JESUS, God, the Ordinal First and Last

[joelr]

More copy paste without addressing the issues.

It depends on how one defines a Jew. Who was the first Jew? The person who believed in 1 creator lawgiver god who revealed itself to them. No one really knows who first came up with the idea or when.

I'll deal with this. But you can make claims about copy/paste, obviously it's because you have no sources. I'm backing up my arguments by demonstrating PhDs explaining this is the consensus and why. All evidence leads up to a picture and it is the best version of truth we have.

The Israelites did not exist in Mesopotamia to have oral stories. Again Dr Joel Baden, my favorite scholar on OT studies, will explain the consensus of what is the origin of Israel. Biblical evidence also backs this up and is part of the understanding. Before 1200 There were no Israelites, they were Canaanites with El as their supreme deity.


Israel Origins

Dr Joel Baden (author of The Composition of the Pentateuch) Harvard PhD

1:20

No slavery in Egypt, no Exodus, in 1300 BCE most “Israelites” lived on coastlines and major cities and were Canaanites. In 12000 all eastern Mediterranean civilization failed (crop failure, late Bronze Age collapse, happens in all nearby regions) as well as arrival of Philistines. Cities were not safe or sustainable. Eastern migration happens. Archaeologically it’s known many towns arise suddenly in mountain regions.

These communities begin to form larger tribes.

A fictive kinship is created tracing these people back to Judah. Pressure from Philistines cause military alliances and brings a new sense of identity.

Yahweh likely comes from southern myths (Bible actually says Yahweh is from south).

Not known exactly when Yahweh began to be worshipped.



All of Israel was never in Egypt. Some individual people may have come from Egypt.

These people organized into one nation unlike Philistines who were individual city-states. Bible actually says this is why they came together.

External pressure to unite, defense, economic, similar to U.S.



This is not at all what the Bible says but is the consensus opinion based on all available archaeological, literary and comparative data.

 

[joelr]

but it busted your so called claim of a contridiction..... (smile)

It most certainly did not. That information is not peer-reviewed and there is no evidence it's consensus in the field. It's written by amateur apologists.

oh yes you can, when one have an amateur, and IGNORANT as your Dr. Ehrman's if he, and YOU, would have read what the Lord Jesus said, and what he was speaking of ...... a first grader would debunk the so-called scholar. Listen and Learn,

Mark 2:26 "How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the shewbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him?"

did the Lord Jesus say Abiathar gave David the Bread? no he said IN, IN, IN, the days of Abiathar the high priest. anyone of the priesthood could have given David the bread ...... but the Lord said, in the days of Abiathar as High priest.

see, this is how LIES get started ..... by IGNORANT amateur so-called scholars. and yes, scholars do LIE as we see here.

101G

huh? That isn't the contradiction, it's the wrong high priest, it's supposed to be in the days when someone else was the high priest?????

Maybe you should ask that first grader.

 

[joelr]

@joelr
do any of your gods ever make the claim that they are the "Diversity" or the EQUAL "SHARE" of themselves in Flesh? check your mythology records.

for if they do not then there is no claim, or connection to the ONLY TRUE, and LIVING GOD, "JESUS"/YESHUA.

also I challenge you to find in your mythology records a god who saves all that he or she created by his or her death, and resurrect own their own power by themselves?

will be looking to hear from you.

101G.

Why would that make a myth true? That is the worst logic ever. Lord of the Rings came up with all sorts of new fiction. It' still not real?

But yes, many demigods resurrected. Many Gods created everything.


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.

Here is one, there are 7 more who are per-Jesus

Not only does Plutarch say Osiris returned to life and was recreated, exact terms for resurrection (anabiôsis and paliggenesia: On Isis and Osiris 35; see my discussion in The Empty Tomb, pp. 154-55), and also describe his physically returning to earth after his death (Plutarch, On Isis and Osiris 19), but the physical resurrection of Osiris’s corpse is explicitly described in pre-Christian pyramid inscriptions! Osiris was also resurrected, according to Plutarch, on the “third day,” and died during a full moon, just like Christ: Passover occurs during the full moon; and in Plutarch, On Isis and Osiris 39 and 42, Osiris dies on the 17th of Athyr, the concluding day of the full moon, and is raised on the 19th, two days later—thus three days inclusively, just like Jesus.

Plutarch goes on to explicitly state that this resurrection on earth (set in actual earth history) in the same body he died in (reassembled and restored to life) was the popular belief, promoted in allegorical tales by the priesthood—as was also the god’s later descent to rule Hades. But the secret “true” belief taught among the initiated priesthood was that Osiris becomes incarnate, dies, and rises back to life every year in a secret cosmic battle in the sublunar heavens. So in fact, contrary to Ehrman (who evidently never actually read any of the sources on this point), Plutarch says the belief that Osiris went to Hades was false (On Isis and Osiris 78); and yet even in that “public” tale, Osiris rules in Hades in his old body of flesh, restored to life. Hence still plainly resurrected. But as Plutarch explains (On Isis and Osiris 25-27 & 54 and 58), the esoteric truth was that the god’s death and resurrection occurs in sublunar space, after each year descending and taking on a mortal body to die in; and that event definitely involved coming back to life in a new superior body, in which Osiris ascends to a higher realm to rule from above, all exactly as was said of the risen Jesus (who no more remained on earth than Osiris did). The only difference is that when importing this into Judaism, which had not a cyclical-eternal but a linear-apocalyptic conception of theological history, they converted the god’s dying-and-rising to a singular apocalyptic event.

