Ehrman says: "Yes, the historical Jesus of Nazareth did exist

Jimenezj
Theist
Posts: 344
Joined: 2011-12-16
User is offlineOffline
Ehrman says: "Yes, the historical Jesus of Nazareth did exist

Ehrman says: "Yes, the historical Jesus of Nazareth did exist.

Why did he say this?


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic wrote:The

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

The quotes you mention are all based on someone or a group of followers looking back into the Hebrew Bible to puzzle piece fit THE JESUS.

The NT references are opinions by 1st century Jesus believers. All of which is in opposition to the originators of the storytelling myths of the Yahweh creators the Jews.

 

Jimenezj wrote:
Sorry about that. I Posted the wrong one. Here is Isaiah again. This one has 100 prophecies Fullfield by Jesus Christ 1st coming.

When you post, all of your text is in one huge mass when one goes to quote it. This causes excessive issues as one must reformat the whole post to address the comments. I don't know how you are posting this stuff, from a smartphone with a crappy browser perhaps and you copy paste the text? It completely sucks.

I will address your Isaiah assertions first as I have time.

Meanwhile, go visit the English translation of the Hebrew Bible for a start to see part of why your Isaiah claims are a fishing expedition.

See - http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0.htm

 

I don't think he got it when I told him the same thing. Maybe I'm too simple and straightforward for him.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2483
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:I don't think

jcgadfly wrote:

I don't think he got it when I told him the same thing. Maybe I'm too simple and straightforward for him.

No he didn't. And he probably won't even after I go into great detail citing the claims of Jews and give him a translation of the Bible that shows his KJV is wrongly translated.

He thinks that we have no idea of his bible verse claims. He must think he's the 1st to bring us this.

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2483
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Book Review Summary cont'd Part 3 Chap 4

Book Review Summary cont'd Part 3 Chap 4

Chapter 4 - Evidence for Jesus outside the Gospels.

In this chapter Ehrman looks at writing such as Non-Christian sources, Christian writers not in the NT, Epistles in the NT, and the writings of Paul

Non-Christian sources that discuss Jesus are few and far between. The short list includes Josephus and Tacitus. Neither had first hand info on Jesus but knew of him from non-Christians or even Christians according to Ehrman. He considers that these people had heard stories about Jesus which were hence indirect independent attestation for Jesus existence outside the Gospels. He admits that neither provides any information not found in them however. This is what I call building upon legends, but that's me.


Christian sources.
Papias was an early church father in the 2nd century CE. His writing survives only in fragments and some is quoted by later Christian writers. These sources indicated he had written a 5 volume work called Expositions of the Sayings of the Lord in about 120-130 CE. Scribes for some reason did not preserve it, possibly because Eusebius thought him to be "a man of small intelligence." Ehrman claims he had read some of the gospels, not the one's of Canon. He also claims that he was personally acquainted with people who had known the apostles or their companions. His "proof" is:
From a Eusebious quote: ". . . an orderly account of all things I carefully learned and have carefully recalled from the elders; for I have certified their truth." .."I would carefully inquire after their words, what Andrew or Peter had said." Etc. .."For I did not suppose that what came out of books would benefit me as much as that which came from s living and abiding voice..."


Then Eusbius stretches this adding more legitimacy to Papias (my view):
"This Papias, whom we have just been discussing, acknowledges that he received the words of the apostles from those who had been their followers and he indicates that he himself had listened to Ariston and the elder John..." Ehrman quotes more and specifics that were outside the Gospels, see Eusebius, Church History 3.39
In my view, we have several levels of telephone here. Somewhere in the past there were apostles. They had followers who had listened to their accounts. Than Papias heard these accounts from them. He's either 3rd or 4th hand on the information since we hear it from Eusebius not Papias. Interpretations alter with each set of ears and voice that gives an account in my view. The claim he heard directly from Aristion. The question is who he was. There was a person of this name who was bishop of Alexandria, executed in the 2nd century, but also born reportedly in the 2nd century. Some consider him to be one of the 72 followers in the Gospel accounts. There is nothing that substantiates who he was. In regard to the elder John. Papias wrote in the 120s, it is doubtful this was John the apostle but rather the elder John occasionally mentioned and confused with the apostle. These claims don't do it for me in giving legitimacy to the story content and are minuscule as support for verification of Jesus.


Ignatius of Antioch
The bishop of Antioch in about 110 CE he was arrested along with other Christians and was being transported to Rome to be executed as food for the wild beasts in the arena. While he was en route he allegedly wrote 7 letters, 6 letters were sent to churches in Asia Minor that sent representatives to meet him on his way to execution to provide moral support. You can read these letters yourself at : http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/ignatius.html where there are several translations of each one. Ignatius argues that Jesus was a real human that suffered and died. Ehrman argues these letters provide yet another source of independence for the existence of Jesus as real.
My problem with these letters is Ignatius was a prisoner on the way to Rome to be executed. How prisoners were transported was in wagons or carts in bonds. If he had associates that were also Christians that tagged along with the group, why were they also not arrested to be executed. The story how these letters were written and the idea that other Christians could tag along on the way to the arena from Asia Minor doesn't sound to realistic to me. I think all the letters are forged. That they contain the legends and stories of Jesus is correct, it's where the material comes from I doubt.


1 Clement
I have personally read this epistle several times. Supposedly written by Clement the 4th bishop of Rome, which is doubtful but you never know. In it in various places it indicates some of the teaching of Jesus. It also has some of the traditions. It indicates he gave his blood for us, but does not exactly explain how. It was written in about 95 CE. As a possible source of existence of Jesus it may be so, but a very weak one for it's descriptions of him and his actions. See 2.1, 7.4, 12.7, 13.1-2, 16.2, 32.2, 33.7, 46.8, 49.1, and 49.6 in 1 Clement.


Canonical Sources outside the Gospels and Paul
Ehrman then considers some of the traditions in the book of Acts. Acts was as most know was written by the same writer as the book of Luke. Ehrman claims other traditions are to be found here not covered in that Gospel. One of these traditions is regarding Judas. In only one Gospel account, Matthew is his fate mentioned. In Acts Peter says Judas bought land with the cash and fell headlong into the field and split open his guts, Acts 1:16-19, with the field being called the "Field of Blood." Matt however indicates he was guilt ridden and took the money to the priests then went out and hanged himself. They used the cash to buy a field for use as a cemetery.
Ehrman agrees these 2 accounts can't be reconciled. He jumps to the conclusion that a field was somehow involved in the storytelling legends. He indicates that regardless this provides an independent tradition with the Acts account being of early origin. I don't agree, it only indicates that there were multiple legends developing and differing versions are put down as the writers set them down for others. He indicates the Aramaic word Akeldama meaning "field of blood" indicates an earlier origin. Perhaps, it only indicates an origin from those who spoke Aramaic not Greek and is just a version of the legends from a different area of the country.


Next Ehrman looks at the various speeches recorded in Acts. He reminds the reader, that no one actually transcribed these speeches word for word, it is most likely what the writers thought was said, as in nearly all historical writers detailing speeches or narratives. Ehrman claims that these speeches are notable because they are based on oral traditions, not just Luke's Sci-Fi writing skills (my view). In the 1st of these is Acts 13:32-33 where Luke indicates what Paul may have said, "...by raising Jesus as is written in the 2nd Psalm, 'you are my son today, I have begotten you."' This indicates according to Ehrman the tradition that Jesus was a human made the Son of God after his resurrection.  Also similar is Acts 2:36 as Luke created having Peter say, "...that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this one whom you crucified." Both exhibit the legend that he became exalted by God only after his resurrection, a tradition far older than the written Gospels. Or was it just another one of the various divergent legends drifting about in Judea, which is what I think more likely. Yes, the material could date to the early legend period after the desert prophet Jesus is executed. It only proves to me, there were a large amount of legends drifting about the area, each with a bit of divergence.


He discusses 3 more speech excerpts. Acts 2:22-24, 3:13-15, and 13:27-29. All 3 mention Jesus is killed, crucified, tried, 2 indicate by Pilate, and all 3 say he was raised from the dead. These all 3 are from speeches that Luke created. He was not there to write them down in shorthand, no, he incorporated various legends that had been circulating to put these words in the mouths of the speakers. Ehrman indicates this establishes another historical witness. I see this as more of the same, documenting various legends of divergence. Though, in agreement, it does support that a guy named Jesus probably walked the Earth at some point. But, beyond that, the creative abilities of the oral storytellers gave us versions that morphed from area to area. The real truth to them can't be found, but as he suggests, it does indicate that a person of reality was probably involved.


Non-Pauline Epistles
1 Timothy, as explained in detail in his book Forged, not written by Paul. Ehrman claims again that this epistle has traditions known else where, such as "...Christ Jesus, the one who bearing his testimony before Pilate..." 1 Tim 6:13. He indicates this confirms the central works of the Gospels.


Also another forged book, 1 Peter indicates references to Jesus as follows:
"...because Christ suffered for you leaving an example for you to follow..." 1Pete 2:21-24
"for Christ died for sins once and for all...having been put to death in the flesh..." 1 Pete 3:18
"Since Christ suffered in the flesh.." 1 Pete 4:1
"...I who am a fellow elder and witness of the sufferings of Christ" 1 Pete 5:1
Especially the last quote is an outright lie, as the writer was not Peter as he comes across but a forger and a deceiver. (Again my view)


And Ehrman discusses 2 Peter another forged book:
"...but we were eyewitnesses of the majesty of that one.....'this is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased' we heard this voice....for we were on the holy mountain" 2 Pete 1:16-18
This is again another outright pack of lies by the forger and deceiver that forged this book. If he was willing to write as a forger, why should any of his writing be given credibility? Ehrman ignores this though considering it establishes witnesses based on earlier traditions. When a person lies, why accept his statements at all? These earlier traditions are more likely creative  legends that have been written down by a forger using another's name for legitimacy.
Then he cites 1 John circa 95 - 100 CE, wrongly attributed to John the disciple:
"...what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes...and we bear witness and proclaim to you the eternal live which was with the Father.." 1 John 1:1-4
The writer again is lying here, and witnessed nothing. Ehrman again sees it as a witness outside the Gospels to the traditions, I still see it as documenting storytelling legends.


Ehrman also cites the book of Revelation as in 5:6 as another. He goes on to the book of Hebrews which was not written by Paul as incorrectly attributed. He cites the following:
1:2, 1:3, 1:5, 2:3, 2:4, 2:9, 2:10, 2:14, 2:17, 2:18, 4:15, 3:2, 5:7, 5:8, 6:5, 12:2, 7:14, 10:8, 10:9, 13:12, and 13:13. Ehrman says, that this unknown author based on oral traditions he had heard considered Jesus a real person. Thus Ehrman once again calls the writer an independent witness to a historical Jesus. I still have the same objection as before, oral storytelling legends are not trustworthy.


The Witness of Paul.
Paul claimed in Gal 4:4, "...God sent his Son, born from a woman...that he might redeem those who were under the law." And in Romans 15:8, "...Christ became a servant to the circumcised..." . And in 1 Cor 9:5 ",,,and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas." He notes that this was not in the spiritual sense as written as it would make no sense, see p 120. The he refers to Gal 1:18-19 where, "...except James, the brother of the Lord." Then there is 1 Cor 11:22-24, essentially the Last Supper, which he claims to have received from the long dead Lord. Throughout Paul's writing he mentions Jesus was crucified, as in 1 Cor 2:2, "except Jesus Christ, and him crucified."
Overall, what Paul accepts from 2nd or 3rd hand is not any more reliable than any other storytelling. His supposed vision experience is not at all validation of Jesus, but an indication of issues Paul had, again my view.


Teaching of the Jesus in Paul
Ehrman indicates teaching of Jesus were documented by Paul, such the previous mentioned last supper from 1 Cor. He also says the teaching of Jesus is shown in regard to divorce. As before, these ideas may have been floating about in Palestine, along with hundreds of other sayings Jesus may have said. Though whether he did or not can't be demonstrated.
Ehrman in summary of Paul, claims that his writing shows that Jesus existed. Perhaps, but since they weren't personally acquainted the many claims are all hearsay based on legends.


The final part of this chapter is Ehrman discussing mythicist counterarguments including G A Wells.
My position hasn't changed much based on this chapter. Overall, I already indicated that Jesus was probably a real person. What kind of person, what he did or did not do is not determinable at all, as the legends of various kinds melted in with whatever may have happened. As to these other books providing evidence for Jesus, they don't succeed as well as Ehrman would want. They do document that there were storytelling tales. As to reality of the events or Jesus I think it's a reach.








 

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


x
Bronze Member
Posts: 591
Joined: 2010-06-15
User is offlineOffline
Interesting

None of the Christian writers even claim to have seen or met Jesus the Christ.

 

In my view, using Christian scripture as evidence for the existence of such a person is like taking The Book or Mormon or the writings of L Ron Hubbard seriously.

These are good recent examples of how religious literature is created.


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2483
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
JimenezJ

Jimenezj wrote:
Sorry about that. I Posted the wrong one. Here is Isaiah again. This one has 100 prophecies Fullfield by Jesus Christ 1st coming.

My comments to your messy post of copy/paste- by the way, you should always give credit to the website where you lift such info so as not to violate copyright laws.

All of my Bible quotes for Isaiah are from the Hebrew Bible in English, JPS edition - http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm

164. Isaiah 7:14...To be born of a virgin...Luke 1:35 : The Hebrew text indicates "..behold, the young woman shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.."

The storyteller in Luke can think the Sun will rise in the West if he wants, that doesn't allow him to put forth misconstrued reading of the Hebrew text. Perhaps, he failed basic Hebrew in his training.

Wait a second, Luke wrote in Greek, did he even know Hebrew?

Jimenezj wrote:

165. Isaiah 7:14...To be Emmanuel-God with us... Matthew 1:18-23 1

This baby is born in ancient Judah, Isaiah is talking to King Ahaz telling him that before the child has knowledge of right and wrong....

So, neither Sci-Fi Luke or Fantasy writer Matt has any clue of what was meant.

Jimenezj wrote:

166. Isaiah 8:8...Called Emmanuel...Matthew 28:20

- this is still a continuation of the child born in the time of King Ahaz and Isaiah's time period and is misconstrued by you and Matthew.

Jimenezj wrote:

167. Isaiah 8:14...A stone of stumbling, a Rock of offense... 1 Pet. 2:8 

- Again, this is about the time period of Ahaz, read it in the Hebrew Bible link above in context. The forger who wrote Peter, because that's what it is, a book written by someone who was not Peter, who was a deceiver and a liar for making that claim so his interpretations of the Hebrew Bible should be considered in such light.

Jimenezj wrote:

168. Isaiah 9:1,2...His ministry to begin in Galilee...Matthew 4:12-17

No mention of Galilee or a ministry:

JPS version "1 The people that walked in darkness have seen a great light; they that dwelt in the land of the shadow of death, upon them hath the light shined. 2 Thou hast multiplied the nation, Thou hast increased their joy; they joy before Thee according to the joy in harvest, as men rejoice when they divide the spoil."

The KJV has the Jordan and Galilee included but have no meritorious basis for doing so. If you think so, provide proof as to why the additional words that KJV translators inserted have relevance.

 

Jimenezj wrote:

169. Isaiah 9:6...A child born-Humanity...Luke 1:31

Many of Jewish interpretation consider this as Hezekiah, who was in a way considered a messiah or mashiach, just not thee Masiach. Others see it as the mashiach who fulfills all of Judaism's understanding. Which was not the Jesus as he failed to meet their prophecies. Another subject for discussion if you want. Why THE JESUS is not the Jewish Mashiach.

Jimenezj wrote:

170. Isaiah 9:6...A Son given-Deity...Luke 1:32; John 1;14; 1 Tim. 3:16

171. Isaiah 9:6...Declared to be the Son of God with power... Romans. 1:3,4

172. Isaiah 9:6...The Wonderful One, Peleh...Luke 4:22

173. Isaiah 9:6...The Counselor, Yaatz...Matthew 13:54

174. Isaiah 9:6...The Mighty God, El Gibor...Matthew 11:20

175. Isaiah 9:6...The Everlasting Father, Avi Adth...John 8:58

176. Isaiah 9:6...The Prince of Peace, Sar Shalom...John . 16:33

177. Isaiah 9:7...To establish an everlasting kingdom...Luke 1:32-33

178. Isaiah 9:7...His Character-Just...John 5:30

179. Isaiah 9:7...No end to his Government, Throne, and Peace...Luke 1:32-33

See above comments. This is all part of the same prophecy. It is generally seen as Hezekiah or the Jewish Mashiach, who Jesus was not as he fails to meet their prophecies.

