Do you think 2 Peter 1:10-11 and 2 Peter 1:13-15.Imply you go right to heaven at death?I do.

[joelr]

Whether an epistle is a forgery is subjective.

but from the 16th century onwards opinion steadily moved against Pauline authorship and few scholars now ascribe it to Paul, mostly because it does not read like any of his other epistles in style and content and because the epistle does not indicate that Paul is the author, unlike the others.[3]
Criteria used by scholars
Internal evidence
External evidence
Historical setting
Language and style
Contents and theology
The remaining four contested epistles – Ephesians, as well as the three known as the Pastoral epistles (1 and 2 Timothy, and Titus) – have been labeled pseudepigraphical works by most critical scholars

Not knowing when Zoroastianism began and having a wrong idea of when the OT books were written does not help your case for Zoroasrainism.
It can be said that it is not known if revelations are real. That would be pretty unbiased.

It's not my case, it's a historical fact.
Hebrew Bible Professor Francesca Stavrakopoulou from the University of Exeter, explains when the OT was canonized:
4:00

Mary Boyce studied in Iran for 1 year and is the leading scholar on Zoroastrianism:

"
The language of the Gathas is archaic, and close to that of the Rigveda (whose composition has been assigned to about 1 700 B. c. onwards); and the picture of the world to be gained from them is correspon,dingly ancient, that of a Stone Age society. Some allowance may have to be made for literary conservatism; and it is also possible that the 'Avestan' people (as Zoroaster's own tribe is called for want of a better name) were poor or isolated, and so not rapidly influenced by the developments of the Bronze Age. It is only possible therefore to hazard a reasoned conjecture that Zoroaster lived some time between 1 700 and 1 500 B.C"

The Persian period is known that the Israelites took world saviors, Satan vs God and Revelations from the Persian myths.


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,[

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]



This type literature is called Apocalyptic literature and is originated by the Persians.
"Apocalypticism is the religious belief that the end of the world is imminent, even within one's own lifetime."
" Arising initially in Zoroastrianism, apocalypticism was developed more fully in Judaic, Christian, and Islamic eschatological speculation"

This myth is dated 9BCE. The Hebrews encountered it during the Persian occupation.

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).

 

[Soapy]

Do you think 2 Peter 1:10-11 and 2 Peter 1:13-15.Imply you go right to heaven at death?I do.

There are a few assumptions that readers of the scriptures make concerning a Heavenly abode that are so wrong that it skews their reading where they encounter aspects of such.

For instance, Paul makes reference to being ‘out of his body’ as meaning that he is Spirit alone and therefore can enter the Spirit world consciously. Peter, also desires to be out of his earthly ‘tent’ (his body) and likewise be in a Spirit-only mode and this be in Heaven.

Im not saying these visions are not correct as far as the apostles envision it… I am saying that they are taken out of context:
1) We know that NO ONE GOES [ANYWHERE] until after the resurrection when they are judged BY JESUS CHRIST.
2) There is a CLASS of persons called The ELITE who are pre-chosen ‘from before the ages’ and who’s names are written in the great book. These ‘Elite’ are expected to live exemplary lives and those who do will have been ‘PRE-JUDGED’. This means that they will be in the first resurrection and WILL GO TO HEAVEN as ‘Kings and Priests’ ruling WITH JESUS CHRIST as BRETHREN AND HEIRS to God.
3) ALL OTHERS OF HUMANITY will be raised in a SECOND RESURRECTION and WILL BE JUDGED according to their deeds and assessed by JESUS CHRIST as to whether they were WICKED AND DETESTABLE in the sight of God (But be warned not to take your own view of what is ‘wicked’ and what is ‘detestable’ in the sight of God else we are possibly condemning ourselves : by your own sight of judgement May you also be judged, Jesus warns!). The group Jesus assesses as worthy for HIS KINGDOM WILL GO TO PARADISE… they will be immortal beings, sinless spirit encased in flesh living in the created world, exploring it, enhancing it, developing it, loving it beyond anything we know now.

Peter and Paul are of the elite class (also called ‘The Elect’) and so their vision is of being in Heaven. Those who are not of the elite class SHOULD NOT THINK OF THEMSELVES AS BEING LIKE PETER AND PAUL:

• Do you suffer like Peter and Paul?
• Are you filled with the Holy Spirit of God?
• Have you given up all your worldly goods?
• Have you sacrificed your life for the love of God?