And that’s just Osiris. Clearly raised from the dead in his original, deceased body, restored to life; visiting people on earth in his risen body; and then ruling from heaven above. And that directly adjacent to Judea, amidst a major Jewish population in Alexandria, and popular across the whole empire. But as Plutarch said in On the E at Delphi 9, many religions of his day “narrate deaths and vanishings, followed by returns to life and resurrections.” Not just that one. Plutarch names Dionysus as but an example (and by other names “Zagreus, Nyctelius, and Isodaetes“). And we know for a fact this Dionysus wasn’t the only example Plutarch would have known. Plutarch only names him because he was so closely associated with Osiris, and the most famous.


https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/13890

 

[joelr]

Paragraphs ignoring the point, again. Ancient myths began as oral story telling. Who wrote it first is irrelevant.

As I have demonstrated Israel wasn't around before 1200, they would be Canaanites.

But let's get more evidence on the borrowing anyways.


Does the Bible Borrow from other Myths?

Megan Lewis explains how the Bible is borrowing from the Mesopotamian stories. This intertextuality is usually ignored or rationalized by Jewish/Christian Apologist to say that the other cultures borrowed from the Bible instead of visa-versa


7:14 further explanation on intertexuality, ancient Israelites would be using original source material (Mesopotamian) and using it and expanding on it. Israelites use this story to create new version with a more just deity. Basically same story.

 

[joelr]

You claimed she said "Yahweh and his asherah", but she didn't. You were wrong and won't admit it.

Now you bring up arrow heads, but no inscription of Yahweh.

.

So the Ashera thing is disputed. However the largest meta study by scholars has concluded that the inscription says Yahweh and his Ashera. Evidence.
Now the Babylonian thing is done, the consensus opinion of scholars looking at all evidence shows Israelites were not telling Jewish stories until WAY after 1200 BCE. Not written, not oral. The evidence tells a very clear story. The Bible backs it up. Their motivation, timeline, reason for uniting, all known. No oral stories except for Canaanite stories. Which is why I said you are inventing a fiction based on your imagination. You are doing exactly that.

Now, Ashera, Dever was most likely correct. The sources are over 200 peer-reviewed papers and books. It's very long but the main points are -
Conclusion

Through examining the various proposals that have been made for elucidating ʾšrth from KA and KQom we have been able to establish that it most likely has reference to a common noun denoting YHWH’s female partner: “his asherah.” This understanding of the phrase not only does no violence to the evidence that inscriptional asherah is a female deity paired with YHWH, but it also harmonizes best with the lexical-syntactic evidence that asherah is declined with a pronominal suffix with YHWH as the antecedent.

…we can begin by pointing out that the argument in favor of interpreting ʾšrth as a deity is in fact functional in nature and has fairly little to do with the lexical-semantic value of the term asherah as used in other NWS texts. The argument combines a number of factors both internal and external to the inscriptions, which can be listed in the order of their importance:


1) In the context of the inscriptions ʾšrth is invoked parallel with YHWH as an independent object of blessing. The parallelism is marked syntactically by the l- attached to both YHWH and ʾšrth and by the coordinating w- that separates them.[9] Regardless of the presence of a possible suffix on ʾšrt, the syntax of the blessing implies that YHWH and ʾšrth are corresponding divine entities (Dever 1984: 30; Müller 1992: 28; Frevel 1995: 20-21; Köckert 1998: 165; Miller 2000: 36; Zevit 2001: 404; Irsigler 2011: 142; Mandell 2012: 140).


2) In comparable blessings from the broader region only deities are named as objects of the formula brk l-: e.g. brktk lyhwh “I bless you to YHWH” (Arad); whbrktk lqws “I bless you to Qws” (Ḥorvat Uza); brktk lbʿl ṣpn wlkl ʾl tḥpnḥs “I bless you to Baal Zaphon and to all the gods of Tachpanchas” (Saqqara); brktky lptḥ “I bless you to Ptah” (Hermopolis); brktk lyhh wlḥnb “I bless you to YHWH and to Khnum” (Elephantine) (Margalit 1990: 276; Müller 1992: 28; Pardee 1995: 302; 2005: 282; Frevel 1995: 20-21; Tropper 2001: 101; Zevit 2001: 404; Rösel 2003: 107-121; Leuenberger 2008: 121 n. 35).


3) As a number of scholars have opined, inscription 3.1 on pithos A is linked to an illustration of what appears to be YHWH and his consort (Gilula 1979: 129-37; Margalit 1990: 274-78; Coogan 1987: 119; 2010: ; Schmidt 1995: 96-102; 2002: 107-108; Zevit 2001: 381-89; McCarter 2003a: 171; Mandell 2012: 136-137; cf. Uehlinger 1997: 142-46; 2016; Hadley 2000: 136-44; Beck 2012; Ornan 2016: 20; Schmidt 2016). Although many following Beck’s initial study of the iconography of Kuntillet ‘Ajrud have rejected any direct correlation of text and imagery, R. Thomas has recently offered a reassessment of the pithos imagery that supports identifying the Bes-like figures with YHWH and his female partner (2016).


4) The immediate archaeological context of the inscriptions at KA was evidently polytheistic. The divine name Baal is attested in at least two separate inscriptions, and El and “Name of El” are mentioned in a mythological context in a plaster wall inscription from the bench room (4.2; 4.4.1; cf. Dijkstra 2001: 24; Zevit 2001: 374, 404, 437; Mastin 2011: 81-82; Aḥituv, Eshel, and Meshel 2012: 133; Mandell 2012: 138; Levine 2014a: 39; Schmidt 2016: 90-94).


5) There is growing evidence for the worship of female deities in Iron Age Israel-Judah, including widespread use of pillar figurines, cultic dualism in the form of standing stones, and other pictorial imagery, such as an incised image of a god and goddess pair recovered from eighth-century Jerusalem (Kletter 1996; 2002; Uehlinger 1997; Köckert 1998; Keel and Uehlinger 1998; Johnston 2003; Dever 2005; 2014; Albertz 2008; Gilmour 2009; 2015; Bloch-Smith 2014; 2016; Römer 2015; L. Levine 2016; cf. Darby 2014; Stavrakopoulou 2016).