Jimenezj wrote:

180. Isaiah 11:1...Called a Nazarene-the Branch, Netzer...Matthew 2:23

181. Isaiah 11:1...A rod out of Jesse-Son of Jesse...Luke 3:23,32

182. Isaiah 11:2...The anointed One by the Spirit...Matthew 3;16,17

183. Isaiah 11:2...His Character-Wisdom, Understanding, et al....John 4:4-26

184. Isaiah 11:4...His Character-Truth...John 14:6

More misconstrued understanding by storytellers promoting the Jesus.

Verse 4 is clear, "But with righteousness shall he judge the poor, and decide with equity for the meek of the land; and he shall smite the land with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips shall he slay the wicked."

Jesus did not do this.

And in addition, (JPS quotes)

"And the wolf shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them. 7 And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together; and the lion shall eat straw like the ox. 8 And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the basilisk's den. 9 They shall not hurt nor destroy in all My holy mountain; for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea. {S} 10 And it shall come to pass in that day, that the root of Jesse, that standeth for an ensign of the peoples, unto him shall the nations seek; and his resting-place shall be glorious. {P}"

Which refutes it being THE JESUS. The world is not all at peace. The nations do not all worship the Yahweh. Dispelling that the Jesus was the Jewish Mashiach, good job JimenezJ.

Jimenezj wrote:

185. Isaiah 11:10...The Gentiles seek Him...John 12:18-21

Covered above.

Jimenezj wrote:

186. Isaiah 12:2...Called Jesus-Yeshua (salvation)...Matthew 1:21

What an imagination you have.

"Behold, God is my salvation; I will trust, and will not be afraid; for GOD the LORD is my strength and song; and He is become my salvation."

The KJV does use Jesus or Yahshua bar Joseph either.

Jimenezj wrote:

187. Isaiah 16:4,5…Reigning in mercy…Luke 1:31-33

This is not the Jesus but is in regard to the time period. See specifically v14 - But now the LORD hath spoken, saying: 'Within three years, as the years of a hireling, and the glory of Moab shall wax contemptible for all his great multitude; and the remnant shall be very small and without strength."

Jimenezj wrote:

188. Isaiah 22:21-25…Peg in a sure place…Revelation 3:7

This section is about Shebna, the scribe who is one of Hezekiah's servants, and also the chief overseer of Jerusalem: see 2 Kings 18 and 19 and Isaiah 22:15, "Thus saith the Lord, the GOD of hosts: Go, get thee unto this steward, even unto Shebna, who is over the house:"

This has nothing to do with THE JESUS.

See also - http://www.moellerhaus.com/22.htm

Jimenezj wrote:

189. Isaiah 25:8...The Resurrection predicted...I Corinthians 15:54

Grasping at straws now?

The verse in question has nothing to do with a resurrection - " He will swallow up death for ever; and the Lord GOD will wipe away tears from off all faces; and the reproach of His people will He take away from off all the earth; for the LORD hath spoken it."

This does not indicate that a resurrection will happen, only the death will stop. Is it all death? Probably not as in v10 "...and Moab shall be trodden down in his place,..." and in 12 "And the high fortress of thy walls will He bring down, lay low, and bring to the ground, even to the dust."

So, it actually is relevant to the invaders and their allies, Assyria and their vassal states, meaning the god will put them in place and death caused by them will cease. That is what I get from it in context.

You on the other hand claim something that is not to be found within the chapter, resurrection.

Jimenezj wrote:

190. Isaiah 26:19...His power of Resurrection predicted...John 11:43,44

This quote is from a hymn of praise. The praise is to the God Yahweh, THE JESUS is not mentioned at all in the entire chapter. The Jews had their own versions of mythology, which if you wish to enter that realm of discussion we can. This verse however is not part of the messianic claims of the Jews, you have no basis here.

Jimenezj wrote:

191. Isaiah 28:16...The Messiah is the precious corner stone...Acts 4:11,12

More misunderstanding and translation issues - "The Hebrew of the last part of the verse is "hama'amin lo yochish," which means "the believer will not make haste," not "the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame." from - http://chelm.freeyellow.com/page13.html

This passage refers to King Hezekiah aka king Chizkiyahu.

Jimenezj wrote:

192. Isaiah 29:13...He indicated hypocritical obedience to His Word...Matthew 15:7-9

193. Isaiah 29:14...The wise are confounded by the Word...I Corinthians 1:18-31

Words used in JPS is by rote, This whole chapter is a rant against Ariel, aka Jerusalem. Prior to invasion and siege by Sennacherib

Further, the verse is purposely mistranslated by Christians, it actually says - "and their fear of Me is a commandment of men learned by rote" meaning only, " that the fear of G-d to some insincere Jews became a mere commandment devised by man, lacking proper Jewish devotion." - from - http://chelm.freeyellow.com/page13.html

Jimenezj wrote:

194. Isaiah 32:2...A Refuge-A man shall be a hiding place...Matthew 23:37

Now you try your hand at puzzle piece fitting and creative misconception as well as mistranslation by this assertion.

The verses in question - "1-Behold, a king shall reign in righteousness, and as for princes, they shall rule in justice. 2 And a man shall be as in a hiding-place from the wind, and a covert from the tempest; as by the watercourses in a dry place, as in the shadow of a great rock in a weary land."

This basically means When the king is righteous  and  just, ordinary people  are a spiritual haven or shelter from storms or similar to a river in Zion and the shadow of a rock in a thirsty land. - paraphrased from - http://www.ao.net/~fmoeller/isa30-32.htm

Jimenezj wrote:

195. Isaiah 33:22…Son of the Highest…Luke 1:32; 1 Timothy 1:17 6:15

These words are not found in the verse - "For the LORD is our Judge, the LORD is our Lawgiver, the LORD is our King; He will save us." Not even in the inadequate KJV version.

Jimenezj wrote:

196. Isaiah 35:4...He will come and save you...Matthew 1:21

This has nothing to do with the Jesus.

"Say to them that are of a fearful heart: 'Be strong, fear not'; behold, your God will come with vengeance, with the recompense of God He will come and save you."

It is the warrior vicious god Yahweh not the Jesus.

Jimenezj wrote:

197. Isaiah 35:5...To have a ministry of miracles...Matthew 11:4-6

Again, this has nothing to do with THE JESUS. It is what happens when Israel is restored, see the entire chapter in the Hebrew JPS.

Jimenezj wrote:

198. Isaiah 40:3,4...Preceded by forerunner...John 1:23

199. Isaiah 40:9..."Behold your God."...John 1:36;19:14

200. Isaiah 40:11...A shepherd-compassionate life-giver...John 10:10-18

This is not John the Baptist or the Jesus because what of v5 " And the glory of the LORD shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together; for the mouth of the LORD hath spoken it."

And v 10 "Behold, the Lord GOD will come as a Mighty One"

The Jesus came as a rejected person of low status, definitely not as a "mighty One."

The shepherd was an analogy not literal. The Jesus was not one anyway.

Jimenezj wrote:

201. Isaiah 42:1-4...The Servant-as a faithful, patient redeemer... Matthew12:18-21

202. Isaiah 42:2...Meek and lowly... Matthew 11:28-30

203. Isaiah 42:3...He brings hope for the hopeless... John 4

204. Isaiah 42:4...The nations shall wait on His teachings... John 12:20-26

205. Isaiah 42:6...The Light (salvation) of the Gentiles...Luke 2:32

206. Isaiah 42:1,6...His is a Worldwide compassion... Matthew 28:19,20

207. Isaiah 42:7...Blind eyes opened... John 9:25-38

208. Isaiah 42:13-25…Messiah’s actions at His second coming…Revelation

We have now entered the writing of 2nd Isaiah, written at least 160 or so years later.

V-1-4 Does not use the word redeemer. "I have put My spirit upon him, he shall make the right to go forth to the nations. 2 He shall not cry, nor lift up, nor cause his voice to be heard in the street."

It does not indicate he was meek or lowly.

And "He shall not fail nor be crushed, till he have set the right in the earth; and the isles shall wait for his teaching."

Only islands shall wait, the nations are not meant.

Also, it does not infer he heals the blind, only that those that do understand and are blind to him, "To open the blind eyes, to bring out the prisoners from the dungeon, and them that sit in darkness out of the prison-house."

This has nothing to do with a 2nd coming in v13-25. It speaks of the God, not the Mashiach here. It is a call to the Jews to come back and cease sinning against the god.

 

Jimenezj wrote:

209. Isaiah 43:11...He is the only Savior... Acts 4:12

Verses 11-12 in context - "11 I, even I, am the LORD; and beside Me there is no saviour. 12 I have declared, and I have saved, and I have announced, and there was no strange god among you."

Do you get it or do you need to have more beat upon you to understand? Probably you need more - This refers to the god's prior actions from Abe through Moses, to the actions he did in stealing the land of Canaan, to his defense of their kingdoms.

 

Jimenezj wrote:

210. Isaiah 44:3...He will send the Spirit of God... John 16:7,13

It would really help if you had actually read this material.

" I will pour My spirit upon thy seed, and My blessing upon thine offspring"

This is the god Yahweh making promises to the Jews for following him, read all of chap 44 in context.

See for example v 1 "Yet now hear, O Jacob My servant, and Israel, whom I have chosen;"

Jimenezj wrote:

211. Isaiah 45:23...He will be the Judge... John 5:22;Romans. 14:11

Considering this is the same god that took on the liability for all in v 7 " I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil; I am the LORD, that doeth all these things."

He admits to being the one liable for the creation of evil. The god thence admits guilt and liability.

In v23, "By Myself have I sworn, the word is gone forth from My mouth in righteousness, and shall not come back, that unto Me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear."

This is not a judge, this is a dictator demanding all do what he demands.

 

Jimenezj wrote:

212. Isaiah 48:12...The First and the Last...John 1:30;Rev. 1:8,17

213. Isaiah 48:17...He came as a Teacher...John 3:2

This is in reference to his called, the Jews, reminding them he made the foundations of the earth.

He, the God Yahweh, did not come as a teacher but taught them, the Jews for their benefit. "who teacheth thee for thy profit, who leadeth thee by the way that thou shouldest go."

 

Jimenezj wrote:

214. Isaiah 49:1...Called from the womb-His humanity...Matthew 1:18

215. Isaiah 49:5...A Servant from the womb...Luke 1:31;Phil. 2:7

216. Isaiah 49:6...He is Salvation for Israel...Luke 2:29-32

217. Isaiah 49:6...He is the Light of the Gentiles...Acts 13:47

218. Isaiah 49:6...He is Salvation unto the ends of the earth... Acts 15:7-18

219. Isaiah 49:7...He is despised of the Nation... John 8:48-49

V1 and 5 is the prophet or writer, not THE JESUS.

v6 "It is too light a thing that thou shouldest be My servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the offspring of Israel; I will also give thee for a light of the nations, that My salvation may be unto the end of the earth."

Not the Jesus but the prophet.

Jimenezj wrote:

220. Isaiah 50:3...Heaven is clothed in black at His humiliation... Luke 23:44,45

221. Isaiah 50:4...He is a learned counselor for the weary... Matthew 11:28,29

222. Isaiah 50:5...The Servant bound willingly to obedience... Matthew 26:39

223. Isaiah 50:6a..."I gave my back to the smiters."... Matthew 27:26

224. Isaiah 50:6b...He was smitten on the cheeks... Matthew 26:67

225. Isaiah 50:6c...He was spat upon... Matthew 27:30

We now are discussing the "suffering servant"

Which is Israel, not the Jesus.

 

Jimenezj wrote:

226. Isaiah 52:4-5…Suffered vicariously…Mark 15:3,4,27,28; Luke 23:1-25,32-34

227. Isaiah 52:7...To publish good tidings of peace... Luke 4:14,15

228. Isaiah 52:13...The Servant exalted...Acts 1:8-11; Ephesians 1:19-22

229. Isaiah 52:13...Behold, My Servant... Matthew 17:5; Phil. 2:5-8

230. Isaiah 52:14...The Servant shockingly abused... Luke 18:31-34; Matthew 26:67,68

231. Isaiah 52:15...Nations startled by message of the Servant... Romans. 15:18-21

232. Isaiah 52:15...His blood shed to make atonement for all... Rev. 1:5

233. Isaiah 53:1...His people would not believe Him... John 12:37-38

234. Isaiah 53:2a...He would grow up in a poor family.... Luke 2:7

235. Isaiah 53:2b...Appearance of an ordinary man... Phil. 2:7-8

236. Isaiah 53:3a...Despised.... Luke 4:28-29

237. Isaiah 53:3b...Rejected... Matthew 27:21-23

238. Isaiah 53:3c...Great sorrow and grief... Luke 19:41-42

239. Isaiah 53:3d...Men hide from being associated with Him... Mark 14:50-52

240. Isaiah 53:4a...He would have a healing ministry... Luke 6:17-19

241. Isaiah 53:4b...He would bear the sins of the world... 1 Pet. 2:24

242. Isaiah 53:4c...Thought to be cursed by God... Matthew 27:41-43

243. Isaiah 53:5a...Bears penalty for mankind's transgressions... Luke 23:33

244. Isaiah 53:5b...His sacrifice would provide peace between man and God... Col. 1:20

245. Isaiah 53:5c...His back would be whipped... Matthew 27:26

246. Isaiah 53:6a...He would be the sin-bearer for all mankind...Galatians 1:4

247. Isaiah 53:6b...God's will that He bear sin for all mankind... 1 John 4:10

248. Isaiah 53:7a...Oppressed and afflicted... Matthew 27:27-31

249. Isaiah 53:7b...Silent before his accusers... Matthew 27:12-14

250. Isaiah 53:7c...Sacrificial lamb... John 1:29

251. Isaiah 53:8a...Confined and persecuted... Matthew 26:47-27:31

252. Isaiah 53:8b...He would be judged... John 18:13-22

253. Isaiah 53:8c...Killed.... Matthew 27:35

254. Isaiah 53:8d...Dies for the sins of the world... 1 John 2:2

255. Isaiah 53:9a...Buried in a rich man's grave... Matthew 27:57

256. Isaiah 53:9b...Innocent and had done no violence... Mark 15:3

257. Isaiah 53:9c...No deceit in his mouth... John 18:38

258. Isaiah 53:10a...God's will that He die for mankind... John 18:11

259. Isaiah 53:10b...An offering for sin... Matthew 20:28

260. Isaiah 53:10c...Resurrected and live forever.... Mark 16:16

261. Isaiah 53:10d...He would prosper... John 17:1-5

262. Isaiah 53:11a...God fully satisfied with His suffering... John 12:27

263. Isaiah 53:11b...God's servant... Romans. 5:18-19

264. Isaiah 53:11c...He would justify man before God... Romans. 5:8-9

All of this is misconstrued understandings by Christians and the storyteller writers who did not and do not understand that "the suffering servant" was Israel or the Jewish nation. It is not THE JESUS at all.

See - http://www.aish.com/sp/ph/Isaiah_53_The_Suffering_Servant.html

And why Jews, the originators of the Yahweh mythology don't believe THE JESUS is the Mashiach - http://www.aish.com/jw/s/48892792.html

And this - http://www.jewishisaiah53.com/websiterabbinic53.pdf

I could spend hours tearing apart each and ever 1 of your misapplied copy/paste claims, but you spent only seconds when you ripped them and didn't bother to research any of the possibilities of interpretations.

If you are going to proselytize and preach, perhaps you need to grasp the basics of the religion that was used for the basis, ie. Jewish beliefs, that morphed by creative misconceptions and failure of understanding into the religion you follow called Christianity.

You should start with this link and get the basics about Judaism which you as a Christian completely ignore - http://www.jewfaq.org/index.htm

That I also consider Jewish beliefs to be of the realm of fantasy and based in mythology is another subject.

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Jimenezj wrote:
Here are a few from Isaiah for you to analyze And comment Seventy Prophecies of Yeshua's First Coming By Eddie Chumney CHAPTER 11 He would be a descendent of Abraham (Avraham). 

