Ever the Expert

Aron-Ra

Senior Veteran
Jul 3, 2004
4,571
393
61
Deep in the heart of the Bible belt
Visit site
✟14,521.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
I am still looking into this. I must say all this is so interesting. I have found an inscription that pre-dates Gilgamesh and seems to be the forerunner of it. Interestingly enough it comes from the area Abraham lived in Ur. Some very interesting possibilities are featured in these inscriptions. I have only found these to be mentioned on the internet and have not been able to confirm anything in any resources in the library as of yet due to the fact that I haven't had the time to go. I hope to after Christmas.
The epic which documents his life is usually dated to 2,000 BCE, (if not 2500 BCE) and the Sumerian King List shows that he ruled Babylon in the 27th Century BCE. I doubt you've found any document older than this. In all of human history, Gilgamesh is still the earliest individual who is known by both name and deeds in any documentation which can be externally validated.
It could be quite the opposite, Gilgamesh replaced Yahweh.
That is not possible, especially if one assumes that Genesis were really true, in which case, the importance subsequently attached to the details of this tale could not have all been forgot in the rewrite, but must never have been included yet.

I wanted to compare notes with Gluadys, who seems to have done some homework in this area too, just to see what she thought of your allegation here:

"The earliest reference I have heard of are Egyptian references to the 'Apiru' which are consistent with the 1850ff date for Abraham & his family. The eponymous ancestor of the Hebrews is Eber who is listed in the post-flood genealogy of Shem. But as is the case with any eponymous ancestor, there is no evidence he actually existed.
While there are references to Hebrew/Apiru in Egyptian and Middle East records there are no references to specific people---not even Joseph who was supposedly governor of all Egypt at one time. So there are no references that I know of to Abraham. It would be a major archeological coup to come up with one.
The biblical picture of Abraham and his family as wandering nomads who lived beside the civilizations of Canaan, Egypt, and Mesopotamia is consistent with an archeological record that has all of these pre-dating Abraham. So no way any part of the bible pre-dates Gilgamesh.
Tradition has it that Moses was the first to write any part of the bible. And scholarship has shown that he wrote no part of the Torah as we know it. The earliest writing in the bible is post-Solomon. Except possibly, for some actual Psalms by David.
Prior to Solomon there was very little written in Hebrew and none of it made it intact into the bible. But there are references to older works such as The Book of Jasher, The Book of the Wars of Yahweh, various collections of proverbs, etc.
But anything in the bible dates no earlier than the reign of Solomon and most of it is no earlier than the 8th century. The Torah as we know it went through its final revision during the Babylonian exile and some suggest that Ezra was the final redactor.
The compilations of the Prophets (which in Jewish classification includes the "historical" books) and of the Writings (Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Job, Daniel, Ruth, Esther and Song of Solomon) came later.

As far as Seneferu's legend goes it really doesn't tell the same story.
Only the most important parts, which is all that matters here. None of the miracles in the Bible were originally attributed to God, including the parting of the Red Sea. That was once said to be the work of a mere wizard.
The Bible in fact speaks about the pagan culture that Abraham was surrounded by and the fact that he set himself apart and worshipped God alone. He worshipped in his own way in accordance to God's will. Those traditions that were began with him were practiced by his family.
So you're really supporting my position; that the Hebrew religion emerged from a predominantly polytheist society by the practice of a very few initial believers. I have always believed the very beginning of that separation was some time in the 18th Century BCE, and that it didn't become a national identity until (and because of) Moses.
As the Hebrew culture emerged from the pagan ruins of Chaldea, at some point, possibly during the brutally intolerant theocracy of Moses, their increasingly complex traditions became sacred. But they had not always been.
The proof of this being what?
How about the fact that they've changed so much over the years?
upon the re-opening of Ashurbanipal's tomb, we discovered that the song did not remain the same.
It did not stay the same in its own right. It seems that this song had been an evolutionary epic and that parts were added at different time periods. The final fully finished column being dated around 600 BC.
Welcome back to the double-standard. You just assume that all the other religions not only could but did get distorted beyond recognition, practically overnight, even in their written form. But the Hebrew religion can't change even a little bit after ten times as long and in constant retellings of stories that weren't even written down. But unlike any part of the Bible (when taken literally) we actually have substantial archaeology to back Gilgamesh.
 
Upvote 0

Aron-Ra

Senior Veteran
Jul 3, 2004
4,571
393
61
Deep in the heart of the Bible belt
Visit site
✟14,521.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
He collected some traditions, and he served as the central figure of at least a couple of them. He may even have put the final revisions on the Genesis collection. But he never wrote any of them. He never wrote anything.
Please cite your proof that Moses didn't write anything.
What indication do you have that he did? The Genesis fables are all supposed to be talking about events that happened many centuries before him, and which even you admit he couldn't have written. Deuteronomy includes his own death and burial, and he obviously didn't write that either. The remaining three, while they center around him, do not appear to have been written by him, but by others documenting his adventures from the stance of an outside observer. Even then, it seems that it was not directly observed, but recorded hearsay, just like the rest of the Bible. And of course the scholarship indicates this is the case; that except perhaps for a few of the ancient fireside stories, (Genesis/Job) the rest of the Pentateuch was composed many many years after Moses and the exodus were listed as the national memories of the Hebrew culture.
I believe he did exist. Many aspects of his story are obviously borrowed from some volcanic event which seems never to have occurred in Egypt. And Moses' character seems like a combination of four or five different people. But I believe there was a real Moses, and that he lead a band of fanatical desert bandits who were less like "God's chosen people" and more like the Taliban.
Although the figures recorded in the Bible are impossible exaggerations, there are still too many grisly accounts of inhuman genocide hamstrung cattle, and slaves being dragged from smoldering villages en route to the promised land to believe that none of it ever really happened.
This is typical actually. Skeptics want to allow the so called atrocities so that they can use them to show how tyranical God is but then claim that the Biblical figures themselves didn't exist.
Then why do you say this is typical? Because I said I believe this figure did exist. A tyrannical desert brigand isn't so hard to believe. And I make no comment about how tyrannical God is, because it seems clear (at least to me) that if God exists, he didn't do any of these terrible things. Men committed all these atrocities and then tried to justify their barbarism by claiming that God supposedly condoned, allowed, or ordered them to be done. But of course if God were really the being of light, wisdom, and love that the vast majority of his followers claim he is, then he wouldn't have had any part in these injustices and petty prejudice that is blamed on him. I blame these atrocities on men, not God, and that would still be the case whether God is real or not. I mean the Bible actually claims that Moses was the meekest man who had ever lived, and look at all the horror he brought about. Obviously, this cannot be the inerrent word of God but propaganda with the spin boasting the proud heritage of genocidal Jews in a militant theocracy.
How would they have found out about it? The Indo-Aryan linguistic and cultural division between what would become the Indian and Iranian nations began at about that time. But their (many) flood myths don't remotely match.
If it were a true worldwide flood, it would seem likely that all cultures would have information of such passed down within their own cultures which could explain the simularities and differences between the stories.
You're not paying attention again. At the time of the flood, there were already civilizations arising in Egypt and in several places in the Orient. The Indus and the Aryans divided into two powerfully-populated nations within a very few centuries of that date. But there were also tribal cultures of Oriental descent already dispersed throughout the Pacific Islands and the Americas thousands of years prior to that date, and continuously ever afterward. There were already Caucasians across Europe, blacks in Africa, and aborigines in Australia, all tens of thousands of years before your flood, and they're all still there. Likewise, at the time of your flood, there were already ancient renderings of leopards, lions, and housecats, and the scimitar cats were already extinct. That's four species known from three different genera of one supposed "kind" already known to precede and survive this mythic even that (once again) we know for certain never happened on a global scale and couldn't have.
The 1st through 4th Dynasties of Egypt continued right along, building pyramids requiring the assistance of hundreds of workers each.
Actually, it wasn't until the 3rd Dynasty that the pyramids were built.
I didn't mean to imply that the 1st dynasty was already building pyramids. But even in the 3rd dynasty, if your flood had really happened, there wouldn't have been enough people in the whole world to have begun that job, much less participate in all the wars that were fought in the interim.
I am just now looking at the flood story in accordance with historical documentation and I am unsure if I agree with the timing of it as current theories state. I find that the time of the flood could be dated as far back as pre-history. I really as I have stated before speak informatively on this subject.
That's alright. I obviously don't know everything either. I've heard all kinds of dates for the flood. But the flood of Shurripak (at the end of the Jemdat Nasr) is the only one supported by archaeological and geological evidence simultaneously.
This immediately after everyone in the world had drowned? And at the same time, more pyramids were going up in China.
Again, the time frame of the flood is not clear to me. It is based on some interpretation of geneology which to me seems somewhat contrived so I would need to have more knowledge to determine what I think about the timing. If I accepted any information at this point I would be merely regurgitating someone else's viewpoint and you will find that I very rarely accept anything without looking into it myself.
I would believe that if you hadn't cited Ussher's dates, which are no more than a flawed interpretation of geneology that is backed by nothing but regurgitated in many creationist websites as if it were scriptural.

"Ussher dated the arrival of Abraham in Canaan to 2126 BCE and the Noahic flood at 2349 BCE. The latter is unlikely, because historical records in China and Egypt continued without disruption through that date, and contain no record of a massive world-wide flood that would have wiped out their civilizations."
--ReligiousTolerance.org

The city of Jericho represents another problem with the global flood. As the world's oldest (or rather earliest) city, Jericho was also uninterrupted by any global cataclysm, and is estimated to be 4,000 years older than Ussher's whole universe. The great sphynx, (or at least part of it) may be even older than that. Archaeologists, anthropologists, paleontologists, and geologists see the same thing all over the natural world, to say nothing of tectonics, dendrochronology, and genetics, as well as radiation thermodynamics, and of course cosmology. All of these independently indicate the same ultimate conclusion. There is just no question but that the Earth is about a million times older than Young Earth theology allows.

