Shocked To Find Out Yahweh Was Originally A Canaanite God Who Had A Wife, Asherah

[Subduction Zone]

You are a poor debater. Let's just stop here.

Wrong, I use poor techniques against other poor debaters. What you see is a mirror of what you post.

But the fact is that Luke has Jesus born about 6 CE and Matthew has him born about 4 BCE. A difference of ten years, therefore the ten year pregnancy. There is no real answer to this problem from Christians. Well except for the honest one that at least one of them is made up. Serious scholars have known this for some time now. The only sources that try to defend it are Christian apologist sites, or in other words Liars for Jesus. A bit rough but I have yet to find an apologist that does not fit into that category.

Do you know how we know that Luke put a date of 6 CE on Jesus's birth?

 

[Skywalker]

So what makes you think they're making errors here when they have the actual texts describing Yahweh and Asherah as husband and wife cut in 5000 year old granite blocks, along with artifacts of Asherah like these:

The detail similarities are superficial, similar to people who say that Jesus was copied from Baal. Jesus Vs Baal – Debunking The Alleged Parallels | Reasons for Jesus

Baal is sometimes reckoned as one of those “dying and rising gods” under Frazer’s outdated thesis. It should first be noted that the actual tablets describing Baal’s story do not actually preserve an account of Baal’s death and supposed return to life; that portion of the tablets are lost, and the events are inferred from remaining parts of the story.

In what we have left, Baal is discovered dead and given a burial; but later in the narrative, he reappears alive. In other works, if a certain verb is read as passive, it MAY refer to Baal as “brought to life,” but it may also be an active verb describing Baal as one who “brings to life.”

Secondarily, one of Baal’s daughters is named “Earthy” but the name MAY mean “Netherworldly.” And that is the sum and total of the evidence. In 70+ other texts about Baal, there is no mention of his death at all.

Anything like Christ? Not at all, and no more even on the surface than the naturally-expected theme of reversal of death as the ultimate bugaboo; no more an imitation of Christ than your latest zombie creature feature. Smith, seemingly with pagan-mythers in mind, writes: “…any attempt to render a reconstruction of Baal’s death and return to life should make no assumption about the nature of the latter.” [120]

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

The detail similarities are superficial, similar to people who say that Jesus was copied from Baal. Jesus Vs Baal – Debunking The Alleged Parallels | Reasons for Jesus

There are much better similarities but you have to look to dying rising gods like Attis, Romulus, Dionysus and Horus. No one god fits Jesus down to a tee but rather the gospels writers drew this trait from Dionysus and that trait from Romulus, this similarity from Attis and that similarity from Horus. Jesus is a composite dying/rising god. For example,

More general comparisons have also been made between the stories about Jesus's birth and resurrection and stories of other divine or heroic figures from across the Mediterranean world, including supposed "dying-and-rising gods" such as Tammuz, Adonis, Attis, and Osiris....

Jesus in comparative mythology - Wikipedia

 

[Skywalker]

There are much better similarities but you have to look to dying rising gods like Attis, Romulus, Dionysus and Horus. No one god fits Jesus down to a tee but rather the gospels writers drew this trait from Dionysus and that trait from Romulus, this similarity from Attis and that similarity from Horus. Jesus is a composite dying/rising god. For example,

More general comparisons have also been made between the stories about Jesus's birth and resurrection and stories of other divine or heroic figures from across the Mediterranean world, including supposed "dying-and-rising gods" such as Tammuz, Adonis, Attis, and Osiris....

Jesus in comparative mythology - Wikipedia

I'm not saying unbelievers believe that Jesus was copied to a tee but I'm saying that a lot of the essential similarities between Jesus and pagan gods are very questionable.

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

I'm not saying unbelievers believe that Jesus was copied to a tee but I'm saying that a lot of the essential similarities because Jesus and pagan gods are very questionable.

I think the word "because" was supposed to be "between". Am I correct? I had to sit here for about 10 minutes to try to figure out what in the hell you were trying to say in that sentence .

 

[1213]

Geologists believe localized floods happened like around the Black Sea which may have flooded the Mesopotamian valley. But certainly not one that covered the earth up to 25 feet above Everest.
...

Yes, I know they believe so. But I think they are wrong, because their belief is not based on all necessary information. They assume world was before flood as it is after the flood and it is a mistake. They should understand that before the flood there was only one continent, sea floor was on different level, because drowned things had not yet been compressed enough and for example drowned organic material had not yet been compressed enough to become coal, oil or gas fields.