I am pretty sure that no one in this forum can answer, ‘Yes’, to any of the above questions. So why should ANYONE think that they are GOIMG TO HEAVEN … let alone ‘STRAIGHT TO HEAVEN’ … when they die?

Therefore the answer is ‘Peter is not suggesting that he will be going DIRECTLY to Heaven but rather that he thinks of himself as one of the elite (the Elect) who, SINCE THE ELITE ARE PRE-JUDGED, WILL BR GOONG TO HEAVEN WHEN they are resurrected… (effectively, it’s a done deal so he speaks as though it is already done!)

 

[Brian2]

No. There is no such thing as "naturalistic bias". That is a fiction invented by apologetics. There is just evidence and lack of evidence. You would never expect a child to come home from a history or science class and say they learned Allah is the true name of God and miracles are real because of the Quran?

Nobody would expect the history taught in schools to pronounce a decision one way or the other as to the truth of religion.

Why would that not make sense? In a debate between Bart Ehrman and a pastor the pastor kept saying "I'm not a historian so..."

How hard is this to understand? Theologians START out with the assumption that a religion is true. They do not look at where did the theology come from, did it come from older cultures? NO! Of course not? They already believe it came from the Lord?

Historians are historians and look at all the literature, or should.
Are you saying that believers are all biased and only non believers are unbiased?

No there is only ONE history? The history of the Near Middle East is not that complex. Apologetics just ignores it. Or says Satan made history look that way to fool Christians? The Bible is not history. It's stories.

William Dever, Professor Emeritus of the University of Arizona, has investigated the archeology of the ancient Near East for more than 30 years and authored almost as many books on the subject.
"The truth of the matter today is that archeology raises more questions about the historicity of the Hebrew Bible and even the New Testament than it provides answers, and that's very disturbing to some people.
Dever: We want to make the Bible history. Many people think it has to be history or nothing. But there is no word for history in the Hebrew Bible. In other words, what did the biblical writers think they were doing? Writing objective history? No. That's a modern discipline. They were telling stories. They wanted you to know what these purported events mean.

There are plenty of professors with different views than Dever.
But when you say that the Biblical stories want you to know what the purported events mean (and I guess you are talking about stories where God is said to have intervened or made proclamations) that sounds like an anti supernatural stance, a preconception of what can or cannot be true in the Bible.

Dr Richard Carrier, latest peer-reviewed Jesus historicity study since 1926
"
When the question of the historicity of Jesus comes up in an honest professional context, we are not asking whether the Gospel Jesus existed. All non-fundamentalist scholars agree that that Jesus never did exist. Christian apologetics is pseudo-history. No different than defending Atlantis. Or Moroni. Or women descending from Adam’s rib.

So that is an admission of the milieu he works in. It is a completely biased one imo.

Myths are not really lies. It's no different than Islam, Hinduism or Mormonism. It's a framework to couch wisdom and philosophy. Not much philosophy because this is a "God is wisdom" and "fear God" philosophy. Not very deep.

The Genesis creation narrative is the creation myth[a] of both Judaism and Christianity
Scholarly writings frequently refer to Genesis as myth, for while the author of Genesis 1–11 "demythologised" his narrative by removing the Babylonian myths those elements which did not fit with his own faith, it remains a myth in the sense of being a story of origins.
Comparative mythology provides historical and cross-cultural perspectives for Jewish mythology. Both sources behind the Genesis creation narrative borrowed themes from Mesopotamian mythology,[
Genesis 1–11 as a whole is imbued with Mesopotamian myths.[1
Genesis 2 has close parallels with a second Mesopotamian myth, the Atra-Hasis epic – parallels that in fact extend throughout Genesis 2–11, from the Creation to the Flood and its aftermath.

Myth does not mean that it is not true (even if that is one possible meaning). It is that Genesis 1-11 are so far back in time that historical evidence is hard to find.
It could be however that what has been classified as myths from the cultures of the time actually is the historical evidence which has been classified as nothing but made up stories.
The reason for a Mesopotamian flood myth could be that the flood did happen.
The reason for a Genesis 2 and the Atra Hasis epic could be that the older Mesopotamian culture actually preserved earlier stories that had been passed down.
That idea might be seen as biased but so is the idea that the stories were not true and that Genesis was just a copy from another culture. (Naturalistic methodology that brings in wrong conclusions about evidence).