"A million-fold mistake is no small matter, and Biblical scholars surely need to give primary attention to resolving this tremendous discrepancy right at the very foundation of our entire Biblical cosmology. This is not a peripheral issue that can be dismissed with some exegetical twist, but is central to the very integrity of scriptural theology."
-- Henry Morris; The Biblical Basis for Modern Science (1984), Page 115.
Sumer kept their records continuously up to, and after the flood. Yet in the first century after that event, they also recorded a series of civil wars. How could they have had enough people left to have even one war? Perhaps the same way the Greeks did, since their myth had many survivors on high ground.
The timelines of the Sumerians are very interesting and hold extreme time periods of their kings. It is hard to determine what their timelines actually mean.
The primary problem is the base-60 numeric system which led many to believe that people once lived for several centuries at a time. And for some reason, the further back you search, the greater the longevity continues to increase by an order of magnitude, so that at one point, "when the kingship descended from Heaven" we have individual persons living for tens of thousands of years longer than Ussher thought anything anywhere ever existed, because he also used the same, inaccurate reading of the zero-less numerals without ever questioning his beliefs or the logic behind it. This is just one example of why that's never a good idea.
Recent discoveries in archaeology and geology have revealed that the Black sea flooded, destroying a whole village some 7,000 years ago. The Sea of Galilee also flooded, destroying another shore-side village some 15,000 years ago. In the time since then, many lakes and rivers have come and gone in North America, fed or drained by the events of the ice age, often with profound effects that are undeniable to the observer as to what they are, and how they occurred.
I believe this to be true as far as I know, but I am not sure that the flood itself could have been long before this. Again though, I am just not informed enough to carry on any meaningful dialog on this subject.
The flood followed each of these events by a significant amount of time in every case.
All I want to know is this: Is there any quality or quantity of evidence you would or could accept to prove that the global flood never really happened, and that the men who fashioned the stories in the Bible merely exaggerated the details?
I think that you could give me both quality and quantity of evidence that would convince me that a global flood did not occur at a certain time in history. You may even convince me that the flood may not have had to be global as some interpretation must be used to determine the wording for earth. I will look at evidence both historically (secular) and Biblically and then I will have a foundation to build upon. It takes a great deal of research to come to any position when you are looking at thousands of years past. It may even be tens of thousands of years at this point....I just don't know. I am intriged though as I look at clay tablets that are thousands of years old that speak of the global flood. I have spent so much time in other areas of the Bible that I have not investigated the flood and I find my interest has been stirred.
But is there any quality or quantity of evidence I could ever show you that would convince you that the Bible was written subject to human error both in composition as well as interpretation? Or do you also hold a position similar to that of HuMaNaTeE, the ICR, the AIG, and my friend, the principle of the fundamentalist Christian school; that being that the priori conclusion that the inerrent authority of the Bible must never be called in doubt no matter what reason or evidence is ever brought to bare?
 
Upvote 0

Aron-Ra

Senior Veteran
Jul 3, 2004
4,571
393
61
Deep in the heart of the Bible belt
Visit site
✟14,521.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Oncedeceived said:
I haven't studied this in great detail but just in the time that I have looked into the other flood stories from around the world the parallels are astonishing. The three that stand out most are the ones that state that there is a man/family that survive from a flood, usually in a boat with animals and there is usually some mention of a time frame. There are some 500 flood stories that represent a worldwide scale.
What are these three? I have a suggestion. Out of your 300 (and then 500) international flood myths, I want you to pick just one dozen specific ones from areas apart from Near East, that wouldn't have been influenced by any flood restricted to the Tigris-Euphrates flood plain, and we'll see if there is any substance to your stance on this at all. Deal?
I know that what I said is true, and I don't appreciate the tone of your allegation. So I think the only way to settle this is to take a look at these less than 300 flood myths and see how they compare to each other, shall we? Compare the three, nearly-identical versions from the near-east with any of the other options from around the world. Very quickly you'll see that everywhere else has a much different version, and usually one that couldn't possibly have been distorted out of the Biblical version over any amount of time. There are no significant differences between the Mesopotamian collection, and there are no significant similarities in any of the flood myths from other cultures. Of course the only explanation for this is that the Mesopotamian versions are talking about the same event the Bible is, but the other cultures definitely aren't, and couldn't be.
I think that this will give you a better idea.

http://www.nwcreation.net/noahlegends.html
I already have a darned good idea, thank you. Didn't you even read the post you just answered?
What are you talking about? I have always said that I didn't know much about the flood? Please point out where I said "that is not true" when I have not given some reason for saying that.
Every time? But in this particular case, I said that the only flood myths that matched each other are the ones from the Near-East, and that the Sumerians, Babylonians, and Akkadians all had similar versions of it, that were all echoed in the Bible. I said that There are no significant differences between the Mesopotamian collection, that they match in almost every detail at once, and that there are no significant similarities in any of the flood myths from other cultures. You said that wasn't true, and still haven't given any specifics to support that. And I contested that with a closer look at each of the vague geographical references you mentioned. Since that didn't satisfy you, I suggest we do it again, only this time in more depth.
 
Upvote 0

gluadys

Legend
Mar 2, 2004
12,958
682
Toronto
✟24,020.00
Faith
Protestant
Politics
CA-NDP
Aron-Ra said:
I wanted to compare notes with Gluadys, who seems to have done some homework in this area too, just to see what she thought of your allegation here:

But anything in the bible dates no earlier than the reign of Solomon and most of it is no earlier than the 8th century. The Torah as we know it went through its final revision during the Babylonian exile and some suggest that Ezra was the final redactor.
The compilations of the Prophets (which in Jewish classification includes the "historical" books) and of the Writings (Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Job, Daniel, Ruth, Esther and Song of Solomon) came later.


Just for the sake of accuracy here, I should mention that the Old Testament was canonized in three stages: the Torah, the Prophets and The Writings.

The Torah consists of the five books: Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy, all traditionally attributed to Moses. The reality is much more complex. Even if Moses did find time to write anything (and he probably did) we have to remember that the bulk of the Israelites were illiterate. So in promulgating the law of God, Moses had to rely primarily on commiting it to the memories of people who could not read and write--and who would also commit it to the memory of those they trained as successors. Mostly, these would be the priests.

Eventually, however, actual written records did become more necessary and more popular. The analysis of linguistic clues has led scholars to suggest 6 important stages in the compilation of the Torah as we know it:

1. The writing of J---those sections (including Gen.2:4b through Gen.3) of Genesis, Exodus and Numbers) written by a Judean who lived during the time of the two kingdoms.

2. The writing of E---Those sections (such as the incident of the golden calf and many of the laws in Exodus) of Genesis, Exodus and Numbers written by a Levite -- possibly a direct descendant of Moses-- living in Israel during the time of the two kingdoms.

3. The fusion of these two into a single narrative by an editor. This revision was probably done shortly after the fall of Israel to the Assyrians. Refugees who came from Israel into Judea no doubt brought E with them, and the two versions (northern and southern) of their common history were amalgamated.

4. Either the writing of P or the writing of D. (Scholars differ on which came first.)

5. The writing of D or the writing of P.

D is found only in the book of Deuteronomy. It has many linguistic features which connect it with Jeremiah and probably comes from the same prophetic community, if not from Jeremiah himself. Jeremiah came from a priestly family, but not the one which governed the temple in Jerusalem.

P refers to the sections of Genesis, Exodus, and Numbers written by a priest of Jerusalem shortly before or during the Babylonian exile. All of Leviticus, with a few editorial exceptions, is written by P. P is clearly a priest of the temple of Jerusalem and a descendant of Aaron. He is the one who pays the most attention to the laws and the sacrifices. The whole description of the building of the tabernacle comes from P. So does the opening section of Genesis (1:1-2:4a)

6. The combination of P with JE and the addition of Deuteronomy. All the books contain some evidence of this final editing which took place during or shortly after the Babylonian exile.

The late writing of the Torah does not imply that these stories and laws were unknown to previous generations. As noted, even if Moses was literate, he had to entrust the law to people who were not. Particularly among the priests, it would not be unusual for details of sacrificial rituals to be passed on orally for many generations without much alteration. So even if Leviticus is written during the Babylonian exile, the rituals it recounts could easily date back to the time of Moses. And even if J wrote sometime after the death of Solomon, the core of the stories he tells of Abraham could go back to the actual events. But clearly it is more difficult to trace and verify oral history than it is to trace written documents. It is also virtually impossible to tell where history leaves off and legend begins. Those responsible for learning and passing on these stories made no such distinction between "plain fact" and "mythology". To them it was all one.

The Torah as we know it appears to have been finalized by the days of Ezra. Some even suggest him as the final redactor.

The collection of writings known as the Prophets appear to have been canonized by the 2nd century BCE. The rabbis who compiled this collection and began treating them as holy scripture believed that the age of prophecy had ended within a century or so of the return from exile and the rebuilding of the temple and city of Jerusalem. (This is one reason Daniel is not included in among the Prophets, though in the Septuagint and in Christian bibles, the book of Daniel is found in the "prophetic" section.) On the other hand, except for the Torah, almost all the books found in the "history" section of Christian bibles are accounted in Jewish tradition as part of the Prophets.

The traditional Jewish compilation of the Prophets is divided into Earlier and Later Prophets, and the Later Prophets are sub-divided into Major and Minor Prophets (depending on the volume of their work--not its importance.)

Earlier Prophets

Joshua
Judges
Samuel (I & II)
Kings (I & II)

Later Prophets (Major)

Isaiah
Jeremiah (& Lamentations)
Ezekiel

Later Prophets (Minor aka the Twelve)
Hosea
Joel
Amos
Obadiah
Jonah
Micah
Nahum
Habakkuk
Zephaniah
Haggai
Zechariah
Malachi

Several of the later prophetic books shade into apocalyptic writing, especially Ezekiel and Zechariah. So many modern interpretators identify apocalyptic writing as prophecy although it is a distinctive genre.

The final section of the Old Testament to be canonized were the Writings. With a few exceptions, these are all post-exilic writings. Their status was still in flux in the 1st century CE and the final decision on what to include and what not to include came a century or so later. This had an impact on the Christian bible. The Septuagint translation of the scriptures into Greek included several books and parts of books originally composed in Greek (though by Jewish writers). The Septuagint was the Old Testament used by Greek-speaking Christians and formed the basis of early Christian translations into other languages such as Latin. It is the bible used by non-Protestant Christians to this day. But as the Hebrew canon was finalized by the rabbis, books and parts of books composed in Greek rather than Hebrew were excluded. (Some books in Hebrew were also excluded for other reasons.) So sections of Daniel such as the story of Susannah and the Song of the Three Children were excluded, as well as books such as Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus.