Here are some images and longer explanation of how it happened:
Are you a disciple of Jesus?

 

[1213]

No, that is not evidence of the flood. You need to understand the concept of scientific evidence to see why.

What that is evidence of is slow growth and erosion of mountains over millions of years. There is evidence for that. ...

But there simply is no intelligent reason to assume that current rate of erosion has always been the same. And I think no observations support the idea that erosion is constant.

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

Yes, I know they believe so. But I think they are wrong, because their belief is not based on all necessary information. They assume world was before flood as it is after the flood and it is a mistake. They should understand that before the flood there was only one continent, sea floor was on different level, because drowned things had not yet been compressed enough and for example drowned organic material had not yet been compressed enough to become coal, oil or gas fields.

Here are some images and longer explanation of how it happened:
Are you a disciple of Jesus?

Nothing scientific here. Just says, "The Bible says this and the Bible says that" I would never go to the Bible to get a scientific explanation of just how the continents formed. How does the Bible explain skeletons of early men that have been carbon-dated to 100,000 years ago?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, I know they believe so. But I think they are wrong, because their belief is not based on all necessary information. They assume world was before flood as it is after the flood and it is a mistake. They should understand that before the flood there was only one continent, sea floor was on different level, because drowned things had not yet been compressed enough and for example drowned organic material had not yet been compressed enough to become coal, oil or gas fields.

Here are some images and longer explanation of how it happened:
Are you a disciple of Jesus?

Sorry, you were wrong as soon as you used the word "assume". In fact that was a breaking of the Ninth Commandment.

 

[Subduction Zone]

But there simply is no intelligent reason to assume that current rate of erosion has always been the same. And I think no observations support the idea that erosion is constant.

And again, you are at best ignorant here. Any time that you make the error of using the false accusation that you did the burden of proof lies upon you:

Where does any scientist assume anything? They do not. Where did scientists ever assume that the rate of erosion was constant? They never made that error. That is now how we know that there was no flood.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nothing scientific here. Just says, "The Bible says this and the Bible says that" I would never go to the Bible to get a scientific explanation of just how the continents formed. How does the Bible explain skeletons of early men that have been carbon-dated to 100,000 years ago?

Actually carbon dating only goes back 50,000 years. Man has been here for at least 200,000 years. Other dating methods are used. For example our ancestor Lucy was dated by dating the material that she was buried in. There were datable ash layers older and younger than Lucy and they extrapolated a date between the two to get her age:

Lucy's Story.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

Wrong, I use poor techniques against other poor debaters. What you see is a mirror of what you post.

But the fact is that Luke has Jesus born about 6 CE and Matthew has him born about 4 BCE. A difference of ten years, therefore the ten year pregnancy. There is no real answer to this problem from Christians. Well except for the honest one that at least one of them is made up. Serious scholars have known this for some time now. The only sources that try to defend it are Christian apologist sites, or in other words Liars for Jesus. A bit rough but I have yet to find an apologist that does not fit into that category.

Do you know how we know that Luke put a date of 6 CE on Jesus's birth?

Don't blame your poor technique on others.

You say it is a fact, so show me your verse where Luke says it is 6 CE and where Matthew says 4 BCE.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Don't blame your poor technique on others.

You say it is a fact, so show me your verse where Luke says it is 6 CE and where Matthew says 4 BCE.

There is nothing wrong with my technique. It only underscored your ignorance of the Bible, as you just did so here. And you continued to do so here. I can see that you have either not read or not understood the two nativity tales. Some background facts for you. King Herod of Judea died in about 4 BCE, some used to date his date at 1 BCE, but that was mainly due to a verse in the Bible and does not seem to be well accepted by historians since "Because the Bible Tells Me So" is not thought to be valid reasoning.

Herod the Great - Wikipedia

The date of the Census of Quirinius is well known. And since Judea was a tribute paying kingdom during King Herod's term there would have been no census as long as he was alive. The Romans did not do a census of Judea until after his sons failed and they took over the territory:

Quirinius - Wikipedia

And the reason for Luke having a ten year pregnancy, it could have been a bit less, is that Mary was already betrothed to marry Joseph when she first ran across the mother of John the Baptist. That was according to Luke in the days of Herod. You can find that in Luke 1. But he does not have Jesus born until 6 CE in Bethlehem as a result of the Census of Qurinius. Romans kept track of their Censuses. The history of Quirinius is well known, and that Judea not being subject to a census until Rome had to take over is well understood too. Apologists try to weasel out a bunch of "what ifs" but they do not work when compared to history.

