Islam and Judaism are refuted.

[Sand Dancer]

If Jesus was a Jew then he would have been recognized. From what I've heard Jesus had very little knowledge of Judaism and could never have been a rabbi.

Interesting. Any book references? I need to add to my already large and toppling stack.

 

[sooda]

Oh, I didn't know that. Is there a book reference or anything? I love reading about the order that the books were written and context, etc.

There is a thread .. The Genesis of Genesis.

 

[siti]

What fails in vast contradictions is the exclusive primacy of any one ancient religion IF God exists, which would be a severe contradiction in God's relationship to Creation IF God exists..

Why "ancient"? And how ancient does any "one...religion" have to be before it is denied "exclusive primacy" on the grounds of age?

 

[siti]

You basically believe there 'is no way' to make any ancient scriptures justify anything. Nothing new here concerning your view toward all religions.

Absolutely not! Isaiah 9 prophesies the appearance of a wise ruler who would occupy the "throne of David" for ever...clearly that has not happened - at least not yet anyways. From that POV, the most sensible interpretation of that verse would be the Jewish one - wouldn't it?

 

[dybmh]

@sooda ,

Have you considered that what you perceive as "The Truth" could be an elaborate attempt to evade detection by The Creator?

This technique is known in the US Military as laying a deception trail. It is a passive counter-tracking technique intended to mislead a "Hunter Force".

 

[sooda]

@sooda ,

Have you considered that what you perceive as "The Truth" could be an elaborate attempt to evade detection by The Creator?

This technique is known in the US Military as laying a deception trail. It is a passive counter-tracking technique intended to mislead a "Hunter Force".

"Evade detection"? What does that mean?

In 1929 they found Ras Shamra. In 1945 they found the Nag Hammadi, In 1946 they found the Dead Sea Scrolls. Then they found the Dilmun tablets in 1987.

You want to hide all that away?

 

[siti]

Have you considered that what you perceive as "The Truth" could be an elaborate attempt to evade detection by The Creator?

You mean he's only pretending not to be there? Hmmm! Well if God doesn't want to be found, I happy to leave him to it. If he's just playing hide and seek he'll soon get fed up and pop out I reckon.

 

[KT Shamim]

In 1947 the Isaiah scroll was found in the Dead Sea, one found out that it was written in the 2nd century B.C. and therefore it is the oldest preserved manuscript of a whole book of the Bible. It was also found that the found Isaiah scroll is completely identical with the book of Isaiah in the Bible. This proves firstly that at least the book of Isaiah was not falsified, secondly that Jesus is the true God and the Father of eternity(Isaiah 9:6) and thirdly that Jesus was executed to die for the sins of mankind(Isaiah 53).

1947 was the year in which the Islam and the Judaism were refuted.

Here can you read the Isaiah scroll

Feel sorry for all those born before 1947 ...
"at least Isiah" ... translation: the rest of the books don't match?
Comon ...

 

[YoursTrue]

There are many sources. Here's one.

When was Genesis written? - Quora
https://www.quora.com/When-was-Genesis-written
Feb 23, 2018 · The Priestly Source, who wrote during or shortly after the Babylonian Exile; The Redactor, who redacted the work of these sources into more or less the Book of Genesis we know today. It may have been Philo of Alexandria who, in the first century CE, first attributed Genesis to Moses.

Didn't Genesis attribute the writing in Genesis to Moses? Clearly the account of Moses death was not written by him, but there is no reason to believe Moses did not write the first five books.

First, what they edited, redacted, and compiled they thought was the truth as happened virtually all the cultures of the world as their writings evolved over time. The traditions of their sources was respected.

No not inconsistent at all, infact the objective evidence demonstrates that the Jewish scholars edited, redacted, and compiled the evolved scriptures from different older Canaanite, Ugarit, Babylonian, and Sumerian literature.

Facts are facts of the text analysis and matter of fact history. The Hebrew language itself evolved from Canaanite/Ugarit rather late in Middle East history.