The books which were accepted and are found in the Hebrew bible and all Christian bibles today are:

Ruth
Chronicles (I & II)
Ezra
Nehemiah
Esther (non-Greek sections)
Job
Psalms
Proverbs
Ecclesiastes
Song of Solomon
Daniel (non-Greek sections)

Since Psalms is a collection of hymns, many of them are much older than the time the collection was put in writing (in fact, this collection was probably edited many times). It includes psalms by David and may include even older hymns. Proverbs, likewise, includes material from older collections. Ecclesiastes and Song of Solomon are traditionally attributed to Solomon but were likely written at a later date. All of the others are post-exilic with the most recent being Daniel (2nd century BCE).
 
Upvote 0

Oncedeceived

Senior Veteran
Jul 11, 2003
21,214
629
✟66,670.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Aron-Ra said:
What are these three? I have a suggestion. Out of your 300 (and then 500) international flood myths, I want you to pick just one dozen specific ones from areas apart from Near East, that wouldn't have been influenced by any flood restricted to the Tigris-Euphrates flood plain, and we'll see if there is any substance to your stance on this at all. Deal?

I had already given this to you.

D = Destruction by Water
. G = (God) Divine Cause
. W = Warning Given
. H = Humans Spared
. A = Animals Spared
. V = Preserved in a Vessel



D . . H A V 01 Australia- Kurnai
D . W H A V 02 Babylon- Berossus' account
D G W H A V 03 Babylon- Gilgamesh epic
D G W H . V 04 Bolivia- Chiriguano
D . . H A V 05 Borneo- Sea Dayak
D . . H A V 06 Burma- Singpho
D G . H A V 07 Canada- Cree
D G W H A V 08 Canada- Montagnais
D G . H A V 09 China- Lolo
D . W H A V 10 Cuba- original natives
D G W H A V 11 East Africa- Masai
D G W H . V 12 Egypt- Book of the Dead
D G . H . V 13 Fiji- Walavu-levu tradition
D G W H A . 14 French Polynesia- Raiatea
D . . H A V 15 Greece- Lucian's account
D G . H A V 16 Guyana- Macushi
D G . H . V 17 Iceland- Eddas
D G . H . V 18 India- Andaman Islands
D . W H A V 19 India- Bhil
D G W H . V 20 India-Kamar
D . W H A . 21 Iran- Zend-Avesta
D G . H . V 22 Italy- Ovid's poetry
D G . H . V 2 3 Malay Peninsula- Jekun
D . W H . V 24 Mexico- Codex Chimalpopoca
D . W H A V 25 Mexico- Huichol
D G . H . V 26 New Zealand- Maori
D . W H A . 27 Peru- Indians of Huarochiri
D . W H . V 28 X . Russia- Vogul
D . W H A V 29 U.S.A. (Alaska)- Kolusches
D G . H A V 30 U.S.A. (Alaska)- Tlingit
D . W H A V 31 U.S.A. (Arizona)- Papago
D G . H A V 32 U.S.A. (Hawaii)- legend of Nu-u
D . . H A V 33 Vanualu- Melanesians
D . . H A V 34 Vietnam- Bahnar
D . . H A V 35 Wales- Dwyfan/Dwyfan legend
35 18 17 35 24 32 Total Occurrences out of 35
I already have a darned good idea, thank you. Didn't you even read the post you just answered?

And since I had given you a post with the above information which gives each example of those similiarities I must assume that you are not even reading mine.

Every time? But in this particular case, I said that the only flood myths that matched each other are the ones from the Near-East, and that the Sumerians, Babylonians, and Akkadians all had similar versions of it, that were all echoed in the Bible. I said that There are no significant differences between the Mesopotamian collection, that they match in almost every detail at once, and that there are no significant similarities in any of the flood myths from other cultures.

And as I have shown there are.

You said that wasn't true, and still haven't given any specifics to support that. And I contested that with a closer look at each of the vague geographical references you mentioned. Since that didn't satisfy you, I suggest we do it again, only this time in more depth.

IF I answer you and give specifics and you neglect to look at them or read them then I can do no more. I have given examples with the similiarities and areas and peoples that they belong to and yet you still are not satisfied.
 
Upvote 0

Aron-Ra

Senior Veteran
Jul 3, 2004
4,571
393
61
Deep in the heart of the Bible belt
Visit site
✟14,521.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Aron-Ra said:
I have a suggestion. Out of your 300 (and then 500) international flood myths, I want you to pick just one dozen specific ones from areas apart from Near East, that wouldn't have been influenced by any flood restricted to the Tigris-Euphrates flood plain, and we'll see if there is any substance to your stance on this at all. Deal?
Oncedeceived said:
I had already given this to you.

D = Destruction by Water
. G = (God) Divine Cause
. W = Warning Given
. H = Humans Spared
. A = Animals Spared
. V = Preserved in a Vessel

D . . H A V 01 Australia- Kurnai
D . W H A V 02 Babylon- Berossus' account
D G W H A V 03 Babylon- Gilgamesh epic
D G W H . V 04 Bolivia- Chiriguano
D . . H A V 05 Borneo- Sea Dayak
D . . H A V 06 Burma- Singpho
D G . H A V 07 Canada- Cree
D G W H A V 08 Canada- Montagnais
D G . H A V 09 China- Lolo
D . W H A V 10 Cuba- original natives
D G W H A V 11 East Africa- Masai
D G W H . V 12 Egypt- Book of the Dead
D G . H . V 13 Fiji- Walavu-levu tradition
D G W H A . 14 French Polynesia- Raiatea
D . . H A V 15 Greece- Lucian's account
D G . H A V 16 Guyana- Macushi
D G . H . V 17 Iceland- Eddas
D G . H . V 18 India- Andaman Islands
D . W H A V 19 India- Bhil
D G W H . V 20 India-Kamar
D . W H A . 21 Iran- Zend-Avesta
D G . H . V 22 Italy- Ovid's poetry
D G . H . V 2 3 Malay Peninsula- Jekun
D . W H . V 24 Mexico- Codex Chimalpopoca
D . W H A V 25 Mexico- Huichol
D G . H . V 26 New Zealand- Maori
D . W H A . 27 Peru- Indians of Huarochiri
D . W H . V 28 X . Russia- Vogul
D . W H A V 29 U.S.A. (Alaska)- Kolusches
D G . H A V 30 U.S.A. (Alaska)- Tlingit
D . W H A V 31 U.S.A. (Arizona)- Papago
D G . H A V 32 U.S.A. (Hawaii)- legend of Nu-u
D . . H A V 33 Vanualu- Melanesians
D . . H A V 34 Vietnam- Bahnar
D . . H A V 35 Wales- Dwyfan/Dwyfan legend
35 18 17 35 24 32 Total Occurrences out of 35

And since I had given you a post with the above information which gives each example of those similiarities I must assume that you are not even reading mine.

IF I answer you and give specifics and you neglect to look at them or read them then I can do no more. I have given examples with the similiarities and areas and peoples that they belong to and yet you still are not satisfied.
Since you didn't understand this the first time, (intentionally?) I will clarify. I want to look at your examples in-depth. But I don't want to read them all. I have to do enough research as it is. The ones I have read, (as I have already explained) don't at all reflect what you want them to. So I want you to select you favorite few, (three to twelve) specific ones, and I'll read those. Then we can discuss whether or not they really are the way you represent them. Because the first ones you mentioned before definitely weren't.
 
Upvote 0

Oncedeceived

Senior Veteran
Jul 11, 2003
21,214
629
✟66,670.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Aron-Ra said:
I've kept them straight in my head though.
I already did. But I'm not talking about verses, I'm talking about concepts. In this case, Mithras is a parallel for Jesus because (a) He was the physical representative of the sun-god, (b) his "father", Ahura-Mazda is believed to have created the world. (c) He later created Mithras to be an equal [in worship] to himself, the father god's representative on Earth, something the Hebrew god never admitted, but Christians believe of him none the less. (d) Mithras was associated with a divine trinity, (e) His father is the Lord of the Kingdom of Justice and Truth, (f) Mithras and Jesus performed some of the same miracles, (g) both were said to have travelled with twelve companions, (h) both were conceived without intercourse, (i) both were the "judge of souls", (j) and both contested Ahriman "the Opposer" who's name is Shai'tan [Satan] in Hebrew.

The parallels that you cite are all found dated after Christ.
. I've already presented you with some historical/education sources, and I could certainly present you with a lot more. But obviously I can't give you every name for every expert. In this case, (if your contention were correct) it should be easier for you to provide 1 archaeologist and one historian who disagreed with that statement. If neither of them are theologians at the same time, and have no apparent religious bias, they'll be acceptible.

You made the claim it is up to you to provide the sources.
I find that most authors do their writing while they're still alive. So let's look at a window from 551 BCE to 600 BCE.

And yet we know that it happened anyway, as it does with all religions.

You have no knowledge and no one else does either that "all religions" have taken from others.
That's why the Book of Mormon is based on the Bible.

I think we have plenty to discuss without bringing in new topics.
Yes it does, or else it can't be demonstrated that it refers to Jesus specifically. Your prophesy is literally saying that our eventual savior will be some guy who's name could be anything. Because whoever he is, we're going to call him God-with-us. But we'll still say that his name will be Immanuel, even though we don't really mean that literally. This is not a prophesy, and it can't be said to refer to Jesus specifically. I suggest that we look at the deeds this prophesied savior was supposed to perform, and see if Jesus managed to fit their description that way. Then we'll know if he was the prophesied messiah or not.

Christianity is based on the very fact that Jesus was the Messiah that it was foretold in the Old Testament. Now if you want to debate the issue of whether that is correct or not that is for another discussion because the whole point to this one is whether Christianity borrowed from Mithraism. It is a given that Christianity holds Jesus as the Messiah, that He is the Savior. IF you want to debate the accuracy of whether or not Christianity is in correct in its very nature according to the Old Testament that begins a new topic. Which to be honest makes this whole thread look like the tree of life. I think we need to stay focused.



