• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Picture of Mars vs. the earth. So how did Moses know?

Brian2

Veteran Member
Sorry but Bryant Wood is a hack, as this David Rohl. Neither can show evidence to anything in Jericho or in Egypt, that actually place Moses and Joshua to these periods.

I have not read all that they have written. Archaeologists have disagreements but that does not mean they are hacks.
With Bryant Wood and Jericho it is just that the evidence suggests that the Bible chronology is accurate about the destruction of Jericho.
David Rohl points to the evidence for Israel (Joseph and the 12 tribes) being in Egypt at the time and place the Bible suggests.

The Exodus cannot even name the "Pharaoh's Daughter" (Exodus 2:5-10), who adopted him, nor her father, the pharaoh (Exodus 1 & 2), and yet Exodus can named the 2 midwives, Shiphrah and Puah (1:15).

I don't think Luke names the Caesars either but he names other seeming less important people.

If the Israelites did leave Rameses (Exodus 12:37) in 1447 BCE, then Moses would have been born in 1527 BCE. If that's the case, then he would have been born during the reign of the 18th dynasty king Ahmose I, who do have two daughters, Meritamun (Ahmose-Meritamun) and Sitamun (Ahmose-Sitamun). There are stele that recorded Ahmose's reign as well as naming his children. His son Amenhotep I succeeded Ahmose in 1525, and Amenhotep have taken both his sisters as wives.

So if Moses was born in 1527, he was never adopted by either princesses, and the Exodus about Moses' birth and adoption are nothing more than a fiction.

This tell me that whoever wrote Exodus have no real knowledge of Egyptian history, if it cannot name a single person in the royal family, during Moses' birth.

I have heard a number of possible Pharaohs so you could be completely wrong about the Pharaoh and the sisters.

Then, there's the word "Pharaoh", which isn't a name. The title "Pharaoh" wasn't even use as part of name, until the 20th dynasty and later, so the Exodus use of pharaoh is nothing but anachronistic.

Is an anachronism a problem? All it probably shows is that redactors updated whatever word may have been originally used. OR heaven forbid, Genesis is correct.
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
Faith is nothing more than acceptance of belief, a conviction.

Faith is no better than having personal opinions. Faith isn't fact, because fact required evidence, which faith don't rely on.

You and YoursTrue keep saying that Genesis and Exodus as history, which they are not. They don't exist until the 6th century BCE and later.

The 18th dynasty in Egypt, especially in the 150 years, were well-documented, more so than later century, eg kings after Akhenaten (Amenhotep IV) weren't so well-documented due to civil unrest, and priests and generals serving as advisers, were gaining more powers than the kings.

Take Tutankhamun for example, he was famous only because of his tomb was discovered in the early 20th century, but he was a very weak king, easily manipulated by his advisers. Records of his reign is spotty.

But at least, Egypt's 18th and 19th dynasties kept better records of their rulers than those in Levant, like in Canaan. And there are no contemporary records in Canaan whatsoever of Joshua, the Judges, or contemporary to the nonexistent reigns of Saul, David and Solomon.

There are no contemporary Exodus in the 15th century BCE.

So, yes, I skeptical of Exodus being history.

That's OK you allowed to be sceptical.
But of course with the hack like David Rohl linking things together that others don't want to there may be less reason to be sceptical when the next generation of archaeologists and Egyptologists take the reigns and aren't so worried about radical thinking.
After all the archaeology of Canaan fits the report in the book of Joshua for the Biblical date for the Exodus.
If your faith is in the opinions of one group of Archaeologists and their interpretation of the evidence that is OK but it is just as much faith as my believing others Archaeologists even if you do say they are hacks.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Well you are moving the goalpost a bit here? Of course Hindu scriptures contain many stories and "eyewitnesses" -
"The Puranic literature is encyclopedic,[1] and it includes diverse topics such as cosmogony, cosmology, genealogies of gods, goddesses, kings, heroes, sages, and demigods, folk tales, pilgrimages, temples, medicine, astronomy, grammar, mineralogy, humor, love stories, as well as theology and philosophy."

There are endless stories? What does that prove? The OT stories are known for a fact to be enlarged and some, Daniel for example are forgeries?
"It is generally accepted that Daniel originated as a collection of Aramaic court tales later expanded by the Hebrew revelations.[32] The court tales may have originally circulated independently, but the edited collection was probably composed in the third or early second-century BCE.[33] Chapter 1 was composed (in Aramaic) at this time as a brief introduction to provide historical context, introduce the characters of the tales, and explain how Daniel and his friends came to Babylon.[34] The visions of chapters 7–12 were added and chapter 1 translated into Hebrew at the third stage when the final book was being drawn to.."

I mean in the Bhagavad Gita, Prince Arjuna talks with Krishna? And Paul talks with Jesus. So what? These are stories? You realize NONE of the gospels are eyewitness stories? Genesis was written around 6 BC by multiple authors. None of this is considered reliable history in any of these religions?
Well you are moving the goalpost a bit here? Of course Hindu scriptures contain many stories and "eyewitnesses" -
"The Puranic literature is encyclopedic,[1] and it includes diverse topics such as cosmogony, cosmology, genealogies of gods, goddesses, kings, heroes, sages, and demigods, folk tales, pilgrimages, temples, medicine, astronomy, grammar, mineralogy, humor, love stories, as well as theology and philosophy."