What is written in the scriptures is true, I believe. Let's say for the sake of argument, however, they are not. Then what? Millions upon millions of people throughout the centuries therefore have believed lies. And the Jews have been very careful throughout the centuries to copy exactly what was considered as holy documents. I have no reason to believe the scriptures are not true or that Moses did not write Genesis.

 

[sooda]

Didn't Genesis attribute the writing in Genesis to Moses? Clearly the account of Moses death was not written by him, but there is no reason to believe Moses did not write the first five books.

What is written in the scriptures is true, I believe. Let's say for the sake of argument, however, they are not. Then what? Millions upon millions of people throughout the centuries therefore have believed lies. And the Jews have been very careful throughout the centuries to copy exactly what was considered as holy documents. I have no reason to believe the scriptures are not true or that Moses did not write Genesis.

They have known for 200 years that Moses didn't write the Pentateuch.

 

[siti]

What is written in the scriptures is true, I believe. Let's say for the sake of argument, however, they are not. Then what? Millions upon millions of people throughout the centuries therefore have believed lies.

Well that argument fails immediately - there have always been more far people in the world who either knew nothing of the Bible or disbelieved it.

 

[PruePhillip]

Isaiah proves nothing of the sort. It mentions nothing about anything that you say it does.

Isaiah isn't so much an Old Testament prophet but a New Testament prophet.
He wasn't much concerned with the rites and rituals of the Law but with love,
truth and the coming Messiah.
The Messiah and his promises is a common theme in his writings.
And Isaiah gave us, in one and a half chapters, a complete Gospel some
500 or 600 years before Jesus.

 

[Trailblazer]

In 1947 the Isaiah scroll was found in the Dead Sea, one found out that it was written in the 2nd century B.C. and therefore it is the oldest preserved manuscript of a whole book of the Bible. It was also found that the found Isaiah scroll is completely identical with the book of Isaiah in the Bible. This proves firstly that at least the book of Isaiah was not falsified, secondly that Jesus is the true God and the Father of eternity(Isaiah 9:6) and thirdly that Jesus was executed to die for the sins of mankind(Isaiah 53).

1947 was the year in which the Islam and the Judaism were refuted.

Here can you read the Isaiah scroll

Isaiah 9:6-7 cannot refer to Jesus because Jesus disclaimed being the Mighty God when He called Himself “the Son of God” (John 5:18-47) and in those verses Jesus repudiates the charge that He claimed equality with God. Jesus disclaimed being the everlasting Father when He said, “my Father is greater than I” (John 14:28) and Jesus disclaimed being the Prince of Peace when He said, “I came not to send peace, but a sword” (Matthew 10:34). Jesus disclaimed bearing the government upon His shoulder when He said to “rend onto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's” (Mark 12:17, Matthew 22:21). Jesus disclaimed that He would establish a kingdom where he would rule with judgment and justice forever when He said, “My kingdom is not of this world” (John 18:36).

Isaiah 9:6-7 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this.

All of Isaiah 53 is referring to the Messiah (He) but all of Isaiah 53 is not referring to Jesus Christ.
Isaiah 53:8, 9, and 10 cannot refer to Jesus. Jesus was not taken from prison and from judgment. Jesus did not make his grave with the wicked and the rich. Jesus did not see His seed. Jesus’ days were cut short, they were not prolonged.

Isaiah 53:8-10 He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken. And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth. Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand.

 

[sooda]

Isaiah isn't so much an Old Testament prophet but a New Testament prophet.
He wasn't much concerned with the rites and rituals of the Law but with love,
truth and the coming Messiah.
The Messiah and his promises is a common theme in his writings.
And Isaiah gave us, in one and a half chapters, a complete Gospel some
500 or 600 years before Jesus.

Isaiah

 

[dybmh]

"Evade detection"? What does that mean?

In 1929 they found Ras Shamra. In 1945 they found the Nag Hammadi, In 1946 they found the Dead Sea Scrolls. Then they found the Dilmun tablets in 1987.

You want to hide all that away?

No. I don't want to hide anything.