 

[joelr]

Nobody would expect the history taught in schools to pronounce a decision one way or the other as to the truth of religion.

Exactly, you are saying the same thing as I said. Why then do you claim historians have a naturalistic bias just because the actual historicity shows a religion influenced by older religions?

Historians are historians and look at all the literature, or should.
Are you saying that believers are all biased and only non believers are unbiased?

Historians are biased by what the evidence is. Theologians are ridiculously biased? If someone said that they know of Islamic theologians and they said that Muhammad really got revelations from an angel about updates for Christianity, would you be like "wow I guess it's true" or be like "yeah, they just assume the revelations are real so that isn't going to be good evidence?
Historians just say everything that historians from that time say, analyze those writings (some are clearly forged) and look for religious syncretism. Scholars do not believe claims of revelations without excellent evidence. The evidence that Muhammad spoke to an angel, Joe Smith spoke to an angel or Paul spoke to Jesus is zero. It's a claim made by one person. There is no evidence. However savior demigods were the rage at that time and Judaism clearly wanted one of their own. Hebrew thinkers also took souls getting salvation and going to heaven from Greek religions.

There are plenty of professors with different views than Dever.
But when you say that the Biblical stories want you to know what the purported events mean (and I guess you are talking about stories where God is said to have intervened or made proclamations) that sounds like an anti supernatural stance, a preconception of what can or cannot be true in the Bible.

No, Dever has said many times archaeology doesn't support the Biblical narratives and things like Moses being a literary construction are consensus. The OT is a re-working of Mesopotamian stories? To even suggest a scholar would be like" yeah but maybe this one time it's real, even though none of this is original and the evidence is exactly like all the other cultures divinities..." That makes no sense?


9:03 Hebrew Bible Professor Francesca Stavrakopoulou explaining all of the language used to describe Yahweh and his works are exactly like other cultures but going back thousands of years.

The Genesis creation narrative is the creation myth[a
It expounds themes parallel to those in Mesopotamian mythology,
Comparative mythology provides historical and cross-cultural perspectives for Jewish mythology. Both sources behind the Genesis creation narrative borrowed themes from Mesopotamian mythology
Genesis 1–11 as a whole is imbued with Mesopotamian myths
Genesis 2 has close parallels with a second Mesopotamian myth, the Atra-Hasis epic – parallels that in fact extend throughout Genesis 2–11, from the Creation to the Flood and its aftermath.

The life story of Moses is all older Egyptian myths, Eden, Job, all older versions found.
Proverbs?
The third unit, 22:17–24:22, is headed "bend your ear and hear the words of the wise". A large part of this section is a recasting of a second-millennium BCE Egyptian work, the Instruction of Amenemope, and may have reached the Hebrew author(s) through an Aramaic translation.
The "wisdom" genre was widespread throughout the ancient Near East, and reading Proverbs alongside the examples recovered from Egypt and Mesopotamia reveals the common ground shared by international wisdom.


Sp why would a scholar take any of these supernatural claims seriously when it's 100% obvious they are re-used myths and the stories of the "God above all Gods" is just more of the same. The Exaultation of Inanna uses similar language and is 2000 years older??????
Now you don't expect scholars to take Hiindu supernatural claims serious or Islamic claims? There is nothing here but religious syncretism and human stories and wisdom.

So that is an admission of the milieu he works in. It is a completely biased one imo.

Yes he's biased about the actual facts of history and not apologetics which can be shown to be crank? Would he be "completely biased" if he wrote a book on Muhammad and didn't admit that Muhammad had a visit from an OT angel Gabrielle and he got all the important updates on Christianity? Well, it SAYS IT HAPPENED?!?!?!? So he would be bias if he didn't present these important updates so Christians can learn they have the wrong message! Right?

No? Oh you don't mean the "other" claims? Just the ones you believe in?

Apologetics are the people writing books about the Roswell alien crash and creating a narrative about crashed aliens. Historians are the people simply reporting what the rancher found. Sticks, balsa wood, scotch tape ("considerable"), rubber eye beams and neophrene balloon foil. No bodies, no alien craft. Just the history. Yes the press release said a "flying disk was recovered" and the Roswell apologists jumped on that. But further down in the same press release it also says " no metal parts. The strings that held the balloons up was......."