There are endless stories? What does that prove? The OT stories are known for a fact to be enlarged and some, Daniel for example are forgeries?
"It is generally accepted that Daniel originated as a collection of Aramaic court tales later expanded by the Hebrew revelations.[32] The court tales may have originally circulated independently, but the edited collection was probably composed in the third or early second-century BCE.[33] Chapter 1 was composed (in Aramaic) at this time as a brief introduction to provide historical context, introduce the characters of the tales, and explain how Daniel and his friends came to Babylon.[34] The visions of chapters 7–12 were added and chapter 1 translated into Hebrew at the third stage when the final book was being drawn to.."

I mean in the Bhagavad Gita, Prince Arjuna talks with Krishna? And Paul talks with Jesus. So what? These are stories? You realize NONE of the gospels are eyewitness stories? Genesis was written around 6 BC by multiple authors. None of this is considered reliable history in any of these religions?
Please just give me one reference to a document of sorts that shows the events historically of a group of people over the course of centuries from among those above. I'd like to check. Thanks.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
I have not read all that they have written. Archaeologists have disagreements but that does not mean they are hacks.
With Bryant Wood and Jericho it is just that the evidence suggests that the Bible chronology is accurate about the destruction of Jericho.
David Rohl points to the evidence for Israel (Joseph and the 12 tribes) being in Egypt at the time and place the Bible suggests.



I don't think Luke names the Caesars either but he names other seeming less important people.



I have heard a number of possible Pharaohs so you could be completely wrong about the Pharaoh and the sisters.



Is an anachronism a problem? All it probably shows is that redactors updated whatever word may have been originally used. OR heaven forbid, Genesis is correct.
There are some things transferred in writing and translating that are not particular settled on, but not too many that I know about. And nothing earth shattering as if it obliterated everything else. After all, translations are done, passage of time does have its questions, but the careful passage of scripture from Moses onward for the Jews proves to me that (1) Jesus is the Messiah hoped for and (2) the word of God -- the Bible--can be trusted. Have a nice day.
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
Please just give me one reference to a document of sorts that shows the events historically of a group of people over the course of centuries from among those above. I'd like to check. Thanks.

The ancient Greeks actually had historians along with many works of religion, fiction as well as science and philosophy. Herodatus just wrote histories.
The OT is not considered "history"?
Genesis is a re-write of Mesopotamian creation stories written possible after the Babylonian exile. Exodus is a fictional narrative. Daniel is fiction. Many of the other stories are enlarged versions of historical places. The great kingdoms were small towns archaeology is showing us.
The 10 commandments is a riff on the Code of Hammurabi and a divine being writing laws on stone. Job has a Babylonian counterpart.

But the Greeks also considered their religious material to be real -
"Much of the ancient Greeks life and culture was based upon mythology and their views of different gods. Although many of the myth and stories appear to be ridiculously unrealistic to us today, for the Greeks these stories were part of the shaping of their everyday life. They saw the myths and stories about their gods to be a reality. Since they viewed these myths as being more historical, it gives their gods more of a mortal characteristic. On the Parthenon the gods are depicted as physically being human. When you think about it, the humanization of these gods causes the relationship of myth and history to almost be one in the same in the Greek eyes. The fact that the gods are depicted as human in scenes on the Parthenon and in other Greek artwork makes the people of Greece feel a connection with the God in many ways. It seems as if the gods would live among them. But between the stories associated with the gods and the fact that they are depicted as having flawless muscular bodies they remain separated in their own category from your everyday person."
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
It sounded like you were were arguing a prediction in Mark should be considered real. But you are demonstrable wrong about the fictional demigod. I didn't assume this. I learned it through scholarship. There are 6 dying/rinsing savior demigods before Jesus that we know of. They are found in Persian and Hellenistic myths before Jesus. All of them are fiction. There is no evidence Jesus was an exception. If you think there is , provide it.

Who are these 6 dying/rising saviour demigods before Jesus in Persian and Hellenistic myths?
You and others certainly have some weird conspiracy theory going about Jesus and the writing of the New Testament.
Jesus existed and people knew He existed and that He had been crucified. Even the Jews knew that.
If you want to claim otherwise then where is your evidence?

Yes, a prophecy that was specific and could be verified. Like Krishna saying that energy and mass are equivalent and scientists will use the equation E=Mc2 (or the actual long form). That would be interesting evidence. Had Krishna predicted the destruction of a temple that actually happened but the story was dated a few years before the actual destruction you would NEVER EVER say "wopw Krishna must be a real demigod!" That is ridiculous.
Mark is clearly writing fiction and there is no evidence to suggest anything beyond writing a story that took place several years earlier and have the demigod make a prediction that Mark knew would come true.

Can Krishna even be placed anywhere in history?

"Acts and the Gospel of Luke make up a two-part work, Luke–Acts, by the same anonymous author.[3] It is usually dated to around 80–90 AD, although some scholars suggest 90–110. "

If you presume the prophecy is fake then you can say Luke and Acts were written after 70AD, but that is circular reasoning especially if you then turn it around and use that presumed date to say that Luke did not know anything and just made stuff up because he was writing so late. (actually if he was writing so late he would not have known all the historical detail he puts into Acts)

Luke is just re-working Mark but Acts is the most fiction. Since Purvoes work was peer-reviewed their has been no doubt. It's sourcing Odysseus and other fiction. Thomas Brodie and Dennis McDonald also have peer-reviewed work on this.

This blog summarizes some of the work
The Book of Acts as Historical Fiction

"The scholar Thomas Brodie has argued that this evident reworking of the Kings narrative starts in Luke’s Gospel and continues on until Acts chapter 15, thus indicating that Luke either integrated this literary creation into his story or he used an underlying source text, such as some previous Gospel that not only covered the acts of Jesus but also the acts of the apostles. "

As an example, the scholar Dennis MacDonald has shown that Luke also reworked fictional tales written by Homer, replacing the characters and some of the outcomes as needed to suit his literary purposes. MacDonald informs us in his The Shipwrecks of Odysseus and Paul..

