree
-called this eerily familiar festival "the Day of Woe"
-locked themselves in the temple for three days and nights lamenting
-left the temple on the third day proclaiming the "Day of Joy"
-began the entire Attis festival cycle all over again as if he hadn't died
When I asked if McWay saw any similarities between this and the younger Christian tradition he made the argument:
-Jesus died on the cross; Attis bled to death under it
-Jesus died for the redemption of sins of mankind; Attis committed suicide for love of his mother (symbloic of the world)
-Jesus rose from the dead; the Attians didn't openly claim a bodily resurrection of Attis (it was a secret)
Yes there are differences.
But you could argue that Jesus was Jewish and wore a yamika meaning he had a different funny hat than Attis too... but it isn't an important substantive difference.
But to claim Jesus is wholly original (as McWay does) when there are more than a dozen of these dying resurrecting godmen with similar stories who predate Jesus is just plain dishonest.
Refusing to concede any similarity at all (as McWay does) is just plain wilfull ignorance.
Filtering all historical evidence so as to dismiss eveything contrary to your argument (as McWay does) is just plain hysterical blindness.
He'll probably write a screed highlighting minute differences between Jesus and Attis while ignoring the parallels in answer to this.
Anyway, thanks for reading, hope you enjoyed the thread.
The Luke
I thought luke contended that saint issa predated jesus and was a different person, thus the story is copied, but you claim issa is the muslim name for jesus so he is the same person.
If i got it wrong correct me. But if what i said is true i can make the assumption that you reconize that there is an issa and the stories are the same/similar. As they would have to be if they are one in the same. So, luke has to prove that they are different and boom, copyright infringement.
also, why do you insist every detiai line up? If 5 of 25 unique facts lined up i would be disturbed as a christian.
anyway, carry on, it is an interesting subject, although you seem to be attacking luke more then the material, just my two cents.
So let me get this straight...
None of these other gods who parallel Jesus can be a source for the Jesus myth because none of them EXACTLY match Jesus in every regard.
Yet, the one other parallel god who does match Jesus in every regard also cannot be a source for the Jesus myth because he rose from the dead... which somehow differs from the Jesus story?
I'm sorry McWay, I don't understand your dismissal of the Issa story?
You dismiss the Mystery Religion solar deities because they differ slightly from Jesus... but you concede Issa either is Jesus or exactly matches Jesus... then you dismiss Issa too?
WTF?
The Luke
I've shown repeatedly that Attis, Osiris, and Dionysus (just to name a few) do not, I repeat, DO NOT rise from the dead. That destroys your ENTIRE premise.
Isaa/Yuz Asaf is NOT Jesus Christ, despite the Muslim claims to the contrary.
Among the many reasons (and here's another issue from which you flee like the coward that you are), the Issa folks claim that he SURVIVED the crucifixion, which is refuted by both the Christian and non-Chrisitian historical sources that confirm Jesus' death on the cross.
...according to Gnostic Christianity (the majority view among early Christians and Cathars; Bogomils; Old Believers and Aryans right up until the Renaissance) neither did Jesus.
In fact, during the past two thousand years more Christians have lived their lives believing Jesus did NOT bodily rise from the dead, than believed he did.
That is a conceit peculiar to Pauline Christianity.
...you keep insisting upon this, why?
Saying it doesn't make it so (unless you're repeating this statement attempting to convince yourself).
...non-Christian sources that confirm Jesus' death upon the cross? Are they secret sources?
There is absolutely NO evidence that Jesus ever existed from ANY contemporaneous source... just later gospels and interpolations added by Christian transcribers centuries later.
Besides, Issa's followers do NOT claim he survived the cross... they claim he died and rose from the dead, they claim he is Jesus and have stuck to this story since the first century. His resurrection was a major claim to fame, his resurrection wounds are depicted upon his (Jewish style) tomb in Kashmir.
There is absolutely NO difference between Issa and Jesus at all, till the point (after the crucifixion and resurrection) where the disciples claim Jesus rose bodily into heaven (convenient) and Issa's followers claim he fled to Kashmir (sounds plausible).
I think this debate has broken your brain... you are simply insisting.
The Luke
I dont understand your argument McWay, you seem to just be melting with every post now.
You dismiss the Issa story because he "survived" the cross? Didn't Jesus "survive" the cross too? Don't Issa's followers claim he actually died and rose from the dead? Don't Issa's followers claim he IS Jesus?
You delineate tiny differnces and exaggerate their importance.
But you don't address the fact that both he and Jesus led eactly parallel lives at the same time in he same place. You likewise evade Issa's claim that he and Jesus are one in the same person?
Instead of posting non sequitur insults after each quoted line of my posts (which doesn't help the debate), why don't you try explaining your thinking in detail?
How exactly do you reconcile this Issa character with your faith in Jesus?
You keep repeating half-arguments, we've all heard them, but that's not the part of your argument I have trouble understanding: it's the unspoken, the evaded, the unexplained reasoning... elucidate that for us?
-which similarities between Jesus and oter gods DO you concede?
-why do you think ALL Christians throughout history adhered to Pauline doctrine?
-why do you insist the Cathars; Bogomils; Arans etc were Pauline Christians?
Explain yourself properly. I'll listen.
The Luke
PS ...no cut-and-pastes.
Plus, I've address the issue. What I've stated, multiple times, is that the man in that tomb in Kashmir is not Jesus Christ, for reasons mentioned numerous times beforehand, namely the historical data that cites the time, date, location and manner of Christ's actual death.