Abraham is a myth. End of discussion.

But just to rub it in, you claim he is a descenant of Yahweh. Therefore you claim he could not possibly be related to the myth.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Jimenezj wrote:
There are 100 Prophacies of Isaiah posted here. If you are serious about what you preach, then why don't you analyze and comment on the first 70 prophecies ? .

No closer than Nostradamus if that is what you mean.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 2907
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Jimenezj wrote:
Sorry about that. I Posted the wrong one. Here is Isaiah again. This one has 100 prophecies Fullfield by Jesus Christ 1st coming.

When you post, all of your text is in one huge mass when one goes to quote it. This causes excessive issues as one must reformat the whole post to address the comments. I don't know how you are posting this stuff, from a smartphone with a crappy browser perhaps and you copy paste the text? It completely sucks.

Huh. Hasn't any one noticed that there is another user who is doing the same exact shit and using a phone to post their shit and it fucks every thing up on the post?

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1504
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
> If this had been an actual emergency . . .

Jimenezj wrote:
Ehrman says: "Yes, the historical Jesus of Nazareth did exist. Why did he say this?

 OP comment  . . .


ProzacDeathWish wrote:

Jimenezj wrote:
Very simple answer Zara, 100% of the bible is about Jesus Christ, From Genesis to Revelation. Therefore the bible is the word correct as the word of God. Why? The bible = Jesus Christ And Jesus Christ did exist . Repent if your sins and turn to God, For the kingdom of heaven is near. Why repent? Because God loves you.
 

        

                                                                                                            ...that was just hilarious !!!   

 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Jcgadfly  --  I don't think he got it when I told him the same thing. Maybe I'm too simple and straightforward for him.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
No he didn't. And he probably won't even after I go into great detail citing the claims of Jews and give him a translation of the Bible that shows his KJV is wrongly translated.

No he didn't. And he probably won't even after I go into great detail citing the claims of Jews and give him a translation of the Bible that shows his KJV is wrongly translated.

He thinks that we have no idea of his bible verse claims. He must think he's the 1st to bring us this.


  I purpose a visual test IF 100-percent of the Bible is about Jesus. That would presume the Jews do not know their Scriptures  as well as  Xian Protestants. Correct?  Then how about a little test? 

 

  Visual images ONLY. No unfair Googling on the fly.  Would you find this reasonable to ask of the passing Theist? Is it reasonable to ask a Theist to identify an image and what it is and roughly where it could be found in the bible? Most Protestants have a interest in imagry. There are some images I had in mind (I did read the Baal Kycle for myself).  Much the same as when your JC instructor highly recommends a work on a subject and later insists you read this work for a better understanding. Well Guess what the mid-Term is all about. Give a little hint even of what I had in mind.  No calculators are required.

To be entirely honest. I have tried this a couple of times and never got an answer. No, none of us (in this thread) would know how tha0t feels like?.  Huh? (smile)

 

 


Jimenezj
Theist
Posts: 344
Joined: 2011-12-16
User is offlineOffline
Pauljohn

You said,

164. Isaiah 7:14...To be born of a virgin...Luke 1:35 : The Hebrew text indicates "..behold, the young woman shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.."

The storyteller in Luke can think the Sun will rise in the West if he wants, that doesn't allow him to put forth misconstrued reading of the Hebrew text. Perhaps, he failed basic Hebrew in his training.

Wait a second, Luke wrote in Greek, did he even know Hebrew?

Virgin vs young lady

Both cases are identified as being virgins.
It wouldn't be a sign if a non virgin woman would
Give birth to a boy.
A biblical sign is something that is not of the norm.
It is logical that A virgin Girl giving birth would be a sign from God.
The New testament follows the Greek Septuagint as did Luke .
The Septuagint was the common scripture of that day and not the
Hebrew Masoretic text .
Do you accept a virgin birth as a sign?

appeal to ignorance is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it. If there is positive evidence for the conclusion, then of course we have other reasons for accepting it, but a lack of evidence by itself is no evidence for a no God. 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13478
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
x wrote:None of the

x wrote:

None of the Christian writers even claim to have seen or met Jesus the Christ.

 

In my view, using Christian scripture as evidence for the existence of such a person is like taking The Book or Mormon or the writings of L Ron Hubbard seriously.

These are good recent examples of how religious literature is created.

BINGO, all it takes is for one human to make a claim in voice or written and then another gullible idiot to swallow it. THIS IS HOW ALL RELIGIONS GET INVENTED.

It is not to say the writers or the followers didn't believe what they swallowed, it is to say no matter how many people did, it didn't make it true. Dungeons and Dragons can be a very elaborate game, but it doesn't make the characters in it real even if real people are noted to invent it.

It took a human in the past to look up at the sun and make the false claim that it was a thinking deity. It took others to buy it, and enough people DID BUY IT which is why we have records of what the Ancient Egyptians  having believed it for 3,000 years. But the truth was even with all that proclamation and monuments and writings the sun was not a deity.

Humans with their modern superstitions are NOT doing anything differently.

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Jimenezj
Theist
Posts: 344
Joined: 2011-12-16
User is offlineOffline
Paul John

The majoraty of the Jews in the past and today and people like
Yourself ,Are ignorant of scripture because of the lack Greek
Knowledge of the Septuagint and the New testament.
The Septuagint was written by Jewish scholars of that era
Around 300BC.

Why did the jewish scholars all agree to use the word
Virgin?

So that there would not be any confusion on the topic.

The Jews failed to see and understand the 1st coming of the
Messiah Jesus Christ because of ignorance and confusion of
Prophacy in scripture.

In the past and today, Only a remnant of Jews and gentiles do
know bible prophacy.

Do you know the two most common forms of
Prophacy interpretation ?

appeal to ignorance is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it. If there is positive evidence for the conclusion, then of course we have other reasons for accepting it, but a lack of evidence by itself is no evidence for a no God. 


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1202
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is onlineOnline
Jimenezj

Jimenezj,

Before you pile any more prophecies and preaching on this topic, would you care to answer my question which actually addresses the OP?   

Why do you appeal to Ehrman's authority in regard to the historicity of jesus, but promptly abandon that same authority in regard to the resurrection and other supernatural claims attached to jesus? 

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2483
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Jimenezj wrote:PJTS

Jimenezj wrote:

PJTS wrote:
You said, 164. Isaiah 7:14...To be born of a virgin...Luke 1:35 : The Hebrew text indicates "..behold, the young woman shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.." The storyteller in Luke can think the Sun will rise in the West if he wants, that doesn't allow him to put forth misconstrued reading of the Hebrew text. Perhaps, he failed basic Hebrew in his training. Wait a second, Luke wrote in Greek, did he even know Hebrew?

 Virgin vs young lady Both cases are identified as being virgins. It wouldn't be a sign if a non virgin woman would Give birth to a boy.

No they are not. The inadequate LXX aka the greek Septuaint, which was rejected by the Jews as filled with errors does have this error. It was brought forward to the even worse KJV. 

The text of Isaiah is clear it was a sign occuring in their time, read all of chap 7 & 8 in context.The point was before the baby would know good from evil, that it would occur as indicated   in v16-17.

"16 Yea, before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land whose two kings thou hast a horror of shall be forsaken. 17The LORD shall bring upon thee, and upon thy people, and upon thy father's house, days that have not come, from the day that Ephraim departed from Judah; even the king of Assyria.'

Jimenezj wrote:
A biblical sign is something that is not of the norm.

There are many supposed Biblical signs, this one is very obvious and the sign is that the Assyrians would invade before the child knew right from wrong.

It has nothing to do with the Jesus, it's right there in the text that it would be in their time frame.

Jimenezj wrote:
It is logical that A virgin Girl giving birth would be a sign from God.

Not, it is mythological or fantasy based.

Jimenezj wrote:

The New testament follows the Greek Septuagint as did Luke .

I know what Luke did, that doesn't make it correct.

Jimenezj wrote:

The Septuagint was the common scripture of that day and not the Hebrew Masoretic text .

Only by those who were not experts in hebrew scripture.

The Greek text was rejected for its errors and poor translations by Judaism and the priests and rabbis.

The DSS, Dead Sea Scrolls, agrees with the Masoretic not with the Greek

Jimenezj wrote:

Do you accept a virgin birth as a sign?

No.

Do you accept Harry Potter or The Matrix as Real?

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2483
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Jimenezj wrote:The majoraty

Jimenezj wrote:

The majoraty of the Jews in the past and today and people like Yourself ,Are ignorant of scripture because of the lack Greek Knowledge of the Septuagint and the New testament.

Use whatever excuse you want to justify your fantasies.

I've read both the LXX and the Hebrew texts as well as all the other English versions. 

If you had bothered to go to the jewish web sites I gave, you'd see the logical reasons for what they use and why.

You are the one displaying ignorance by adhering to the Greek.

Jimenezj wrote:

The Septuagint was written by Jewish scholars of that era Around 300BC. Why did the jewish scholars all agree to use the word Virgin? So that there would not be any confusion on the topic.

They were a hand picked group by the Ptolmaic rulers in the beginning. It was not finished in the 300 BCE time frame either. By mid 2nd century BCE it was generally complete.

Jimenezj wrote:

 

The Jews failed to see and understand the 1st coming of the Messiah Jesus Christ because of ignorance and confusion of Prophacy in scripture.

Not hardly.

Go to the Judaism 101 web site and the link I gave you why Jews don't accept Jesus as the mashiach.

Jimenezj wrote:

  In the past and today, Only a remnant of Jews and gentiles do know bible prophacy. Do you know the two most common forms of Prophacy interpretation ?

And you aren't one of them since you ignore Jewish interpretation and prophecies they consider.

They created the Yahweh religion and myths which Christians morphed into the Jesus storytelling legends.

Go see their objections and respond why they are wrong about their own stories and defend why you are right.

No more walls of copy/paste, do your own work with links and appropriate quotes to support your views.

 

 

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Jimenezj

Brian37 wrote:

Jimenezj wrote:
You said, Jesus may have been a real person. Not "may" but "did" , as per Bart. Read his book and get back to me.

HELLO!

OUR POINT IS WE DON'T CARE! And even IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF

You found the DNA of the founder of the Christian religion, you are ONLY finding a man, not a super hero.

I'll take "common sense via Captain Obvious 101" for $5000.

 

Quote:
No human in history has ever talked to a god.

r0ng! (Amenhotep, various Caesars, Lu Sung, etc)

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Jimenezj wrote:
You said, 164. Isaiah 7:14...To be born of a virgin...Luke 1:35 : The Hebrew text indicates "..behold, the young woman shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.." The storyteller in Luke can think the Sun will rise in the West if he wants, that doesn't allow him to put forth misconstrued reading of the Hebrew text. Perhaps, he failed basic Hebrew in his training. Wait a second, Luke wrote in Greek, did he even know Hebrew? Virgin vs young lady Both cases are identified as being virgins. It wouldn't be a sign if a non virgin woman would Give birth to a boy. A biblical sign is something that is not of the norm. It is logical that A virgin Girl giving birth would be a sign from God. The New testament follows the Greek Septuagint as did Luke . The Septuagint was the common scripture of that day and not the Hebrew Masoretic text . Do you accept a virgin birth as a sign?

What does being the first born child of a woman have to do with it?

As to being a sign, not without hymen inspections certified in writing and witnessed.

The Septuagint is the original text. The Masoretic first appears around 1000 AD.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Jimenezj wrote:

PJTS wrote:
You said, 164. Isaiah 7:14...To be born of a virgin...Luke 1:35 : The Hebrew text indicates "..behold, the young woman shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.." The storyteller in Luke can think the Sun will rise in the West if he wants, that doesn't allow him to put forth misconstrued reading of the Hebrew text. Perhaps, he failed basic Hebrew in his training. Wait a second, Luke wrote in Greek, did he even know Hebrew?

 Virgin vs young lady Both cases are identified as being virgins. It wouldn't be a sign if a non virgin woman would Give birth to a boy.

No they are not. The inadequate LXX aka the greek Septuaint, which was rejected by the Jews as filled with errors does have this error. It was brought forward to the even worse KJV.

 

Factually all the early jewish mentions of the Septuagint from the forged letter of Aristeas, through Josephus to the Mishna all refer to the Septuagint as an accurate translation with the degree of miraculous causation of accuracy increasing with time.

The claim it is in error first appears after the Masoretic appears.

The Masoretic is an abbreviated form of the DSS and the DSS is an abbreviated form of the Septuagint.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2483
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Anony, So Tell Jimemez the rest.

So Tell Jimemez the rest.

 

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Jimenezj wrote:

PJTS wrote:
You said, 164. Isaiah 7:14...To be born of a virgin...Luke 1:35 : The Hebrew text indicates "..behold, the young woman shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.." The storyteller in Luke can think the Sun will rise in the West if he wants, that doesn't allow him to put forth misconstrued reading of the Hebrew text. Perhaps, he failed basic Hebrew in his training. Wait a second, Luke wrote in Greek, did he even know Hebrew?

 Virgin vs young lady Both cases are identified as being virgins. It wouldn't be a sign if a non virgin woman would Give birth to a boy.

No they are not. The inadequate LXX aka the greek Septuaint, which was rejected by the Jews as filled with errors does have this error. It was brought forward to the even worse KJV.

 

Factually all the early jewish mentions of the Septuagint from the forged letter of Aristeas, through Josephus to the Mishna all refer to the Septuagint as an accurate translation with the degree of miraculous causation of accuracy increasing with time.

The claim it is in error first appears after the Masoretic appears.

The Masoretic is an abbreviated form of the DSS and the DSS is an abbreviated form of the Septuagint.

Tell him the rest of what you think,

You indicate the Bible stories were all a creation in the 2nd century and never existed before.

Isn't your position that the Jewish myths were all a made up religion at that point during the Maccabean period?

 

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2483
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Anony, not so fast

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Jimenezj wrote:
You said, 164. Isaiah 7:14...To be born of a virgin...Luke 1:35 : The Hebrew text indicates "..behold, the young woman shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.." The storyteller in Luke can think the Sun will rise in the West if he wants, that doesn't allow him to put forth misconstrued reading of the Hebrew text. Perhaps, he failed basic Hebrew in his training. Wait a second, Luke wrote in Greek, did he even know Hebrew? Virgin vs young lady Both cases are identified as being virgins. It wouldn't be a sign if a non virgin woman would Give birth to a boy. A biblical sign is something that is not of the norm. It is logical that A virgin Girl giving birth would be a sign from God. The New testament follows the Greek Septuagint as did Luke . The Septuagint was the common scripture of that day and not the Hebrew Masoretic text . Do you accept a virgin birth as a sign?

What does being the first born child of a woman have to do with it?

As to being a sign, not without hymen inspections certified in writing and witnessed.

The Septuagint is the original text. The Masoretic first appears around 1000 AD.

 

This is one place we disagree. I'm of the view the priests including Ezra created the Hebrew Book of Myths and Legends probably in the 5th century BCE.

The Great Isaiah scroll found in the Qumran caves generally agrees with the MT. It was in Hebrew not Greek. The dating is anywhere from 100 BCE to 325 BCE in carbon dating tests.

So, it can fit your position that the storytales were created in the 2nd century BCE or it's also possible the storytelling dates earlier.

What there is not is anything to indicate the myths of the Jews date to before Judah was decimated by Babylon. And as I always mention, the Northern part known as Israel was never part of the south nor did they leave anything behind indicating they believed the later created Jewish fables. The fables all come later, sometime after the 5th century BCE and definitely by the 2nd century BCE. An exact date of the creation of the myths and fables of the Jews is difficult to give.

I don't read Hebrew or Greek only English and Spanish so I have to rely on translators.

From what I read of them, they indicate the DSS versions of Isaiah agree with the MT on the points we are discussing.

That however does not make any part of it as historical at all. And it's definitely not an oracle soothsayer predicting a future desert prophet King of the Jews as the son of the god Yahweh.

see - http://dss.collections.imj.org.il/isaiah

You have something else?

 

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

So Tell Jimemez the rest.

 

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Jimenezj wrote:

PJTS wrote:
You said, 164. Isaiah 7:14...To be born of a virgin...Luke 1:35 : The Hebrew text indicates "..behold, the young woman shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.." The storyteller in Luke can think the Sun will rise in the West if he wants, that doesn't allow him to put forth misconstrued reading of the Hebrew text. Perhaps, he failed basic Hebrew in his training. Wait a second, Luke wrote in Greek, did he even know Hebrew?