"
verall, Acts just shares far too many features with popular adventure novels that were written during the same period, in order to lend it any trust as history. Here’s an overview of those features:

1) They all promote a particular god or religion.
2) They are all travel narratives.
3) They all involve miraculous or amazing events.
4) They all include encounters with fabulous or exotic people.
5) They often incorporate a theme of chaste couples that are separated and then reunited.
6) They all feature exciting narratives of captivities and escapes.
7) They often include themes of persecution.
8) They often include episodes involving excited crowds.
9) They often involve divine rescues from danger.
10) They often have divine revelations which are integral to the plot"


Making up history seems to be the area of expertise of skeptics who peer review each others fantasies to see if they contain enough historical sounding ramblings to sound convincing.


Ha, right however if one get's to assume Jesus was a prophet based on mundane unverifiable myths than SO DOES MUHAMMAD!!!!!!!!! He made predictions that ALSO CAME TRUE. So, wow guess he's divine.

If you want to believe that then go ahead.

Sigh. Except he actually said it several times. What else can you say because the 2nd coming never happened. It's also a Persian myth.

I can just realise that no scriptures that you want to bring up, in context, have Jesus saying He will come back in the life of the apostles etc.
What is this Persian myth you speak of?
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
No supernatural myth studies by scholars EVER assumes the miracles were real without evidence? Especially one as obvious as the Gospels? Sp every historian says that the gospels are Persian and Hellenistic? Revelations is also straight from Persian myths. Some examples

Mary Boyce -

"Historically, the unique features of Zoroastrianism, such as its monotheism,[5] messianism, belief in free will and judgement after death, conception of heaven, hell, angels, and demons, among other concepts, may have influenced other religious and philosophical systems, including the Abrahamic religions and Gnosticism,[6][7][8] Northern Buddhism,[7] and Greek philosophy.[9]"

Who says the gospels are Persian and Hellenistic and why when they can be seen in Hebrew scriptures?
Historians don't assume the miracles were real but in spiritual manuscripts should also not assume they are not real.
 

ppp

Well-Known Member
Historians don't assume the miracles were real but in spiritual manuscripts should also not assume they are not real.
Why should they not assume that miracles described in manuscripts are not real? And which manuscripts? All manuscripts from all religions?
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
The ancient Greeks actually had historians along with many works of religion, fiction as well as science and philosophy. Herodatus just wrote histories.
The OT is not considered "history"?
Genesis is a re-write of Mesopotamian creation stories written possible after the Babylonian exile. Exodus is a fictional narrative. Daniel is fiction. Many of the other stories are enlarged versions of historical places. The great kingdoms were small towns archaeology is showing us.
The 10 commandments is a riff on the Code of Hammurabi and a divine being writing laws on stone. Job has a Babylonian counterpart.

But the Greeks also considered their religious material to be real -
"Much of the ancient Greeks life and culture was based upon mythology and their views of different gods. Although many of the myth and stories appear to be ridiculously unrealistic to us today, for the Greeks these stories were part of the shaping of their everyday life. They saw the myths and stories about their gods to be a reality. Since they viewed these myths as being more historical, it gives their gods more of a mortal characteristic. On the Parthenon the gods are depicted as physically being human. When you think about it, the humanization of these gods causes the relationship of myth and history to almost be one in the same in the Greek eyes. The fact that the gods are depicted as human in scenes on the Parthenon and in other Greek artwork makes the people of Greece feel a connection with the God in many ways. It seems as if the gods would live among them. But between the stories associated with the gods and the fact that they are depicted as having flawless muscular bodies they remain separated in their own category from your everyday person."
I'm checking other sources with photos and translations of documents and nothing equals the content of the Bible.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Who says the gospels are Persian and Hellenistic and why when they can be seen in Hebrew scriptures?
Historians don't assume the miracles were real but in spiritual manuscripts should also not assume they are not real.
As I said, I'm checking and there is not one source that equals the compendium of the Bible. Plus commentary about these documents are just that. No real backup. The more I read the criticisms of the Bible the more I find they really bear no weight or substance. Back to Mars being barren and void and the earth starting out that way. But is now not barren and void.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Who are these 6 dying/rising saviour demigods before Jesus in Persian and Hellenistic myths?
You and others certainly have some weird conspiracy theory going about Jesus and the writing of the New Testament.
Jesus existed and people knew He existed and that He had been crucified. Even the Jews knew that.
If you want to claim otherwise then where is your evidence?



Can Krishna even be placed anywhere in history?



If you presume the prophecy is fake then you can say Luke and Acts were written after 70AD, but that is circular reasoning especially if you then turn it around and use that presumed date to say that Luke did not know anything and just made stuff up because he was writing so late. (actually if he was writing so late he would not have known all the historical detail he puts into Acts)



Making up history seems to be the area of expertise of skeptics who peer review each others fantasies to see if they contain enough historical sounding ramblings to sound convincing.




If you want to believe that then go ahead.



I can just realise that no scriptures that you want to bring up, in context, have Jesus saying He will come back in the life of the apostles etc.
What is this Persian myth you speak of?
I am finding similar to your thought, that many are here to simply contradict the Bible no matter even if their criticism makes no real sense.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
The ancient Greeks actually had historians along with many works of religion, fiction as well as science and philosophy. Herodatus just wrote histories.
The OT is not considered "history"?
Genesis is a re-write of Mesopotamian creation stories written possible after the Babylonian exile. Exodus is a fictional narrative. Daniel is fiction. Many of the other stories are enlarged versions of historical places. The great kingdoms were small towns archaeology is showing us.
The 10 commandments is a riff on the Code of Hammurabi and a divine being writing laws on stone. Job has a Babylonian counterpart.