6) The lexeme asherah is often associated with female divinity in ancient Syria-Palestine, including in the Hebrew Bible (Day 1986: 385-408; 2002: 42-48; Wyatt 1999: 99-105; Merlo 2009a: 975-80).


Article sources over 200 peer-reviewed works



A New Analysis of YHWH’s asherah

 

[joelr]

538 b.c. and a.d. 1.

Again, you claimed the source in the video said the figurines had inscriptions of Yahweh and asherah. That's a misquote. Then you said these inscriptions were a line of evidence. That's an invention.

There is an inscription. I already sourced a meta study looking at all evidence.
But I'll source another PhD saying Dever was right.
God Had A Wife - Dr. John J Collins

1:56 There were people who thought Yahweh had a wife, William Dever is quite right about that.

No. You asked for PhD peer review, I asked for PhD peer review. That's what happened. Turn about is fair play. My position is agnostic. We don't know. Your position is it's known.

All I give is information done by peer-reviewed PhDs in the field. There is no "turnabout"? That is all I give and you attempt to downplay it with "copy and paste isn't getting to the whatever.." as if it's not directly about the issue. Well it is. I've shown my case. It's consensus opinion on myth borrowing and strong evidence for Ashera.

Your agnostic position isn't shared by scholars. Not interested in opinions or claims based on fantasy.

I did find a couple of scholars supporting my agnostic view. I don't have their books, but I did find a quote.

Peter Enns - Wikipedia

Biblical scholar, graduated from Harvard. Not a fundementalist. Critical of biblical history.

In his book, The Evolution of Adam, page 23, he says:

“The Pentateuch was not authored out of whole cloth by a second-millennium Moses but is the end product of a complex literary process—written, oral, or both—that did not come to a close until the postexilic period. This summary statement, with only the rarest exception, is a virtual scholarly consensus after one and a half centuries of debate”
​

There you go. Here's a scholar, taking the moderate approach. He says the consensus is, the bible might come from oral tradition. Maybe writing, maybe oral, maybe both.

What do you mean "There you go"? The post ecilic period is 538 b.c. and a.d. 1...........?
Yes, Genesius was written in 6 BCE. Israel was not a people in 1200 BCE. Mesopotamia had already written down all of the myths and the exiled Irsaelite Kings in captivity would have been exposed to these myths, went home and wrote them down. That is what the evidence shows.

There's also this:. Form criticism - Wikipedia. The analysis of biblical scripture which traces it back to an oral tradition.

So there you have it. Scholars that agree, the bible could be the result of oral tradition. Who wrote it first is irrelevant.

Sure, after 1200 when small tribes came together, and slowly after external and internal pressure caused a union (centuries go by) they started telling oral stories.
When they hear the Mesopotamian myths they use those for the Bible.

Wow, you're on a first name basis... Go you.

Anyways, that's false. She doesn't say Yahweh and his asherah. I didn't leave out her words. You misquoted.

The inscription says Yahweh and his Ashera. Evidence suggests Yahweh had a wife.

And you have repeatedly ignored that ancient myths began as oral story telling. Who wrote it first is irrelevant.

And all of this reading hasn't enabled you to address these simple questions.

Sure. That's what I meant. It started as a story about an individual. So, the popular practice of a group of people labeled Israelites is irrelevant.

Why not?

When it was written is irrelevant. Ancient myths began as oral story telling.

Yes and this nonsense about putting forth the idea that the Israelites were around telling stories 1000 years before they existed is what I've been explaining to you is crank.
Now we have Joel Baden saying "they didn't even..... (exist yet)" when the direct question was put to him. This is what I've been saying all along.

 

[joelr]

Based on an assumption.

No based on all evidence. This is consensus and your idea about Israelites being around to compete with Mesopotamian oral stories is pure fantasy. You are making ridiculous fundamentalist claims while using logic to attack me. It's a huge fail by you.

Both of those are missing in the Hebrew bible. No messianic savior, not God vs. Devil. Those are not in the Hebrew bible. Those are in commentary.

There are passages in the OT that are interpreted as being messianic. Daniel refers to life after death and a bodily resurrection. That is a big Persian myth.

Note:. Your source says monotheism wasn't borrowed.

No Professor F.S. says during the Persian period is when they began to focus solely on Yahweh centered worship. So it's a coincidence that the Persians were already doing that and they took so much from them. Nope.

Doctrines



fundamental doctrines became disseminated throughout the region, from Egypt to the Black Sea: namely that there is a supreme God who is the Creator; that an evil power exists which is opposed to him, and not under his control; that he has emanated many lesser divinities to help combat this power; that he has created this world for a purpose, and that in its present state it will have an end; that this end will be heralded by the coming of a cosmic Saviour, who will help to bring it about; that meantime heaven and hell exist, with an individual judgment to decide the fate of each soul at death; that at the end of time there will be a resurrection of the dead and a Last Judgment, with annihilation of the wicked; and that thereafter the kingdom of God will come upon earth, and the righteous will enter into it as into a garden (a Persian word for which is 'paradise'), and be happy there in the presence of God for ever, immortal themselves in body as well as soul. These doctrines all came to be adopted by various Jewish schools in the post-Exilic period, for the Jews were one of the peoples, it seems, most open to Zoroastrian influences - a tiny minority, holding staunchly to their own beliefs, but evidently admiring their Persian benefactors, and finding congenial elements in their faith. Worship of the one supreme God, and belief in the coming of a Messiah or Saviour, together with adherence to a way of life which combined moral and spiritual aspirations with a strict code of behaviour (including purity laws) were all matters in which Judaism and Zoroastrianism were in harmony; and it was this harmony, it seems, reinforced by the respect of a subject people for a great protective power, which allowed Zoroastrian doctrines to exert their influence. The extent of this influence is best attested, however, by Jewish writings of the Parthian period, when Christianity and the Gnostic faiths, as well as northern Buddhism, all likewise bore witness to the profound effect: which Zoroaster's teachings had had throughout the lands of the Achaernenian empire.