 Virgin vs young lady Both cases are identified as being virgins. It wouldn't be a sign if a non virgin woman would Give birth to a boy.

No they are not. The inadequate LXX aka the greek Septuaint, which was rejected by the Jews as filled with errors does have this error. It was brought forward to the even worse KJV.

 

Factually all the early jewish mentions of the Septuagint from the forged letter of Aristeas, through Josephus to the Mishna all refer to the Septuagint as an accurate translation with the degree of miraculous causation of accuracy increasing with time.

The claim it is in error first appears after the Masoretic appears.

The Masoretic is an abbreviated form of the DSS and the DSS is an abbreviated form of the Septuagint.

Tell him the rest of what you think,

You indicate the Bible stories were all a creation in the 2nd century and never existed before.

Isn't your position that the Jewish myths were all a made up religion at that point during the Maccabean period?

I have given him the link. The usual deafening silence followed. www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

I merely observed considering all the archaeology of bibleland there is no possible reconstruction of the cultures living there that comes closer than a light year to the bible stories. I futher note there is no contemporary corroboration of any of the stories. The very few items in the narrative that are within a light year of the region cannot be distinguished from very poor historical fiction.

Proceeding from there to the real evidence the only rational thing which can be said is that the Septuagint is the original.

The more research I did the more indications there were of a time and place of creation that fit into historical events and which in no way conflict with the Greek being the original.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
Jimenezj wrote:
You said, 164. Isaiah 7:14...To be born of a virgin...Luke 1:35 : The Hebrew text indicates "..behold, the young woman shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.." The storyteller in Luke can think the Sun will rise in the West if he wants, that doesn't allow him to put forth misconstrued reading of the Hebrew text. Perhaps, he failed basic Hebrew in his training. Wait a second, Luke wrote in Greek, did he even know Hebrew? Virgin vs young lady Both cases are identified as being virgins. It wouldn't be a sign if a non virgin woman would Give birth to a boy. A biblical sign is something that is not of the norm. It is logical that A virgin Girl giving birth would be a sign from God. The New testament follows the Greek Septuagint as did Luke . The Septuagint was the common scripture of that day and not the Hebrew Masoretic text . Do you accept a virgin birth as a sign?

What does being the first born child of a woman have to do with it?

As to being a sign, not without hymen inspections certified in writing and witnessed.

The Septuagint is the original text. The Masoretic first appears around 1000 AD.

This is one place we disagree. I'm of the view the priests including Ezra created the Hebrew Book of Myths and Legends probably in the 5th century BCE.

The main problem with that is there is no evidence of any captivity to return from. Without that being in evidence there is no point is speculating as to what UNbiblical things occurred after the fanciful time in Babylon. BTW: Daniel is one of the books which can be dated intrinsically by when "prophecies" change from all correct to all wrong. That date is mid 2nd c. BC. Nice match no?

Assuming this retreating position is correct it still causes many problems. Back when the religious tradition was of the Torah having been written by Moses and subsequent books being roughly contemporary with the events they recorded believers were seeing all kinds of evidence in the style of the writing showing the development of the "hebrew" language. As it is impossible to preserve writing style in oral tradition (if there were such a thing as oral tradition) if Ezra and friends wrote all the previous, why are they not all in the same style? Why did they not reconcile the numerous discrepancies and contradictions and stylistic differences? It is also reasonable to ask, if created by Ezra and friends they are not in Babylonian as the locals were not literate. And how to suddenly write in what a non-believer can only describe as Aramaic instead of "hebrew." The local language at the time was still Phoenician. Aramaic does not take over until after Alexander.

The currently popular idea of Ezra rather and Moses and later writers is based upon nothing more than the least possible retreat from having to acknowledge Moses and others did not write the books. It is nothing more than an attempt to salvage as much as possible and hoping no further retreat is necessary.

However if the DSS are translations from the Greek by people with varying mastery of Greek then we would expect to see differences.

Additionally Herodotus was in the region in the mid 5th c. BC. He mentions the Palestinians and the Syrians and Cyprus by name but no mention of any Hebrews or people who could have been them. He also lists peoples who practiced circumcision and still no bible people. Of course we can't run to far with absence of mention but Herodotus was writes as someone seeking to amuse his readers with tales of the strange and unusual. One would expect a mention of the strangest people in all the world, people who had only one god. Even after Judea appears in history there is no mention of this unique characteristic. To me that indicates quite simply they had more than one god. The religion of the people is not the religion of the priests.

Which leads to a further issue. This retreat from Moses to Eza has the implication that it was the influence of Zoroastrian thought on Cyrus that lead to what Ezra new religion. I may write up something more extensive on that some day but for the moment it requires extreme ignorance of Zoroastrianism and Cyrus to think such a thing is possible.

Quote:
The Great Isaiah scroll found in the Qumran caves generally agrees with the MT. It was in Hebrew not Greek. The dating is anywhere from 100 BCE to 325 BCE in carbon dating tests.

There is no way the scroll can have that great an error even under the old, unreconciled C14 methodology. Second, everything I have read from academic sources they date from early mid 1st c. BC to late mid c. AD. And again the unbeliever cannot honestly call hebrew other than a local dialect of Aramaic. The "hebrew" alphabet is in fact that of 1st c. AD Aramaic.

However the DSS version does not disagree with the Septuagint version and contains nothing not found in the Septuagint. I'll have to confirm it but I remember this being one of the examples of the DSS containing less than the Septuagint and the MT containing less than the DSS. When things are in that order no one would pick the DSS as the source of both. The order is clearly LXX => DSS => MT.

Quote:
So, it can fit your position that the storytales were created in the 2nd century BCE or it's also possible the storytelling dates earlier.

Note my position is based upon historical and archaeological evidence. There is no evidence of an earlier creation. Many things are possible but the rational person deals only with what is in evidence. Speculating beyond the evidence cannot be differentiated from fantasy. Why invent something without evidence? Because once in retreat from Moses you are headed towards the dates that are in evidence which I talk about.

Writing was expensive back then. A class of scribes had to be supported. From archaeology is appears writing is a consequence of kingdoms and empires as the only way to rule them. Thus we find elaborate contracts most common, laws next most common and tales of the gods the least common. And we find them on durable material such as baked clay and stone. Prior to the Greeks all there is a crude business contracts on broken pottery -- no suggestion of anything produced for the purpose of writing on. So if one claims after Babylon then one expects an explosion of written material after that time. No such thing is found. We do not find stone inscriptions of the law which every other literate civilization did. The only two written mentions of Yahweh that have survived as funerary inscriptions also mention his consort Ashara. Consort does not mean competing god. Bibleland was replete with god/goddess pairs for different groups.

Quote:
What there is not is anything to indicate the myths of the Jews date to before Judah was decimated by Babylon.

Nor evidence of the decimation, captivity or return. BTW, there is evidence of Samaria and Omri but there is no evidence they were anything like the bible story. And Josephus recounts the Judea conquered Samaria under the rule of John Hyrcanus (son of Judah the Hammer) and forced the people to adopt circumcision and other Yahweh cult practices. That cannot be reconciled with the plain reading of Ezra and "later" books.

Quote:
And as I always mention, the Northern part known as Israel was never part of the south nor did they leave anything behind indicating they believed the later created Jewish fables. The fables all come later, sometime after the 5th century BCE and definitely by the 2nd century BCE. An exact date of the creation of the myths and fables of the Jews is difficult to give.

The problem with that is simply that it is an invented story, a just so story, to explain how the tales from religious tradition can still be "true." Since the tradition is true then the past is changed to fit the truth. It is like paring away what is known of Egypt to salvage the Abraham and Moses stories.

For example why the effort to rationalize the relationship between northern and southern parts when there is no evidence they ever existed?

You say "definitely by the 2nd century BCE." Upon what physical evidence is that statement based? That is a very reasonable question. It is the one I started asking for such assertions. It took a lot of time establishing there was no basis for them. I freely admit what I do not know and do label speculation for what it is but I do try to base speculation in evidence.

Yes, I know the first appearance of the stories in the Septuagint. That is not speculation. That is from exhaustive search of every available reference to earlier creation. If I have missed something please tell me.

The sole basis for the claim of the Septuagint being a translation is the forged letter of Aristeas. It is the only source anyone cites. Yet it is a known forgery and does date to the same time frame as the Septuagint appears. You may recall the Book of Mormon appeared along with a sworn statement by seven men that they had seen the golden plates. Both are the same type of fraud.

I have no idea why they were created.  But here I can speculate many reasons and eliminate those which are not supported by the evidence which does survive. In many places Josephus could have invoked the Septuagint or even a hebrew version as a conclusive argument such as Bk 2 of Against Apion. He does not. What better place to use it to refute the claim Moses was an Egyptian priest and the Judeans lepers? If the Septuagint had existed when religious tradition would have it why did Apion not know where they came from? Appears to me, even though Josephus attests to accuracy of the translation, he did not consider it authoritative in regards to Moses and Exodus. So if I speculate they were considered sacred works and real history why does not Josephus treat them as such? However if he considered the stories the equivalent of Greek mythology then not citing them as fact is expected.

Quote:
I don't read Hebrew or Greek only English and Spanish so I have to rely on translators.

Given the existence of an argument saying the Septuagint contains "hebraisms" which have no parallel in (classical) Greek someone long before me started suggesting the Septuagint was the original. It was about a year ago that I found an early 20th c. book describing the old idea of hebraisms as having been overturned by the late 19th discovering of Koine Greek which did have the same structures all through the language. This makes the "hebrew" filled with the styles of Koine Greek. The evidence of which was the translation was reversed some 130 years ago. If others have noticed this, where have they published? If it can be refuted where are the refutations published?
I find even in forums like this the idea is anathema to public discussion. I really want someone to argue the evidence with me. I can't find a single person nor can I find anything in print or on the web other than my material.

Quote:
From what I read of them, they indicate the DSS versions of Isaiah agree with the MT on the points we are discussing.

That however does not make any part of it as historical at all. And it's definitely not an oracle soothsayer predicting a future desert prophet King of the Jews as the son of the god Yahweh.

Actually one of the stories about the Judeans or city-state of Jerusalem if you wish is Moses was an ancient spirit summoned by the priests for oracular purposes. That is completely reasonable to anyone but people who compare it to the Septuagint. Noting as above Josephus did not use it as authoritative when the situation begged for it modern traditions about it are quite different from his view of it.

Quote:
see - http://dss.collections.imj.org.il/isaiah

You have something else?

Government run museums are hardly the place to start looking for deviation from the zionist justification for murder and theft. BTW: The DSS were looted from Palestine after the 1967 war.

That said, what do you read that provides evidence contrary to what I have written? The narrative is a dumbed down tourist/history channel exposition. I have looked into academic writings on the subject but they appear to be intentionally difficult to use. For example they use the code designations given the scrolls and fragments before their contents was known. I have not found a table of codes to common scroll names and ran into source material problems when I tried to make one. I haven't given up but it is not high priority. I do not know if the absence of such a table means anything other than I haven't found it yet. What I have found appears to be dancing around something they all know but won't say. Of course I could be paranoid but I remember in the early 90s a report that the researchers were debating to let it all hang out in public or remain opaque to non-specialists. I have heard nothing new about the so I assume opaque won.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


x
Bronze Member
Posts: 591
Joined: 2010-06-15
User is offlineOffline
Carrier's review

 

http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/1026

 

Having completed and fully annotated Ehrman’s new book Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth (Harper 2012), I can officially say it is filled with factual errors, logical fallacies, and badly worded arguments.

Moreover, it completely fails at its one explicit task: to effectively critique the arguments for Jesus being a mythical person.

Lousy with errors and failing even at the one useful thing it could have done, this is not a book I can recommend.

 

 


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2483
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Still working on it myself

x wrote:

 

http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/1026

 

Having completed and fully annotated Ehrman’s new book Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth (Harper 2012), I can officially say it is filled with factual errors, logical fallacies, and badly worded arguments.

Moreover, it completely fails at its one explicit task: to effectively critique the arguments for Jesus being a mythical person.

Lousy with errors and failing even at the one useful thing it could have done, this is not a book I can recommend.

 

 

I'm still working on it myself. I do taxes for a major company and have had no time to do much the last few weeks. After I adjust to a normal schedule I'll continue my review of it.

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


Jimenezj
Theist
Posts: 344
Joined: 2011-12-16
User is offlineOffline
Mouse

You said ,

The order is clearly LXX => DSS => MT.

This would indicate that the Septuagint is the original.

What books have you read that point to this ?
I find this very interesting .

Maybe PaulJohn can learn something from you.

appeal to ignorance is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it. If there is positive evidence for the conclusion, then of course we have other reasons for accepting it, but a lack of evidence by itself is no evidence for a no God. 


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Jimenezj wrote:
You said , The order is clearly LXX => DSS => MT. This would indicate that the Septuagint is the original. What books have you read that point to this ? I find this very interesting . Maybe PaulJohn can learn something from you.

Read the material itself. It is clear even in translation.

Project Gutenberg is alive and well.

However the money shot is,

The letter of Aristeas is a forgery therefore the Septuagint is the original.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2483
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Jimenezj wrote:You said ,

Jimenezj wrote:
You said , The order is clearly LXX => DSS => MT. This would indicate that the Septuagint is the original.

What books have you read that point to this ? I find this very interesting . Maybe PaulJohn can learn something from you.

This doesn't help you Jimenez, it indicates even more clearly that the OT is a work of storytelling created in order to make the Jews look important dating it to the 2nd century BCE.

Go visit Anony_mouse's website and see how that implodes your whole world.

I'm aware of Anony's position on when the storytelling was created, we only differ on the date the myths and fantasies were created no more.

They are still storytelling and fantasy tales, his view is even more detrimental to you then mine. He's saying it was all made up during the Macabean period which makes all of the tales complete fantasy.

My view is the stories of fiction and fantasy were probably created around the time of Ezra. Though, they may have been extremely sketchy as in outlines. It's possible that the complete fairy tales weren't completed until the Greek. As either way it's still Sci-Fi and Fantasy tales it matters little.

 

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2483
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:The

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

The letter of Aristeas is a forgery therefore the Septuagint is the original.

 

I know the letter is a forgery.

The LXX probably did not exist until sometime in the late 2nd century BCE and was probably not well known until the 1st century BCE or perhaps the 1st century CE, at least in circulation.

The Jesus quotes in Matthew 5:18 using the words jot and tittle which are in reference to the Hebrew, a jot is a Hebrew letter and a tittle is the mark between the letters. This indicates to me at least the LXX was not used by the mythmakers who wrote the NT. Though this could obviously be more creative writing to make the Jews look ancient. In fact there is no way to be certain when the storytelling legends were written and which ones were in circulation.

In 1 Macabees 1, Antiochus sacked the temple and took the gold and silver vessels and violated the holy places. However, 1 Mac 1 does not detail the god belief system in place. The temple could have been to the Yahweh and his consort Asherah or to warped versions of the god.

In the Books of the Macabees, 1 Mac 1:59-60 it is mentioned that Antiochus had the Jews or Judeans if you want, killed that were found with scrolls of their fantasy religion. They were supposedly burned along with the scrolls. The language of these scrolls is not mentioned.

There is the argument based on Sirach's preface written by Jeshua ben Sira's grandson in 132 BCE that the law, prophets and writings were translated into Greek by then. Sirach was supposedly written by about 175 BCE. This seems to agree with your view that the LXX was created in the 2nd century BCE. Exactly which books is not clear as no list appeared anywhere in detail.

What was the basis of the storytelling if the Greek was the originals? Did the writers use old myths and legends or earlier incomplete stories and outlines?

Did Ezra create the OT as indicated in 4 Esdras, which itself may be a created 1st century CE writing as well? 4 Esdras 14:21-48 indicates the books of the law were burnt. In the next 40 days supposedly he and others wrote 94 books, 24 to be published and 70 to be held in secret.

This text is attributed to an unknown writer of Apocalyptic leanings in the 1st century. Was this writer actually passing on a legend of earlier times, that Ezra wrote the Hebrew Bible? Perhaps, or not.