But the Greeks also considered their religious material to be real -
"Much of the ancient Greeks life and culture was based upon mythology and their views of different gods. Although many of the myth and stories appear to be ridiculously unrealistic to us today, for the Greeks these stories were part of the shaping of their everyday life. They saw the myths and stories about their gods to be a reality. Since they viewed these myths as being more historical, it gives their gods more of a mortal characteristic. On the Parthenon the gods are depicted as physically being human. When you think about it, the humanization of these gods causes the relationship of myth and history to almost be one in the same in the Greek eyes. The fact that the gods are depicted as human in scenes on the Parthenon and in other Greek artwork makes the people of Greece feel a connection with the God in many ways. It seems as if the gods would live among them. But between the stories associated with the gods and the fact that they are depicted as having flawless muscular bodies they remain separated in their own category from your everyday person."
I'll repeat despite your objections, not one document compares to the Bible in detail and history. It is, yes, a religious document or a document about Israel's relationship with God. Nothing anyone has shown me including the saga of Gilgamesh compares in breadth and detail of reality...yes reality, even though there are some things I don't understand. Since I wasn't there as an eyewitness of these events I take into consideration what I know and believe.
 

ppp

Well-Known Member
I'll repeat despite your objections, not one document compares to the Bible in detail and history. It is, yes, a religious document or a document about Israel's relationship with God. Nothing anyone has shown me including the saga of Gilgamesh compares in breadth and detail of reality...yes reality, even though there are some things I don't understand. Since I wasn't there as an eyewitness of these events I take into consideration what I know and believe.
Your comparison is completely arbitrary. All that you are saying is that you find what you happen to like better than what you happen to dislike. You may as well be comparing your mom to other people's moms, and concluding that your mom is the best mom because you like your mom the most. :)
 

gnostic

The Lost One
The OT stories are known for a fact to be enlarged and some, Daniel for example are forgeries?
"It is generally accepted that Daniel originated as a collection of Aramaic court tales later expanded by the Hebrew revelations.[32] The court tales may have originally circulated independently, but the edited collection was probably composed in the third or early second-century BCE.[33] Chapter 1 was composed (in Aramaic) at this time as a brief introduction to provide historical context, introduce the characters of the tales, and explain how Daniel and his friends came to Babylon.[34] The visions of chapters 7–12 were added and chapter 1 translated into Hebrew at the third stage when the final book was being drawn to.."
Please just give me one reference to a document of sorts that shows the events historically of a group of people over the course of centuries from among those above. I'd like to check.

The problems with Daniel is that this book was never composed in the 6th century BCE...no, the composition of Daniel was more likely near the mid-2nd century BCE.

Whoever was the original author of Daniel, was more contemporary to the 2nd century Maccabees than to 6th century Nebuchadnezzar, Belshazzar and Cyrus.

And it would seem that whoever wrote Daniel didn’t know the details of line of reigns in the Neo-Babylonian dynasty, and got history wrong.

For one, Daniel 5 kept referred to Belshazzar as son of Nebuchadnezzar, by saying -
  • “his father Nebuchadnezzar” (5:2),
  • “your father Nebuchadnezzar” (5:11 & 5:18),
  • and “And you, Belshazzar his son” (5:22).
However, contemporary records, like the Nabonidus Cylinder in Ur, the clay cylinder show that Belshazzar’s father to be Nabonidus (Nabû-naʾid, 556 - 539 BCE), not to Nebuchadnezzar.

The only immediate family of Nebuchadnezzar, to rule in Nebuchadnezzar’s place, was his son Amel-Marduk (562 - 560 BCE) and his grandson Labashi-Marduk (556 BCE).

Neriglissar (Nergal-šar-uṣur, 560 -556 BCE), Nebuchadnezzar’s foremost general and son-in-law, usurped Amel-Marduk in 560 BCE (I don't remember if Amel-Marduk was assassinated or not). When Neriglissar died, he was succeeded by his son Labashi-Marduk, who only ruled for 3 months before being assassinated in a coup; a coup that was masterminded by Belshazzar, who elevated his own father Nabonidus, as king of Babylonia.

And despite, Daniel repeatedly referring to Belshadazzar as "king" (another thing that book of Daniel got wrong), his father was king to the end of Neo-Babylonian empire, not Belshadazzar.

Nabonidus was still alive when his reign ended, captured and held as a war prisoner and after Babylon had fallen to Cyrus, not to Darius the Mede

According to Daniel (5:31; 6), it was Darius the Mede who captured Babylon in a bloodless siege, not the historical Cyrus. Darius is a fictional invention, and don't exist in any contemporary records. Cyrus had become king of Media So that's another thing, got wrong about Cyrus and Darius.

There is a Darius, who ruled in the later half of 6th century BCE, after Cambyses II (Cyrus' son). This Darius I or Darius the Great reign from 522 to 486 BCE, and he was a Persian, not a Mede...plus his father was Hystaspes, not Ahasuerus (Daniel 9:1).

There simply was no Darius the Mede.

Recording of Babylonian history, extended from a number of texts, recording the reigns of kings after Nebuchadnezzar (eg Nebuchadnezzar Chronicle), from Neriglissar () to the last king of the Chaldean dynasty, Nabonidus (stele of Nabonidus; Nabonidus Cylinders, there are actually 4 cylinders, the most important ones were discovered at Sippar & Ur; clay tablet known as the Nabonidus Chronicle), as well as recorded events of the Persian king, Cyrus (Cyrus Cylinder, Verse Account Of Nabonidus).