So would those historians have an "anti-ufo bias"? Yes. According to your logic they would.

Myth does not mean that it is not true (even if that is one possible meaning). It is that Genesis 1-11 are so far back in time that historical evidence is hard to find.

Genesis was written around 600 B.C. It may take place longer ago, fiction can work that way?

was composed in the late 7th or the 6th century BCE (the Jahwist source) and was later expanded by other authors (the Priestly source) into a work very like Genesis as known today.[3] The two sources can be identified in the creation narrative: Priestly and Jahwistic.[4] The combined narrative is a critique of the Mesopotamian theology of creation: Genesis affirms monotheism and denies polytheism.[5] Robert Alter described the combined narrative as "compelling in its archetypal character, its adaptation of myth to monotheistic ends".[6]

The scholar Bruce Waltke cautions against the "woodenly literal" reading of the first two chapters of Genesis which leads to "creation science" and to such "implausible interpretations" as the "gap theory", the presumption of a "young earth", and the denial of evolution.[7] Scholarly writings frequently refer to Genesis as myth, for while the author of Genesis 1–11 "demythologised" his narrative by removing the Babylonian myths those elements which did not fit with his own faith, it remains a myth in the sense of being a story of origins.[8]

Myth means writing wisdom in metaphorical fictive language.

It could be however that what has been classified as myths from the cultures of the time actually is the historical evidence which has been classified as nothing but made up stories.

Every religion (thousands) have creation stories. They are ancient humans guesses at how things started. The creation from primal waters and humans from clay is an ancient mythology that the Israelites used. These are stories and Bronze age attempts at making sense of the world and giving a culture a story. It's fiction. The Mesopotamian version had multiple deities. You are doing a weird tapdance to somehow make this true?

 

[joelr]

The reason for a Mesopotamian flood myth could be that the flood did happen.

A world flood has been ruled out by modern flood geology. A local flood may have inspired the myth. A God didn't call down to one man and murder all other humans. That would be a myth.

The reason for a Genesis 2 and the Atra Hasis epic could be that the older Mesopotamian culture actually preserved earlier stories that had been passed down.

That idea might be seen as biased but so is the idea that the stories were not true and that Genesis was just a copy from another culture. (Naturalistic methodology that brings in wrong conclusions about evidence).

Again, this naturalistic bias is complete crank. And you don't actually mean it. You don't want it ruled that Islam has corrected Christianity, or Mormonism is the "new Christianity". After all, you cannot argue with an angel sent from Yahweh?

Not without a naturalistic bias. It isn't even that, it's show some EVIDENCE?!? Besides the endless and clear evidence that all of the myths in the Bible are re-workings of older myths.

The creation story in Genesis is ridiculous. The cosmology is ridiculous. There are no windows where water falls down and the blue sky is not the cosmic ocean above heaven? Most Christians do not consider this literal.


Maybe Genesis is true??????? Besides that that is absurd, cool, maybe Muhammad got a visit from Gabrielle and Jesus was only a prophet, Yahewh is pissed for his message getting so messed up and a painful doom awaits all Christians and Jews. You cannot special plead this concept about "naturalistic bias" and retract it when it doesn't suit you. There IS NO EVIDENCE FOR INNANA OR YAHWEH. Or the Angel Gabrielle.


If you listen to Professor Stavrakopolou she is constantly explaining that the Hebrew about Yahweh is so typical of how cultures talked about every God.


Also the text is verbatim at times:
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 - And all the days of Noah were nine hundred and fifty years: and he died.




Gilamesh - Gilgamesh, the son of Ninsun, lies in the tomb.

 

[Brian2]

but from the 16th century onwards opinion steadily moved against Pauline authorship and few scholars now ascribe it to Paul, mostly because it does not read like any of his other epistles in style and content and because the epistle does not indicate that Paul is the author, unlike the others.[3]
Criteria used by scholars
Internal evidence
External evidence
Historical setting
Language and style
Contents and theology
The remaining four contested epistles – Ephesians, as well as the three known as the Pastoral epistles (1 and 2 Timothy, and Titus) – have been labeled pseudepigraphical works by most critical scholars






It's not my case, it's a historical fact.
Hebrew Bible Professor Francesca Stavrakopoulou from the University of Exeter, explains when the OT was canonized:
4:00