Its still immaculate conception, ain't it?

Can a rock conceive?

I already did. Are you able to see linked photos and phrases in these posts?

Yes.

(click to enlarge)

Duc deBerry commissioned a whole series with this particular depiction in the 14th Century, and they're easy to find online. But there other, similar depictions much further back, including one on a tomb beneath Vatican City which is said to be that of St. Peter. Unfortunately, I can no longer find the link to that discovery, which is too bad because you would really have liked that one.

If you are going to use pictures you need to give me links to look them up. The picture that you claim is Jesus with the Chariot has no description of who it is suppose to be or any text stating what the picture is, where it is from, who did it or one piece of information.


That bothers me more than it does you. I mean, here I am exposing the dishonesty of creationism when people professing to be rationalists are posting this kind of tripe!

Like I said, exactly.
Then because we know one side is known for their lies, we assume the other never does. But every time I have ever put my faith into anything, this is what happens. And its disgusting to me how often I've been deceived in my life. Its the reason I am the way I am.

Bitter and disillusioned? Yes, I think I understand. :(

That's OK. I would probably be disappointed in archaeology altogether if I made more profound discoveries in the small amount of research I've done than all the world's experts in the field.

You have gone on digs then?
 
Upvote 0

Aron-Ra

Senior Veteran
Jul 3, 2004
4,571
393
61
Deep in the heart of the Bible belt
Visit site
✟14,521.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Atron-Ra said:
Mithras is a parallel for Jesus because (a) He was the physical representative of the sun-god, (b) his "father", Ahura-Mazda is believed to have created the world. (c) He later created Mithras to be an equal [in worship] to himself, the father god's representative on Earth, something the Hebrew god never admitted, but Christians believe of him none the less. (d) Mithras was associated with a divine trinity, (e) His father is the Lord of the Kingdom of Justice and Truth, (f) Mithras and Jesus performed some of the same miracles, (g) both were said to have travelled with twelve companions, (h) both were conceived without intercourse, (i) both were the "judge of souls", (j) and both contested Ahriman "the Opposer" who's name is Shai'tan [Satan] in Hebrew.
Oncedeceived said:
The parallels that you cite are all found dated after Christ.
Nope. The majority of those listed above come from the Avesta, not the later Roman religion.
I've already presented you with some historical/education sources, and I could certainly present you with a lot more. But obviously I can't give you every name for every expert. In this case, (if your contention were correct) it should be easier for you to provide 1 archaeologist and one historian who disagreed with that statement. If neither of them are theologians at the same time, and have no apparent religious bias, they'll be acceptible.
You made the claim it is up to you to provide the sources.
Couldn't find even one, huh? Alright, then the historical and EDU sites I've already listed will stand uncontested.
You have no knowledge and no one else does either that "all religions" have taken from others.
I still think "all" applies. But I suppose I should have said 'most' just to be polite.
the Book of Mormon is based on the Bible.
I think we have plenty to discuss without bringing in new topics.
This looks like more of the same topic to me.
This is not a prophesy, and it can't be said to refer to Jesus specifically. I suggest that we look at the deeds this prophesied savior was supposed to perform, and see if Jesus managed to fit their description that way. Then we'll know if he was the prophesied messiah or not.
Christianity is based on the very fact that Jesus was the Messiah that it was foretold in the Old Testament. Now if you want to debate the issue of whether that is correct or not that is for another discussion
I guess he didn't live up to his own prophesy then.
because the whole point to this one is whether Christianity borrowed from Mithraism.
Not quite. We're not just talking about Mithras here. The whole point was that Jesus was not an original concept because the events in his life had already been told in older fables dedicated to other gods. Oddly enough, the only old legend we listed that didn't have any such clear and previous parallels were the prophesies you said did.
It is a given that Christianity holds Jesus as the Messiah, that He is the Savior. IF you want to debate the accuracy of whether or not Christianity is in correct in its very nature according to the Old Testament that begins a new topic. Which to be honest makes this whole thread look like the tree of life. I think we need to stay focused.
Me too. I would have this other discussion with you, but mere mythology doesn't interest me if there's no way to bring science into it, (and thus be able to show who is right or wrong) and I don't want to have to move this discussion to another board due its lack of relevant substance to this one.
Can a rock conceive?
Is there some other word for it?
If you are going to use pictures you need to give me links to look them up.
I thought I told you everything you needed to know about this series, and apologized that I couldn't find the link to the other one anymore. But I didn't realize that you couldn't trace the URL back to the right site, because I pulled the image from the wrong one. You can see the whole series here:
Les Très Riches Heures du Duc de Berry
The picture that you claim is Jesus with the Chariot has no description of who it is suppose to be
What are our choices? DeBerry did a calendar series of these, in Medival Europe, in which this figure presides over the universe in every panel. Anno Domini. With all the pagan gods made illegal by the inquisition, there don't seem to be a lot of choices as to who this is. Its pretty much down to Jesus or his dad, and that's about it.
or any text stating what the picture is, where it is from, who did it or one piece of information.
I told you it was Duc De Berry, and I told you he commissioned these peices to be done. They weren't painted by anyone famous. However,
Bitter and disillusioned? Yes, I think I understand. :(
I doubt you ever will. No I am not bitter, and never have been. I am a bit enraged every time I find out that something I believed turned out to be wrong. But I'm also immediately grateful that didn't go on that way any longer.

Disillusioned? I guess that word applies by definition. But I think "enlightened" could be used as well, and to mean the same thing.
You have gone on digs then?
Not yet. I have been tentatively promised an archaeology position with the Navajo nation in Southern Colorado. But of course I still have a degree or two to acheive before that can happen.

Fortunately, most archaeological research these days can be done in libraries, and since we're talking about mythology, that's obviously what I meant. Remember, the guy who got credit for discovering Ashurburnipal's library didn't dig one of those tablets up himself. All he did was figure out what they said, and he did that from a library in London.
 
Upvote 0

Oncedeceived

Senior Veteran
Jul 11, 2003
21,214
629
✟66,670.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Aron-Ra said:
Alcestis is best-known from a Greek playwright named Euripides in the 5th Century BCE. She freely sacrificed her own life to atone for her husband's inequity.

Her body was burnt, and then buried. But her soul was brought back from the land of the dead by Hercules. Her resurrection took three days.

"You may not hear her voice until she is purified from her consecration to the Lower Gods, and until the third dawn has risen."
--Hercules to Admetus, husband of Alcestis

Isaiah and Psalms are pre-dated to this play. The play is dated 438 BC. So the fact that you claim Alcestis's being crucified (which you have now seen was not the case) is not true and the fact that the crucified Redeemer is given in the OT in many of the Books simply shows that your claim is false.
But I am forced to eat some crow here. It had been several years since I read Alcestis, and my interpretation was that she was bound by a goddess, and left suspended in crucifixion, already gasping by the opening of the play, already nearly dead. She was upright, and in agony as she bade farewell to her children. Then she became delirious and began hallucinating that death was dragging down to the styx. At last, she begged to be loosed, where she fell back and died in her husband's arms. This is how I remembered the story.

I am glad though that you see that your claim was not true and were graceous enought to correct it. :)
But now that you asked for the exact phrases, I was forced to read the whole thing again, and I found that the method of death was never actually described. She was already gasping at death's door from the play's beginning, and most of those other lines are written as I remember them. But when she asked to be loosed, she was actually pleading with her hallucination of death, asking him to let her go. She wasn't actually crucified because she wasn't tied to and hung from anything. There are still significant parallels to the Christian sacrifice and atonement, but I must admit that crucifixion isn't one of them despite what so many other sources I've read have said, which led me to believe I'd misunderstood what I had read.

I don't believe that there are parallels to the Christian Sacrifice/Atonement. The Christian Sacrifice was for all mankind and the atonement was for sin which are not present in the play. Regardless, there are reference to Jesus being crucified in the Old Testament like I said and that would be prior to this play anyway.
Actually, that's exactly what crucifixion is: being bound, arms outstretched, preferably suspended in agony until death, unless you're immortal of course. Prometheus was still crucified, and more important here is the reason why.

No, maybe that is the problem here. Crucifixion is the process where people were nailed to a tree or post or cross in their hands and feet and left there to die by suffocation or by their heart stopping. Being bound by straps on a face cliff does not in anyway represent crucifixion.

What I said about Dionysus was [1.] that he was born miraculously,
[2.] the son a mortal woman and the king of the gods, [3.] that he created wine miraculously, [4.] that he made natural springs in the Earth flow with wine, [5.] that he raised the dead, and [6.] that he himself died and was/is resurrected to live again, (as Dionysus 2) before dying again, only to be re-resurrected annually as a season. Also there does appear to be a eucharist consumption in his following in that wine was said to be the blood of Dionysus. Jesus said something similar, but without the supportive mythology. Dionysus was credited with the introduction of vine cultivation, and the invention of wine. Later, Jesus claimed to be the "true vine" (John 15,1), also conjured wine miraculously, and asked his disciples to remember him by drinking wine, his blood, another analogy originally attributed to Dionysus.

He wasn't born at all but sprouted from a rock. Regardless Dionysus was again after the Old Testament references for crucifixtion, resurrection, Son of God. The consumption of the eucharist is false and has been refuted. The miracles of Jesus were again spoken of in the Old Testament to prepare for the coming of Christ.
I
'm surprised. I have already cited Prometheus Bound by Aeschylus, which so far has been the only one of the Prometheus myths I've been able to find online. Everything else is commentary.

It doesn't matter really because Aeschylus wrote these about 449 BC and this was after the same concepts being told in the Old Testament.
Both were forbidden by vain god(s) for no good reason other than to protect the uniquely superior nature of their divinity. And both were taken as 'sins' for which all of mankind was punished. Both were provided by an outside agent who was also punished, and both required atonement, redemption, by a crucifixion of an immortal god. More importantly, both were claimed to be "the" defining aspect of humanity which separated us from the other animals.

The general aspects of these are not similiar. As far as the redemption/crucifixion as I have shown they are concepts already in the Old Testament.