Plus there is also Uruk King List, which have listed all those who ruled in Babylonia in the Chaldean dynasty, including outsiders, like the Persian dynasty to the Seleucid dynasty.

All these sources provide accounts to the history of both Babylonia and Persia, that are either contemporary or near-contemporary, so these provide knowledge to Babylon at this century than the worthless fiction of book of Daniel, which was written 300 years later, hence incredibly unreliable.

History is dependent on piecing together as many different sources as possible, and sorting what events can be verified and what are considered propaganda, and what are literary inventions.

Plus, none of these Babylonian and Persian accounts mention this prophet Daniel, who became adviser to these to these 6th century BCE rulers.

Since neither the book, nor the roles Daniel can be verified, historians now recognize that the book of Daniel is a literary invention.
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
Who are these 6 dying/rising saviour demigods before Jesus in Persian and Hellenistic myths?
You and others certainly have some weird conspiracy theory going about Jesus and the writing of the New Testament.

conspiracy theory? WTF? This is basic history? You think just because apologetics doesn't tell you something than it's a "conspiracy"? Vigrin born world saviors who come to save humanity and Revelations are Persian myths from
`~1600 BC. Hellenism influenced most of the religions in this region from 300-1AD which morphed them into what is now called mystery religions. Christianity was the last of the mystery religions.
Some easy to understand elements are written in the Britannica entry on Hellenistic religion.
Hellenistic religion - Beliefs, practices, and institutions

-
-the seasonal drama was homologized to a soteriology (salvation concept) concerning the destiny, fortune, and salvation of the individual after death.

-his led to a change from concern for a religion of national prosperity to one for individual salvation, from focus on a particular ethnic group to concern for every human. The prophet or saviour replaced the priest and king as the chief religious figure.

-his process was carried further through the identification of the experiences of the soul that was to be saved with the vicissitudes of a divine but fallen soul, which had to be redeemed by cultic activity and divine intervention. This view is illustrated in the concept of the paradoxical figure of the saved saviour, salvator salvandus.

-Other deities, who had previously been associated with national destiny (e.g., Zeus, Yahweh, and Isis), were raised to the status of transcendent, supreme (Yahweh goes from national God of Israel to supreme God)

cosmopolitan ideology - all races allowed
-The temples and cult institutions of the various Hellenistic religions were repositories of the knowledge and techniques necessary for salvation and were the agents of the public worship of a particular deity. In addition, they served an important sociological role. In the new, cosmopolitan ideology that followed Alexander’s conquests, the old nationalistic and ethnic boundaries had broken down and the problem of religious and social identity had become acute.

-Most of these groups had regular meetings for a communal meal that served the dual role of sacramental participation (referring to the use of material elements believed to convey spiritual benefits among the members and with their deity)

-Hellenistic philosophy (Stoicism, Cynicism, Neo-Aristotelianism, Neo-Pythagoreanism, and Neoplatonism) provided key formulations for Jewish, Christian, and Muslim philosophy, theology, and mysticism through the 18th century

- The basic forms of worship of both the Jewish and Christian communities were heavily influenced in their formative period by Hellenistic practices, and this remains fundamentally unchanged to the present time. Finally, the central religious literature of both traditions—the Jewish Talmud (an authoritative compendium of law, lore, and interpretation), the New Testament, and the later patristic literature of the early Church Fathers—are characteristic Hellenistic documents both in form and content.

-Other traditions even more radically reinterpreted the ancient figures. The cosmic or seasonal drama was interiorized to refer to the divine soul within man that must be liberated.

-Each persisted in its native land with little perceptible change save for its becoming linked to nationalistic or messianic movements (centring on a deliverer figure)

-and apocalyptic traditions (referring to a belief in the dramatic intervention of a god in human and natural events)

- Particularly noticeable was the success of a variety of prophets, magicians, and healers—e.g., John the Baptist, Jesus, Simon Magus, Apollonius of Tyana, Alexander the Paphlagonian, and the cult of the healer Asclepius—whose preaching corresponded to the activities of various Greek and Roman philosophic missionaries


Petra Pakken has a book on this called the Hellenization of Early Religion. Notice ALL OF THESE CHANGES are exactly how Judaism changed to Christianity.



Who are these 6 dying/rising saviour demigods before Jesus in Persian and Hellenistic myths?
Carrier details them with sources in his Jesus historicity book. It's on his blog as well:

Dying-and-Rising Gods: It's Pagan, Guys. Get Over It. • Richard Carrier

This is not a CONSPIRACY THEORY? It's from a peer-reviewed 700pg Jesus historicity book by historian Dr Carrier? Scholar Mary Boyce will again be quoted from pg 29 of her book.
Later I will explain that early apologists like Justin M came up with an apologetic that said Jesus was like so many other saviors because Satan prefigured(went back in time) and made those myths look like him. Yes, this is actually real. Modern apologists have desperately tried to stay away from this.
The conspiracy theory is apologetics making you think Christianity is unique which scholarship has long been cringing to behind your backs.

Jesus existed and people knew He existed and that He had been crucified. Even the Jews knew that.
If you want to claim otherwise then where is your evidence?

https://www.amazon.com/Historicity-Jesus-Might-Reason-Doubt/dp/1909697494
There are about 20 sitting historian PhD who are in the mythicist camp now. This doesn't matter. The point is that the gospel narratives are myth. If a real human Rabbi existed who they were based on that doesn't change anything?

The evidence for the supernatural stuff is zero. The historicity is being debated but even that is a bit weak.