Mary Boyce studied in Iran for 1 year and is the leading scholar on Zoroastrianism:

"
The language of the Gathas is archaic, and close to that of the Rigveda (whose composition has been assigned to about 1 700 B. c. onwards); and the picture of the world to be gained from them is correspon,dingly ancient, that of a Stone Age society. Some allowance may have to be made for literary conservatism; and it is also possible that the 'Avestan' people (as Zoroaster's own tribe is called for want of a better name) were poor or isolated, and so not rapidly influenced by the developments of the Bronze Age. It is only possible therefore to hazard a reasoned conjecture that Zoroaster lived some time between 1 700 and 1 500 B.C"

The Persian period is known that the Israelites took world saviors, Satan vs God and Revelations from the Persian myths.


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,[

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]



This type literature is called Apocalyptic literature and is originated by the Persians.
"Apocalypticism is the religious belief that the end of the world is imminent, even within one's own lifetime."
" Arising initially in Zoroastrianism, apocalypticism was developed more fully in Judaic, Christian, and Islamic eschatological speculation"

This myth is dated 9BCE. The Hebrews encountered it during the Persian occupation.

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).

Thanks for that. Very interesting.

 

[Brian2]

Exactly, you are saying the same thing as I said. Why then do you claim historians have a naturalistic bias just because the actual historicity shows a religion influenced by older religions?

That is a subjective judgement.

Historians are biased by what the evidence is. Theologians are ridiculously biased? If someone said that they know of Islamic theologians and they said that Muhammad really got revelations from an angel about updates for Christianity, would you be like "wow I guess it's true" or be like "yeah, they just assume the revelations are real so that isn't going to be good evidence?

The naturalistic methodology employed in science and history can create an inbuilt bias when it comes to possible supernatural interventions.
This bias can be ridiculously exaggerated when the historian is an atheist or is someone who wants to attack religion.

No, Dever has said many times archaeology doesn't support the Biblical narratives and things like Moses being a literary construction are consensus. The OT is a re-working of Mesopotamian stories? To even suggest a scholar would be like" yeah but maybe this one time it's real, even though none of this is original and the evidence is exactly like all the other cultures divinities..." That makes no sense?

There are archaeologists who say that the conquest story is true and that Moses probably was real. Archaeology is one of those sciences where opinion comes into play, it is not black and white all the time.

8 of David Rohl Podcasts Interviews | Updated Daily - OwlTail

9:03 Hebrew Bible Professor Francesca Stavrakopoulou explaining all of the language used to describe Yahweh and his works are exactly like other cultures but going back thousands of years.

That sounds like an understandable thing for different cultures to do about their deity.

The life story of Moses is all older Egyptian myths, Eden, Job, all older versions found.
Proverbs?
The third unit, 22:17–24:22, is headed "bend your ear and hear the words of the wise". A large part of this section is a recasting of a second-millennium BCE Egyptian work, the Instruction of Amenemope, and may have reached the Hebrew author(s) through an Aramaic translation.
The "wisdom" genre was widespread throughout the ancient Near East, and reading Proverbs alongside the examples recovered from Egypt and Mesopotamia reveals the common ground shared by international wisdom.

No doubt wisdom literature was shared around.
How old are these older Egyptian stories of Moses? Do you think it possible that if David Rohl and others are correct about the dating of Egyptian Kings etc, that the stories might actually be from around the time of Moses, and even be about him?

The Exaultation of Inanna uses similar language and is 2000 years older??????

As we know the stories of these gods/goddesses are only vaguely similar to the death and resurrection of Jesus and really an overcoming of death (the enemy of all of us) should be a theme of religions, even back then.

Yes he's biased about the actual facts of history and not apologetics which can be shown to be crank? Would he be "completely biased" if he wrote a book on Muhammad and didn't admit that Muhammad had a visit from an OT angel Gabrielle and he got all the important updates on Christianity? Well, it SAYS IT HAPPENED?!?!?!? So he would be bias if he didn't present these important updates so Christians can learn they have the wrong message! Right?

He is what I would call a militant atheist however and not unbiased in his presentation.
He is himself an apologist and does not just report the facts but nicely interprets them for us.

Myth means writing wisdom in metaphorical fictive language.

Some people use "myth" to apply to legends but not necessarily untrue legends.