It is unclear to me when exactly the storytelling legends were made into the great big fictional book called the Hebrew Bible, the LXX, or the OT. It matters little which was 1st, though by mid 2nd century BCE some sort of holy books existed that were being burned along with the person who possessed them. Greek or Hebrew is not known. As Hebrew was generally not the language of the people in Judea, I see your point on the Greek.

It would take some really good con men to create all of this storytelling and sell it to the public at large. Were the Macabees a 2nd century BCE equivalent to Joseph Smith? Con artists? Perhaps.

Or perhaps, scraps of the legends all existed and were put together into the storybook in this period.

Baruch, dating to 175 BCE or so discusses the Law of Moses, some of the storytales, the god, and that the idols of Babylon are not real gods. So by this point, some sort of story telling had to exist that put the myths together, that is the Law of Moses must have been in some form or the other prior to the writing of Baruch. That Moses was a fairy tale does not detract from the supposed writings of the law were in some fform or the other.

Short stories and myths or complete story tale legends, likely existed prior to the LXX. In what language, I have no idea.

 

 

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


x
Bronze Member
Posts: 591
Joined: 2010-06-15
User is offlineOffline
Excellent

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

I'm still working on it myself. I do taxes for a major company and have had no time to do much the last few weeks. After I adjust to a normal schedule I'll continue my review of it.

Looking forward to it.

I'm quite busy too and this topic seems to be generating thousands of words a day.

I'm still grinding through Carrier and Doherty's reviews and maybe in ten years time I'll form a firm opinion on this.


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
The letter of Aristeas is a forgery therefore the Septuagint is the original.

I know the letter is a forgery.

The LXX probably did not exist until sometime in the late 2nd century BCE and was probably not well known until the 1st century BCE or perhaps the 1st century CE, at least in circulation.

More or less agree. On one hand when Pompey arrives in the region in 67 BC the local political order is as described by Josephus as a consequence of the mid 2nd c. BC wars. The question of well known becomes well known where? And then there are several surviving collections of the Septuagint. There is no indication they were considered a single collection regardless of which books until the Roman and Sinatican collections centuries later. Josephus clearly says the Judeans have only 22 holy books and there is no to mix and match to salvage all that are called the Septuagint or OT. Anyone who can put all that together, Te Salude!

The Septuagint does not mention priest kings. It creates laws and penalties that today are associated with ancient Chinese emperors. Pompey finds priest kings and a politcal order matches what Josephus writes and attributes to temple records. I default to what appears to be a legitimate historical record.

Quote:
The Jesus quotes in Matthew 5:18 using the words jot and tittle which are in reference to the Hebrew, a jot is a Hebrew letter and a tittle is the mark between the letters. This indicates to me at least the LXX was not used by the mythmakers who wrote the NT. Though this could obviously be more creative writing to make the Jews look ancient. In fact there is no way to be certain when the storytelling legends were written and which ones were in circulation.

Actually jot and tittle are in the "explained as" reference to Hebrew category. Several problems arise. There is no evidence Hebrew as ever a spoken language. Were it not for a couple a three letters found at Qumran there would be no examples of it outside of the Hebrew translation. The so-called hebrew script is 1st c. AD Aramaic script. And the "hebraicisms" in the Septuagint are Koine Greek and that has been known since the late 19th c. Jot and tittle exists in no known Hebrew text meaning the Septuagint translation and the Qumran letters.

Matthew is written in Greek. Any source material would have been in Aramaic if the Apostles had been literate. If there is any source for jot and tittle that needs finding it is either in Aramaic or Koine Greek.

Quote:
In 1 Macabees 1, Antiochus sacked the temple and took the gold and silver vessels and violated the holy places. However, 1 Mac 1 does not detail the god belief system in place. The temple could have been to the Yahweh and his consort Asherah or to warped versions of the god.

On this one point jump to the end and read the description of the worship ceremony after the purification. It reads like a ceremony to Dionysius. Laurel leaves and the whole nine yards.

Quote:
In the Books of the Macabees, 1 Mac 1:59-60 it is mentioned that Antiochus had the Jews or Judeans if you want, killed that were found with scrolls of their fantasy religion. They were supposedly burned along with the scrolls. The language of these scrolls is not mentioned.

For the entire Maccabe thing it is more useful to read Josephus, www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/wars-of-proxy.html because it makes much more sense and it clarifies the ambiguities in Maccabe. It even explains the Maccabe letter to the Spartans calling them brothers in Abraham as the Ptolmeys and the Spartans were conspiring against the Seleucids at the time.

Quote:
There is the argument based on Sirach's preface written by Jeshua ben Sira's grandson in 132 BCE that the law, prophets and writings were translated into Greek by then. Sirach was supposedly written by about 175 BCE. This seems to agree with your view that the LXX was created in the 2nd century BCE. Exactly which books is not clear as no list appeared anywhere in detail.

What was the basis of the storytelling if the Greek was the originals? Did the writers use old myths and legends or earlier incomplete stories and outlines?

A singular basis I cannot find. I also cannot find a singular basis for the hugely greater corpus of Buffy and Angel. I point out in English the Septuagint is about 500,000 words. Ten people for ten years is 5000 words per person per year. Joss Whedon and Marti Noxon did hugely more in less time.

What is noteworthy is that people consider it noteworthy. Frankly without the "what it really means" companion material it reads like dreck. The publication of the KJV was held up some ten years to recruit the best writers and poet to pretty up the words but the contents is still dreck. Nor is it anything new. And it is a poor example of the genre.

Quote:
Did Ezra create the OT as indicated in 4 Esdras, which itself may be a created 1st century CE writing as well? 4 Esdras 14:21-48 indicates the books of the law were burnt. In the next 40 days supposedly he and others wrote 94 books, 24 to be published and 70 to be held in secret.

The first problem is we know what literate cultures are like. Items of religious content are the least common. If this were a legitimate local product there should be indications of tens of times more civil laws and decrees, court rulings and official records. But there is nothing. Shall we plead bibleland exceptionalism?

The second is, in what language was it written? So they are dragged off to Babylon from bibleland where all the known inscriptions are written in Phoenician script and they come back to an illiterate culture and choose to write in hebrew a language no one ever spoke using Aramaic script from the 1st c. AD. Something has to give there. I prefer to let the believers fight and drop back to the simplest explanation, it didn't happen.

The third problem is, after 70 years in a land of dirt cheap clay to write on and a reportedly quick method of writing (despite appearances) they did not use it. They did not even use the clay. In fact, from the archaeological evidence, they did not write at all.

For believers the answer to all these problems is simple. The OT exists therefore they could write. The rest is simply rationalizing away the problems. Pardon if I find the reasoning circular.

There are more problems of course. If Ezra wrote chronological history then he, not Herodotus, is the father of history. Want to deal with that one?

Quote:
This text is attributed to an unknown writer of Apocalyptic leanings in the 1st century. Was this writer actually passing on a legend of earlier times, that Ezra wrote the Hebrew Bible? Perhaps, or not.

Or was he like every good fiction writer today reimagining a story like many people today reimagining legends of vampires and werewolve and zombies? Night of the Living Dead is the first time zombies are really dead. That was original. Does that make true? Does that make it in any way different from previous stories? Or was he like the educated in ancient times who completed the required "course work" learning to rewrite anything in their own words with an eye to both personalizing and improving it?

Quote:
It is unclear to me when exactly the storytelling legends were made into the great big fictional book called the Hebrew Bible, the LXX, or the OT. It matters little which was 1st, though by mid 2nd century BCE some sort of holy books existed that were being burned along with the person who possessed them. Greek or Hebrew is not known. As Hebrew was generally not the language of the people in Judea, I see your point on the Greek.

The fact that it was not produced as a single book, but as independent scrolls neatly explains all the contraditctions. It was not a single production. There was no single editor. No one cross-checked the contents. Apparently someone at some time decided all the scrolls mentionng some god that could be construed to be the same god should be collected -- except Ester with is a Cinderella story got in there somehow. It explains why centuries after Solomon decrees sacrifice only in Jerusalem other kings are doing it in other cities apparently oblivious of any temple in Jerusalem.

Thanks for raising this issue. I have to revise some of my website material because of it. I make several jokes about a poor editor which need to change to point out there was no editor.

Quote:
It would take some really good con men to create all of this storytelling and sell it to the public at large. Were the Macabees a 2nd century BCE equivalent to Joseph Smith? Con artists? Perhaps.

Or perhaps, scraps of the legends all existed and were put together into the storybook in this period.

As the metaphor of reimagining stories was one of my breakthrough realizations you make a good point. But how hard was it to sell Buffy even though it was a reimagining? There is NOTHING new in the stories. There is nothing hinting at a unique origin. Consider all the kings in the stories. Would people in Egypt at that time with nearly 4000 year long king lists be short of king stories? Solomon is not materially different from Ramses II. Of all the kings Omri of Samaria is the only connection with a real king from bibleland. The story about him appears to know little more than his name and then runs on about imaginary successors. Omri is the only king that shows up in real history and his city the only one we would call civilized found by archaeologists in bibleland.

There ZERO reason to make a special pleading for local origin any more than there is to find the basis for the REAL three musketeers.

Quote:
Baruch, dating to 175 BCE or so discusses the Law of Moses, some of the storytales, the god, and that the idols of Babylon are not real gods. So by this point, some sort of story telling had to exist that put the myths together, that is the Law of Moses must have been in some form or the other prior to the writing of Baruch. That Moses was a fairy tale does not detract from the supposed writings of the law were in some fform or the other.

Short stories and myths or complete story tale legends, likely existed prior to the LXX. In what language, I have no idea.

I have not gotten into this Baruch stuff at all. It may have been buried in my todo list or may not be there at all. I will put it on top and look into it. My first thought is the dates are simply incongruent with what I am talking about. But if those dates are correct then I need to consider some serious revisions and maybe even a retraction. If I am wrong I am wrong. Won't be the first time.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Jimenezj wrote:
Sorry about that. I Posted the wrong one. Here is Isaiah again. This one has 100 prophecies Fullfield by Jesus Christ 1st coming.

All that and they couldn't give his name? These prophets are no better than Kreskin. What kind of lame ass crap are you peddling? You think anyone but you stupid enough to buy into it?

There are reasonable standards for all charlatans who claim to predict the future. The obvious one is specificity beyond a reasonable doubt. If they don't have his name, an outline of his career, names of apostles, specifics like Pilate and Gethsemene you don't have jack.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Jimenezj wrote:
How are these prophecies not Jesus the Messiah? 164. Isaiah 7:14...To be born of a virgin...Luke 1:35 Or All of Isaiah 53. Example: Who hath believed our report? ...
 

No specifics there either. Got anything of interest?

For example, predict the next card in the deck. There the exact card, number and suit. The requirement is not to say "it will be rectangular wth rounded corners."

No intelligent person would call these successful as they say nothing specific.

For the record the Messiah Bar Kockba also satisfied all the criteria.

One would sort of expect a mention of resurrection no?

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Jimenezj wrote:
You said, 164. Isaiah 7:14...To be born of a virgin...Luke 1:35 : The Hebrew text indicates "..behold, the young woman shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.." The storyteller in Luke can think the Sun will rise in the West if he wants, that doesn't allow him to put forth misconstrued reading of the Hebrew text. Perhaps, he failed basic Hebrew in his training. Wait a second, Luke wrote in Greek, did he even know Hebrew? Virgin vs young lady Both cases are identified as being virgins. It wouldn't be a sign if a non virgin woman would Give birth to a boy. A biblical sign is something that is not of the norm. It is logical that A virgin Girl giving birth would be a sign from God. The New testament follows the Greek Septuagint as did Luke . The Septuagint was the common scripture of that day and not the Hebrew Masoretic text . Do you accept a virgin birth as a sign?

I don't see his name there? See nothing specific about his life. I note the only point of the christian messiah is a god and resurrection, how did they miss the only points of interest?

Because you want to believe.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Jimenezj wrote:
Why did the jewish scholars all agree to use the word Virgin?

Where did you find the OB/GYN inspection which certified virginity after birth? What kind of IDIOT would even think about it without that inspection -- besides you that is?

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Tell him the rest of what you think,

You indicate the Bible stories were all a creation in the 2nd century and never existed before.

Isn't your position that the Jewish myths were all a made up religion at that point during the Maccabean period?

 

What I have posted about his idea that non-specific BS should be called prophecy does have a facile reply which I expect him to make. That is the time I dump it on him. I have been in public debate since 1990. His only rational alternative it not to reply at all.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

This is one place we disagree. I'm of the view the priests including Ezra created the Hebrew Book of Myths and Legends probably in the 5th century BCE.

The Great Isaiah scroll found in the Qumran caves generally agrees with the MT. It was in Hebrew not Greek. The dating is anywhere from 100 BCE to 325 BCE in carbon dating tests.

So, it can fit your position that the storytales were created in the 2nd century BCE or it's also possible the storytelling dates earlier.

What there is not is anything to indicate the myths of the Jews date to before Judah was decimated by Babylon. And as I always mention, the Northern part known as Israel was never part of the south nor did they leave anything behind indicating they believed the later created Jewish fables. The fables all come later, sometime after the 5th century BCE and definitely by the 2nd century BCE. An exact date of the creation of the myths and fables of the Jews is difficult to give.

I don't read Hebrew or Greek only English and Spanish so I have to rely on translators.

From what I read of them, they indicate the DSS versions of Isaiah agree with the MT on the points we are discussing.

That however does not make any part of it as historical at all. And it's definitely not an oracle soothsayer predicting a future desert prophet King of the Jews as the son of the god Yahweh.

see - http://dss.collections.imj.org.il/isaiah

You have something else?

 

I think I addressed all of these points in a longer post already on line. If I missed something please repeat.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2483
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:


pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
The letter of Aristeas is a forgery therefore the Septuagint is the original.


I know the letter is a forgery.

The LXX probably did not exist until sometime in the late 2nd century BCE and was probably not well known until the 1st century BCE or perhaps the 1st century CE, at least in circulation.


More or less agree. On one hand when Pompey arrives in the region in 67 BC the local political order is as described by Josephus as a consequence of the mid 2nd c. BC wars. The question of well known becomes well known where? And then there are several surviving collections of the Septuagint. There is no indication they were considered a single collection regardless of which books until the Roman and Sinatican collections centuries later. Josephus clearly says the Judeans have only 22 holy books and there is no to mix and match to salvage all that are called the Septuagint or OT. Anyone who can put all that together, Te Salude!

The Septuagint does not mention priest kings. It creates laws and penalties that today are associated with ancient Chinese emperors. Pompey finds priest kings and a politcal order matches what Josephus writes and attributes to temple records. I default to what appears to be a legitimate historical record.


Well known enough to result in the Herodian Temple to be built in place of the temple that was in place when Antiochus changed it from a place to butcher animals to the Yahweh to a temple to other gods. As the supposed pagans did similar things in their temples, seems that the Yahweh cult was an outgrowth of the older Canaanite gods.

You are correct, there is no indication the collection of storytales was considered a complete work. And of course, which story tales does one include. The Enoch collection somehow is not included and it had a very wide circulation in Babbleland and Egypt. Enoch was known enough that the creative writer of Revelation used it as did several other NT fiction writers.

Pompey did find priest kings and it would seem that they weren't the first either. They seem to date at least to the 2nd century BCE. As always, Nada is existent to support the Babbleland storytales such as the BS that Alexander was predicted in the OT fiction writers fairy tales. What history does indicate is there was constant warfare between the Seleucids and the Ptolmeis to control the area of Palestine.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:


Quote:
The Jesus quotes in Matthew 5:18 using the words jot and tittle which are in reference to the Hebrew, a jot is a Hebrew letter and a tittle is the mark between the letters. This indicates to me at least the LXX was not used by the mythmakers who wrote the NT. Though this could obviously be more creative writing to make the Jews look ancient. In fact there is no way to be certain when the storytelling legends were written and which ones were in circulation.


Actually jot and tittle are in the "explained as" reference to Hebrew category. Several problems arise. There is no evidence Hebrew as ever a spoken language. Were it not for a couple a three letters found at Qumran there would be no examples of it outside of the Hebrew translation. The so-called hebrew script is 1st c. AD Aramaic script. And the "hebraicisms" in the Septuagint are Koine Greek and that has been known since the late 19th c. Jot and tittle exists in no known Hebrew text meaning the Septuagint translation and the Qumran letters.