God

t Zoroaster went much further, and in a startling departure from accepted beliefs proclaimed Ahura Mazda to be the one uncreated God, existing eternally, and Creator of all else that is good, including all other beneficent divinities.


Also what is the beliefs today regarding the afterlife, Satan and his relationship with God?
A general resurrection at the end of the world is a Persian myth. Everyone gets new eternal bodies and lives in paradise. Yes it's in Revelations but is it part of Judaism and the afterlife doctrine?
Is Satan considered a negative influence on humanity? Like in Christianity. Those are Persian ideas that merged into Hebrew thought and became Christian.

. Except where all nations will be blessed in Genesis. Through Abraham. And Psalms 67

Or not.

Umm nope. The story of the Abraham with the 3 angels, soddom and gemorrah. The angel of death in Exodus, the protecting angel in the desert, the angel who contacts Joshua before Jericho. The angel in the burning bush. Clearly, Joel, you don't know enough of the Hebrew bible to pick out the false statements. Anyways Grier is a professor of philosophy, right. That explains these mistakes.

More irrelevant flotsam. There is no firey hell in the Hebrew bible, as stated above. This is just copy-paste lacking any connection to the topic.

Enoch isn't the Hebrew bible. The only extant version is in Ge'ez. And Psalms of Solomon???? What's that? Does he mean Song of Solomon? I mean, this source can't translate shir hashirim, and you consider it valuable?? He's clearly not using Jewish sources, but you believe it with all your heart.

Let me remind of the "sweet savour" claim that you had totally false. But boy oh boy was it important to you.
so what, there's no detectable change in the position on homosexuality. Another copy-paste fail. Does not address the point.

Ah. Yes, that's a contradiction, and a definite change. But it has nothing to with freewill. So, good job, you found something partially true buried in the spaghetti thrown at the wall.

Philosophy not Biblical credentials.

Yes the non-experts will err. I don't know who's correct on this, I'm not going to stand behind a non-expert, I just had the article in my Boyce notes. Just makes my use of experts more solid. My points about Ashera and borrowed myths are demonstrated to be reasonable and likely correct.

 

[joelr]

Still no change, this reflected in multiple books multiple authors of the Hebrew bible. Still no evidence of borrowing. Just similar beliefs.

Sure similar beliefs that happen right as they come into contact with the Persians. Judaism is highly syncretic, of this there is no doubt. Why they wouldn't also be influenced by the Persians after taking so much material from other cultures?

And the sweet savor line was copied as scholarship tells you. Denial doesn't change anything in the real world.

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; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth ; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done.


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.


Flood Myths Older Than The Bible - Dr. Joshua Bowen

Assyriologist who specialized in Sumerian literary and liturgical compositions


1:25

OT scholars will say Genesis is using a Mesopotamian background and apologist will say

“Well no, there is no literary evidence that shows it borrowed, we cannot show literal evidence”…”it was in the air”….”how do you know it wasn’t true”…….somehow downplaying the Mesopotamian background…

2:57 Dr Josh Bowen - there is no question as far as Biblical scholars and Assyriologists are concerned that the Biblical text is much later than Mesopotamian text and it’s borrowing directly or subtly from Mesopotamia.

References monograph - Subtle Citation, Allusion and Translation in the Hebrew Bible by Z. Zevit. Explains intertexuality and what Hebrew Bible is doing. Not seen as plagiarism in the ancient world.

21:00

Enuma Elish, Babylonian creation myth Genesis 1 borrows from, is recited every year at the New Years festival. Exiled Israelite kings were in captivity in Babylonia. Genesis was written after the Exile.

Genesis demythicizes the Babylonian stories.

23:22

“(Well we don’t know which came first), is nonsense, we do know. The textual tradition for the flood story is much much earlier than the Biblical text. Israel is NOT EVEN A……”

 

[joelr]

The version of the Nu'u myth that matches closest is ignored. But the version of Gilgamesh that matches is retained, by choice. Yes, hypocrisy.

The consensus is that Gilamesh is the source. Sorry you cannot deal with this fact.

Yeah, it does. If both came from a common tradition. Then the Noah story wasn't copied from Gilgamesh.

Which isn't the point. I'm not arguing Mesopotamian myths are original. Just that Genesis uses older myths as a source.

No, if the written Noah story coming from a Jewish oral tradition which communicates a Jewish theme, with Jewish characters isn't syncretic. Remember, there needs to be something foreign added to be syncretism. A written story based on a common tradition is not syncretism unless something foreign is added and you just can't find that. Ezekiel is a change, but not borrowed. And that's all you've got so far.

So you know nothing about how this is determined. Intertexuality is explaimed a bit in 2 videos By Dr Bowen and another scholar.



Th

e lack of concern for details is noted. And There's that "God message" straw man again. Keep going!

Wow, grasping at straws. Pick on details for no good reason except to attempt to discredit me? As I stated Dr Gaslight, I'm saying Genesis sourced earlier myths. Where they started I don't know because it goes back too far for scholars to know.

But you're not bringing the peer reviewed work which would include... Drumroll.... Peer review.
Sure maybe they have been peer reviewed, but your bringing copy-paste claims lacking critical analysis. And you don't have knowledge of the language. You don't have knowledge of the Hebrew bible. You don't know Hebrew commentary. Can't distinguish between fact and fiction. And all of this had resulted in false weak claims without qualification, without moderation.