Every religion (thousands) have creation stories. They are ancient humans guesses at how things started. The creation from primal waters and humans from clay is an ancient mythology that the Israelites used. These are stories and Bronze age attempts at making sense of the world and giving a culture a story. It's fiction. The Mesopotamian version had multiple deities. You are doing a weird tapdance to somehow make this true?

I just give an alternative explanation which would not be countenanced in a naturalistic methodology.
The presumption is that such an explanation is automatically not true.

 

[Brian2]

A world flood has been ruled out by modern flood geology. A local flood may have inspired the myth. A God didn't call down to one man and murder all other humans. That would be a myth.

The language of the Bible can be shown to mean a large local flood. These have happened and have happened in more places that the Middle East at about the same time. Maybe God made many local floods for His work.
It is not necessarily fictive and it is not murder if God is whom is claimed and is doing what is claimed.

Again, this naturalistic bias is complete crank. And you don't actually mean it. You don't want it ruled that Islam has corrected Christianity, or Mormonism is the "new Christianity". After all, you cannot argue with an angel sent from Yahweh?

Not without a naturalistic bias. It isn't even that, it's show some EVIDENCE?!? Besides the endless and clear evidence that all of the myths in the Bible are re-workings of older myths.

Maybe Genesis is true??????? Besides that that is absurd, cool, maybe Muhammad got a visit from Gabrielle and Jesus was only a prophet, Yahewh is pissed for his message getting so messed up and a painful doom awaits all Christians and Jews. You cannot special plead this concept about "naturalistic bias" and retract it when it doesn't suit you. There IS NO EVIDENCE FOR INNANA OR YAHWEH. Or the Angel Gabrielle.

To report that Gabriel is claimed in Islam to have overruled Christianity is unbiased.
To report that Gabriel overruled Christianity is Islamic bias.
To report that both Christianity and Islam are rubbish is naturalistic bias.
To report that Islam is satanically inspired is Christian bias.

Also the text is verbatim at times:

Same story passed down, so the text (some of the details) might be the same at times.

 

[joelr]

That is a subjective judgement.

First there are literary techniques used to demonstrate a work is copied. It isn't a guess?
Also when a story is literally the same story and uses lines verbatim then it's probably copied? Especially if the authors were exposed to these stories right before they wrote the copy. Genesis was written after the Babylon exile where religious leaders would have had a chance to read Mesopotamian myths.

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 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.

The naturalistic methodology employed in science and history can create an inbuilt bias when it comes to possible supernatural interventions.
This bias can be ridiculously exaggerated when the historian is an atheist or is someone who wants to attack religion.

You didn't answer the question? So first, no. There is no "naturalistic bias" (NB). If a supernatural claim is made and there is evidence then it would be suggested it might be true. If a claim that the sun went out during the crucifixion was confirmed on a day, around that time, and was recorded in ALL histories, it would be an interesting thing to note. If things like this were consistent in a supernatural scripture it would be reported. There is no good evidence for religions. so it isn't reported as true.
Next - "when the historian is an atheist or is someone who wants to attack religion." is a conspiracy theory and not part of peer-reviewed work. Come to me with an example from a scholarly work, not your imagination.
Back to the question. Do you think that historians who write about Islam should be more open to the idea that Muhammad really did hear and see revelations from Gabrielle? Should they lower this bias? Would it be reasonable for historians and others to start listening to these revelations and saying that this truly is an update on Christianity?
Once one removes this supposed NB then they hear that an angel visited Muhammad and she has important information about the future of everyones soul, should this be national news?

Or should historians continue to employ critical thinking, rational thinking and only believe supernatural events when evidence warrants?

Now there were several savior demigods before Jesus so removing the NB then should historians start reporting that there are many saviors.

This is a ridiculous line of reasoning and whomever told this to you wasn't thinking it through.

There are archaeologists who say that the conquest story is true and that Moses probably was real. Archaeology is one of those sciences where opinion comes into play, it is not black and white all the time.

8 of David Rohl Podcasts Interviews | Updated Daily - OwlTail

https://www.owltail.com/people/O0mKl-david-rohl/appearances

So, your go-to on this is a fraud who is trying to sell media and isn't even an archaeologist?