Can Krishna even be placed anywhere in history?

In the Bhagavad Gita, which is as reliable as the Gospels in terms of myth. Both are clearly myth.
 
Last edited:

joelr

Well-Known Member
If you want to believe that then go ahead.


Exactly. People choose to believe the vague prophecies in Islam that came true. Same with Christianity. They are things one has to want to believe. The evidence doesn't demonstrate any actual prophecies.



I can just realise that no scriptures that you want to bring up, in context, have Jesus saying He will come back in the life of the apostles etc.

What is this Persian myth you speak of?


I know the apologetics. If you want to believe that. During the 2nd Temple Period the Persians occupied Israel. They were friendly and many of their myths were added to Judaism/Christianity through religious syncretism over a few centuries. This also happened with Hellenism. They adopted the Persian version of the devil, they adopted a world savior and Revelations. Mary Boyce is the expert on te Persian religion.

Zoroastrians-Their-Religious-Beliefs-and-Practices-MaryBoyce.




Revelations



but Zoroaster taught that the blessed must wait for this culmination till Frashegird and the 'future body' (Pahlavi 'tan i pasen'), when the earth will give up the bones of the dead (Y 30.7). This general resurrection will be followed by the Last Judgment, which will divide all the righteous from the wicked, both those who have lived until that time and those who have been judged already. Then Airyaman, Yazata of friendship and healing, together with Atar, Fire, will melt all the metal in the mountains, and this will flow in a glowing river over the earth. All mankind must pass through this river, and, as it is said in a Pahlavi text, 'for him who is righteous it will seem like warm milk, and for him who is wicked, it will seem as if he is walking in the • flesh through molten metal' (GBd XXXIV. r 8-r 9). In this great apocalyptic vision Zoroaster perhaps fused, unconsciously, tales of volcanic eruptions and streams of burning lava with his own experience of Iranian ordeals by molten metal; and according to his stern original teaching, strict justice will prevail then, as at each individual j udgment on earth by a fiery ordeal. So at this last ordeal of all the wicked will suffer a second death, and will perish off the face of the earth. The Daevas and legions of darkness will already have been annihilated in a last great battle with the Yazatas; and the river of metal will flow down into hell, slaying Angra Mainyu and burning up the last vestige of wickedness in the universe.


Ahura Mazda and the six Amesha Spentas will then solemnize a lt, spiritual yasna, offering up the last sacrifice (after which death wW be no more), and making a preparation of the mystical 'white haoma', which will confer immortality on the resurrected bodies of all the blessed, who will partake of it. Thereafter men will beome like the Immortals themselves, of one thought, word and deed, unaging, free from sickness, without corruption, forever joyful in the kingdom of God upon earth. For it is in this familiar and beloved world, restored to its original perfection, that, according to Zoroaster, eternity will be passed in bliss, and not in a remote insubstantial Paradise. So the time of Separation is a renewal of the time of Creation, except that no return is prophesied to the original uniqueness of living things. Mountain and valley will give place once more to level plain; but whereas in the beginning there was one plant, one animal, one man, the rich variety and number that have since issued from these will remain forever. Similarly the many divinities who were brought into being by Ahura Mazda will continue to have their separate existences. There is no prophecy of their re-absorption into the Godhead. As a Pahlavi text puts it, after Frashegird 'Ohrmaid and the Amahraspands and all Yazads and men will be together. .. ; every place will resemble a garden in spring, in which


there are all kinds of trees and flowers ... and it will be entirely the creation of Ohrrnazd' (Pahl.Riv.Dd. XLVIII, 99, lOO, l07).


Belief in a world Saviour


An important theological development during the dark ages of 'the faith concerned the growth of beliefs about the Saoshyant or coming Saviour. Passages in the Gathas suggest that Zoroaster was filled with a sense that the end of the world was imminent, and that Ahura Mazda had entrusted him with revealed truth in order to rouse mankind for their vital part in the final struggle. Yet he must have realized that he would not himself live to see Frasho-kereti; and he seems to have taught that after him there would come 'the man who is better than a good man' (Y 43.3), the Saoshyant. The literal meaning of Saoshyant is 'one who will bring benefit' ; and it is he who will lead humanity in the last battle against evil. Zoroaster's followers, holding ardently to this expectation, came to believe that the Saoshyant will be born of the prophet's own seed, miraculously preserved in the depths of a lake (identified as Lake K;tsaoya). When the end of time approaches, it is said, a virgin will bathe in this lake and become with child by the prophet; and she will in due course bear a son, named Astvat-ereta, 'He who embodies righteousness' (after Zoroaster's own words: 'May righteousness be embodied' Y 43. r6). Despite his miraculous conception, the coming World Saviour will thus be a man, born of human parents, and so there is no betrayal, in this development of belief in the Saoshyant, of Zoroaster's own teachings about the part which mankind has to play in the great cosmic struggle. The Saoshyant is thought of as being accompanied, like kings and heroes, by Khvarenah, and it is in Yasht r 9 that the extant Avesta has most to tell of him. Khvarenah, it is said there (vv. 89, 92, 93), 'will accompany the victorious Saoshyant ... so that he may restore 9 existence .... When Astvat-ereta comes out from the Lake K;tsaoya, messenger of Mazda Ahura ... then he will drive the Drug out from the world of Asha.' This glorious moment was longed for by the faithful, and the hope of it was to be their strength and comfort in times of adversity.