Like the Genesis version, the first woman was created separately, and she is blamed for releasing sin into the world. And just like Genesis, she did so by doing the very thing she was told not to do, but that the gods fully expected, and planned, for her to do anyway. She was given the box of sin and told not to open it, just like Eve was forbidden to eat from the tree that was placed right in front of her. Your god even added a talking snake to make sure she fulfilled his plan, which is what it had to be since he was omniscient, and omnipotent, and both knew what would happen, and how to prevent it, but didn't.
They are not exactly identical, but they are not significantly different either. Most importantly, both stories should only have been read as parables who's only real truth was in their symbolism.

I'm sorry but was this the same author as above? IF so, it doesn't matter and if not I would need to know who the author was and when they wrote this. If you have given it to me before I apologise for not putting it with this.
Aeschylus also wrote the prequel to Prometheus Bound, that being Prometheus the Fire-giver, which I have not yet found available online, so it will take a visit to the library for that one. But there are plenty of evaluations of that available from edu websites.
But some of these myths also speak of redemption, a couple of them even before your Isaiah ever postulated his version of the redeemer. Its another repeated theme that was carried over from Prometheus to Dionysus.

I guess you will just have to bring them forward because as shown the ones that you have cited are dated after the concept was presented in the Old Testament.
"Hear, O blessed son of Zeus and of two mothers, Bacchos of the vintage, unforgettable seed, many-named and redeeming daimon, holy offspring of the gods born in secrecy, reveling Bacchos plump giver of the many joys of fruits which grow well. Mighty and many-shaped god, from the earth you burst forth to reach the wine-press and there become a remedy for man's pain, O sacred blossom! A sorrow-hating joy to mortals, O lovely-haired Epaphian, you are a redeemer and a reveler whose thyrsus drives to frenzy and who is kind-hearted to all, gods and mortals, who see his light."
--From the Orphic Hymns, translated by Athanassakis

The Orphic Hymns are dated anywhere (depending on what fragments were are talking about) from 400 BC - 100 BC.

We've already covered the source material for Alcestis, Prometheus, Ahriman, and Krsna. All that remains from this list is Nergal, and I doubt you're interested in him, since we're not currently talking about the origin of the character of Satan.

And all of them have been addressed and found to be pre-dated in their concepts.

I
mean no offense, but you didn't. And looking over the course of this whole conversation so far, it is surprising to me that you could have thought you did.
We definately see things differently. :)
 
Upvote 0

Oncedeceived

Senior Veteran
Jul 11, 2003
21,214
629
✟66,670.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Aron-Ra said:
Fine. What is it?

I remember when the news broke about James' ossuary. The news stories all said that if it could be confirmed to be legitimate, it would be big news, because it could be the first and only archaeological evidence of Jesus. Now, since that particular artifact is no longer considered legitimate, we're back to not having no archaeological evidence for Jesus at all. But, like Randall McNally, I too am very curious as to what evidence you're talking about.

Cornelius Tacitus (55-120 AD), "the greatest historian" of ancient Rome:

"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired. Nero offered his gardens for the spectacle, and was exhibiting a show in the circus, while he mingled with the people in the dress of a charioteer or stood aloft on a car. Hence, even for criminals who deserved extreme and exemplary punishment, there arose a feeling of compassion; for it was not, as it seemed, for the public good, but to glut one man's cruelty, that they were being destroyed."

Flavius Josephus (37-97 AD), court historian for Emperor Vespasian:

"At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive; accordingly, he was perhaps the messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders." (Arabic translation)
Although this has controvercy about its reliability


Julius Africanus, writing around 221 AD, found a reference in the writings of Thallus, who wrote a history of the Eastern Mediterranean around 52 AD, which dealt with the darkness that covered the land during Jesus's crucifixion:

"Thallus, in the third book of his histories, explains away the darkness as an eclipse of the sun--unreasonably, as it seems to me." [A solar eclipse could not take place during a full moon, as was the case during Passover season.]
Pliny the Younger, Roman governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor around 112 AD:

"[The Christians] were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food--but food of an ordinary and innocent kind." Pliny added that Christianity attracted persons of all societal ranks, all ages, both sexes, and from both the city and the country. Late in his letter to Emperor Trajan, Pliny refers to the teachings of Jesus and his followers as excessive and contagious superstition.


Emperor Trajan, in reply to Pliny:

"The method you have pursued, my dear Pliny, in sifting the cases of those denounced to you as Christians is extremely proper. It is not possible to lay down any general rule which can be applied as the fixed standard in all cases of this nature. No search should be made for these people; when they are denounced and found guilty they must be punished; with the restriction, however, that when the party denies himself to be a Christian, and shall give proof that he is not (that is, by adoring our gods) he shall be pardoned on the ground of repentance, even though he may have formerly incurred suspicion. Informations without the accuser's name subscribed must not be admitted in evidence against anyone, as it is introducing a very dangerous precedent, and by no means agreeable to the spirit of the age."


The Jewish Talmud, compiled between 70 and 200 AD:

"On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, 'He is going forth to be stoned because he has practised sorcery and enticed Israel to apostacy. Anyone who can say anything in his favour, let him come forward and plead on his behalf.' But since nothing was brought forward in his favour he was hanged on the eve of the Passover."

[Another early reference in the Talmud speaks of five of Jesus's disciples and recounts their standing before judges who make individual decisions about each one, deciding that they should be executed. However, no actual deaths are recorded.]


Lucian, a second century Greek satirist:

"The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day--the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account. ... You see, these misguided creatures start with the general conviction that they are immortal for all time, which explains the contempt of death and voluntary self-devotion which are so common among them; and then it was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws. All this they take quite on faith, with the result that they despise all worldly goods alike, regarding them merely as common property." Lucian also reported that the Christians had "sacred writings" which were frequently read. When something affected them, "they spare no trouble, no expense."

Mara Bar-Serapion, of Syria, writing between 70 and 200 AD from prison to motivate his son to emulate wise teachers of the past:

"What advantage did the Athenians gain from putting Socrates to death? Famine and plague came upon them as a judgment for their crime. What advantage did the men of Samos gain from burying Pythagoras? In a moment their land was covered with sand. What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise king? It was just after that that their kingdom was abolished. God justly avenged these three wise men: the Athenians died of hunger; the Samians were overwhelmed by the sea; the Jews, ruined and driven from their land, live in complete dispersion. But Socrates did not die for good; he lived on in the teaching of Plato. Pythagoras did not die for good; he lived on in the statue of Hera. Nor did the wise king die for good; he lived on in the teaching which he had given."


The Treatise On Resurrection, by uncertain author of the late second century, to Rheginos:

"The Lord ... existed in flesh and ... revealed himself as Son of God ... Now the Son of God, Rheginos, was Son of Man. He embraced them both, possessing the humanity and the divinity, so that on the one hand he might vanquish death through his being Son of God, and that on the other through the Son of Man the restoration to the Pleroma might occur; because he was originally from above, a seed of the Truth, before this structure of the cosmos had come into being."

"For we have known the Son of Man, and we have believed that he rose from among the dead. This is he of whom we say, 'He became the destruction of death, as he is a great one in whom they believe.' Great are those who believe."

"The Savior swallowed up death. ... He transformed himself into an imperishable Aeon and raised himself up, having swallowed the visible by the invisible, and he gave us the way of our immortality."

"Do not think the resurrection is an illusion. It is no illusion, but it is truth. Indeed, it is more fitting to say that the world is an illusion, rather than the resurrection which has come into being through our Lord the Savior, Jesus Christ."

". . . already you have the resurrection ... why not consider yourself as risen and already brought to this?" Rheginos was thus encouraged not to "continue as if you are to die."






There are more if you want them.

And why is this the second time I've had to ask this question?

Could it be that I have been busy answering each post and skipping from place to place to answer your other questions?
Then obviously you don't understand the concept of common ancestry, which is that all life is biologically-related. Not magically-created separately, and accidentally similar.

In one of your posts you tell me not to assume anything and I would advise you of the same. I don't believe that everything was magically created separately and accidentally similiar.
But a traceable lineage of superficial differences built upon teirs of fundamental similarities, each in a succession of clades, descendant groups within ancestral groups. Its the explanation of why chimpanzees, humans, and all the other apes are all part of the taxonomic family, Hominidae. And why all hominids are part of the order of primates, and why all primates are eutherian mammals, and why all mammals are vertebrate tetrapods, etc. etc. What you're describing is nothing like common ancestry.

You haven't a clue as to what I am describing. You couldn't as I have not described anything.
Check this link.
http://tolweb.org/tree?group=Homo%20sapiens
Click the "containing group" link on each page, and you'll see which parent family each of these daughter clades belongs to/descended from.
Well, there were two posts you've yet to answer. Message #s 125 & 126. But I don't really expect you to answer them and all these at the same time.

I'll take a look.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Oncedeceived

Senior Veteran
Jul 11, 2003
21,214
629
✟66,670.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Aron-Ra said:
Yes they do. I've read a lot of their personal testimonies along this line, and I believe I have already shown some of them to you. What is it that you think is different?

"I agree that it often *sounds* like fundamentalist Christianity. Back in my misguided, mayavadi days, I probably would have said something similar. But you must understand that anyone who is sincerely religious is going to sound fundamentalist in a forum like alt.Hindu where previously the most outspoken members demonstrate a consistent inability to stand up for any basic, religious morality like compassion for other creatures, etc. Furthermore, many here claim to believe in God, [Krsna] but then they steadfastly refuse to accept His words. [the Gita] In the face of such permissive attitudes and faithlessness, naturally we are going to sound like fundamentalists. But who should be blamed? Our great crime is that we don't compromise on our principles. If the Lord says that we should refrain from illicit sex, meat-eating, gambling, and intoxication, then we follow this instruction, regardless of how long ago it was given. Furthermore, when we say that we accept a particular [Vedic] scripture as God's instruction, we mean it; we do not simply accept 50% and reject whatever we don't like. This is foolishness."
--H. Krishna Susarla

I don't know who this is, what they believe other than what is being said here which could be misleading.
Sounds familiar, doesn't it?