That doesn't jive with the claims of Issa/Yuz Asaf.
Explain it in detail as you would to a child... 'cos I'm confused.
The Luke
You're not confused; you're in denial. I've already mentioned the historical sources that cite Jesus' death via crucifixion. Those do not match the claims of Issa surviving the crucifixion, whatsoever.
...how so?
Issa's followers maintain that he IS Jesus; that he was crucified; died; and rose from the dead.
Remember, Issa's followers claim he actual resurrected from the dead... it is only the archaeologists who argue that he must have somehow survived the cross without dying because they have actual proof of an actual person (the body) who was crucified (the wounds depicted on his tomb) yet lived on.
It is only the scientists wo argue the swoon theory because they don't accept resurrection as a logical argument.
So if Issa lived the same lif as Jesus, at the same time, in the same place, and many believe he actually IS Jesus... then the stories ONLY diverge when Jesus ascends into heaven, and Issa retires to Kashmir.
Am I following...?
The Luke
So you don't believe Attis; Dionysus; Bacchus; Hercules; Mithras etc etc are dying and resurrecting godmen because there are versions of their stories in which they do not rise from the dead. Seems a little selective, but it's a defensible viewpoint.
But you insist Jesus DID rise from the dead because the canonical gospels claim such, despite the fact that there are plenty of other versions of the Jesus story in which he does not rise from the dead.
Again, you are protecting your particular favorite godman from the rigours of the selective standards you use to dismiss his counterparts.
Epic double standard.
The Luke
The one that has withstood the test of time and scrutiny, far greater than that of 19th-21st century skeptics, is that given from the canonical Gospels.
...Issa?
The Luke
NOPE!! That would be Jesus Christ. And Issa/Yuz Asaf or whoever is buried in Kashmir simply ain't the guy.
MCWAY, what is your take on this prophecy?
The, Messiah (Jesus) must appear at an exact time. So, WHEN I'm sure you want to know? The angel Gabriel told Daniel, and this prophet tells us - Seventy weeks are decreed upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most holy. Know therefore and discern, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the anointed one, the prince, shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks. - (Dan. 9:24, 25).
So from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto Messiah the prince would be sixty-nine weeks. How long are these sixty-nine weeks,? They are not weeks of days but weeks of years, in harmony with the rule each day for a year, often found in Bible chronology. - (Ezek. 4:6; Num. 14:34).
When do these sixty-nine weeks of years, or 483 years, begin counting? They begin, as Daniel said, from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem. When was this? History tells us it was 455 B.C. That year King Artaxerxes decreed that Jerusalem and its wall be rebuilt. This is found at (Nehemiah 2:1-8). So starting with 455 B.C., the 483 years would end A.D. 29. This is the exact time for Messiah to appear. He could not appear on earth either before or after that date.
Did Messiah appear A.D. 29? Indeed he did! ( Luke 3:1-4, ) says - In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, - God's declaration came to John the son of Zechariah in the wilderness. So he came into all the country around the Jordan, preaching baptism of those repenting for forgiveness of sins. About six months later Jesus of Nazareth came to John and was baptized, and at this baptism it was evidenced that Jesus became the Messiah, the Anointed One; for he was anointed with God's holy spirit. - (Take a look see at Matthew 3:13-17, John 1:32-34 and Luke 4:17-19).
GC/DEA_AGENT
I've heard of the prophecy before, back when I was in my 20s. It's basically a backdrop to citing when Jesus would be born.
It's pretty much on the money. And, it's also why traditional Bible scholars have held Luke in high regards as an historian, as it relates to his Gospel account of Jesus.
wasnt the bible written after the jesus? is so, doesnt that defeat any credibility of prophecy.
[Author = GC/DEA_AGENT]
So, if you have points that can be made to prove the Bible's credibility regarding authorship, lets see it.
- In (Genesis 2:7) it says that Adam was made from the ground (earth). It's known that the human body is made up of 41 chemical elements. These basic elements---carbon, iron, oxygen, and others---are all present in the "dust" of the earth. Therefore, as (Genesis) states, humans truly are formed "out of the dust from the ground". This was written around 4,500 years ago (give or take) by Moses. How is it possible that Moses new of this scientific info regarding a humans composition, when in that day this info was not known?
- Believe it or not, some people are surprised to learn that Adam and Eve are mentioned repeatedly throughout the Bible. What insight do these references shed on the historicity of the Genesis account? Consider, for example, the Jewish ancestral lists recorded in the Bible book of (1 Chronicles 1-9) and in the Gospel of (Luke chapter 3). These remarkably detailed genealogical recrods span 48 and 75 generations respectively. Luke traces the genealogy of Jesus Christ, while (Chronicles) records the royal and priestly ancestral lines for the nation of Israel. Both lists include the names of such well-known figures as Solomon, David, Jacob, Isaac, Abraham, Noah, and finally Adam. All the names in the two lists represent real people, and Adam was the original real person on each list. The Greek scriptures confirms the historicity of the account given in the early chapters of (Genesis).
- Regarding the shape of earth ,the Bible reports that the planet was ROUND. (Isaiah 40:22) - "He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth,and its people are like gasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy,and spreads them out like a tent to live in". It was not until over 200 years after this Bible text had been written that a school of Greek philosophers reasoned that the earth likely was spherical, and in about another 300 years a Greek astronomer calculated the approximate radius of the earth. But the idea of a spherical earth was not the general view even then. Only in the 20th century has it been possible for humans to observe the shape of the earth. How did the Bible know this?