All I am doing is introducing a plausible counter argument. You have claimed with 100% certainty on multiple occasions that the Old Testament is a lie. You appear to be on a mission to discredit it. I don't blame you for following the clues. But, I do think your enthusiasm renders a lack of objectivity and hyperbolic language.

What you are following could be a deception trail laid by The Creator in order to maintain plausible deniability. It's something I have written about a few times here.

I don't think God wants to be found. I don't think that God wants the Old Testament to be proven to be true.

...

The evidence you have presented seems to fall into 4 categories:

1) Dates recorded of events in the Old Testament do not match archaeological evidence.
2) Stories of fantastical super natural events lack archaeological and scientific evidence.
3) Textual analysis indicates that the Old Testament was written by multiple humans at varying points in history possibly out of sequence.
4) Language, names, and stories in the Old Testament resemble language, names, and stories of indigenous people who predate earliest written texts of the Old Testament.

But this evidence does not render the absolute certainty of your claims that is described by the words that you use. It's likely that you're right. But I don't think it's certain.

An Omnipotent Creator who does not want to be found would be able to create a deception trail, a cover story, in order to evade detection. You appear to be certain that the academic scholarship refutes the Old Testament beyond the shadow of a doubt. But it doesn't. I propose that it is highly likely you are correct. I propose that this is how it appears. But it's not certain. It's not proven. It's still just a theory, IMO.

You asked: "Evade Detection, what does that mean?"

There is a science to evasion. It is studied and taught by US Military ( and others ). One of the techniques for military evasion behind enemy lines is passive counter-tracking.

In practice: if a pilot is shot down or a soldier is caught behind enemy lines, and escapes, the escapee or pilot becomes a target and is hunted by enemy soldiers, "The Hunter Force". The enemy soldiers track the target guided by clues. They follow a trail left behind as the target attempts to flee. As you can imagine, the odds are in favor of the Hunter. The target needs to evade the Hunter; they need to evade detection. Basically, this means, they need to hide. But hiding isn't enough. The target needs to be smart, and like I said, there is a science to this. US Military pilots, special forces military units, intelligence officers go to school to learn the science and skills of evasion.

One of these techniques to evade detection is laying a deception trail. The target knows that that it is impossible to flee without leaving a trail of some kind. And the target knows that they are being pursued. So, if the target wants to evade detection, they can create a false trail confusing the Hunter, then double back and take a less obvious route to safety.

Note: this technique works very well if the Hunters are over confident and underestimate the resourcefulness of their target. The Hunter follows the obvious path, while the target is heading in a completely different direction.

In this analogy, you are the Hunter. God is the target. God does not want to be found, and could be laying a deception trail which is playing into your over confidence leading you to a false conclusion.

Why would God do this? Because I think that God doesn't want to be found.

You can continue to follow the "trail of clues" that is leading you to your conclusion that "It's all a lie." But, IMHO, I think it's a waste of time.

But feel free to continue on your mission to discredit and refute scripture. The path is clearly leading in that direction. But so far, it's just a trail.

 

[dybmh]

You mean he's only pretending not to be there? Hmmm! Well if God doesn't want to be found, I happy to leave him to it. If he's just playing hide and seek he'll soon get fed up and pop out I reckon.

Agreed.

 

[calm]

And, still in the real world, the Christian Jesus is never mentioned in the Tanakh. Not anywhere. Not even once.

But of course, Jesus is already mentioned in the first book.
Genesis 3:15:
I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your(devil) head, and you shall bruise his(Jesus) heel.

And the execution of Jesus for the sins of mankind is also mentioned. (Isaiah 53)

And Jesus birth is also mentioned.
Isaiah 7:14
Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel(Jesus).

there's a lot more...

 

[sooda]

But of course, Jesus is already mentioned in the first book.
Genesis 3:15:
I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your(devil) head, and you shall bruise his(Jesus) heel.

And the execution of Jesus for the sins of mankind is also mentioned. (Isaiah 53)

And Jesus birth is also mentioned.
Isaiah 7:14
Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel(Jesus).

there's a lot more...

Oh dear. Isaiah 53 is all about Israel.

 

[blü 2]

But of course, Jesus is already mentioned in the first book.
Genesis 3:15:
I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your(devil) head, and you shall bruise his(Jesus) heel.