Matthew is written in Greek. Any source material would have been in Aramaic if the Apostles had been literate. If there is any source for jot and tittle that needs finding it is either in Aramaic or Koine Greek.


As I indicated, probably creative writing to make the Jews appear ancient, a power of legitimacy attempt that fails at go.

The Apostles clearly were not literate and wrote not a single word, especially in Greek. They were supposedly all Jews who spoke Aramaic. The NT fairy tales all come later from legends and myths circulating in various taverns and market places or wherever groups of people gathered to shoot the bull and discuss story tales that were circulating. All sorts of creative urban legends are picked up and added in one way or the other making the Gospel accounts a multiple choice of legends and inconsistencies. It's exactly what one would expect from "oral traditions" or as I call it story telling in taverns.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:


Quote:
In 1 Maccabees 1, Antiochus sacked the temple and took the gold and silver vessels and violated the holy places. However, 1 Mac 1 does not detail the god belief system in place. The temple could have been to the Yahweh and his consort Asherah or to warped versions of the god.


On this one point jump to the end and read the description of the worship ceremony after the purification. It reads like a ceremony to Dionysius. Laurel leaves and the whole nine yards.

I agree, it seems like a pagan ritual.
There's more in other chapters that show the myths and legends were in circulation. 1 Mac 2 has the following legends, but very vague all in all:
Abraham is mentioned as not yielding to temptation, which is anybody's guess WTF that means. Abe's god was named El. El was a Canaanite deity, though god names were all similar and El had many uses.
Joseph is said to have kept the commandment, WTF that means is also a question, the commandments did not exist until Moses.
Others mentioned are Joshua, Caleb, Elias (Elijah) who is mentioned as being taken to heaven (a UFO story), Ananias and Azarias and Misael (Shadrach, Meshach, & Abednego) and the fiery furnace myth; Daniel and the lions' den myth; 2 Mac has Abe, Isaac, and Jacob mentioned in passing in regard to a covenant, but no details; Jeremiah is mentioned as giving the fire and the law to those who went to captivity, what the law was is not detailed; he also took the ark and tabernacle and stashed them according to this legend; Moses and Solomon are both mentioned as bringing down fire from heaven as in a holocaust and again no detail. So the myths and storytelling were present when 1 & 2 Mac were written.

Quote:
In the Books of the Maccabees, 1 Mac 1:59-60 it is mentioned that Antiochus had the Jews or Judeans if you want, killed that were found with scrolls of their fantasy religion. They were supposedly burned along with the scrolls. The language of these scrolls is not mentioned.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

For the entire Maccabees thing it is more useful to read Josephus, www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/wars-of-proxy.html because it makes much more sense and it clarifies the ambiguities in Maccabees. It even explains the Maccabees letter to the Spartans calling them brothers in Abraham as the Ptolemies and the Spartans were conspiring against the Seleucids at the time.


I have read Josephus, and agree that the Maccabees war was likely similar to funding an uprising in your enemies territory to cause instability. As the Seleucids had taken Palestine from the Ptolemies they clearly wanted to cause them to be a thorn in their side. The Maccabees also had made alliances with Rome, which is justification later for Pompey. Maccabees praise the Romans as well.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:


Quote:
There is the argument based on Sirach's preface written by Jeshua ben Sira's grandson in 132 BCE that the law, prophets and writings were translated into Greek by then. Sirach was supposedly written by about 175 BCE. This seems to agree with your view that the LXX was created in the 2nd century BCE. Exactly which books is not clear as no list appeared anywhere in detail.

What was the basis of the storytelling if the Greek was the originals? Did the writers use old myths and legends or earlier incomplete stories and outlines?


A singular basis I cannot find. I also cannot find a singular basis for the hugely greater corpus of Buffy and Angel. I point out in English the Septuagint is about 500,000 words. Ten people for ten years is 5000 words per person per year. Joss Whedon and Marti Noxon did hugely more in less time.

What is noteworthy is that people consider it noteworthy. Frankly without the "what it really means" companion material it reads like dreck. The publication of the KJV was held up some ten years to recruit the best writers and poet to pretty up the words but the contents is still dreck. Nor is it anything new. And it is a poor example of the genre.


Buffy and Angel were clearly from the mind of Joss Wheldon.
There was probably no singular basis for the storytelling, the Jewish book of myths draws on many others incorporating rewritten tales of others in the Sci-Fi and creative writing. Myths from Canaan are found within as well as all of the pagan gods from Egypt to Greece and even some from the "captivity period". Babylonian and Persian myths and stories are also drawn upon. That all of these stories circulated with caravans throughout trading routes gave those who developed the stories into a religion many sources to use.  The same holds true for all of the religions of the ancients. Many were similar or were the same gods. Jews and Christians deny the connections but they are prevalent throughout the texts.
And of course archeology also supports that the people of Palestine and Judea clearly worshiped the pagan gods, as in mini idols and statuettes found in the homes throughout the land. These are not just from one century either, but date throughout the periods where the storytelling indicates the Yahweh was the god of the land.  Of course they deny that it is significant and represents only those that fell away from the one true god.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Quote:
Did Ezra create the OT as indicated in 4 Esdras, which itself may be a created 1st century CE writing as well? 4 Esdras 14:21-48 indicates the books of the law were burnt. In the next 40 days supposedly he and others wrote 94 books, 24 to be published and 70 to be held in secret.

The first problem is we know what literate cultures are like. Items of religious content are the least common. If this were a legitimate local product there should be indications of tens of times more civil laws and decrees, court rulings and official records. But there is nothing. Shall we plead bibleland exceptionalism?
The second is, in what language was it written? So they are dragged off to Babylon from bibleland where all the known inscriptions are written in Phoenician script and they come back to an illiterate culture and choose to write in hebrew a language no one ever spoke using Aramaic script from the 1st c. AD. Something has to give there. I prefer to let the believers fight and drop back to the simplest explanation, it didn't happen.
The third problem is, after 70 years in a land of dirt cheap clay to write on and a reportedly quick method of writing (despite appearances) they did not use it. They did not even use the clay. In fact, from the archaeological evidence, they did not write at all.
For believers the answer to all these problems is simple. The OT exists therefore they could write. The rest is simply rationalizing away the problems. Pardon if I find the reasoning circular.
There are more problems of course. If Ezra wrote chronological history then he, not Herodotus, is the father of history. Want to deal with that one?

I think the Ezra claim in Esdras was a writer trying to explain how these story tales suddenly appeared. There may have been legends that circulated that he's the one that saved the history of the Judeans. Legends can be creative fiction with no basis or they can have basis. I don't see basis to it.
The Assyrians and the Babylonians did drag off many people and relocate them. They also moved in other settlers. As I have mentioned, I see no reason to conclude the supposed Northern Kingdom ever were believers in the Yahweh as depicted in the storytales. In fact, the opposite is the conclusion one gets from studying the archeology and interrelated history of other cultures.
That no clay tablets were written is suggestive of the type of people that were taken to Babylon, workman and artisans, not writers. Nebuchadrezzar's point in taking captives and prisoners also was to end once and for all problems with Judah and kings that failed to follow his orders. He gutted them of all that could resist. Those that weren't useful weren't around for long.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:


Quote:
This text is attributed to an unknown writer of Apocalyptic leanings in the 1st century. Was this writer actually passing on a legend of earlier times, that Ezra wrote the Hebrew Bible? Perhaps, or not.

Or was he like every good fiction writer today reimagining a story like many people today reimagining legends of vampires and werewolve and zombies? Night of the Living Dead is the first time zombies are really dead. That was original. Does that make true? Does that make it in any way different from previous stories? Or was he like the educated in ancient times who completed the required "course work" learning to rewrite anything in their own words with an eye to both personalizing and improving it?

Exactly. I don't see it as true. I see it as a way the writer was trying to give legitimacy to the storytales.
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Quote:
It is unclear to me when exactly the storytelling legends were made into the great big fictional book called the Hebrew Bible, the LXX, or the OT. It matters little which was 1st, though by mid 2nd century BCE some sort of holy books existed that were being burned along with the person who possessed them. Greek or Hebrew is not known. As Hebrew was generally not the language of the people in Judea, I see your point on the Greek.


The fact that it was not produced as a single book, but as independent scrolls neatly explains all the contraditctions. It was not a single production. There was no single editor. No one cross-checked the contents. Apparently someone at some time decided all the scrolls mentionng some god that could be construed to be the same god should be collected -- except Ester with is a Cinderella story got in there somehow. It explains why centuries after Solomon decrees sacrifice only in Jerusalem other kings are doing it in other cities apparently oblivious of any temple in Jerusalem.
Thanks for raising this issue. I have to revise some of my website material because of it. I make several jokes about a poor editor which need to change to point out there was no editor.

A comparison between Kings and Chronicles is all one needs to see there was no editor.
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Quote:
It would take some really good con men to create all of this storytelling and sell it to the public at large. Were the Maccabees a 2nd century BCE equivalent to Joseph Smith? Con artists? Perhaps.
Or perhaps, scraps of the legends all existed and were put together into the storybook in this period.

As the metaphor of reimagining stories was one of my breakthrough realizations you make a good point. But how hard was it to sell Buffy even though it was a reimagining? There is NOTHING new in the stories. There is nothing hinting at a unique origin. Consider all the kings in the stories. Would people in Egypt at that time with nearly 4000 year long king lists be short of king stories? Solomon is not materially different from Ramses II. Of all the kings Omri of Samaria is the only connection with a real king from bibleland. The story about him appears to know little more than his name and then runs on about imaginary successors. Omri is the only king that shows up in real history and his city the only one we would call civilized found by archaeologists in bibleland.

A few others have mention as real kings, though as always, nothing indicates what god they worshiped.
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

There ZERO reason to make a special pleading for local origin any more than there is to find the basis for the REAL three musketeers.

Actually I'm not arguing for local origin. I'm suggesting multiple legends were used to make up the story books. The Samson character appears to be a Judean version of the Greek hero Herakles for example. As the area was known for olive oil and wine with major trade routes, all sorts of legends were talked about in the markets and taverns.
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Quote:
Baruch, dating to 175 BCE or so discusses the Law of Moses, some of the storytales, the god, and that the idols of Babylon are not real gods. So by this point, some sort of story telling had to exist that put the myths together, that is the Law of Moses must have been in some form or the other prior to the writing of Baruch. That Moses was a fairy tale does not detract from the supposed writings of the law were in some form or the other.
Short stories and myths or complete story tale legends, likely existed prior to the LXX. In what language, I have no idea.


I have not gotten into this Baruch stuff at all. It may have been buried in my to do list or may not be there at all. I will put it on top and look into it. My first thought is the dates are simply incongruent with what I am talking about. But if those dates are correct then I need to consider some serious revisions and maybe even a retraction. If I am wrong I am wrong. Won't be the first time.

Baruch has been dated for various periods, probably written by 3 writers. The part I mentioned is from chapter 1 only. It has been dated around 175 BCE and also after the Sci-Fi book of Daniel circa 164 BCE as Baruch has errors that also are in Daniel, such as Nabonidus' son Belshazzar being called the son of Nebuchadrezzar. Later chapters after 3:8 are likely to have been written far later, with claims as late as the 6th century CE or about 582 CE. Baruch was supposedly a contemporary of Jeremiah, though just the error in regard to Belshazzar should be enough to discredit that as a possibility. Some parts were likely added late 2nd century BCE or early 1st century BCE. But my reference is only to chapter 1:18-20 not all of it.
Clearly, precise dating is not possible for it either, as it could have been written using the 2nd century BCE work of Daniel. See what you think.
PJTS

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
pt. 1

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
The letter of Aristeas is a forgery therefore the Septuagint is the original.

I know the letter is a forgery.

The LXX probably did not exist until sometime in the late 2nd century BCE and was probably not well known until the 1st century BCE or perhaps the 1st century CE, at least in circulation.


More or less agree. On one hand when Pompey arrives in the region in 67 BC the local political order is as described by Josephus as a consequence of the mid 2nd c. BC wars. The question of well known becomes well known where? And then there are several surviving collections of the Septuagint. There is no indication they were considered a single collection regardless of which books until the Roman and Sinatican collections centuries later. Josephus clearly says the Judeans have only 22 holy books and there is no to mix and match to salvage all that are called the Septuagint or OT. Anyone who can put all that together, Te Salude!

The Septuagint does not mention priest kings. It creates laws and penalties that today are associated with ancient Chinese emperors. Pompey finds priest kings and a politcal order matches what Josephus writes and attributes to temple records. I default to what appears to be a legitimate historical record.


Well known enough to result in the Herodian Temple to be built in place of the temple that was in place

HOW do we know that? Herod fixes up a temple more than a century after the Maccabes.

Also Josephus writes a sluicegate was opened in an aquaduct to clean the sacrifice area the level of the Dome of the Rock is excluded as a possibility.

Quote:
when Antiochus changed it from a place to butcher animals to the Yahweh to a temple to other gods. As the supposed pagans did similar things in their temples, seems that the Yahweh cult was an outgrowth of the older Canaanite gods.


Keep in mind archaeologists have not found any people who were called or who called themselves Canaanites or Philistines. As they are found only in the Septuagint they are indistinguishable from Munchkins and flying monkies. There is a Phoenician word used to refer to the people living outside of Carthage, Kanna. It is not reasonable to translate that word as as different from farmers or peasants. As such the Septuagint usage is "creative" not descriptive.

Quote:
You are correct, there is no indication the collection of storytales was considered a complete work. And of course, which story tales does one include. The Enoch collection somehow is not included and it had a very wide circulation in Babbleland and Egypt. Enoch was known enough that the creative writer of Revelation used it as did several other NT fiction writers.

Pompey did find priest kings and it would seem that they weren't the first either. They seem to date at least to the 2nd century BCE. As always, Nada is existent to support the Babbleland storytales such as the BS that Alexander was predicted in the OT fiction writers fairy tales. What history does indicate is there was constant warfare between the Seleucids and the Ptolmeis to control the area of Palestine.

But Josephus does report the origin of the priest kings as the Maccabe dynasty. So we have an origin for them just where we would expect. That is after the Septuagint stories and the start of real history. And it shows a consistency which we would expect from political change. It is not out of the blue but as a consequence of a war.

On the other hand the Septuagint king stories are filled with what went wrong after the people demanded kings and how the priests were always right. This in itself is a major problem. Writing was expensive in those days. Not just the materials but the entire class of scribes that had to be supported. What king would have paid to create and preserve writings that condemned him? If done in secret by priests we would expect priests to record several lootings and destruction of records by kings.

Quote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:


Quote:
The Jesus quotes in Matthew 5:18 using the words jot and tittle which are in reference to the Hebrew, a jot is a Hebrew letter and a tittle is the mark between the letters. This indicates to me at least the LXX was not used by the mythmakers who wrote the NT. Though this could obviously be more creative writing to make the Jews look ancient. In fact there is no way to be certain when the storytelling legends were written and which ones were in circulation.


Actually jot and tittle are in the "explained as" reference to Hebrew category. Several problems arise. There is no evidence Hebrew as ever a spoken language. Were it not for a couple a three letters found at Qumran there would be no examples of it outside of the Hebrew translation. The so-called hebrew script is 1st c. AD Aramaic script. And the "hebraicisms" in the Septuagint are Koine Greek and that has been known since the late 19th c. Jot and tittle exists in no known Hebrew text meaning the Septuagint translation and the Qumran letters.

Matthew is written in Greek. Any source material would have been in Aramaic if the Apostles had been literate. If there is any source for jot and tittle that needs finding it is either in Aramaic or Koine Greek.


As I indicated, probably creative writing to make the Jews appear ancient, a power of legitimacy attempt that fails at go.

 

And in Against Apion bk I, Josephus rants the only reason people refuse to believe Judeans are ancient is because they hate Jews. Some things never change.


Quote:
The Apostles clearly were not literate and wrote not a single word, especially in Greek. They were supposedly all Jews who spoke Aramaic. The NT fairy tales all come later from legends and myths circulating in various taverns and market places or wherever groups of people gathered to shoot the bull and discuss story tales that were circulating. All sorts of creative urban legends are picked up and added in one way or the other making the Gospel accounts a multiple choice of legends and inconsistencies. It's exactly what one would expect from "oral traditions" or as I call it story telling in taverns.