- (Lev. 11:6) - "The rabbit, though it chews the cud, does not have a split hoof; it is unclean for you." Critics attacked this for quite some time, yet the rabbit's cud chewing was finally observed by William Cowper (Englishmen) in the 18th century. The unusual way in which it is done was described in 1940 in Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, Vol. 110, Series A, pp. 159-163. (Leviticus) was written by Moses. Again, how would Moses know this info? He wrote this around 1512 B.C. If you think Moses got fortunate again or observed this, then why did he give God the credit? Did Moses lie?
- The internal harmony is staggering/significant, to say the least. This is especially so in view of the fact that the books of the Bible were written by 40 men as different as night and day such as king, prophet, herdsman, tax collector, and physician. They did the writing over a period of 1,610 years; so there was no opportunity for collusion. Yet their writings agree, even in the smallest detail. Isn't this a little to coincidental?
_________________________________________________________________________________________
(Isa. 44:24, 27, 28; 45:1-4) - (24) "This is what the LORD says— your Redeemer, who formed you in the womb: I am the LORD, who has made all things,who alone stretched out the heavens, who spread out the earth by myself, (27) who says to the watery deep, 'Be dry, and I will dry up your streams,' (28) who says of Cyrus, 'He is my shepherd and will accomplish all that I please; he will say of Jerusalem, "Let it be rebuilt," and of the temple, "Let its foundations be laid." '
(1) "This is what the LORD says to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I take hold of to subdue nations before him and to strip kings of their armor, to open doors before him so that gates will not be shut: (2) I will go before you and will level the mountains ; I will break down gates of bronze and cut through bars of iron. (3) I will give you the treasures of darkness, riches stored in secret places, so that you may know that I am the LORD,the God of Israel, who summons you by name. (4) For the sake of Jacob my servant, of Israel my chosen, I summon you by name and bestow on you a title of honor, though you do not acknowledge me". (The book of (Isaiah) was finished around 732 B.C.)
* Fulfillment: It's known that Cyrus had not been born when this prophecy was written. The Jews were exiled to Babylon in 617-607 B.C., the temple and Jerusalem were not destroyed until 607 B.C. The prophecy was fulfilled in detail starting in 539 B.C. The river gates of Babylon were carelessly left open during feasting in the city allowing Cyrus to divert the waters of the Euphrates River into a fake lake, thereby Babylon was overtaken by the Medes and Persians under Cyrus. So then, Cyrus liberated the Jewish exiles and sent them back to Jerusalem with instructions to rebuild the God of Abraham's temple there. - The Encyclopedia Americana (1956), Vol. III, p. 9; Light From the Ancient Past (Princeton, 1959), Jack Finegan, pp. 227-229.
(Luke 19:41-44; 21:20,21) - (41) "Now as He drew near, He saw the city and wept over it, (42) saying, 'If you had known, even you, especially in this your day, the things that make for your peace! But now they are hidden from your eyes. (43) For days will come upon you when your enemies will build an embankment around you, surround you and close you in on every side, (44) and level you, and your children within you, to the ground; and they will not leave in you one stone upon another, because you did not know the time of your visitation.
(20) But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation is near. (21) Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those who are in the midst of her depart, and let not those who are in the country enter her'". (Jesus stated this Prophecy in 33 A.D.)
* Fulfillment: In 66 A.D., Jerusalem rebelled against Rome. Cestius Gallus (Roman army officer) attacked the city. However, Gallus without hesitation stopped the attack. As Josephus stated - "suddenly called off his men, abandoned hope though he had suffered no reverse, and flying in the face of all reason retired from the City". (Josephus, the Jewish War, Penguin Classics, 1969, p. 167)
This gave the Christians time to leave the city, which they did, moving to Pella, beyond the Jordan. (Eusebius Pamphilus in his Ecclesiastical History, which was translated by C. F. Cruse, London, 1894, p. 75).
General Titus took the city around Passover time in 70 A.D. He did this by installing fence 4.5 miles long around the city in three days, thereby after five months Jerusalem was conquered. "Jerusalem itself was systematically destroyed and the Temple left in ruins. Archaeological work shows us today just how effective was the destruction of Jewish buildings all over the land". (The Bible and Archaeology [Grand Rapids, Mich.; 1962], J. A. Thompson, p. 299).
Jer. 49:17, 18 - “‘Edom must become an object of astonishment. Everyone passing along by her will stare in astonishment and whistle on account of all her plagues. Just as in the overthrow of Sodom and Gomorrah and her neighbor towns,’ the God of Israel has said, ‘no man will dwell there.’” (Completed by 580 B.C.)
* Fulfillment: "They [the Edomites] were driven from Palestine in the 2nd century B.C. by Judas Maccabaeus, and in 109 B.C. John Hyrcanus, Maccabaen leader, extended the kingdom of Judah to include the w. part of Edomitic lands. In the 1st century B.C. Roman expansion swept away the last vestige of Edomitic independence . . . After the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 A.D. . . . the name Idumae [Edom] disappeared from history." (The New Funk & Wagnalls Encyclopedia, 1952, Vol. 11, p. 4114) This realization extends down to our day. In no way can it be argued that this prophecy was written after the events had taken place.