As I said, you're entitled to believe what you please. The fact is, of course, that Jesus is nowhere mentioned in the Tanakh. If you doubt that, ask any Jew. Moreover, the snake in the Genesis Garden scene is not Satan, merely a talking snake who incurs God's wrath by telling Eve nothing but the truth. (If you disagree, quote any line attributed to the snake which is a lie.) If you'd read the Tanakh, you'd also know that there (as distinct from the NT) Satan is a courtier at the court of God, not the embodiment of badness ─ see eg Job.

And the execution of Jesus for the sins of mankind is also mentioned. (Isaiah 53)

The 'he' in Isaiah 53 is 'the Suffering Servant' towit the nation of Israel. The notion that it refers to Jesus is an attempted retrofit by someone who never bothered to understand what Isaiah is talking about.

And Jesus birth is also mentioned. Isaiah 7:14.
Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel(Jesus).

That's more attempted retrofitting. Check out what Isaiah 7 actually says:
a young woman (Hebrew`almah which doesn't specify a virgin) will conceive and bear a son: In Mark, Jesus is the child of ordinary Jewish parents, who becomes special at his baptism when adopted by God in the manner that God adopted David in Psalm 2:7 ─ nothing of virgins or annunciations. Not until Matthew and Luke do we get a virgin mother inseminated by God (which is what Greek gods do, not the Hebrew god).

And the young woman will call the son 'Immanuel': whereas Jesus was called Jesus.

The son will eat curds and honey: not a matter associated with Jesus.

And before the son reaches the years of discretion, the land ruled by the two kings whom Ahaz dreads "shall be deserted" ─ that's to say, we're back in Ahaz's day, in the earlier half of the 8th century BCE, not in Caesar's day.

there's a lot more...

Of the same; and all of it is retrofitting and none of it is about Jesus.

Not in history, anyway. Of course, in a story, anything can happen ─ Harry can ride a broomstick, one fish can feed a thousand folks &c.

 

[sooda]

As I said, you're entitled to believe what you please. The fact is, of course, that Jesus is nowhere mentioned in the Tanakh.

If you doubt that, ask any Jew. Moreover, the snake in the Genesis Garden scene is not Satan, merely a talking snake who incurs God's wrath by telling Eve nothing but the truth. (If you disagree, quote any line attributed to the snake which is a lie.)

If you'd read the Tanakh, you'd also know that there (as distinct from the NT) Satan is a courtier at the court of God, not the embodiment of badness ─ see eg Job.

The 'he' in Isaiah 53 is 'the Suffering Servant' towit the nation of Israel. The notion that it refers to Jesus is an attempted retrofit by someone who never bothered to understand what Isaiah is talking about.

That's more attempted retrofitting. Check out what Isaiah 7 actually says:
a young woman (Hebrew`almah which doesn't specify a virgin) will conceive and bear a son: In Mark, Jesus is the child of ordinary Jewish parents, who becomes special at his baptism when adopted by God in the manner that God adopted David in Psalm 2:7 ─ nothing of virgins or annunciations. Not until Matthew and Luke do we get a virgin mother inseminated by God (which is what Greek gods do, not the Hebrew god).

And the young woman will call the son 'Immanuel': whereas Jesus was called Jesus.

The son will eat curds and honey: not a matter associated with Jesus.

And before the son reaches the years of discretion, the land ruled by the two kings whom Ahaz dreads "shall be deserted" ─ that's to say, we're back in Ahaz's day, in the earlier half of the 8th century BCE, not in Caesar's day.

Of the same; and all of it is retrofitting and none of it is about Jesus.

Not in history, anyway. Of course, in a story, anything can happen ─ Harry can ride a broomstick, one fish can feed a thousand folks &c.

Excellent post. Why didn't Calm know these scriptures?

As for
Genesis 3:15


And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. Christian Standard Bible I will put hostility between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring. He will strike your head, and you will strike his heel. Contemporary English Version

So obviously talking about the snake and humankind.. Nothing to do with Jesus.