Matthew also has Jesus born in the days of Herod, but he at least did not contradict himself as badly as Luke did.

 

[Skywalker]

I think the word "because" was supposed to be "between". Am I correct? I had to sit here for about 10 minutes to try to figure out what in the hell you were trying to say in that sentence .

Why do you think the similarities between Jesus and pagan gods aren't exaggerated? The details might not be that different but the essence of a Savior is what makes the Bible unique.

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

Why do you think the similarities between Jesus and pagan gods aren't exaggerated? The details might not be that different but the essence of a Savior is what makes the Bible unique.

The idea that men need a savior was already in play in the OT, wasn't it? Messiah verses were already being used 500 BC. That was point of the whole sacrifice system--the goat let go in the wilderness while the lamb is slaughtered. This is the whole crux of the Jesus as a one time sacrifice for all men for all eternity. The idea of men needing a savior never occurred to other cultures, only to the Jews oddly enough. The OT set everything up like a set of blueprints for the cult of Jesus to flourish. All that was left was to build the "house" with the gospel writers using the OT as a template. Most of the gospel stories come straight out of the OT, I hope you know that.

 

[Skywalker]

The idea that men need a savior was already in play in the OT, wasn't it? Messiah verses were already being used 500 BC. That was point of the whole sacrifice system--the goat let go in the wilderness while the lamb is slaughtered. This is the whole crux of the Jesus as a one time sacrifice for all men for all eternity. The idea of men needing a savior never occurred to other cultures, only to the Jews oddly enough. The OT set everything up like a set of blueprints for the cult of Jesus to flourish. All that was left was to build the "house" with the gospel writers using the OT as a template. Most of the gospel stories come straight out of the OT, I hope you know that.

That's because God used the Jewish people to bring the Messiah into the world.

That's why the essence of who Jesus is is totally different from who pagan gods are.

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

That's because God used the Jewish people to bring the Messiah into the world.

That's why the essence of who Jesus is is totally different from who pagan gods are.

You missed the point. God didn't bring anybody into the world. Jesus, if he existed, was an ordinary kid who was crucified and buried. Much later he was deified and chosen as the dying/rising god avatar that the fledgling Christianity needed to complete their faith. All faiths in that part of the world needed dying/rising gods to worship. The only thing that differentiated Israel from Rome and Greece and Egypt was the savior concept. The idea the Jews needed a savior was already present in their culture pre-Jesus. No other world culture had this expectation. As such they were primed to receive someone who could be their one-time eternal sacrifice for their sins. Paul took it to the world and it spread from there. Constantine made Christianity possible. Without Constantine Christianity would be just another backwater religion struggling to survive.

 

[Skywalker]

You missed the point. God didn't bring anybody into the world. Jesus, if he existed, was an ordinary kid who was crucified and buried. Much later he was deified and chosen as the dying/rising god avatar that the fledgling Christianity needed to complete their faith. All faiths in that part of the world needed dying/rising gods to worship. The only thing that differentiated Israel from Rome and Greece and Egypt was the savior concept. The idea the Jews needed a savior was already present in their culture pre-Jesus. No other world culture had this expectation. As such they were primed to receive someone who could be their one-time eternal sacrifice for their sins. Paul took it to the world and it spread from there. Constantine made Christianity possible. Without Constantine Christianity would be just another backwater religion struggling to survive.

The concept of Christianity as we know of religious classifications it didn't exist when the disciples spread the gospel and believed in Jesus. What the disciples believed in was somewhere in between modern Christianity and modern Judaism.

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

The concept of Christianity as we know of religious classifications it didn't exist when the disciples spread the gospel and believed in Jesus. What the disciples believed in was somewhere in between modern Christianity and modern Judaism.

Jesus was the Messiah prophesied in the OT. I don't know why I can't get this point across to you. If the OT hadn't mentioned a messiah we wouldn't even know who Jesus was today.

 

[Skywalker]

Jesus was the Messiah prophesied in the OT. I don't know why I can't get this point across to you. If the OT hadn't mentioned a messiah we wouldn't even know who Jesus was today.

Christianity didn't copy from Judaism because the modern concepts of Christianity and Judaism didn't exist back then. Christianity is a gentile expression of the New Covenant and the early Christians believed in Jesus alongside Jewish traditions.