Just as belief in the coming Saviour developed its element of the miraculous, so, naturally, the person of the prophet himself came to be magnified as the centuries passed. Thus in the Younger Avesta, although never divinized, Zoroaster is exalted as 'the first priest, the first warrior, the first herdsman ... master and judge of the world' (Yt 13. 89, 9 1), one at whose birth 'the waters and plants ... and all the creatures of the Good Creation rejoiced' (Y t 13.99). Angra Mainyu, it is said, fled at that moment from the earth (Yt 17. 19); but he returned to tempt the prophet in vain, with a promise of earthly power, to abjure the faith of Ahura Mazda (Vd 19 .6
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
Who says the gospels are Persian and Hellenistic and why when they can be seen in Hebrew scriptures?
Historians don't assume the miracles were real but in spiritual manuscripts should also not assume they are not real.


When an obvious version of a myth exists before another then this is called religious syncretism and is super common. All religions are syncretic.
The OT uses Mesopotamian, Babylonian and Egyptian myths.
During the 2nd temple period they adopted Greek and Persian myths about souls, heaven, Satan (as an enemy of God), revelations, messianic world saviors and much more.
Historians who study the period write about this. Fransesca Stravopolou OT professor, Sanders, Wright , Thomas Thompson....
I quoted Boyce from her work on the apoctalism and messianic beliefs.
These elements entered the Hebrew scriptures during the period of the occupation - 2nd Temple Period. This is when the OT was canonized. The Hellenistsic elements ended up in the Gospels.

The Hellenistic World: The World of Alexander the Great

Hellenistic thought is evident in the narratives which make up the books of the Bible as the Hebrew Scriptures were revised and canonized during the Second Temple Period (c.515 BCE-70 CE), the latter part of which was during the Hellenic Period of the region. The gospels and epistles of the Christian New Testament were written in Greek and draw on Greek philosophy and religion as, for example, in the first chapter of the Gospel of John in which the word becomes flesh, a Platonic concept.


Second Temple Judaism[edit]
During the period of the Second Temple (c. 515 BC – 70 AD), the Hebrew people lived under the rule of first the Persian Achaemenid Empire, then the Greek kingdoms of the Diadochi, and finally the Roman Empire.[47] Their culture was profoundly influenced by those of the peoples who ruled them.[47] Consequently, their views on existence after death were profoundly shaped by the ideas of the Persians, Greeks, and Romans.[48][49] The idea of the immortality of the soul is derived from Greek philosophy[49] and the idea of the resurrection of the dead is derived from Persian cosmology.[49] By the early first century AD, these two seemingly incompatible ideas were often conflated by Hebrew thinkers.[49] The Hebrews also inherited from the Persians, Greeks, and Romans the idea that the human soul originates in the divine realm and seeks to return there.[47] The idea that a human soul belongs in Heaven and that Earth is merely a temporary abode in which the soul is tested to prove its worthiness became increasingly popular during the Hellenistic period (323 – 31 BC).[40] Gradually, some Hebrews began to adopt the idea of Heaven as the eternal home of the righteous dead.
Heaven - Wikipedia


During the Second Temple Period, when Jews were living in the Achaemenid Empire, Judaism was heavily influenced by Zoroastrianism, the religion of the Achaemenids.[26][8][27] Jewish conceptions of Satan were impacted by Angra Mainyu,[8][28] the Zoroastrian god of evil, darkness, and ignorance.[
The idea of Satan as an opponent of God and a purely evil figure seems to have taken root in Jewish pseudepigrapha during the Second Temple Period,[
Satan - Wikipedia


Mary Boyce also says it, this is from pg 29 of the same book -

Historically, the unique features of Zoroastrianism, such as its monotheism,[5] messianism, belief in free will and judgement after death, conception of heaven, hell, angels, and demons, among other concepts, may have influenced other religious and philosophical systems, including the Abrahamic religions and Gnosticism,[6][7][8] Northern Buddhism,[7] and Greek philosophy.[9]



Richard Carrier says it several times in his book and interviews.
Francesca Stavrakopoulou Professor of Hebrew Bible and Ancient Religion at the University of Exeter talks about this often in her work as well.

Do you know who else talked about this?
Early Christian apologists! The similarities were SO EXACT that they told people that Satan went back in time and made it look like Jesus was a copy of Greek mystery religions to fool people.

The Relationship between Hellenistic Mystery Religions and Early Christianity:

A Case Study using Baptism and Eucharist


Jennifer Uzzell
Early apologists admited similarities and blamed them on Satan.

Even allowing for these caveats, it is clear that substantial ideological and ritual similarities did exist. In fact they were sufficiently obvious to the early Christian apologists that they felt obliged to offer some explanation for them, particularly since, to their embarrassment, it was clear that the Mystery rituals predated their own. The most common explanation, offered by many Christian apologists including Firmicus Maternus, Tertullian and Justin Martyr, was that demons had deliberately prefigured Christian sacraments in order to lead people astray. This explanation has sufficed for Christians over countless centuries, and indeed scholastic bias towards the assumed uniqueness, primacy and superiority of Christianity is one of the major methodological pitfalls encountered by those engaged in the comparative study of Christianity and the Mysteries. Many Christian scholars have been so certain that Christianity alone, of all the world’s religions, is an original and unique revelation that at times it seems that they might almost prefer the “demonic intervention” explanation to the unthinkable possibility that Christianity was influenced by its philosophical and theological environs.