Wow, go you. Moving the goalpost all over the field here! I better get a Phd, let's see.......oh, learn Hebrew commentary, learn fact or fiction...
Maybe then I can understand what these scholars are saying.....oh wait, I already can! Guess what...they are peer-reviewed, what they are sayinbg. is peer-reviewed information.

But guess what isn't?? That the Israelites were telling oral stories at the same time the Mesopotamians were. It's great that you can hide behind all these "problems" you find in me. It would be great if any of them actually mattered and were not just fallacies and gaslighting. Oh well, its what fundamentalism has to offer.
Claims without qualification LOL. Moderation, too funny. Let me call Joel Baden and see if he will moderate. What? HE doesn't need to? Because the information presented is direct and clear and syncretism isn't doubted at all now? Which is all I'm saying? Nice try but fail.
Please, keep attacking my copy paste, it's a clear sign. I'm backing up my words with scholarship. They are very certain of the syncretism.

But this is high level hypocracy. Inventing a solution to Genesis myths involving a hidden tribe of Israelites who can't exist to also create shared myths with Mesopotamians and then later downplaying my sources because there is no critical analysis. Wow. This is about as bad as the time someone said my scholars were obviously influenced by Satan.
You can make stuff up and it's debate over while my sources (which I actually have) don't count because you say the words "critical then "analysis".
It's dishonest among other things.

Look at you. You brought a paper that says it wasn't borrowed from Gilgamesh. Now you have to back pedal. And I was right all along. It's really been a great debate. Now maybe you'll cease with the copy paste nonsense, spamming threads with false claims. Maybe. Well, I'll be here to remind you of this debate if you're tempted to repeat all this again.

It hasn't been great. You are in denial and attempting to discredit me in desperation. I'm demonstrating what I'm saying about syncretism is as sure as we can be in history. And the Israelites did not exist as a unified group until after the 1000BCE mark. 1200 was just the collapse of the Bronze age which started it all off.

What you want me to do here is panic because Gilamesh was also syncretic? Doesn't matter? No God, ever, gave anyone a story. They are all syncretic.

And again. It's not syncretic unless something foreign is added.

It's syncretic because all scholars who know what that means say so. Intertexuality was one aspect Dr Bowen explained.

What do you, you Joel, actually know about this hypothesis. Would you actually be able to identify a false claim about Hebrew bible? So far it seems like no. You have zealous faith in the conclusions, but probably have no clue how those conclusions are made.

I have his book on this. I'm not an expert. I do know Genesis is syncretic and sourced older stories. So did Moses, or his birth story.

Ummmm you do know mesopotamia is a place not a people, right? The first Jews could have been from mesopotamia. Those ideas could have been imported from Jews elsewhere.

Too much. You go on about how I'm this and that and then you go and enter complete crankitty crank into this. No, they were in Canaan. They did not unite as a people from Juda until way after 1200 BCE.

Yes, your bigotry is noted. Check out Kenneth Kitchen for an example of a scholar who challenges the documentary hypothesis. He published, was a professor, graduate from Harvard I think. Didn't write for answers for Genesis.

Then you are completely wrong again. If he's a scholar with a historical degree he isn't an apologist and likely agrees about the syncretic material.
I never said the Documentary Hypothesis was 100% correct? Apologists use crank, that isn't "bigotry" but gaslighters gotta gaslight so....

Ancient myths began as oral story telling. Who wrote it first is irrelevant. You just can't seem to address this issue. Just copy pasting more irrelevant off topic stuff.

Yup. Now pretend I'm not addressing the issue. Even though I've been explaining you have no evidence the Israelites were around to compete with ancient people. You have no evidence and now I've had to demonstrate how ridiculous your idea is.
You can invent complete crank based on fantasy yet you follow my every move, even getting into moderation and insane levels of issues. Then continue to try and downplay the consensus of scholars by calling it "irrelevant". So cheap and gaslight-y. Sorry, you lose.
None of your hypothesis are probable.

 

[joelr]

Explain? Nope just claims. But she does admit there's disagreement and dispute on these ideas, and qualifies them "perhaps" and "theoretically".

It's about 3 minutes of claims about rebranding, but no data is given.

2:02 "biblical scholarship is fraught with disagreement and dispute"

2:12 "Some parts of psalms may be very ancient."

2:34 "most people agree..."

3:14. Host asks "what are you beliefs?"
"Theoretically..."

4:24 " as part of rebuilding the community many traditions and perhaps written sources were rebranded."

Claims are your notion of Israelites existing in ancient Mesopotamia. And you don't say "perhaps" making them even more absurd.
Francesca Stavrakopoulou is an OT Professor and is explaining what the best evidence points to and without apologetics or fundamentalist bias. She is talking evidence and is an expert.
This is a common apologist trick. Make absurd claims, provide no evidence, pretend like they must be true, attack historical scholars for saying something is probable based on evidence and a lifetime of study and think it's settled. Ok. You don't care about what is actually true.
Cool, you don't have to. Fix problems by inventing things and the Israelites are always completely original because they got all this from a God. That works fine in your mind and beliefs. Still Isn't evidence and isn't a valid point.

She has also pointed out in her new book that Yahweh is a typical Near east deity, same old thing.

Francesca Stavrakopoulou PhD


9:00 nothing in the Bible is original, Yahweh is the same as all older Gods. Edheduanna was writing the same about Inana over 1000 years prior.

 

[joelr]

It's an *assumed* prenominal suffix.

View attachment 70892

As if the assumption of an educated scholar isn't worth anything. Nice try but hand waving scholars might help with denial but I'm interested in what is actually true. Not hand waving scholars to keep a myth literally true.
The more recent paper is a far more researched study. The evidence favors Yahweh had a wife Ashera.