- How about the Bible's knowledge of mountains? Here is a quote on geology from a textbook - “From Pre-Cambrian times down to the present, the perpetual process of building and destroying mountains has continued. . . . Not only have mountains originated from the bottom of vanished seas, but they have often been submerged long after their formation, and then re-elevated." This is what the Bible says - (6) "You [God] covered it with the deep as with a garment; the waters were standing above the mountains. (Eight) The mountains rose; the valleys sank down to the place which You [God] established for them." (Psalms 104:6,8)
- The Bible speaks about the earth's water cycle. (Ecclesiates 1:7) - "All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again". (This was written before 1000 B.C.)! Did the Bible get fortunate again?
- What about the laws that govern the universe? Take a look see at what (Jeremiah 33:25) has to say -(24) "Haven't you noticed what these people are saying? They say, 'The Lord once chose the two kingdoms of Israel and Judah. But now he has turned his back on them.' So they hate my people. They do not think of them as a nation anymore. (25) I say, 'What if I had not made my covenant with day and night? What if I had not established the laws of heaven and earth? Again, did the Bible get fortunate? (This was written before 580 B.C.)
- How about the earth being suspended in space! (Job 26:7) - "He stretcheth out the north over empty space, And hangeth the earth upon nothing". (Written about 1613 B.C.) These men never took credit for this info!
- According to the book of (Daniel), Babylon's last leader was named Belshazzar this is of course before it (Babylon) fell to the Persians. (Daniel 5:1-30) Critics claimed the Bible was wrong about the existence of Belshazzar, since only the Bible mentioned him. However in the 19th century, several cuneiform were discovered in some ruins in southern Iraq. In these (cuneiform) writting's a prayer for the health of the oldest son of Nabonidus, king of Babylon. Belshazzar was his name.
So there was a Belshazzar! But was he a king, when Babylon fell? Most documents subsequently found referred to him as the son of the king, the crown prince. But a cuneiform document described as the “Verse Account of Nabonidus” shed more light on Belshazzar’s true position. It stated - “He (Nabonidus) entrusted the ‘Camp’ to his oldest (son), the firstborn, the troops everywhere in the country he ordered under his (command). He let (everything) go, he entrusted the kingship to him.” So Belshazzar was entrusted with the kingship. This relationship between Belshazzar and his father, Nabonidus, explains why Belshazzar, during that final banquet in Babylon, offered to make Daniel the third ruler in the kingdom. (Daniel 5:16) Since Nabonidus was the first ruler, Belshazzar himself was only the second ruler of Babylon.
- The Bible's account regarding the ORGIN OF THE UNIVERSE conforms to astronomical evidence! (Gen. 1:1) “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth". Robert Jastrow stated - “Now we see how the astronomical evidence leads to a biblical view of the origin of the world. The details differ, but the essential elements in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same: the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy.” - God and the Astronomers (New York, 1978), p. 14.
All Bullshot.
You know...I would take the time to explain why, and in detail, but I just don't think you're even smart enough for me to bother.
I've heard of the prophecy before, back when I was in my 20s. It's basically a backdrop to citing when Jesus would be born.
It's pretty much on the money. And, it's also why traditional Bible scholars have held Luke in high regards as an historian, as it relates to his Gospel account of Jesus.
What stuck out to me friend, is the fact that, that prophecy indicates that Jesus would be baptized in 29 C.E. This makes "The Luke's" so called "Mystery Religion" fallacies (claims) in regards to applying it to the Jesus of the Bible, just that, utter Bull-shot! Nobody an any recorded history makes this claim! No matter who, what, where or for that matter, made up can say that it would happen in the ripe Ole year of 29 C.E. This makes the Jesus of the Bible TOTALLY and COMPLETELY UNIQUE!. Peace!
Epic calculation... did you remember to subtract a year after you willy-nilly equated weeks with weeks of years?
There is no year ZERO... maybe you should redo the maths.
The Luke
Are YOU SURE about that, "The Luke? Please, explain in detail, I can't wait!
...do you think there is a year zero in the Christian calendar? There isn't.
The Luke
Are YOU 100% positive?
Yes.
The Christians who worked out the AD/BC chronology had Christ born in 1 AD, it should have been Zero AD. Not only that, but they also calculated the dates incorrectly... a proper calculation puts Jesus birth somewhere around 4-6 BC.
They fooked-up!
So what does all that do to your prophecies?
The Luke
I'm not a believer either Luke, but at least apply a modicum of common sense.
Yes.
The Christians who worked out the AD/BC chronology had Christ born in 1 AD, it should have been Zero AD. Not only that, but they also calculated the dates incorrectly... a proper calculation puts Jesus birth somewhere around 4-6 BC.
They fooked-up!
So what does all that do to your prophecies?
The Luke
Basically.......nothing!! If Jesus is born 6-4 B.C., and His appearing as Messiah during Tiberius' 15th year (28 A.D.), that would put Jesus in his early 30s or "about 30" as Luke mentioned in chapter 3 of his Gospel.
...yeah, but he has to be dead by 33, like the original Son of God. You know who that is right?
The Luke
Yep!! And it ain't your flavor-of-the-month, alleged "dying-resurrecting godman" (who, upon further review, doesn't die in the same manner as Jesus Christ nor does he rise from the dead, whatsoever).
...yep, Alexander the Great.
The Luke
...yep, Alexander the Great.
The Luke
...yeah, but he has to be dead by 33, like the original Son of God. You know who that is right?
The Luke
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." (Genesis 1:1) Does this mean the earth was created in a literal 24 hour day?. Not hardly, people who study the Bible, particularly Scholars, agree this verse elucidates an action divergent from the creative days recapitulated from verse 3 onward. The belief is sagacious. The Scriptures' beginning account, the universe, including Earth, was in real time for an indefinite duration before the creative days began.