Egyptology has not adopted the New Chronology,[3] continuing to employ the standard chronology in mainstream academic publications. Rohl's most vocal critic has been Professor Kenneth Kitchen, formerly of Liverpool University, who called Rohl's thesis "100% nonsense
In 2010, a series of corroborated radiocarbon dates were published for dynastic Egypt which suggest some minor revisions to the conventional chronology, but do not support Rohl's proposed revisions

Even the Association of Biblical Research which supports sketchy amateur work puts Rohls work down?

The main narratives in the OT are not supported as written. The stories and way Yahweh is spoken about is the same way deities were talked about for thousands of years. The wisdom literature is the same as found in Egypt and Mesopotamian texts as well.

The archeologist Ann E. Killebrew claims that "Most scholars today accept that the majority of the conquest narratives in the book of Joshua are devoid of historical reality." note11 Destroyed cities that the Bible associated with Joshua show little of what was supposed to have happened, and the cities that were destroyed are not the ones the Bible associates with Joshua. William G Dever in the PBS interview states,

There was no evidence of armed conflict in most of these sites. At the same time, it was discovered that most of the large Canaanite towns that were supposed to have been destroyed by these Israelites were either not destroyed at all or destroyed by others. note12

And the narrator claims that " A single sweeping military invasion led by Joshua cannot account for how the Israelites arrived in Canaan. But the destruction of Hazor does coincide with the time that the Merneptah Stele locates the Israelites in Canaan."

 

[joelr]

No doubt wisdom literature was shared around.
How old are these older Egyptian stories of Moses? Do you think it possible that if David Rohl and others are correct about the dating of Egyptian Kings etc, that the stories might actually be from around the time of Moses, and even be about him?

Well Rohl is wrong. Moses is a collection of Egyptian myths. Where some Israelites may have come from. It isn't hard to imagine Judaism used the same religious syncretism that every other culture used? And we see this is a fact. Here you are taking one myth and trying to possibly make it true? We already know syncretism was widely used in the Bible. Like Exodus Moses is a founding myth used to unify people.

As we know the stories of these gods/goddesses are only vaguely similar to the death and resurrection of Jesus and really an overcoming of death (the enemy of all of us) should be a theme of religions, even back then.

Well no, Hellenism is exactly Christianity? The change Judaism went through is the same Hellenistic change every local religion went through and formed the Mystery religions which Christianity is one.

-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
-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

The saviors are the same except for small differences in each religions theology:
Within the confines of what was then the Roman Empire, long before and during the dawn of Christianity, there were many dying-and-rising gods. And yes, they were gods—some even half-god, half-human, being of divine or magical parentage, just like Jesus (John 1:1-18; Matthew 1:18-25; Luke 1:26-35; Philippians 2:6-8 & Romans 8:3). And yes, they died. And were dead. And yes, they were then raised back to life; and lived on, even more powerful than before. Some returned in the same body they died in; some lived their second life in even more powerful and magical bodies than they died in, like Jesus did (1 Corinthians 15:35-50 & 2 Corinthians 5:1-10). Some left empty tombs or gravesites; or had corpses that were lost or vanished. Just like Jesus. Some returned to life on “the third day” after dying. Just like Jesus. All went on to live and reign in heaven (not on earth). Just like Jesus. Some even visited earth after being raised, to deliver a message to disciples or followers, before ascending into the heavens. Just like Jesus.

He is what I would call a militant atheist however and not unbiased in his presentation.

Provide an example. You skipped the question again. I think you are fooling yourself here. These are actual historians reporting on history. When they make an assertion it's based on actual facts that happened in other nearby religions.
Or based on actual good evidence (writing styles, literary analysis). I'll ask again. If you seem to expect a historian to take some supernatural event seriously as mentioned in scripture then would you also expect these historians to be accepting the revelations to Muhammad about Christians and Jews? It was from an angel, not just a vision.

If a historian doesn't buy into this visit by Gabrielle is he also a militant atheist? What about Lord Krishna visiting Prince Arjuna? Are all historians militant atheists and NB because they assume it's a myth? DO you expect historians to take all 4000 religions at their word?

He is himself an apologist and does not just report the facts but nicely interprets them for us.

No, apologists use the opposite of critical, rational thinking , empiricism and often outright lie for the religion. They often go against even Christian scholarship. Theology starts out by saying "these scriptures are true" and goes from there. That is literally the definition of bias?

Now, please tell us one fact that is interpreted without proper evidence?

Some people use "myth" to apply to legends but not necessarily untrue legends.