Historians usually preface history with qualifiers because we can never know 100%. But these issues have been studied by excellent scholars and they assess all available information.
Fundamentalists come along, trying to make the stories literal and say "but they don't know for sure......" ok, whatever. Our best educated guess on truth.

The syncretism is certain however, too much evidence.



“(Well we don’t know which came first), is nonsense, we do know. The textual tradition for the flood story is much much earlier than the Biblical text. Israel is NOT EVEN A……” (nation at that time)
Dr Bowen

yes he studies the OT. He did a book project on the apologists nonsense regarding the OT and how it's crank. Which he researched and understands Hebrew.

 

[joelr]

to all,
the bible is clear, the First is also the Last. in Revelation 1:1 it states, "The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:"

Question, is this the same one "person" or is it two separate persons?
and one more, Matthew 24:36 "But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only."

if 101G is correct in Diversity, then how can the SAME one person not know his own return date, but yet at the same time know his return date, that's if he's Both Father and son the Same one person, and 101G believes this is the SAME one person.

yes, it is true, and the answer can be found in Revelation chapter 5. for he who sits on the THRONE is he who stands, (the Lamb), before the Throne.

101G.

Revelation is a copy of a Persian myth they began using after the Persian occupation. It made it into the NT.

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).

 

[101G]

It most certainly did not. That information is not peer-reviewed and there is no evidence it's consensus in the field. It's written by amateur apologists.

it's called common sense, what is only needed to reprove your so-called contradictions.

101G.

 

[101G]

Why would that make a myth true? That is the worst logic ever. Lord of the Rings came up with all sorts of new fiction. It' still not real?

man-made I careless for. I'm not into myths..... nor man-made ideas that are contrary to good sense.

101G.

 

[101G]

Revelation is a copy of a Persian myth they began using after the Persian occupation. It made it into the NT.

if it's a a copy of a Persian myth, then answer the question I put to YOU in Chapter 5?

will be looking for your answer.

101G.

 

[dybmh]

It isn't a fail because your imagination says so. It's the consensus opinion in scholarship. I will get into this further.

It's a fail because when the reasons for the concensus are examined, they are based on weak assumptions or complete falsehood.

Remember all the supposed examples of "borrowing" you brought from Nick Grier. How many of them were valid claims? Zero.

The vast consensus says yes.

Sure, first you said, there is no dispute, there is no disagreement. Now you have to roll that back.

BTW, repeatedly proving theres a concensus is a strawman. I've never disagreed that the conclusions are popular.

Every non-fundamentalist historian. All historical scholars.

Right, so if they disgree, they must be fundemenalists. And you claim to know "all historical scholars".

There is an extremely likely picture of Judaism based on evidence.

Uh-huh. Nice claim.

Starts in 1200 BCE and they were polytheistic. Monotheism came after the exile in 600 BCE.

You're describing a "folk religion" not Judaism. At best what you have is a popular practice. That doesn't exclude a minority of monothiests.

Watered down? LOL. It's time to put this to bed. I'm bringing in Dr Baden one of the most respected OT scholars, Harvard PhD and author of
The Composition of the Pentateuch.
Then some Dr Bowen

Yahweh and Ashera

again, consensus in scholarship.

Concensus based on weak assumptions. Everytime the assumptions are examined, they are weak. And it's been shown, you don't have the knowledge to identify the flaws. Another example of this is coming up.

Watered down? LOL. It's time to put this to bed. I'm bringing in Dr Baden one of the most respected OT scholars, Harvard PhD and author of
The Composition of the Pentateuch.
Then some Dr Bowen

Yahweh and Ashera

Yes! Let's put this to bed.

3:11 "The bible doesn't represent all of the people in Israel"

What??? Some people might have been monotheists? But you said that couldn't be, and Judaism as a monotheistic religion didn't exist??? I guess that was a false conclusion, based on your expert source.​

"The bible is the production of the super literate elite... that we can say for sure held the beliefs that we find in the bible."

What have I been saying? Judaism has always been the minority position.​

"What were the people on the ground doing? The answer is, whatever they wanted to do."

So. Per your expert scholar there was a deviation between what the elites believed, montheism, and what the common people practiced. Are we started to get an accurate picture? It's not that Judaism never existed, it just wasn't popular.
​

"Israel and Canaan weren't nearly as seperate as the bible wants us to believe"

So wait a minute. That means that the people who had the Yahweh and Asherah inscriptions could have been Canaanites copying Israelites, and not vice versa, because, the general population was so mixed. If the masses are indistiguishable, then what was inscribed on the tombs, the figurines, can't be used to define Israelites at all. Those people could have been canaanites. We just don't know.
​

"There's no culture where everyone agrees about their faith"

Your source is taking a moderate position. I like it! There could be monotheistic Jews mixed in there. We don't really know.
​

"In Israel I assume that not everyone beleived the same thing about Yahweh."

Jewish monotheism is an option, even among the general population.
​

"Some people believed that Yahweh had a consort, and probably some people didn't"

OK. There's the claim. Let's see if he, as you put it, puts this to bed and actually tells us the reasons that he thinks people believed Yahweh had a consort.
​

5:39 "I don't want to go so far as to say that to everyone in ancient Israel Ashera was Yahweh's consort. That makes it sound like everyone agreed. But I have no doubt that people in ancient Israel thought Yahweh had a consort. There is archeological evidence that might support such a thing."

BINGO! The archeology MIGHT support it. Bam. There's your own source refuting your claim that I'm imagining the ambiguity. Also, note: just a minute ago he said there were no distinctions between israelite and canaanite at that time, so even the acheology that MIGHT support such a thing, that evidence MIGHT be describing a canaanite and not an israelite.
​

"It doesn't surprise me at all. Just as it doesn't surprise me that some people said no, just him [Yahweh] just his own thing. So that's the important thing."