So then, do these findings, (the earth is about 4 billion years old and the universe to be around 15 billion years or so old) or their (scientist) potential future refinements, contradict Genesis 1:1? Not from what I can tell. The scriptures do not specify the actual age of "the heavens and the earth". Science doesn't disprove this Biblical text.
Hence, how long were the Creative Days? Were they a literal 24 hour period of time?
Government_Controlled/DEA_AGENT
Doesn't the book of Genesis cite the "evening and the morning" were the "first day", the "second day", etc.?
Genesis
1) In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2) Now the earth was [a] formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. 3) And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4) God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5) God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.
Yes it does, friend. The problem tho is with interpretation of what a "day" means. There is indication that those creative "days" you are referring to, do NOT mean a literal "24 hour period of time. For instance, I could say "back in my "day" I walked around 0% bf, all water squeezed out, and carried 250lbs of bw at 5'5"". Does that mean I'm speaking of a particular 24 hour period? No, I could mean that for a extended period of time, maybe 5 years, I walked around in this condition.
So, "day" when mentioned in these accounts, when studied, show that "day" was being used to indicate a certain period of time, not a literal "24" period.
Government_controlled/DEA_AGENT
When studied? i see day and night with evening, called a day, how can you interpret it any other way?
Wouldn't a beginners course in Bible studies begin with the mistranslations endemic in the English-language versions of Genesis...?
You guys are arguing the technicalities of what constitutes the first day... all the while overlooking the very serious mistranslations involved.
For example, the plurals... in the beginning, who is God talking to? It's Astarte (his wife/alternate deity). Then THEY (Yahweh and Astarte) are talking to the OTHERS (the zodiac gods). Then THEY collectively (Yahweh, Astarte and the zodiac gods) are talking to the planetary gods.
...oh, and none of them CREATE anything. The Hebrew word "bara" only had one meaning at the time Genesis was written... it meant "to separate", not "create".
Guess that's what this thread is all about... if you believe God wrote the Bible, how do you reconcile that with all the obvious errors in the Bible?
...and all of this is before we get into the really disturbing stuff: Adam's first wife Lilith, the emasculation of Adam, Cain and Abel fighting over their sister.
What a mess.
The Luke
WARNING! ILLEGITIMATE POST! PLEASE RE-THINK AND TRY AGAIN! WE APOLOGIZE FOR YOUR DILEMMA! GOD WILL FORGIVE YOU. IT'S NOT YOUR FAULT! GOD BLESS!
...I don't get the joke? Explain, please.
The Luke
WARNING! NO JOKE! HAVE YOU TAKEN YOUR MEDICATION TO DATE? PLEASE TRY AGAIN WHEN MENTALLY CAPABLE! GOD WILL FORGIVE YOU. GOD BLESS!
So, if you have points that can be made to prove the Bible's credibility regarding authorship, lets see it.
- In (Genesis 2:7) it says that Adam was made from the ground (earth). It's known that the human body is made up of 41 chemical elements. These basic elements---carbon, iron, oxygen, and others---are all present in the "dust" of the earth. Therefore, as (Genesis) states, humans truly are formed "out of the dust from the ground". This was written around 4,500 years ago (give or take) by Moses. How is it possible that Moses new of this scientific info regarding a humans composition, when in that day this info was not known?
- Believe it or not, some people are surprised to learn that Adam and Eve are mentioned repeatedly throughout the Bible. What insight do these references shed on the historicity of the Genesis account? Consider, for example, the Jewish ancestral lists recorded in the Bible book of (1 Chronicles 1-9) and in the Gospel of (Luke chapter 3). These remarkably detailed genealogical recrods span 48 and 75 generations respectively. Luke traces the genealogy of Jesus Christ, while (Chronicles) records the royal and priestly ancestral lines for the nation of Israel. Both lists include the names of such well-known figures as Solomon, David, Jacob, Isaac, Abraham, Noah, and finally Adam. All the names in the two lists represent real people, and Adam was the original real person on each list. The Greek scriptures confirms the historicity of the account given in the early chapters of (Genesis).
- Regarding the shape of earth ,the Bible reports that the planet was ROUND. (Isaiah 40:22) - "He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth,and its people are like gasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy,and spreads them out like a tent to live in". It was not until over 200 years after this Bible text had been written that a school of Greek philosophers reasoned that the earth likely was spherical, and in about another 300 years a Greek astronomer calculated the approximate radius of the earth. But the idea of a spherical earth was not the general view even then. Only in the 20th century has it been possible for humans to observe the shape of the earth. How did the Bible know this?
- (Lev. 11:6) - "The rabbit, though it chews the cud, does not have a split hoof; it is unclean for you." Critics attacked this for quite some time, yet the rabbit's cud chewing was finally observed by William Cowper (Englishmen) in the 18th century. The unusual way in which it is done was described in 1940 in Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, Vol. 110, Series A, pp. 159-163. (Leviticus) was written by Moses. Again, how would Moses know this info? He wrote this around 1512 B.C. If you think Moses got fortunate again or observed this, then why did he give God the credit? Did Moses lie?
- The internal harmony is staggering/significant, to say the least. This is especially so in view of the fact that the books of the Bible were written by 40 men as different as night and day such as king, prophet, herdsman, tax collector, and physician. They did the writing over a period of 1,610 years; so there was no opportunity for collusion. Yet their writings agree, even in the smallest detail. Isn't this a little to coincidental?