One can also note this Jesus is like Innana and Osiris and Hercules with details mixed and matched. Died, goes to hell, born again. And that is about all Paul appears to know about his Christ. (Does he ever even write Jesus?)

Many aspects of the gospels are like those of a play. Plays do not give physical descriptions of the characters unless absolutely necessary for the plot so that any actor can play the part. The dialog is mostly in the form of a single question leading to a long monolog. Audience participation lets the question be asked while the activist gives the long answer. Saying there is no physical description of Jesus misses the point that there are no physical descriptions of anyone.

Quote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:


In 1 Maccabees 1, Antiochus sacked the temple and took the gold and silver vessels and violated the holy places. However, 1 Mac 1 does not detail the god belief system in place. The temple could have been to the Yahweh and his consort Asherah or to warped versions of the god.


On this one point jump to the end and read the description of the worship ceremony after the purification. It reads like a ceremony to Dionysius. Laurel leaves and the whole nine yards.

Quote:
I agree, it seems like a pagan ritual.

It is not like any Septuagint or real history description of the rituals. That is the important point. It is nothing like we would expect in any regard.

But here the hints get interesting. The mention of the temple of Astarte on the currently popular location for the temple of Yahweh which was invented in the late 19th c. is described as having eight sides. The Dome of the Rock has eight sides. The decoration inside is nature themed. Eight sides and nature themed is unique in all of Islam. It actually does have a rock outcropping. Folks in the middle east were against graven images because their gods were represented by uncarved rocks. By all indications the ceremony is to Astarte.

Quote:
There's more in other chapters that show the myths and legends were in circulation. 1 Mac 2 has the following legends, but very vague all in all:
Abraham is mentioned as not yielding to temptation, which is anybody's guess WTF that means. Abe's god was named El. El was a Canaanite deity, though god names were all similar and El had many uses.

The oldest REAL mention of El is in the Ugarit library as the chief god. In that pantheon Yahweh is a minor god. Of course the use of personal names without indication of connection to other personal names means nothing.


Quote:
Joseph is said to have kept the commandment, WTF that means is also a question, the commandments did not exist until Moses.
Others mentioned are Joshua, Caleb, Elias (Elijah) who is mentioned as being taken to heaven (a UFO story), Ananias and Azarias and Misael (Shadrach, Meshach, & Abednego) and the fiery furnace myth; Daniel and the lions' den myth;

From Bel and the Dragon not the book of Daniel.

Quote:
2 Mac has Abe, Isaac, and Jacob mentioned in passing in regard to a covenant, but no details; Jeremiah is mentioned as giving the fire and the law to those who went to captivity, what the law was is not detailed; he also took the ark and tabernacle and stashed them according to this legend; Moses and Solomon are both mentioned as bringing down fire from heaven as in a holocaust and again no detail. So the myths and storytelling were present when 1 & 2 Mac were written.

 

Some names unrelated to any later Septuagint stories are mentioned. It is a common device in historical fiction.

Quote:
In the Books of the Maccabees, 1 Mac 1:59-60 it is mentioned that Antiochus had the Jews or Judeans if you want, killed that were found with scrolls of their fantasy religion. They were supposedly burned along with the scrolls. The language of these scrolls is not mentioned.

Josephus says Jews take their name from Judea. As such it is synonymous with Judeans. As to what these scrolls might have been I know he told that about the 76 revolt. If in Maccabes also then it is mostly likely his invention in both cases. It is not credible there could have been enough copies to make this more than a one time event.

Quote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

For the entire Maccabees thing it is more useful to read Josephus, www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/wars-of-proxy.html because it makes much more sense and it clarifies the ambiguities in Maccabees. It even explains the Maccabees letter to the Spartans calling them brothers in Abraham as the Ptolemies and the Spartans were conspiring against the Seleucids at the time.


I have read Josephus, and agree that the Maccabees war was likely similar to funding an uprising in your enemies territory to cause instability. As the Seleucids had taken Palestine from the Ptolemies they clearly wanted to cause them to be a thorn in their side. The Maccabees also had made alliances with Rome, which is justification later for Pompey. Maccabees praise the Romans as well.

Remember it is clearly dissension among high priests and it is the the high priests called the sons of Tobias who lead the armies which conquer Jerusalem.

 

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
pt 2

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
...

 

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:


Quote:
There is the argument based on Sirach's preface written by Jeshua ben Sira's grandson in 132 BCE that the law, prophets and writings were translated into Greek by then. Sirach was supposedly written by about 175 BCE. This seems to agree with your view that the LXX was created in the 2nd century BCE. Exactly which books is not clear as no list appeared anywhere in detail.

What was the basis of the storytelling if the Greek was the originals? Did the writers use old myths and legends or earlier incomplete stories and outlines?


A singular basis I cannot find. I also cannot find a singular basis for the hugely greater corpus of Buffy and Angel. I point out in English the Septuagint is about 500,000 words. Ten people for ten years is 5000 words per person per year. Joss Whedon and Marti Noxon did hugely more in less time.

What is noteworthy is that people consider it noteworthy. Frankly without the "what it really means" companion material it reads like dreck. The publication of the KJV was held up some ten years to recruit the best writers and poet to pretty up the words but the contents is still dreck. Nor is it anything new. And it is a poor example of the genre.


Buffy and Angel were clearly from the mind of Joss Wheldon.

He is a creator of fiction. I use him as a point of comparison to other fiction writers.


Quote:
There was probably no singular basis for the storytelling, the Jewish book of myths draws on many others incorporating rewritten tales of others in the Sci-Fi and creative writing.

It is clear from the Whedon example there is no need for multiple sources. It cannot be other than idle speculation as to the number of sources without concrete examples of what was copied. It adds nothing to the subject.

I have exchanged posts with a man who claims to read Greek and to have read the Septuagint who told me it reads uniformly and with the same style throughout.

Quote:
Myths from Canaan are found within as well as all of the pagan gods from Egypt to Greece and even some from the "captivity period". Babylonian and Persian myths and stories are also drawn upon. That all of these stories circulated with caravans throughout trading routes gave those who developed the stories into a religion many sources to use.  The same holds true for all of the religions of the ancients. Many were similar or were the same gods. Jews and Christians deny the connections but they are prevalent throughout the texts.

I find the distinction "pagan" to be meaningless and distracting as there is no difference save for the power of summary execution it gives the priest kings.

Talking about caravans and trade routes and such is again nothing idle fantasy. They are unnecesary inventions serving only to make the stories appear to be other than they are. It gives a false impression of ancient or traditional when there is none in evidence. There is never a justification for extraenious hypothesis. Trust Penn Gillette but use Occam.

I see no point whatsoever for such unnecessary speculation. But it appears necessary if and only if one is trying to salvage the idea the stories were written in bibleland by illiterate people who could not write.

Quote:
And of course archeology also supports that the people of Palestine and Judea clearly worshiped the pagan gods, as in mini idols and statuettes found in the homes throughout the land. These are not just from one century either, but date throughout the periods where the storytelling indicates the Yahweh was the god of the land.  Of course they deny that it is significant and represents only those that fell away from the one true god.

The only two inscriptions found are funerary and mention Yahweh and his consort Ashara. There is no indication of Yahweh alone. The statues that have been found are most all of Ashara alone but a few have room for her consort Yahweh. A god/goddss pair was the norm for local deities. As for the written historical records there are mentions of both Beit Astarte and Beit Yahweh. Herod built a Beit Astarte in Caesarea. That the pious translate the former as Strato's Tower and the later as temple of Yahweh is justified solely by knowing Astarte was not worshipped -- because the women left no written records of course. aSTaRT and STRaTo are the same name without vowels. Beit is dwelling place and takes its English translation based upon what the believer knows it cannot mean.

When Alexander took Tyre, a "Strato's Tower" was north of causeway he build on the shore side of it. The bogus idea that Strato was some local military genius a centur and a half after Alexander goes back to the 4th c. AD. It is also the first mention of a military origin. Needless to say the emperor who mentioned it was a Christian.

Quote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Quote:
Did Ezra create the OT as indicated in 4 Esdras, which itself may be a created 1st century CE writing as well? 4 Esdras 14:21-48 indicates the books of the law were burnt. In the next 40 days supposedly he and others wrote 94 books, 24 to be published and 70 to be held in secret.

The first problem is we know what literate cultures are like. Items of religious content are the least common. If this were a legitimate local product there should be indications of tens of times more civil laws and decrees, court rulings and official records. But there is nothing. Shall we plead bibleland exceptionalism?
The second is, in what language was it written? So they are dragged off to Babylon from bibleland where all the known inscriptions are written in Phoenician script and they come back to an illiterate culture and choose to write in hebrew a language no one ever spoke using Aramaic script from the 1st c. AD. Something has to give there. I prefer to let the believers fight and drop back to the simplest explanation, it didn't happen.
The third problem is, after 70 years in a land of dirt cheap clay to write on and a reportedly quick method of writing (despite appearances) they did not use it. They did not even use the clay. In fact, from the archaeological evidence, they did not write at all.
For believers the answer to all these problems is simple. The OT exists therefore they could write. The rest is simply rationalizing away the problems. Pardon if I find the reasoning circular.
There are more problems of course. If Ezra wrote chronological history then he, not Herodotus, is the father of history. Want to deal with that one?

I think the Ezra claim in Esdras was a writer trying to explain how these story tales suddenly appeared. There may have been legends that circulated that he's the one that saved the history of the Judeans. Legends can be creative fiction with no basis or they can have basis. I don't see basis to it.

What is the point of speculating upon the origin of material that does not appear until centuries later in Greek? As there is no physical evidence for this speculation and no need to explain anything other than origin in Egypt under the Greeks you introduce the unnecessary to salvage an origin in bibleland. That is not reasonable. But first you need a literate culture and there is no evidence of one. Therefore the speculation is a priori impossible. It is not rational to speculate that the impossible occurred.

By local product I mean the apparent belief that it was written down by illiterate people. It is further compounded by the belief these people actually existed. Time in Babylon is a myth therefore people returning fron a myth are also myths. QED

Quote:
The Assyrians and the Babylonians did drag off many people and relocate them. They also moved in other settlers.

Upon what physical evidence do you base your assertion regarding both those kingdoms? Without physical evidence it is not reasonable to accept either. To claim people were taken to Babylon based upon a 2nd c. BC story in Greek is not rational.

Quote:
As I have mentioned, I see no reason to conclude the supposed Northern Kingdom ever were believers in the Yahweh as depicted in the storytales. In fact, the opposite is the conclusion one gets from studying the archeology and interrelated history of other cultures.

Nor is there any evidence of a southern kingdom for all the same reasons. Why not come to the same conclusion about both? This is like grasping at any straw to hold on to the belief Buffy is a real person.

Quote:
That no clay tablets were written is suggestive of the type of people that were taken to Babylon, workman and artisans, not writers. Nebuchadrezzar's point in taking captives and prisoners also was to end once and for all problems with Judah and kings that failed to follow his orders. He gutted them of all that could resist. Those that weren't useful weren't around for long.

Again no evidence anyone was taken there. But then how are you going to salvage the idea they returned literate at all? And after that without the tools of literacy?

Quote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:


Quote:
This text is attributed to an unknown writer of Apocalyptic leanings in the 1st century. Was this writer actually passing on a legend of earlier times, that Ezra wrote the Hebrew Bible? Perhaps, or not.

Or was he like every good fiction writer today reimagining a story like many people today reimagining legends of vampires and werewolve and zombies? Night of the Living Dead is the first time zombies are really dead. That was original. Does that make true? Does that make it in any way different from previous stories? Or was he like the educated in ancient times who completed the required "course work" learning to rewrite anything in their own words with an eye to both personalizing and improving it?

Exactly. I don't see it as true. I see it as a way the writer was trying to give legitimacy to the storytales.

Except the tales you claim were being given legitimacy are not in evidence rather only in your imagination. It is not reasonable to imagine something and then come up with a rationalization for your imaginings that salvages a bibleland origin which is based upon nothing but a forgery.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


x
Bronze Member
Posts: 591
Joined: 2010-06-15
User is offlineOffline
Very interesting

I have just started looking at this subject via Finkelstein and Silberman.

Do you two rate their opinions?


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

x wrote:
I have just started looking at this subject via Finkelstein and Silberman.

Do you two rate their opinions?

 

They pull back from the obvious in The Bible Unearthed. It leaves a lot of room for believers to wiggle.

Beyond that Finkelstein has retreated to a specialty which does not require him to express a global opinion on the subject. Sort of sad really that he is constrained by the politics of Israel.

But when cornered on particulars Finkelstein does not retreat although still diplomatic. Devers ran a long interview with him and finally he allowed Devers to raise the Egyptian inscription which believers claim mentions the total destruction of israel. Finkelstein replies to the effect, I have no idea what that could have meant in that context.

Of course he has not chosen to be an anti-OT activist so avoiding the political and religious debate certainly lets him continue his chosen work instead of being distracted by believers and zionists.

He did make a three or four part series that aired on the Hitler, excuse me, History Channel. Nothing special beyond the book but if you haven't seen arkie digs before it is worth a watch.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
pt 3 Baruch

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:


Baruch has been dated for various periods, probably written by 3 writers. The part I mentioned is from chapter 1 only. It has been dated around 175 BCE and also after the Sci-Fi book of Daniel circa 164 BCE as Baruch has errors that also are in Daniel, such as Nabonidus' son Belshazzar being called the son of Nebuchadrezzar. Later chapters after 3:8 are likely to have been written far later, with claims as late as the 6th century CE or about 582 CE. Baruch was supposedly a contemporary of Jeremiah, though just the error in regard to Belshazzar should be enough to discredit that as a possibility. Some parts were likely added late 2nd century BCE or early 1st century BCE. But my reference is only to chapter 1:18-20 not all of it.
Clearly, precise dating is not possible for it either, as it could have been written using the 2nd century BCE work of Daniel. See what you think.
PJTS

Quick answers. I question the dating as a couple a three decades too early. No big thing there. It is way to late to refer to the few important hostages that might have been in Babylon. Jeremiah is a fantasy until there is evidence to the contrary.

There is no ancient civilization that did not make inscriptions about there important people and usually paid for by those people. There are no such inscriptions in bibleland. Which leads to the obvious there is no sign of literacy bibleland at that time. Therefore how could it have survived in written from, stone or parchment?

It is always a given that absent signs of government level literacy there was none. Scratches on broken pottery does not indicate government level literacy. We know literacy follows the size of a government unit. No literacy then it is a no more than a handful of adjacent towns.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

x wrote:

I have just started looking at this subject via Finkelstein and Silberman.

Do you two rate their opinions?

If by chance this is your first look at what i am saying

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

is a work in progress but a much more complete expostion.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


x
Bronze Member
Posts: 591
Joined: 2010-06-15
User is offlineOffline
Cheers

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

He did make a three or four part series that aired on the Hitler, excuse me, History Channel. Nothing special beyond the book but if you haven't seen arkie digs before it is worth a watch.

Yes, that series was shown here on SBS and was what first brought him to my attention.

I'll have a look at your stuff too.

 


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2483
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

 



Well known enough to result in the Herodian Temple to be built in place of the temple that was in place

HOW do we know that? Herod fixes up a temple more than a century after the Maccabees.

Also Josephus writes a sluicegate was opened in an aqueduct to clean the sacrifice area the level of the Dome of the Rock is excluded as a possibility.

We know there was a temple of some sort in 2nd century BCE Syria Palestine in a city that is generally called Jerusalem from Maccabees and from outside sources on Antiochus IV.

Who or what the temple was dedicated to is obviously not known anymore as it's long gone with no evidence.

This temple was not the mythical Solomon temple anyway, that one according to the fairy tales was destroyed, if it even existed at all.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Quote:
when Antiochus changed it from a place to butcher animals to the Yahweh to a temple to other gods. As the supposed pagans did similar things in their temples, seems that the Yahweh cult was an outgrowth of the older Canaanite gods.


Keep in mind archaeologists have not found any people who were called or who called themselves Canaanites or Philistines. As they are found only in the Septuagint they are indistinguishable from Munchkins and flying monkies. There is a Phoenician word used to refer to the people living outside of Carthage, Kanna. It is not reasonable to translate that word as as different from farmers or peasants. As such the Septuagint usage is "creative" not descriptive.