Your own source leaves open the possibility for a strict monotheist among the general population. And he says this is the important hing to keep in mind when considering Yahweh and a consort.
​

"So it's a probably. And people probably believed all sorts of stuff that we don't have any record of at all."

So wait a minute, wait a minute. So this means that the written record isn't telling us the whole story? What have I been saying this whole time? Who wrote it first is irrelevant. Am I imagining it? No! Your own source has confirmed it.​

 

[dybmh]

6:26 "It's not in the bible. We don't have clear archeological evidence for it."

BAM! No clear archealogical evidence. Did you even watch this video? We're definitely putting this to bed. Nice choice on the video.
​

"I'm sure there's things found archeologically that we're misinterpretting because we don't have any textual anchor to tell us what we're looking at.

What? The evidence isn't clear and it could be misinterpretted? It's ambiguous. I have been vindicated!!!!
​

"Our evidence is not at all complete."

Wow! So in order to make conclusions people have to ... what? They have to make assumptions.
​

"On the other side again, the bible seems to make reference to certain kinds of practice. Jeremiah has the line about the people worshipping the Queen of Heaven. And like, I don't know if we have great archealogical evidence for Queen of Heaven. But the bible tells us of all kinds of things people were doing wrong, that we can assume people were doing."

So, this is interesting. It sounds like he hasn't really examined the evidence himself. he said before hes not surprised to hear of the idea that *some* israelites believed Yahweh ahd a consort. Here he says, "I don't know if we have great evidence" for it. He doesn't know. He's heard about it, isn't surprised about it, but hasn't look at the evidence himself. So I guess he doesn't put that to bed for us, after all. ​

"Any time it says don't [in the bible] we can assume people were doing it."

I think that's false logic, but, we don't need to dwell on it.
​

"We may not have archealogical evidence for all that stuff"

Uh-huh. Conclusions are made without evidence. Got it.
​

"But I would bet money that some people had the canaanite goddess linked in with Yahweh"

Oh. Linked in. Not his queen, not his consort, but there was a connection, by some people and maybe they were israelites, maybe not.
​

"Israel's understanding of Yahweh is a whole mixture of stuff"

Careful here, let's not take this out of context. He's responding to a question and Israel here is the general population.
​

"There's some original authentic Yahweh stuff. Yahweh is a stom god it seems from the south somewhere."

OK, not really sure what evidence there is of this, but, we'll keep going.
​

"And then there's stuff that Israel borrowed from canaanite religion and egyptian religion, and mesopotamian religion in a variety of ways."

And examples of those are??? and how is it known that they were borrowed??? He just finished telling us that archealogical evidence is unclear, and it could be misinterpretted.
​

{paraphrasing} "Yahweh is israel's national deity, baal is the canaanite national deity, Ail is baal's dad, that's the same as Ail inthe bible"

Take note: the way he pronounces the canaanite father god. Not El, but Ail. That shows the man knows Hebrew. It also shows how important it is to get the vowels correct when making a claim about the canaanite / Judaism connection. I've shown you that the canaanite religion as documented in writing has no vowels. So the name of the canaanite father god is an assumption.
​

"There are parts of the the bible where it looks like Yahweh is being understood as belonging to something like a pantheon also."

... looks like ... understood ... something like a pantheon... so it's not clear
​

"Psalm 82 is a classic, Yahweh stands up in the divine assembly. It's called the assembly of Ail, the cheif god. And like essentially tells the all the other gods that they've failed at their jobs and he's going to take over now."

Sure, that's a hyperliteral way to read the psalm. The last verse doesn't make sense at all if that's how a person translates it, but, OK. It's a little wierd. It comes from Asaph, not King David. So, it's not something I would consider authoritative on who or what Yahweh is. It's how a person, an individual, not someone considered a prophet, is imagining Yahweh.
​

"You find this [the idea that the grand creator god placed different people in different places under the protection of different deities] in Deuteronomy 32 in this old poem in this old myth that in this distribution of lands and deities and Israel is the one that Yahweh gets."

OK, this one is very very weak. The only connection to the supposed canaanite pantheon is the word for "supreme" used once. There is not mention of other nations having their own deities. Also, I can't find any actual confirmation of the name "elyon" as a canaanite god. Just a bunch of claims.

What's good to note is the equivilance of demon to what is literally translated as "gods". You see, it's virtually impossible for a primitive person to distinguish between an angel, a demon, and a god. So one of the words that's translated as "God" or "gods" really could be any perceived mighty power, could be God, could be an idol, could be an angel, a demon, could be a judge. There's another mention of a "foreign god", but if one looks back it's actually an idol. They're mentioned in the story of Jacob. People were told to get rid of them. In context, how can a person, an individual "get rid of" ( I think that's the wording ) a god. They're just idols. Not literally "foreign gods".
​

"I don't want to go so far as to say Yahweh had a father, that's a little too much. It's a little too conflating of canaanite panteon and Yahweh. But Yahweh definitley participates in same myths that involve pantheons and divine family groups, I suppose."

Well. The two examples given don't support that.
​

"There's plenty of stuff in the bible that reflects a polytheistic understanding, polytheistic background, canaanite backgound, it's all in there, it's all been lumped into Yahweh."

Well, sure, the authors understood polytheism. And Yahweh being the one and only God is goind to ake on all the characteristics of what people see in a pantheon. But that doesn't really show any borrowing. There wasn' evidence brought of that.
​

And that's the end of the interview.

 

[dybmh]

5:45

No doubt there were people in ancient Israel that thought Yahweh had a consort Ashera

Hee-hee you snipped the quote short.

5:39 "I don't want to go so far as to say that to everyone in ancient Israel Ashera was Yahweh's consort. That makes it sound like everyone agreed. But I have no doubt that people in ancient Israel thought Yahweh had a consort. There is archeological evidence that might support such a thing."