_________________________________________________________________________________________
(Isa. 44:24, 27, 28; 45:1-4) - (24) "This is what the LORD says— your Redeemer, who formed you in the womb: I am the LORD, who has made all things,who alone stretched out the heavens, who spread out the earth by myself, (27) who says to the watery deep, 'Be dry, and I will dry up your streams,' (28) who says of Cyrus, 'He is my shepherd and will accomplish all that I please; he will say of Jerusalem, "Let it be rebuilt," and of the temple, "Let its foundations be laid." '
(1) "This is what the LORD says to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I take hold of to subdue nations before him and to strip kings of their armor, to open doors before him so that gates will not be shut: (2) I will go before you and will level the mountains ; I will break down gates of bronze and cut through bars of iron. (3) I will give you the treasures of darkness, riches stored in secret places, so that you may know that I am the LORD,the God of Israel, who summons you by name. (4) For the sake of Jacob my servant, of Israel my chosen, I summon you by name and bestow on you a title of honor, though you do not acknowledge me". (The book of (Isaiah) was finished around 732 B.C.)
* Fulfillment: It's known that Cyrus had not been born when this prophecy was written. The Jews were exiled to Babylon in 617-607 B.C., the temple and Jerusalem were not destroyed until 607 B.C. The prophecy was fulfilled in detail starting in 539 B.C. The river gates of Babylon were carelessly left open during feasting in the city allowing Cyrus to divert the waters of the Euphrates River into a fake lake, thereby Babylon was overtaken by the Medes and Persians under Cyrus. So then, Cyrus liberated the Jewish exiles and sent them back to Jerusalem with instructions to rebuild the God of Abraham's temple there. - The Encyclopedia Americana (1956), Vol. III, p. 9; Light From the Ancient Past (Princeton, 1959), Jack Finegan, pp. 227-229.
(Luke 19:41-44; 21:20,21) - (41) "Now as He drew near, He saw the city and wept over it, (42) saying, 'If you had known, even you, especially in this your day, the things that make for your peace! But now they are hidden from your eyes. (43) For days will come upon you when your enemies will build an embankment around you, surround you and close you in on every side, (44) and level you, and your children within you, to the ground; and they will not leave in you one stone upon another, because you did not know the time of your visitation.
(20) But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation is near. (21) Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those who are in the midst of her depart, and let not those who are in the country enter her'". (Jesus stated this Prophecy in 33 A.D.)
* Fulfillment: In 66 A.D., Jerusalem rebelled against Rome. Cestius Gallus (Roman army officer) attacked the city. However, Gallus without hesitation stopped the attack. As Josephus stated - "suddenly called off his men, abandoned hope though he had suffered no reverse, and flying in the face of all reason retired from the City". (Josephus, the Jewish War, Penguin Classics, 1969, p. 167)
This gave the Christians time to leave the city, which they did, moving to Pella, beyond the Jordan. (Eusebius Pamphilus in his Ecclesiastical History, which was translated by C. F. Cruse, London, 1894, p. 75).
General Titus took the city around Passover time in 70 A.D. He did this by installing fence 4.5 miles long around the city in three days, thereby after five months Jerusalem was conquered. "Jerusalem itself was systematically destroyed and the Temple left in ruins. Archaeological work shows us today just how effective was the destruction of Jewish buildings all over the land". (The Bible and Archaeology [Grand Rapids, Mich.; 1962], J. A. Thompson, p. 299).
Jer. 49:17, 18 - “‘Edom must become an object of astonishment. Everyone passing along by her will stare in astonishment and whistle on account of all her plagues. Just as in the overthrow of Sodom and Gomorrah and her neighbor towns,’ the God of Israel has said, ‘no man will dwell there.’” (Completed by 580 B.C.)
* Fulfillment: "They [the Edomites] were driven from Palestine in the 2nd century B.C. by Judas Maccabaeus, and in 109 B.C. John Hyrcanus, Maccabaen leader, extended the kingdom of Judah to include the w. part of Edomitic lands. In the 1st century B.C. Roman expansion swept away the last vestige of Edomitic independence . . . After the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 A.D. . . . the name Idumae [Edom] disappeared from history." (The New Funk & Wagnalls Encyclopedia, 1952, Vol. 11, p. 4114) This realization extends down to our day. In no way can it be argued that this prophecy was written after the events had taken place.
- How about the Bible's knowledge of mountains? Here is a quote on geology from a textbook - “From Pre-Cambrian times down to the present, the perpetual process of building and destroying mountains has continued. . . . Not only have mountains originated from the bottom of vanished seas, but they have often been submerged long after their formation, and then re-elevated." This is what the Bible says - (6) "You [God] covered it with the deep as with a garment; the waters were standing above the mountains. (Eight) The mountains rose; the valleys sank down to the place which You [God] established for them." (Psalms 104:6,8)
- The Bible speaks about the earth's water cycle. (Ecclesiates 1:7) - "All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again". (This was written before 1000 B.C.)! Did the Bible get fortunate again?
- What about the laws that govern the universe? Take a look see at what (Jeremiah 33:25) has to say -(24) "Haven't you noticed what these people are saying? They say, 'The Lord once chose the two kingdoms of Israel and Judah. But now he has turned his back on them.' So they hate my people. They do not think of them as a nation anymore. (25) I say, 'What if I had not made my covenant with day and night? What if I had not established the laws of heaven and earth? Again, did the Bible get fortunate? (This was written before 580 B.C.)
- How about the earth being suspended in space! (Job 26:7) - "He stretcheth out the north over empty space, And hangeth the earth upon nothing". (Written about 1613 B.C.) These men never took credit for this info!