Some events in mythology are true. The supernatural events have no evidence. Muhammad is real. Not sure if he really had revelations. According to you the NB should be dropped and we all should start thinking about what this angel had to say?

I just give an alternative explanation which would not be countenanced in a naturalistic methodology.
The presumption is that such an explanation is automatically not true.

No you don't get to use weird explanations AND special pleading. This anti-naturalistic methodology is so disingenuous. It's a bunch of crank and I think you know it. You seem to be using it to protect your beliefs from historicity which does not support them. Except if you accept this NB and avoid it you have to be consistent. Things change. Yahweh made people but they had free will and he had to murder them in a flood. So humans messing up the message (if it was real) is a complete possibility. YOu now have to consider that Gabrielle came down and updated the religion. You also have to start weighing the evidence (oh wait, you don't do evidence, so you just have to start accepting it) that Joe Smith also had revelations as well as the Bahai dude. HE explains it all in his scripture. But as he explains it's different teachings for different times.
So he actually spoke with God. So either Islam or Bahai are the obvious choices for the world. If everyone dropped the NB then we would start converting all churches to one of those. At least then you can be happy people dropped the NB that you seem to hate?

 

[joelr]

The language of the Bible can be shown to mean a large local flood. These have happened and have happened in more places that the Middle East at about the same time. Maybe God made many local floods for His work.
It is not necessarily fictive and it is not murder if God is whom is claimed and is doing what is claimed.

The Israelites started around 1500BC. Writing stories that took place much longer ago means they wrote fiction. Since we know the source, they copied Gilamesh, verbatim at times, and it's the same story it isn't hard to see what is going on.
This is supported by Christian scholarship, just not fundamentalism:
" Based on scientific interpretation of archaeological, genetic, and linguistic evidence, most scholars consider Genesis to be primarily mythological rather than historical."

Maybe God made? What God? There isn't evidence for a God? There are claims and stories.

To report that Gabriel is claimed in Islam to have overruled Christianity is unbiased.
To report that Gabriel overruled Christianity is Islamic bias.
To report that both Christianity and Islam are rubbish is naturalistic bias.
To report that Islam is satanically inspired is Christian bias.

Historians don't call religions rubbish. They report claims and whatever evidence surrounds that. So everything you have been saying about historians has been incorrect.

Same story passed down, so the text (some of the details) might be the same at times.

Yes, same story passed down. The Epic of Gilamesh is fiction with multiple Gods and Noah is fiction with one God.

 

[paarsurrey]

Frank Goad said: ↑
Do you think 2 Peter 1:10-11 and 2 Peter 1:13-15.Imply you go right to heaven at death? I do.

The verses of 2 Peter is neither printed in red in the KJV Red Letter Bible of the Protestantism people nor in the "THE DOUAY-RHEIMS" of the Catholicism people, please. Right?
It means, one gathers, it was never written or spoken by Jesus, so it should never have been in the Bible. Right?
Kindly quote from Jesus in this connection, please. Right?

Those who are followers of Yeshua- the Jewish Messiah, I would suggest, they are not to take any guidance from the above verses as these are not a reliable source of information, it transpires. Right?

Regards

 

[Soapy]

Frank Goad said: ↑
Do you think 2 Peter 1:10-11 and 2 Peter 1:13-15.Imply you go right to heaven at death? I do.

Those who are followers of Yeshua- the Jewish Messiah, I would suggest, they are not to take any guidance from the above verses as these are not a reliable source of information, it transpires. Right?

Regards

The scriptures says that the spirit of the dead go to a dormant state in God and await the first and second resurrections where judgement takes place upon them.

So, no, resting in God is not a heavenly state (nothing to do with opposite, so called, ‘Hell’ state. It just means the spirit of the person cannot interact in any way with the physical world - nor, in fact, with the spirit world… it is ‘sleeping’)

 

[paarsurrey]

The scriptures says that the spirit of the dead go to a dormant state in God and await the first and second resurrections where judgement takes place upon them.

So, no, resting in God is not a heavenly state (nothing to do with opposite, so called, ‘Hell’ state. It just means the spirit of the person cannot interact in any way with the physical world - nor, in fact, with the spirit world… it is ‘sleeping’)

" The scriptures says "

If one is a follower of Yeshua- the Israelite Messiah, then kindly quote from him in this connection, please. Right?

Regards
_____________
Previous posts at page 1,2,3