Note: the evidence MIGHT support it. It sounds like he hasn't reviewed he evidence himself. That's why he says:

"It doesn't surprise me at all. Just as it doesn't surprise me that some people said no, just him [Yahweh] just his own thing. So that's the important thing."

See. He hasn't looked at the evidence himself, he's just not surprised by the claim, and he counter claims that montheism is just as likely.

Also, he stated that the lines between canaanite and israelite are weak. That means, those folks inscribing yahweh and asherah on their walls might not even being israelites.

Yahweh is a mix of all sorts of stuff

Original Yahweh - he is a storm God from the south

Then there is all this stuff Israel borrowed from Canaanite religion

Then there is stuff Israel borrowed from Egyptian religion and Mesopotamian religion in various ways.

Parts of the Bible Yahweh appears to be part of a pantheon, just as Canaanite Gods.

Sloppy quoting. Anyway, the examples he brought don't reflect this. So it's still a claim without evidence.

 

[dybmh]

Flood Myths Older Than The Bible - Dr. Joshua Bowen

Oh boy, this one is funny. Thanks for the laugh.

1:25

OT scholars will say Genesis is using a Mesopotamian background and apologist will say

“Well no, there is no literary evidence that shows it borrowed, we cannot show literal evidence”…”it was in the air”….”how do you know it wasn’t true”…….somehow downplaying the Mesopotamian background…

That's the host speaking, the atheist preacher...

2:57 Dr Josh Bowen - there is no question as far as Biblical scholars and Assyriologists are concerned that the Biblical text is much later than Mesopotamian text and it’s borrowing directly or subtly from Mesopotamia.

Uh-huh, there's the claim. I notice you skipped posting the actual examples.

References monograph - Subtle Citation, Allusion and Translation in the Hebrew Bible by Z. Zevit. Explains intertexuality and what Hebrew Bible is doing. Not seen as plagiarism in the ancient world.

Yes, he finds a book on the shelf and reads us the title. Wow! There's no explanation, just a book title off the shelf.

Next, there's 15-20 minutes where some foreign myth is told. Woopee!

Starting at 19 minutes, we start to hear the so-called evidence of intertextuality.

"The eluma elish begins with a dependent clause. The eluma elish went on high, blah,blah,blah. In Genesis 1 it begins with a dependent clause, when God began creating..."

Ummmm, that's a misquote from Genesis 1. It doesn't say "When God began creating". So your source doesn't know the Hebrew bible. Not only that, it's go to be one of the stupidest ideas I've ever heard. What's the classic beginning of a fairy tale? "Once apon a time" Does that mean that every fairy tale is copying from each other. So dumb, so so dumb.
​

"T'home is in Genesis 1 and it's the same root as Tiahmat [ a god from the eluma elish ]"

So what? That is so stupid. Two words that sound a like means the story is copied? Is "T'home" a central part of the story. Is it even a being? Is it a character in the story? And he thinks that people will hear the word, or see the word T'home abd that's going to remind them of some other myth where there's a god named tiamat?
​

"There's primordial water [ then he spaker gestures a lot ]"

So what? Both stories have water in them. That's not obvious copying. That's obvious coincidence. Oh yeah, he's a scholar so we should just lap this up.
​

Enuma Elish, Babylonian creation myth Genesis 1 borrows from, is recited every year at the New Years festival. Exiled Israelite kings were in captivity in Babylonia. Genesis was written after the Exile.

The examples brought of "copying" are so weak, and so absurd. Also, he's claiming that the jewish exiles *must* have known this, because they *must* have attended this festival. More weak assumptions. And you're parroting them.

“(Well we don’t know which came first), is nonsense, we do know. The textual tradition for the flood story is much much earlier than the Biblical text. Israel is NOT EVEN A……”

Which one was written first is irrelevant. Ancient myths begin as oral storytelling. Your source brought 2 words that are supposed to remind people of eluma Elish when they hear/read genesis 1. 2 words, that's it. And then he talks about all the differences, which he says are so important. But he can't put together any evidence to show this intertextuality. Not with Genesis 1.

It's also obvious that this person is infatuated with the akkadian myths, so obviously he's going to see them everywhere even if there's no real connection. That's what's nice about video; one can see the passion and can see it's effect.

In one myth, the main god has the "tablet of destinies", and there isn't one in Genesis, that, in this person's mind is proof that the myths are related. How totally stupid. "Because they're different, the one copied from the other". Oh boy. That's like delusions of the highest order.

Genesis demythicizes the Babylonian stories.

How about you explain in your own words how this statement ^^ shows that Genesis 1 was copied from the Eluma Elish? Hmm? Betcha can't do it. I don't think you understand any of this.

​

​

 

[dybmh]

In fact the Moses childhood story is the childhood story of a God 1000 years earlier:
Authorship/Moses


Dr Joel Baden


6:47

The idea that Moses wrote the Pentateuch has been out of favor in scholarship for the last 400 years.


23:18

Is Moses stories historically accurate and true, no.

Straw man, again. I have not claimed that the stories are true.

27:30

Moses childhood story same as Egyptian story 1000 years before - hidden, put in basket in river, etc…same as birth narrative of Sargon. Clearly same story.

Person writing Moses birth story clearly drawing on well known and far older Mesopotamian tradition.

Uh-huh, this person sounded delusional in the last video. I'll look up this one and see how silly it is. "clearly the same story", kind of like the little song he sang in the other video you posted, and it was supposed to be an example of something clearly recognizable? This is th eperson who can show a direction of influence? Keep going Joel. I'm enjoying far-fetched nonsense. Honestly.

contradictions and doublets or both at the same time

How about you explain in your own words how this statement ^^ is evidence of a direction of influence? Betcha can't.