- According to the book of (Daniel), Babylon's last leader was named Belshazzar this is of course before it (Babylon) fell to the Persians. (Daniel 5:1-30) Critics claimed the Bible was wrong about the existence of Belshazzar, since only the Bible mentioned him. However in the 19th century, several cuneiform were discovered in some ruins in southern Iraq. In these (cuneiform) writting's a prayer for the health of the oldest son of Nabonidus, king of Babylon. Belshazzar was his name.
So there was a Belshazzar! But was he a king, when Babylon fell? Most documents subsequently found referred to him as the son of the king, the crown prince. But a cuneiform document described as the “Verse Account of Nabonidus” shed more light on Belshazzar’s true position. It stated - “He (Nabonidus) entrusted the ‘Camp’ to his oldest (son), the firstborn, the troops everywhere in the country he ordered under his (command). He let (everything) go, he entrusted the kingship to him.” So Belshazzar was entrusted with the kingship. This relationship between Belshazzar and his father, Nabonidus, explains why Belshazzar, during that final banquet in Babylon, offered to make Daniel the third ruler in the kingdom. (Daniel 5:16) Since Nabonidus was the first ruler, Belshazzar himself was only the second ruler of Babylon.
- The Bible's account regarding the ORGIN OF THE UNIVERSE conforms to astronomical evidence! (Gen. 1:1) “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth". Robert Jastrow stated - “Now we see how the astronomical evidence leads to a biblical view of the origin of the world. The details differ, but the essential elements in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same: the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy.” - God and the Astronomers (New York, 1978), p. 14.
GC/DEA_AGENT
How did these books come to be written? There's a wide range of opinion. Let me present the two most commonly held views--what we'll call the "traditional view" and the "scholarly view."
The traditional explanation is that the Five Books of Moses were written by Moses himself. There are several variants of this explanation:
* Traditional Judaism and fundamentalist Christianity believe that the text was dictated by God to Moses on Mount Sinai, letter for letter (or pretty much letter for letter).
* Other religious groups still ascribe authorship to Moses, but use words like "divinely inspired" rather than "dictated letter for letter."
* Still others say Moses was the sole author, but there's nothing "divine" about it except in the sense that all great works of literature and poetry are "inspired."
Mosaic authorship would mean the five books were written around 1280 to 1250 BC, the most commonly accepted range of dates for the exodus from Egypt, give or take 30 years.
It has long been recognized that there were a few problems with the traditional view of Moses as author. The text reports the death of Moses--how could Moses have written of his own death? It also describes Moses as "the most humble man who ever lived"--how could Moses write that about himself? But these are minor issues. Some say Moses' successor Joshua wrote the few lines that describe the death of Moses; others say that Moses himself was commanded to write that text before it happened. None of this represents a serious challenge to Mosaic authorship.
As time went on, however, scholars became increasingly skeptical of the idea of Moses as single author. Among their objections:
* Several stories are repeated, with different characters or different emphasis (called "doublets"). For instance, there are two creation stories (Gen 1 and Gen 2). There are three stories of a patriarch traveling among pagans and pretending his wife is his sister. There are two stories of Moses striking a rock to produce water. There are two versions of the Ten Commandments (one in Exodus, one that Moses recaps in Deuteronomy) with slightly different wording. There are, in fact, a lot of these doublets.
* There are internal inconsistencies. The number of days of the Flood story don't add up right. At one point, Noah takes two of each animal; at another point, he takes two of some, seven of others. Joseph is sold into slavery to Ishmaelites in one verse, to Midianites a few verses later. The Mountain of Revelation is sometimes called Sinai and sometimes Horeb. Moses' father-in-law is sometimes called Yitro and sometimes Ruel, and so on.
How did these books come to be written? There's a wide range of opinion. Let me present the two most commonly held views--what we'll call the "traditional view" and the "scholarly view."
The traditional explanation is that the Five Books of Moses were written by Moses himself. There are several variants of this explanation:
* Traditional Judaism and fundamentalist Christianity believe that the text was dictated by God to Moses on Mount Sinai, letter for letter (or pretty much letter for letter).
* Other religious groups still ascribe authorship to Moses, but use words like "divinely inspired" rather than "dictated letter for letter."
* Still others say Moses was the sole author, but there's nothing "divine" about it except in the sense that all great works of literature and poetry are "inspired."
Mosaic authorship would mean the five books were written around 1280 to 1250 BC, the most commonly accepted range of dates for the exodus from Egypt, give or take 30 years.
It has long been recognized that there were a few problems with the traditional view of Moses as author. The text reports the death of Moses--how could Moses have written of his own death? It also describes Moses as "the most humble man who ever lived"--how could Moses write that about himself? But these are minor issues. Some say Moses' successor Joshua wrote the few lines that describe the death of Moses; others say that Moses himself was commanded to write that text before it happened. None of this represents a serious challenge to Mosaic authorship.
As time went on, however, scholars became increasingly skeptical of the idea of Moses as single author. Among their objections:
* Several stories are repeated, with different characters or different emphasis (called "doublets"). For instance, there are two creation stories (Gen 1 and Gen 2). There are three stories of a patriarch traveling among pagans and pretending his wife is his sister. There are two stories of Moses striking a rock to produce water. There are two versions of the Ten Commandments (one in Exodus, one that Moses recaps in Deuteronomy) with slightly different wording. There are, in fact, a lot of these doublets.