You can call the people who lived in the area from Gaza to Turkey anything you'd like:

This area was generally called Hatti-land by the Assyrians and the Babylonians, so we can call them the Hatti people if you like.

In Akkadian the "Canaanites" were called Kinahnu or Qidshu.

As with Finkelstein, I see nothing different between those that settled in the land. Nomads that decided to stay. The supposed Jews are the same as everyone else. As you say, they suddenly give up their older religions for the "one god" of the  the Babbleland fairy tales. Call the older civilizations whatever you'd like from here on.

What do you call the people living in Syria Palestine between 2000 BCE and 200 BCE?

I don't see a definition for them on your web site.

I understand city-state quite well and realize that the people of Tyre or Damascus had loyality to the city 1st and anything else was a matter of convenience or alliance in order to defend against invaders from outside their general area. Such was the case when the people of Hatti-land banded together to oppose the Assyrians or those of Ashur who made annual booty trips to various weak city-states in Hatti-land.

This was also true of the Greek city-states when the Persians invaded, city first area 2nd,

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Quote:
You are correct, there is no indication the collection of storytales was considered a complete work. And of course, which story tales does one include. The Enoch collection somehow is not included and it had a very wide circulation in Babbleland and Egypt. Enoch was known enough that the creative writer of Revelation used it as did several other NT fiction writers.

Pompey did find priest kings and it would seem that they weren't the first either. They seem to date at least to the 2nd century BCE. As always, Nada is existent to support the Babbleland storytales such as the BS that Alexander was predicted in the OT fiction writers fairy tales. What history does indicate is there was constant warfare between the Seleucids and the Ptolmeis to control the area of Palestine.

But Josephus does report the origin of the priest kings as the Maccabe dynasty. So we have an origin for them just where we would expect. That is after the Septuagint stories and the start of real history. And it shows a consistency which we would expect from political change. It is not out of the blue but as a consequence of a war.

On the other hand the Septuagint king stories are filled with what went wrong after the people demanded kings and how the priests were always right. This in itself is a major problem. Writing was expensive in those days. Not just the materials but the entire class of scribes that had to be supported. What king would have paid to create and preserve writings that condemned him? If done in secret by priests we would expect priests to record several lootings and destruction of records by kings.

We are more similar in our views of the fairytales then you seem to grasp.

I see nothing to support there was ever a "Biblical Israel".

Judah was the city-state of Jerusalem and several surrounding villages that had allegiance or alliance with it. They were one of the smaller city-states.

Nothing indicates the people of the city-state of Judah (Jerusalem) had only the 1 god Yahweh until the 2nd century BCE, in fact the opposite is what one finds.

The city state north of the Jerusalem city-state was Samaria -  Israel. They were not united, ever except in fairy tales and an alliance found in stela from Assyria. Other stela indicate warfare between them or other alliances.

 

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

 

Quote:
The Apostles clearly were not literate and wrote not a single word, especially in Greek. They were supposedly all Jews who spoke Aramaic. The NT fairy tales all come later from legends and myths circulating in various taverns and market places or wherever groups of people gathered to shoot the bull and discuss story tales that were circulating. All sorts of creative urban legends are picked up and added in one way or the other making the Gospel accounts a multiple choice of legends and inconsistencies. It's exactly what one would expect from "oral traditions" or as I call it story telling in taverns.


One can also note this Jesus is like Innana and Osiris and Hercules with details mixed and matched. Died, goes to hell, born again. And that is about all Paul appears to know about his Christ. (Does he ever even write Jesus?)

Many aspects of the gospels are like those of a play. Plays do not give physical descriptions of the characters unless absolutely necessary for the plot so that any actor can play the part. The dialog is mostly in the form of a single question leading to a long monolog. Audience participation lets the question be asked while the activist gives the long answer. Saying there is no physical description of Jesus misses the point that there are no physical descriptions of anyone.

Plays or storytales, not much different then Robin the Hood. Developed by minstrels over wine and such.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Quote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:


In 1 Maccabees 1, Antiochus sacked the temple and took the gold and silver vessels and violated the holy places. However, 1 Mac 1 does not detail the god belief system in place. The temple could have been to the Yahweh and his consort Asherah or to warped versions of the god.


On this one point jump to the end and read the description of the worship ceremony after the purification. It reads like a ceremony to Dionysius. Laurel leaves and the whole nine yards.

Quote:
I agree, it seems like a pagan ritual.

It is not like any Septuagint or real history description of the rituals. That is the important point. It is nothing like we would expect in any regard.

But here the hints get interesting. The mention of the temple of Astarte on the currently popular location for the temple of Yahweh which was invented in the late 19th c. is described as having eight sides. The Dome of the Rock has eight sides. The decoration inside is nature themed. Eight sides and nature themed is unique in all of Islam. It actually does have a rock outcropping. Folks in the middle east were against graven images because their gods were represented by uncarved rocks. By all indications the ceremony is to Astarte.

Astarte or her other names depending on the city or time period was obviously worshiped for centuries in Hatti-land. (From here on I'll use that name since you have aversion to other terms until you respond with your name for the people of the area.)

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Quote:
There's more in other chapters that show the myths and legends were in circulation. 1 Mac 2 has the following legends, but very vague all in all:
Abraham is mentioned as not yielding to temptation, which is anybody's guess WTF that means. Abe's god was named El. El was a Canaanite deity, though god names were all similar and El had many uses.

The oldest REAL mention of El is in the Ugarit library as the chief god. In that pantheon Yahweh is a minor god. Of course the use of personal names without indication of connection to other personal names means nothing.

I know.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:


Quote:
Joseph is said to have kept the commandment, WTF that means is also a question, the commandments did not exist until Moses.
Others mentioned are Joshua, Caleb, Elias (Elijah) who is mentioned as being taken to heaven (a UFO story), Ananias and Azarias and Misael (Shadrach, Meshach, & Abednego) and the fiery furnace myth; Daniel and the lions' den myth;

From Bel and the Dragon not the book of Daniel.

Quote:
2 Mac has Abe, Isaac, and Jacob mentioned in passing in regard to a covenant, but no details; Jeremiah is mentioned as giving the fire and the law to those who went to captivity, what the law was is not detailed; he also took the ark and tabernacle and stashed them according to this legend; Moses and Solomon are both mentioned as bringing down fire from heaven as in a holocaust and again no detail. So the myths and storytelling were present when 1 & 2 Mac were written.

 

Some names unrelated to any later Septuagint stories are mentioned. It is a common device in historical fiction.

Since Daniel and Bel and the Dragon both date to the 2nd century it matters little.

In Buffy, many demons are mentioned and pulled out of the writer's ass.

The storytales have similar characteristics. Mention real places and insert names of people or mythical heroes.

 

All myths do this. See the ancient myths of Sumer on the ETCSL website.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Quote:
In the Books of the Maccabees, 1 Mac 1:59-60 it is mentioned that Antiochus had the Jews or Judeans if you want, killed that were found with scrolls of their fantasy religion. They were supposedly burned along with the scrolls. The language of these scrolls is not mentioned.

Josephus says Jews take their name from Judea. As such it is synonymous with Judeans. As to what these scrolls might have been I know he told that about the 76 revolt. If in Maccabees also then it is mostly likely his invention in both cases. It is not credible there could have been enough copies to make this more than a one time event.

You are so hung up on names you miss the point.

The name of the people is not expressed as Jews or Judeans here. The modern English words in chapter 1 used people of Israel or Juda. Whatever!

Perhaps it was a 1 time event all related to Antiochus' takeover and suppression of the city (area) in question. As to what the scrolls were, no one knows, they could have been prayers to Astarte and the Yahweh, who knows, that was the point.

 

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Quote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

For the entire Maccabees thing it is more useful to read Josephus, www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/wars-of-proxy.html because it makes much more sense and it clarifies the ambiguities in Maccabees. It even explains the Maccabees letter to the Spartans calling them brothers in Abraham as the Ptolemies and the Spartans were conspiring against the Seleucids at the time.


I have read Josephus, and agree that the Maccabees war was likely similar to funding an uprising in your enemies territory to cause instability. As the Seleucids had taken Palestine from the Ptolemies they clearly wanted to cause them to be a thorn in their side. The Maccabees also had made alliances with Rome, which is justification later for Pompey. Maccabees praise the Romans as well.

Remember it is clearly dissension among high priests and it is the the high priests called the sons of Tobias who lead the armies which conquer Jerusalem.

 

The winners of wars write the history, this is the same here as always.

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

x wrote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

He did make a three or four part series that aired on the Hitler, excuse me, History Channel. Nothing special beyond the book but if you haven't seen arkie digs before it is worth a watch.

Yes, that series was shown here on SBS and was what first brought him to my attention.

I'll have a look at your stuff too.

In two or so years now I have found exactly two people willing to discuss the subject. JPthe Skeptic here is one of them. Please feel free to be the third. There is nothing more dangerous than running off without people delivering regular sanity checks on what I write.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:


Well known enough to result in the Herodian Temple to be built in place of the temple that was in place

HOW do we know that? Herod fixes up a temple more than a century after the Maccabees.

Also Josephus writes a sluicegate was opened in an aqueduct to clean the sacrifice area the level of the Dome of the Rock is excluded as a possibility.

We know there was a temple of some sort in 2nd century BCE Syria Palestine in a city that is generally called Jerusalem from Maccabees and from outside sources on Antiochus IV.

Who or what the temple was dedicated to is obviously not known anymore as it's long gone with no evidence.

This temple was not the mythical Solomon temple anyway, that one according to the fairy tales was destroyed, if it even existed at all.

Solomon is a myth therefore his temple is a myth. QED

As to the distinctions on temple in general I have found it very necessary not to use terms which "everyone understands" because they are bible terms. That is why I try to use Septuagint in place of old testament or bible. I find I am very susceptible to mixing meanings because of the same name. Pardon if it gets tedious but it is largely for my benefit.

Quote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Quote:
when Antiochus changed it from a place to butcher animals to the Yahweh to a temple to other gods. As the supposed pagans did similar things in their temples, seems that the Yahweh cult was an outgrowth of the older Canaanite gods.


Keep in mind archaeologists have not found any people who were called or who called themselves Canaanites or Philistines. As they are found only in the Septuagint they are indistinguishable from Munchkins and flying monkies. There is a Phoenician word used to refer to the people living outside of Carthage, Kanna. It is not reasonable to translate that word as as different from farmers or peasants. As such the Septuagint usage is "creative" not descriptive.

You can call the people who lived in the area from Gaza to Turkey anything you'd like:

This area was generally called Hatti-land by the Assyrians and the Babylonians, so we can call them the Hatti people if you like.

In Akkadian the "Canaanites" were called Kinahnu or Qidshu.

That would require archaeologists to identify those two and establish they are the same. I am unaware of this having been done.

Quote:
As with Finkelstein, I see nothing different between those that settled in the land. Nomads that decided to stay. The supposed Jews are the same as everyone else. As you say, they suddenly give up their older religions for the "one god" of the  the Babbleland fairy tales. Call the older civilizations whatever you'd like from here on.

The nomad thing is where his public statements give believers wiggle room. Nomad is based solely upon finding crude, undecorated pottery in scattered farming communities and noting it differs from the traditionally decorated pottery of the cities. That is all I have ever found as the basis for saying nomads. If you know of anything else please let me know.

The wiggle room lets believers wax ecstatic over the simplicity and lack of worldliness of the early Hebrews. Problem is that all of the world farmers make their own crude pottery and do not have the time to decorate it. If this is evidence of nomadic hebrews then all farmers all over the world are nomadic hebrews.

I have not said they had only one god. I said I know for a fact from archaeology and real history they had at least Ashara and Yahweh as gods. I have also said the first simple declarative sentence of monotheism comes from Mohamed and only after did Jews and Christians say, US TOO!

Quote:
What do you call the people living in Syria Palestine between 2000 BCE and 200 BCE?

I don't see a definition for them on your web site.

There are not many names in evidence. Herodotus is one source. Egyptians are another. Presumably Assyrians are a third. In general one would expect the usual city-state organization so people would call themselves after their city of alliegience. I had no intention of including an exhaustive list of names as that is not my purpose. The only general name I know of is the one you gave from Herodotus, Palestine-Syria. However the time frame you give is quite unreasonable to expect from became generally literate in the 200 BC time frame. Even before Alexander there were the Greeks in Joppa just to increase the complexity of the answer.

Quote:
I understand city-state quite well and realize that the people of Tyre or Damascus had loyality to the city 1st and anything else was a matter of convenience or alliance in order to defend against invaders from outside their general area. Such was the case when the people of Hatti-land banded together to oppose the Assyrians or those of Ashur who made annual booty trips to various weak city-states in Hatti-land.

This was also true of the Greek city-states when the Persians invaded, city first area 2nd,

Where did you get the information that they united against the Assyrians?

Quote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Quote:
You are correct, there is no indication the collection of storytales was considered a complete work. And of course, which story tales does one include. The Enoch collection somehow is not included and it had a very wide circulation in Babbleland and Egypt. Enoch was known enough that the creative writer of Revelation used it as did several other NT fiction writers.

Pompey did find priest kings and it would seem that they weren't the first either. They seem to date at least to the 2nd century BCE. As always, Nada is existent to support the Babbleland storytales such as the BS that Alexander was predicted in the OT fiction writers fairy tales. What history does indicate is there was constant warfare between the Seleucids and the Ptolmeis to control the area of Palestine.

But Josephus does report the origin of the priest kings as the Maccabe dynasty. So we have an origin for them just where we would expect. That is after the Septuagint stories and the start of real history. And it shows a consistency which we would expect from political change. It is not out of the blue but as a consequence of a war.

On the other hand the Septuagint king stories are filled with what went wrong after the people demanded kings and how the priests were always right. This in itself is a major problem. Writing was expensive in those days. Not just the materials but the entire class of scribes that had to be supported. What king would have paid to create and preserve writings that condemned him? If done in secret by priests we would expect priests to record several lootings and destruction of records by kings.

We are more similar in our views of the fairytales then you seem to grasp.

I see nothing to support there was ever a "Biblical Israel".

If we agree there is no evidence of any biblical anything then we are close. The nomad thing does not quite suggest that.

Quote:
Judah was the city-state of Jerusalem and several surrounding villages that had allegiance or alliance with it. They were one of the smaller city-states.

Nothing indicates the people of the city-state of Judah (Jerusalem) had only the 1 god Yahweh until the 2nd century BCE, in fact the opposite is what one finds.

The evidence I have found mentions a temple of Astarte on the same hill as the Dome of the Rock in the early 1st c. AD. Sure sounds like two gods to me. It is also mentioned in a description of the Antonine Barris from the 1st c. AD which was on that hill. We have no direct historical information on who the women worshiped because they did not leave records.

Quote:
The city state north of the Jerusalem city-state was Samaria -  Israel. They were not united, ever except in fairy tales and an alliance found in stela from Assyria. Other stela indicate warfare between them or other alliances.

The Septuagint connection with Samaria does not differ from the Wizard of Oz mentioning Kansas a coincidental point of congruence in a fantasy. We know from Josephus Samaria was conquered by the grandson of Judah Maccabe. They were forced to adopt circucision and Yahweh cult practices on pain of banishment. That is clearly contradictory to the Septuagint claim it was once politically affiliated with Judea. The Galilee was also conquered and the same forced adoption of the Yahweh cult imposed. Also a direct contradiction to a one time political affiliation. 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


Jimenezj
Theist
Posts: 344
Joined: 2011-12-16
User is offlineOffline
PaulJohn

How do you read Isaiah 53? Do you use literal or non literal Method when reading Isaiah 53? And Why?

appeal to ignorance is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it. If there is positive evidence for the conclusion, then of course we have other reasons for accepting it, but a lack of evidence by itself is no evidence for a no God. 


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Jimenezj wrote:
How do you read Isaiah 53? Do you use literal or non literal Method when reading Isaiah 53? And Why?

Do you know telling the future is a con game?

Do you know prophets are crooks?

Do you know anyone dull witted enough not to know those things?

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


Jimenezj
Theist
Posts: 344
Joined: 2011-12-16
User is offlineOffline
Mouse

It's a simple question Mouse, even for a student.
Perhaps you would like To answer it.

Which method do you use and why?

appeal to ignorance is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it. If there is positive evidence for the conclusion, then of course we have other reasons for accepting it, but a lack of evidence by itself is no evidence for a no God.