Most certainly.
But the tenets of Hinduism are not familiar.
You're ignoring the fact that you could probably say the same things about hundreds of millions of Christians too. You're also ignoring the quotes from George Harrison where he says the very opposite. Everything I've heard from the proponents of Krsna consciousness and their experience with their god sounds exactly like what Christians claim about their own god. I subscribe to daily emails of Hindu wisdom. I've read Probhubada, and some of their Hindu holy scriptures, visited many of their websites, watched their videos, and read many of their personal testimonies. And from this, it is evident that many many millions of Hindus do relate to that type of concept, and they proclaim it loudly, just like Christians do.

Perhaps, I have not gone to their websites. Why don't you give me the addresses of some of them and I can read it for myself. I know that you can't give them publically but pm me with them and I'll take a look.


I've also known many Wiccans and other pagans. One of whom, a dear old friend, expressed the same sort of spiritual enlightenment as what many Christians tell me they felt once the holy spirit came to them. My friend is no less adamant, or excited, or elated than any Christian I know about finally "meeting" his personal god. Except that in his case, he was visited by the visible and audible manifestation of Bast.

I don't doubt it. I don't doubt anyones personal experience really. There are many facets of the supernatural and they do not conflict with what the Bible states.

So as far as I can see, all these personal gods are all alike.

Looking from the outside in, they probably do all look alike.
So, are you a henotheist then? For myself, when three different people each tell me they "know" their god personally, and each of their gods created the world without the other two, and each of them say both of the other two witnesses are "deceived", then I make what I think is a logical assumption that all of they're all probably deceived, and that none of them really knows his imaginary friend the way he says he does.

That is only your opinion and is really baseless, as you can not know what anyone else really knows.
That's the problem. Assuming there really is a god, and that there is only one god, then he doesn't claim anything. Instead, he just leaves all that to all the people writing all these various interconflicting, and supposedly holy books, -based on what they all want to believe he claims. But none of these authors has any more validity than any other, or else we would be able to test for these claims, and eliminate the false ones.

Actually I think that there is a way to test and eliminate the false ones but that is a personal testing process which would not be varifiable to you.

I've gone as deep as I can, and I haven't found any significant difference.

Why should I believe that? You doubt my experiences but you expect me to accept yours.

Maybe it is you who does not understand. Get a dictionary. Look up 'miracle'. Now look up 'magic'. What's the difference? Both are defined as phenomenon which cannot be explained by any scientific means. Now explain the holy spirit using quantifiable, qualifiable evidence and testable [scientific] explanations. If you can't do that, then we're talking about magic. If you don't believe me, look it up. I think every dictionary you look at defines your holy ghost this way.

So if I disagree it is due to not understanding? I have a fair knowledge of the english language and understand it quite well. I don't find my experience through a dictionary.
Sorry. Snake dancing, stigmata, holy visions, faith healing, exorcisms, and speaking in tongues are all the same in that they are all dependant upon an altered consciousness. The same applies to listening for those little voices in your head that so many Christians try so hard to hear, until they finally, (inevitably) do.

I have never snake danced, experienced the stigmata, had holy visions, experienced (myself) faith healing, nor exorcisms and have never spoke in tongues. I do not hear little "voices" in my head. So I can't really address this in any meaningful way.

Read Harrison's quote again, or the testimonies of any other Krsna concious devotees. You might also want to read some of the comments from other Christian creationists like yourself who contradict you so strongly even right here on this board. Jal for example told me that you're not really Christian if you don't hear an audible voice in your head telling you to do things. You should check out HuManiTeE's and michabo's insane commentary too. I know buckets of Christians you should probably compare notes with before telling me what 'the' Christian experience is.

I'm really only interested in discussing what we can discuss in relation to our own experiences and what we can bring to the table in meaningful ways. What Harrison has to say is in no way valuable to that end to me. I can't know what Harrison thinks other than a few words put here that are not contextual or can we ask him any questions about his experience. Or any other of the people that you have quoted.
Whomever I was trying to initiate, seduce, impress, whatever.
You're mistaken then. The power of suggestion is critical to everyone listening for that little voice in their head, just as is critical for the snake dancers, and all those loonies flopping around in faux seizures on the floor at the revival meetings. Christians are just as susceptible as anyone else when it comes to that. And in many cases, they're much more so, because their superstitions are often well-known. Once you find out which Christian perspective the subject is, you might really be able to bend their mind around, especially if they're really adamant believers. And besides, without that power of suggestion, a good number of alleged rebirths would never have happened. The suggestion is part of the psychic priming I mentioned before, which is so crucial in rituals like that one.

But what then makes me believe you or think that you are not deceived in what you believe? You have been deceived in your own admission by Christianity and the Occult and who knows what else and then you sit here and tell me that I am deceived? What authority do you have when you claim the same and then change your mind all the time. Seems to me that you change mindsets like others change their clothes.

By your own admission, the crucified Orpheus was not proven false, and in fact could still be quite ancient and authentic. But since there is no way to conclusively date it, there is no need nor use in arguing for it being around prior to Jesus.

You claim for the crucified Orpheus was false...that it was prior to Christ. It can not be shown to be before Christ so your claim was proven false.


However, the only way anyone decided that it should be more recent than Jesus was when Justin Martyr made an assertion, (based only on his own ignorance and personal bias) that there weren't any pagan gods crucified before Jesus. But now that I have proven him wrong about that, (twice so far)

then I suppose I should ask you the same question. Will you continue to argue for Martyr's position, now that it has been proven false?[/QUOTE]
No, you haven't. You have claimed crucifixion where there was none.

Post 125 now complete as asked.
 
Upvote 0
Feb 25, 2004
634
12
ohio
✟848.00
Faith
Christian
Aron-ra you deceive yourself well. All religions can be tested with prophecy. look in there writings and test there prophecies. If they dont have any, you can count them out automatically. if they do you can research them and see if they came true. Research the biblical prophecies and your see it proves itself true by prophecies, which is why they are in there, to prove it is the truth, and that God is the only God in the universe. Though there is a spirit that rules the earth i think you know of him, though may not believe he exsists. its the other spirit, not the spirit of Christ. He is the deciever of the world, when he speaks he lies, for he is the father of it. TEST THE PROPHECIES.
 
Upvote 0

Nathan Poe

Well-Known Member
Sep 21, 2002
32,198
1,693
49
United States
✟41,319.00
Faith
Agnostic
Politics
US-Democrat
william jay schroeder said:
Aron-ra you deceive yourself well. All religions can be tested with prophecy. look in there writings and test there prophecies.
For the next year, I prophecise...

1: There will be a great celebration this New Year's Eve.

2: There will be wars and rumors of wars.

3: George W. Bush will commit acts which some people will cheer, but others will find deplorable

4: A city will get trashed when its team wins the world seires... or is that the Super Bowl?

Can I get my own religion now?


If they dont have any, you can count them out automatically. if they do you can research them and see if they came true. Research the biblical prophecies and your see it proves itself true by prophecies, which is why they are in there, to prove it is the truth, and that God is the only God in the universe. Though there is a spirit that rules the earth i think you know of him, though may not believe he exsists. its the other spirit, not the spirit of Christ. He is the deciever of the world, when he speaks he lies, for he is the father of it. TEST THE PROPHECIES.
5: People will shoehorn events into vague, often self-fulfuilling, prophecies as proof of their monopoly on "ultimate truth."

Wow! I'm blessed!
 
Upvote 0

Ledifni

Well-Known Member
Dec 15, 2004
3,464
199
41
✟4,590.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Oncedeceived said:
And would you look at it with an open mind?
Yes, of course I would. I would be delighted to see evidence for creationism -- after all, I've been asking for it ever since I left the creationist camp for lack of evidence. If the creationists want me back, they need to show evidence.

However, OnceDeceived, I believe that you and I are talking about two different things. When I say "evidence," I'm not asking for this or that or the other objection to some kind of evidence for evolution. I'm asking for a very simple thing -- scientific experiments demonstrating successful predictions made by a coherent creation theory, where those predictions could not have been made by evolutionary theory. This is the evidence demanded by the scientific method, and it is the only type of evidence I will accept for either evolution or creation.

Reams of solid scientific evidence of this type exists for evolution. Not one paragraph of solid scientific evidence has ever been submitted by any creation scientist in support of that theory. There has been much sophistry but no science. If you wish to convince scientists, you are going to have to bite the bullet and do science.
 
Upvote 0

Oncedeceived

Senior Veteran
Jul 11, 2003
21,214
629
✟66,670.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Ledifni said:
Yes, of course I would. I would be delighted to see evidence for creationism -- after all, I've been asking for it ever since I left the creationist camp for lack of evidence. If the creationists want me back, they need to show evidence.

However, OnceDeceived, I believe that you and I are talking about two different things. When I say "evidence," I'm not asking for this or that or the other objection to some kind of evidence for evolution. I'm asking for a very simple thing -- scientific experiments demonstrating successful predictions made by a coherent creation theory, where those predictions could not have been made by evolutionary theory. This is the evidence demanded by the scientific method, and it is the only type of evidence I will accept for either evolution or creation.

Reams of solid scientific evidence of this type exists for evolution. Not one paragraph of solid scientific evidence has ever been submitted by any creation scientist in support of that theory. There has been much sophistry but no science. If you wish to convince scientists, you are going to have to bite the bullet and do science.


Well then I shall try to give you the run down of how I feel creation does not conflict with the known attributes of the universe. But please give me some time as I have quite a few posts to Aron-ra to finish. But I promise to do so. If I do forget just remind me okay? :)
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Ledifni

Well-Known Member
Dec 15, 2004
3,464
199
41
✟4,590.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Oncedeceived said:
Well then I shall try to give you the run down of how I feel creation does not conflict with the known attributes of the universe. But please give me some time as I have quite a few posts to Aron-ra to finish. But I promise to do so. If I do forget just remind me okay? :)
Now wait, OnceDeceived. What you're talking about is close, but not exactly what I'm looking for. If a theory is consistent with past observations, that is good; that means that past observations do not falsify your theory. However, it is not good enough to confirm your theory.