* There are internal inconsistencies. The number of days of the Flood story don't add up right. At one point, Noah takes two of each animal; at another point, he takes two of some, seven of others. Joseph is sold into slavery to Ishmaelites in one verse, to Midianites a few verses later. The Mountain of Revelation is sometimes called Sinai and sometimes Horeb. Moses' father-in-law is sometimes called Yitro and sometimes Ruel, and so on.
For starters, there aren't two Creation accounts. This blurb is usually done, under the assumption that when the accounts are listed in Gen.2, that they occured in that particular order. However, there is NO time constraints in Gen. 2.
Gen. 1 states when what was created and on which day. Unless something in Gen. 2 states that something was created on a day DIFFERENT than that which was listed in Gen. 1, there is no conflict.
It's like this: If I say I had fish on Monday, beef on Tuesday, and chicken on Wednesd
ay in one letter. Then I write in another letter that I had chicken, beef, and fish over the last three days. That doens't mean that the account clashed. Why? In the second letter, I DO NOT MENTION on which days I had certain meats.
Try again.
You try again. Where is this alleged conflict, between Gen. 1 or 2, or did you just copy and paste this from an atheist/skeptic website, without studying the actual verses?
Who Wrote the Bible? by Richard Elliot Friedman, Harper & Row, 1987
Understanding the Old Testament, by Bernhard W. Anderson, Prentice-Hall, 1986
The Art of Biblical Narrative, by Robert Alter, Basic Books, 1981
The Religion of Israel, by Yehezkel Kaufmann (trans: Moshe Greenberg), University of Chicago Press, 1948
Who Wrote the Bible? by Richard Elliot Friedman, Harper & Row, 1987
Understanding the Old Testament, by Bernhard W. Anderson, Prentice-Hall, 1986
The Art of Biblical Narrative, by Robert Alter, Basic Books, 1981
The Religion of Israel, by Yehezkel Kaufmann (trans: Moshe Greenberg), University of Chicago Press, 1948
Who Wrote the Bible? by Richard Elliot Friedman, Harper & Row, 1987
Understanding the Old Testament, by Bernhard W. Anderson, Prentice-Hall, 1986
The Art of Biblical Narrative, by Robert Alter, Basic Books, 1981
The Religion of Israel, by Yehezkel Kaufmann (trans: Moshe Greenberg), University of Chicago Press, 1948
Discrepancies. 1 and 2.
Genesis 1:25-27
(Humans were created after the other animals.)
And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let us make man in our image.... So God created man in his own image.
Genesis 2:18-19
(Humans were created before the other animals.)
And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
Genesis 1:27
(The first man and woman were created simultaneously.)
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Genesis 2:18-22
(The man was created first, then the animals, then the woman from the man's rib.)
And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them.... And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
*sigh*. I thought you had a good one. This argument is so old, it out dates the Bible itself. This is EXTREMELY to simple for me to mess with. Maybe one of the others will entertain it.
Government_Controlled/Dea_Agent
Discrepancies. 1 and 2.
Genesis 1:25-27
(Humans were created after the other animals.)
And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let us make man in our image.... So God created man in his own image.
Genesis 2:18-19
(Humans were created before the other animals.)
And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
Genesis 1:27
(The first man and woman were created simultaneously.)
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Genesis 2:18-22
(The man was created first, then the animals, then the woman from the man's rib.)
And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them.... And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
Once again, refer to my chicken-beef-fish analogy. Nowhere in Gen. 1 does it state in WHICH ORDER man and animals were made.
You can easily state those verses as :
(26)And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. (25) So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. (26) And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
The message is the same. There is NO chronological constraints as to which was made first.
WHAT!!! The verse says (1:27), "male and female, created He them". Where does it indicate that Adam and Eve were made at the same time. Using Gen. 2:18-22, Adam could have been made at, say, 7:00 A.M., the animals and noon, and Eve at 4 P.M.
How does that clash with 1:27? All 1:27 states that God created male and female. There are NO time conflicts.
Once again, refer to my chicken-beef-fish analogy. Nowhere in Gen. 1 does it state in WHICH ORDER man and animals were made.
You can easily state those verses as :
(26)And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. (25) So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. (26) And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
The message is the same. There is NO chronological constraints as to which was made first.
WHAT!!! The verse says (1:27), "male and female, created He them". Where does it indicate that Adam and Eve were made at the same time. Using Gen. 2:18-22, Adam could have been made at, say, 7:00 A.M., the animals and noon, and Eve at 4 P.M.
How does that clash with 1:27? All 1:27 states that God created male and female. There are NO time conflicts.
Once again, refer to my chicken-beef-fish analogy. Nowhere in Gen. 1 does it state in WHICH ORDER man and animals were made.
You can easily state those verses as :
(26)And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. (25) So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. (26) And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
The message is the same. There is NO chronological constraints as to which was made first.
WHAT!!! The verse says (1:27), "male and female, created He them". Where does it indicate that Adam and Eve were made at the same time. Using Gen. 2:18-22, Adam could have been made at, say, 7:00 A.M., the animals and noon, and Eve at 4 P.M.
How does that clash with 1:27? All 1:27 states that God created male and female. There are NO time conflicts.
So you're saying that there's no difference in those paragraphs?
Genesis 1:25-27
(Humans were created after the other animals.)
Genesis 2:18-19
(Humans were created before the other animals.)
Genesis 1:27
(The first man and woman were created simultaneously.)
Genesis 2:18-22
(The man was created first, then the animals, then the woman from the man's rib.)