-It is interesting that Celsus refers to Christianity and the “other mysteries”. Clearly he regards Christianity as a Mystery religion of a particularly low and degenerate sort. Even Augustine is forced to admit that Christians are not always morally distinguishable from the Pagans around them and Tertullian warns Christians that in matters of sexual conduct in particular, there are “heathens who may sit in judgement on you.” Julian is also deeply suspicious of Christian baptism which he understands as a licence to repeated


Tertullian also wrote that Baptism in older religions was put there by the devil to fool Christians into thinking it was a copy-cat cult -

It is interesting to note that the early Christian writer Tertullian (c. 160-225CE) would not have agreed with this appraisal. Not only did he believe that certain of the Mysteries practiced baptism, but also that they did so in hope of attaining forgiveness of sins and a new birth. This was so striking a similarity that it clearly demanded some form of explanation. Not surprisingly, demonic imitation was the culprit.


Dying/rising demigods

In Pagan Hellenistic and Near Eastern thought, by contrast, while the motif of a “Dying and Rising God” may be controversial there is no doubt that for millennia before Christ there had been stories of divine beings questing in
to the underworld and returning transformed in some way.

The paper looks at baptism and eucharist in mystery religions as well as saviors and says Christianity is basically a mystery religion, influenced by Greek sources.
 
Last edited:

joelr

Well-Known Member
I'm checking other sources with photos and translations of documents and nothing equals the content of the Bible.

The Puranic list of Kings is vaster than biblical bloodlines. I'm not sure what type of comparison you are trying to make? When you say "nothing equals the content of the Bible" I'm pretty sure you are full of it here and are just looking to do apologetics.
Because that statement is a pure apologetic. Genesis USES older myths. Exodus is a myth. Job is a Bablyonian myth. Daniel is an accepted forgery. And the entire NT is a Hellenistic and Persian blend of myths.

The literature is excellent and similar to the sources it draws from. The fictive literary style of the Gospels is brilliant, but it's written in the Greek style of fiction, which is a known thing. It uses transfiguration of other narratives and so on.
So it isn't history and it's 'definitely not real. But it's excellent fiction. Saying it's better than Greek classics is a stretch?
I don't think you are doing any source checking at all but just want to somehow reify your beliefs in a doctrine.

Competing religions were destroyed by the church for centuries so literal comparisons cannot be made to other religious books. We only have pieces here and there. What we have is exactly like biblical text? The heretical gospels, similar. The pseudepigraphical non-canon text and gospels and scripture for other religions that are found are no different.
The 10 commandments that were a rip-off of the Code of Hammurabi, please tell me how the Deuteronical laws are so much better?

Code of Hammurabi - Wikipedia.
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
I'll repeat despite your objections, not one document compares to the Bible in detail and history. It is, yes, a religious document or a document about Israel's relationship with God. Nothing anyone has shown me including the saga of Gilgamesh compares in breadth and detail of reality...yes reality, even though there are some things I don't understand. Since I wasn't there as an eyewitness of these events I take into consideration what I know and believe.

The Gilamesh story was used verbatim at times. Gilamesh is centuries older, maybe you prefer the writing styles of the Hebrew authors? I'm certain you have not read the Bhagavad Gita, any of the Illiad or even the Puranas. I think you just wanted to ask for sources then proclaim about how great the bible is.
So please show me a biblical document that contains details and history and then show me the inferior Hindu or Greek version.
Here are some Gilamesh and Noah comparisons. Please show me where the Bible version "doesn't even compare" to Gilamesh?





Noah - Also he sent forth a dove from him, to see if the waters were abated from off the face of the ground; But the dove found no rest for the sole of her foot, and she returned


Gilamesh - When the seventh day dawned I loosed a dove and let her go. She flew away, but finding no resting- place she returned.


Noah - And the ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat. And the waters decreased continually until the tenth month: in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, were the tops of the mountains seen.


Gilamesh - When the seventh day dawned the storm from the south subsided, the sea grew calm, the flood was stilled;


Noah - And Noah builded an altar unto the LORD; and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the altar. And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake;


Gimamesh - , I made a sacrifice and poured out a libation on the mountain top. Seven and again seven cauldrons I set up on their stands, I heaped up wood and cane and cedar and myrtle. When the gods smelled the sweet savour, they gathered like flies over the sacrifice.


Noah - The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence.

And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth. And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.


Gimamesh - “Wisest of gods, hero Enlil, how could you so senselessly bring down the flood? Lay upon the sinner his sin, Lay upon the transgressor his transgression, Punish him a little when he breaks loose, Do not drive him too hard or he perishes; Would that a lion had ravaged mankind Rather than the flood, Would that a wolf had ravaged mankind Rather than the flood, Would that famine had wasted the world Rather than the flood, Would that pestilence had wasted mankind Rather than the flood


Gilamesh - ‘For six days and six nights the winds blew, torrent and tempest and flood overwhelmed the world, tempest and flood raged together like warring hosts. When the seventh day dawned the storm from the south subsided, the sea grew calm, the flood was stilled;


Noah - And it came to pass after seven days, that the waters of the flood were upon the earth.

Noah - Make thee an ark of gopher wood; rooms shalt thou make in the ark, and shalt pitch it within and without with pitch.

15 And this is the fashion which thou shalt make it of: The length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits.

A window shalt thou make to the ark, and in a cubit shalt thou finish it above; and the door of the ark shalt thou set in the side thereof; with lower, second, and third stories shalt thou make it.



Gilamesh - ‘In the first light of dawn all my household gathered round me, the children brought pitch and the men whatever was necessary. On the fifth day I laid the keel and the ribs, then I made fast the planking. The ground-space was one acre, each side of the deck measured one hundred and twenty cubits, making a square. I built six decks below, seven in all, I divided them into nine sections with bulkheads between. I drove in wedges where needed, I saw to the punt-poles, and laid in supplies. The carriers brought oil in baskets, I poured pitch into the furnace and asphalt and oil; more oil was consumed in caulking, and more again the master of the boat took in
 
Top