If you wish to verify creation and falsify evolution, use the following template to give your evidence (the template represents the structure of the scientific method):

Hypothesis: [Write a clear, concise, comprehensive statement of the claims made by your creation theory]

Prediction:[List one or more observations that we would expect to see based on the claims made by the hypothesis; explain how these predictions are logical conclusions drawn from your hypothesis; and explain why these predictions, if true, would contradict evolutionary theory]

Test: [Describe in detail at least one experiment or observation performed by yourself or another scientist that demonstrates the accuracy (or inaccuracy) of the predictions you made]

Conclusion: [Describe your results and whether or not they confirm your initial hypothesis. If they confirm the hypothesis and falsify evolution, then congratulations -- as long as your theory is consistent with all other observations, you have supplanted evolutionary theory and verified creation theory. If not, you must revise your hypothesis and retry the above three steps]

The above is a very simple process, and it is the method by which we continually improve and update scientific knowledge. There is no other method by which science learns about the world, and any knowledge obtained by other means is not science, whether it is true or false.

Evolution theory stands today because no creation scientist has done the above. If you could do it, you would instantly convert most people here to creationism, and you would most likely be up for a Nobel Prize.

Remember, though, that your process will have to pass peer review. If your predictions are a non sequitur (e.g., claiming that biological creation theory predicts the existence of a tenth planet is a non sequitur because planets have nothing to do with biological evolution or creation), for example, your process will be rejected.
 
Upvote 0
Feb 25, 2004
634
12
ohio
✟848.00
Faith
Christian
Nathan Poe said:
For the next year, I prophecise...

1: There will be a great celebration this New Year's Eve.

2: There will be wars and rumors of wars.

3: George W. Bush will commit acts which some people will cheer, but others will find deplorable

4: A city will get trashed when its team wins the world seires... or is that the Super Bowl?

Can I get my own religion now?



5: People will shoehorn events into vague, often self-fulfuilling, prophecies as proof of their monopoly on "ultimate truth."

Wow! I'm blessed!
i dont know your point except being scared to see the truth. look and see instead of making fun of it. oh ye i forgot to laugh ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. by the way the eagles lose to the colts 35 to 17.
 
Upvote 0

Aron-Ra

Senior Veteran
Jul 3, 2004
4,571
393
61
Deep in the heart of the Bible belt
Visit site
✟14,521.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Alcestis is best-known from a Greek playwright named Euripides in the 5th Century BCE. She freely sacrificed her own life to atone for her husband's inequity.

Her body was burnt, and then buried. But her soul was brought back from the land of the dead by Hercules. Her resurrection took three days.
Isaiah and Psalms are pre-dated to this play. The play is dated 438 BC. So the fact that you claim Alcestis's being crucified (which you have now seen was not the case) is not true and the fact that the crucified Redeemer is given in the OT in many of the Books simply shows that your claim is false.
That has yet to be seen. Eliminating one parallel doesn't negate them all. She did still sacrifice herself, and did return from the dead after three days. And I am unaware of any reference to the "crucified redeemer" anywhere in the OT. So you're going to have to show me where it says anything about that.
I am glad though that you see that your claim was not true and were graceous enought to correct it.
Thank you.
There are still significant parallels to the Christian sacrifice and atonement, but I must admit that crucifixion isn't one of them despite what so many other sources I've read have said,
I don't believe that there are parallels to the Christian Sacrifice/Atonement. The Christian Sacrifice was for all mankind and the atonement was for sin which are not present in the play. Regardless, there are reference to Jesus being crucified in the Old Testament like I said and that would be prior to this play anyway.
I need to see it.
Actually, that's exactly what crucifixion is: being bound, arms outstretched, preferably suspended in agony until death, unless you're immortal of course. Prometheus was still crucified, and more important here is the reason why.
No, maybe that is the problem here. Crucifixion is the process where people were nailed to a tree or post or cross in their hands and feet and left there to die by suffocation or by their heart stopping. Being bound by straps on a face cliff does not in anyway represent crucifixion.
Then the two other chaps beside Jesus weren't actually crucified either, and neither were any of those other people who were bound to crosses, or trees, or cliffs. Because most of the time, crucifixion didn't involve nails. Apart from that, there is nothing to distinguish Prometheus' crucifixion from any other. Were he not immortal, the end result would have been the same.

Did you ever see Arnold Swartzenegger's Conan the Barbarian? He was set upon by a vulture while he was bound, arms outstretched, to a tree. The sentence was crucifixion, and that exact word was used. But that scene was inspired by Prometheus, not Jesus. Coincidentally, the score was even distributed by Prometheus records.
What I said about Dionysus was [1.] that he was born miraculously,
He wasn't born at all but sprouted from a rock.
Then you aren't really "re-born", are you?
[2.] the son a mortal woman and the king of the gods, [3.] that he created wine miraculously, [4.] that he made natural springs in the Earth flow with wine, [5.] that he raised the dead, and [6.] that he himself died and was/is resurrected to live again, (as Dionysus 2) before dying again, only to be re-resurrected annually as a season. Also there does appear to be a eucharist consumption in his following in that wine was said to be the blood of Dionysus. Jesus said something similar, but without the supportive mythology. Dionysus was credited with the introduction of vine cultivation, and the invention of wine. Later, Jesus claimed to be the "true vine" (John 15,1), also conjured wine miraculously, and asked his disciples to remember him by drinking wine, his blood, another analogy originally attributed to Dionysus.
Regardless Dionysus was again after the Old Testament references for crucifixtion, resurrection, Son of God.
I don't think so. In fact, I would bet not. What have you got?
The consumption of the eucharist is false and has been refuted.
When? And by whom? Because from what I can see, it hasn't been, and couldn't have been.
The miracles of Jesus were again spoken of in the Old Testament to prepare for the coming of Christ.
Prove it. Show me [1.] where the OT says that Jesus (or the messiah) would be born from God's union with a mortal woman, (which already has ancient precents in paganism) [2.] that Jesus would create wine miraculously, or [3.] wine flowing where there was only water before, [4.] that the messiah would raise the dead, and specifically [5.] where the messiah would be killed and then resurrected.
I have already cited Prometheus Bound by Aeschylus, which so far has been the only one of the Prometheus myths I've been able to find online. Everything else is commentary.
It doesn't matter really because Aeschylus wrote these about 449 BC and this was after the same concepts being told in the Old Testament.
Help me out here. Because I doubt very much that these same concepts can be found anywhere in the OT.
Both were forbidden by vain god(s) for no good reason other than to protect the uniquely superior nature of their divinity. And both were taken as 'sins' for which all of mankind was punished. Both were provided by an outside agent who was also punished, and both required atonement, redemption, by a crucifixion of an immortal god. More importantly, both were claimed to be "the" defining aspect of humanity which separated us from the other animals.
The general aspects of these are not similiar.
But with this list of similarities, I have just shown that they are.
As far as the redemption/crucifixion as I have shown they are concepts already in the Old Testament.
Not yet you haven't. So far, you have only claimed that they are. I suspect this will be another of those occasions where the Bible doesn't really say what you thought it did, and must be severely "interpretated" to "mean" what you want it to.
Like the Genesis version, the first woman was created separately, and she is blamed for releasing sin into the world. And just like Genesis, she did so by doing the very thing she was told not to do, but that the gods fully expected, and planned, for her to do anyway. She was given the box of sin and told not to open it, just like Eve was forbidden to eat from the tree that was placed right in front of her. Your god even added a talking snake to make sure she fulfilled his plan, which is what it had to be since he was omniscient, and omnipotent, and both knew what would happen, and how to prevent it, but didn't.
They are not exactly identical, but they are not significantly different either. Most importantly, both stories should only have been read as parables who's only real truth was in their symbolism.
I'm sorry but was this the same author as above? IF so, it doesn't matter and if not I would need to know who the author was and when they wrote this. If you have given it to me before I apologise for not putting it with this.
The story of Pandora's box was part of Hesiod's Works and Days, a continuation of his earlier work, Theogony written in the late 8th Century BCE.
Aeschylus also wrote the prequel to Prometheus Bound, that being Prometheus the Fire-giver, which I have not yet found available online, so it will take a visit to the library for that one. But there are plenty of evaluations of that available from edu websites.
But some of these myths also speak of redemption, a couple of them even before your Isaiah ever postulated his version of the redeemer. Its another repeated theme that was carried over from Prometheus to Dionysus.
I guess you will just have to bring them forward because as shown the ones that you have cited are dated after the concept was presented in the Old Testament.
You keep saying that. But you haven't shown it yet.
"Hear, O blessed son of Zeus and of two mothers, Bacchos of the vintage, unforgettable seed, many-named and redeeming daimon, holy offspring of the gods born in secrecy, reveling Bacchos plump giver of the many joys of fruits which grow well. Mighty and many-shaped god, from the earth you burst forth to reach the wine-press and there become a remedy for man's pain, O sacred blossom! A sorrow-hating joy to mortals, O lovely-haired Epaphian, you are a redeemer and a reveler whose thyrsus drives to frenzy and who is kind-hearted to all, gods and mortals, who see his light."
--From the Orphic Hymns, translated by Athanassakis
The Orphic Hymns are dated anywhere (depending on what fragments were are talking about) from 400 BC - 100 BC.
And the parallels therein still predate the Jesus miracles, which aren't detailed at all in the OT. And the exact content of the OT can't be verified beyond 2200 years ago anyway. But even if both were written at the same time, the pagan works are still talking about specific particulars of someone from their past, while the Dead Sea Scrolls are making some vague hints about an uncertain somebody in the future, and doesn't talk about any of the specific miracles which are now attributed to both Jesus and the gods of the "mystery religions".
We've already covered the source material for Alcestis, Prometheus, Ahriman, and Krsna. All that remains from this list is Nergal, and I doubt you're interested in him, since we're not currently talking about the origin of the character of Satan.
And all of them have been addressed and found to be pre-dated in their concepts.
That remains to be seen. Everything we've actually said about this thus far indicates that these "mystery religions" are less of a mystery than what the Bible said prior to the Dead Sea scrolls. I mean, the Dead Sea scrolls are not worded exactly like any modern Bible, so I see no reason to assume any earlier copies were exactly verbatim with these either. But we know what the older copies of the pagan works said, word-for-word, centuries earlier.
 
Upvote 0

Aron-Ra

Senior Veteran
Jul 3, 2004
4,571
393
61
Deep in the heart of the Bible belt
Visit site
✟14,521.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
I remember when the news broke about James' ossuary. The news stories all said that if it could be confirmed to be legitimate, it would be big news, because it could be the first and only archaeological evidence of Jesus. Now, since that particular artifact is no longer considered legitimate, we're back to not having no archaeological evidence for Jesus at all. But, like Randall McNally, I too am very curious as to what evidence you're talking about.
Cornelius Tacitus (55-120 AD), "the greatest historian" of ancient Rome:

"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired. Nero offered his gardens for the spectacle, and was exhibiting a show in the circus, while he mingled with the people in the dress of a charioteer or stood aloft on a car. Hence, even for criminals who deserved extreme and exemplary punishment, there arose a feeling of compassion; for it was not, as it seemed, for the public good, but to glut one man's cruelty, that they were being destroyed."
I have seen this reference several times before. While Tacitus may have been an historian, he isn't quoting any source here except the Christians themselves. That can't be counted as archaeological evidence, but only as hearsay at best. Although it is amusing that he calls the Christians "abominable", "mischevious", "superstitious" and "evil".
Flavius Josephus (37-97 AD), court historian for Emperor Vespasian:

"At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive; accordingly, he was perhaps the messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders." (Arabic translation)
Although this has controvercy about its reliability
That's an understatement! I have seen this reference several times before also. Flavius Josephus is commonly referred to as a deliberate liar or a turn-coat. And the two particular passages that purport to speak of Jesus have been dismissed by scholars and even Christian apologists as forgeries. But even if Josephus and Eusebius weren't post-edited, or deliberately lying, as virtually everyone says they were, we're still talking about someone from a whole other century, not someone with first-hand knowledge, and certainly not anything like archaeological evidence!
Julius Africanus, writing around 221 AD, found a reference in the writings of Thallus, who wrote a history of the Eastern Mediterranean around 52 AD, which dealt with the darkness that covered the land during Jesus's crucifixion:

"Thallus, in the third book of his histories, explains away the darkness as an eclipse of the sun--unreasonably, as it seems to me." [A solar eclipse could not take place during a full moon, as was the case during Passover season.]
And a few years ago, I checked the record of all solar eclipses ever recorded, and (as I remember) there were none visible in Judea until the very end of the 1st century. What is this document Tacitus is supposed to be quoting from? How do we know that it too isn't just quoting the Christian dogma, and not necessarily any independantly-verifiable facts?
Pliny the Younger, Roman governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor around 112 AD:

"[The Christians] were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up;
There you have it. Kent Hovind, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Duayne Gish, Ken Hamm, Henry Morris, Oral Roberts, Kenneth Copeland, and Jimmy Swaggart must not be Christians.
after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food--but food of an ordinary and innocent kind." Pliny added that Christianity attracted persons of all societal ranks, all ages, both sexes, and from both the city and the country. Late in his letter to Emperor Trajan, Pliny refers to the teachings of Jesus and his followers as excessive and contagious superstition.
So here again, we have someone witnessing early Christianity, not Christ, and who described this religion as superstition. Note that he was also apparently unaware of any hours of darkness when there shouldn't have been. Nor was he aware of any zombies wandering the streets of Judea on that, or any other day, and this includes the supposedly resurrected Christ. Niether can he verify that Jesus was crucified, or that he even existed at all.
Emperor Trajan, in reply to Pliny:

"The method you have pursued, my dear Pliny, in sifting the cases of those denounced to you as Christians is extremely proper. It is not possible to lay down any general rule which can be applied as the fixed standard in all cases of this nature. No search should be made for these people; when they are denounced and found guilty they must be punished; with the restriction, however, that when the party denies himself to be a Christian, and shall give proof that he is not (that is, by adoring our gods) he shall be pardoned on the ground of repentance, even though he may have formerly incurred suspicion. Informations without the accuser's name subscribed must not be admitted in evidence against anyone, as it is introducing a very dangerous precedent, and by no means agreeable to the spirit of the age."
Once again, we all knew that Christians did exist whether Jesus did or not. And Trajan gives no indication that he did. It is also worth noting that the reprehensible treatment of the Christians was repeated by the Christians once they assumed dominance. I fear this will also be the case if the Christian Right is successful in integrating their religious agenda into the federal government. I further fear that will pave the way for the persecution of you and me both once the Muslims achieve a majority power in this country.
The Jewish Talmud, compiled between 70 and 200 AD:

"On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, 'He is going forth to be stoned because he has practised sorcery and enticed Israel to apostacy. Anyone who can say anything in his favour, let him come forward and plead on his behalf.' But since nothing was brought forward in his favour he was hanged on the eve of the Passover."
I have several problems with this. (1) Yeshu isn't Yeshua, (2) "Hangiing" is a far cry from crucifixion. (3) Sorcery (then as now) can mean many things, and usually doesn't mean that the practitioner has any real powers.
Another early reference in the Talmud speaks of five of Jesus's disciples and recounts their standing before judges who make individual decisions about each one, deciding that they should be executed. However, no actual deaths are recorded.
This is more verification of the indisputable fact that there were Christians, but not that their god really existed in any form.
Lucian, a second century Greek satirist:

"The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day--the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account. ... You see, these misguided creatures start with the general conviction that they are immortal for all time, which explains the contempt of death and voluntary self-devotion which are so common among them; and then it was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws. All this they take quite on faith, with the result that they despise all worldly goods alike, regarding them merely as common property." Lucian also reported that the Christians had "sacred writings" which were frequently read. When something affected them, "they spare no trouble, no expense."
Once again, we have no more verification of Jesus' actual existence than we do for Dionysus or Krsna. These beliefs are still impressed upon converts and taken quite on faith.
Mara Bar-Serapion, of Syria, writing between 70 and 200 AD from prison to motivate his son to emulate wise teachers of the past:

"What advantage did the Athenians gain from putting Socrates to death? Famine and plague came upon them as a judgment for their crime. What advantage did the men of Samos gain from burying Pythagoras? In a moment their land was covered with sand. What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise king? It was just after that that their kingdom was abolished. God justly avenged these three wise men: the Athenians died of hunger; the Samians were overwhelmed by the sea; the Jews, ruined and driven from their land, live in complete dispersion. But Socrates did not die for good; he lived on in the teaching of Plato. Pythagoras did not die for good; he lived on in the statue of Hera. Nor did the wise king die for good; he lived on in the teaching which he had given."
Bar-Serapion associates "the wise king" with other figures who are known to exist. But that still doesn't confirm that this "wise king" ever did, which he certainly didn't, at least in the capacity of a monarch.
The Treatise On Resurrection, by uncertain author of the late second century, to Rheginos:

"The Lord ... existed in flesh and ... revealed himself as Son of God ... Now the Son of God, Rheginos, was Son of Man. He embraced them both, possessing the humanity and the divinity, so that on the one hand he might vanquish death through his being Son of God, and that on the other through the Son of Man the restoration to the Pleroma might occur; because he was originally from above, a seed of the Truth, before this structure of the cosmos had come into being."

"For we have known the Son of Man, and we have believed that he rose from among the dead. This is he of whom we say, 'He became the destruction of death, as he is a great one in whom they believe.' Great are those who believe."

"The Savior swallowed up death. ... He transformed himself into an imperishable Aeon and raised himself up, having swallowed the visible by the invisible, and he gave us the way of our immortality."

"Do not think the resurrection is an illusion. It is no illusion, but it is truth. Indeed, it is more fitting to say that the world is an illusion, rather than the resurrection which has come into being through our Lord the Savior, Jesus Christ."

". . . already you have the resurrection ... why not consider yourself as risen and already brought to this?" Rheginos was thus encouraged not to "continue as if you are to die."
Evangelism and "witnessing" things which you have never actually witnessed, - are at best anecdotal, and not archaeological evidence of any kind.
There are more if you want them.
Please. Because what you've presented so far indicates that James' ossuary could have been the only archaeological evidence of Jesus, but that there is no other in the absence of that.
And why is this the second time I've had to ask this question?
Could it be that I have been busy answering each post and skipping from place to place to answer your other questions?
My apologies. My experience in debating creationists has been that all manner of intellectual dishonesty may be employed. So I get a bit suspicious when questions are snipped, and ignored(?) For instance, I'm still wondering why you snipped all my questions about the other spells in Leviticus:

What symbolic meaning do they ascribe for the magic wand? Or for why each elemental point of the pentacle should be represented in the spell? Or for what any of this silliness has to do with getting rid of parasites, (which the Bible calls Leprosy)?

Should we test this spell too? No doubt it will work if you include the bit about washing and shaving your subject, and keeping him naked in isolation for a week. But what effect does the rest of the spell have? And would we alter its effectiveness if we used a plastic bowl instead of earthenware? Will tap water count as "running"? What if we released the 2nd bird in a parking lot? Or the woods? What if there was no 2nd bird? What if we never killed the first bird, but simply drew blood from it, and sprinkled that all over everything? What if we used a bat instead? Does it have to be a flying thing? And why?

What about the other version of this spell, which is also used to rid a house of "leprosy"? [mold?] What effect does these herbs and string have against mold? Or leprosy, since this is the same "law" whether it is leprosy of the skin or leprosy of plaster walls. Were these people suffering from some fungal infection that caused scabs in the skin and spread across walls and other things?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Nathan Poe

Well-Known Member
Sep 21, 2002
32,198
1,693
49
United States
✟41,319.00
Faith
Agnostic
Politics
US-Democrat
william jay schroeder said:
i dont know your point
I could've prophecised that too...

except being scared to see the truth.
The truth is I'm a prophet! Test my prophecies and you'll see my religion as valid as the Bible....

Unless you're scared to apply your own test.


look and see instead of making fun of it.
I looked I saw. And what is this "it" you're referring to?

The only thing being made fun of is your absurd assertion.

oh ye i forgot to laugh ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.
Perhaps you should've kept on forgetting?

by the way the eagles lose to the colts 35 to 17.
Is that a Bible prophecy as well?
 
Upvote 0