Robert M. Price - Pagan Parallels to Christ - Part 1
Vložit
- čas přidán 7. 05. 2011
- Atheist Talk cable program by Minnesota Atheists.
"Robert M. Price - Pagan Parallels to Christ - Part 1" recorded 3/31/2007
Robert M. Price gives a lecture on pagan parallels to Christ at a Minnesota Atheist Meeting.
Minnesota Atheists practices positive, inclusive, active, friendly neighborhood atheism in order to:
- Provide a community for atheists
- Educate the public about atheism
- Promote separation of state and church
www.mnatheists.org/
Minnesota Atheists - Krátké a kreslené filmy
I Could listen To Prices voice for hours. ‘ Love it!
That could be the most impressive speech ever given in what appears to be a mens changing room. Robert M price rocks.
It's amazing the extent that religious people go to in order to rationalize their faith.
They'll even murder people to rationalize it.
Not all accounts in the NT are original.
I want to thank you so much for keeping these myths & stories of humanity alive & well, thank you! Even sciences of plasmas & electric universes are finding ancient myths verifying, & theories of geologic catastrophisms as recent as 12,000 years ago very telling & verifying ways of using myth & pictographs as an historical voice. Your work is important; keep it up. For it tells of an imaginative, creative, journeying, creature of a different genius, exploring his world, & often building before the great settlements & urban cities enjoyed today, the GOBLEKI TEPIs temples of worship, perhaps drug worshipping, that led to everything we know & an impetus for understanding cosmic things. You play an important part, unwittingly or no, in a grander purpose, thank you!
Mythology is fun when you dont care that it is fiction.
Until it takes offence at you having fun and decides you should be punished with death.
The raising of the daughter of Apollonius of Tyre is actually a classic description of a child suffering from diving reflex - or as lifeboatmen say "they're not dead until they're warm and dead" en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diving_reflex
I am struck by how much the description of her revival sounds like a very real-world recounting of a practical medical procedure, seen through the eyes of that time. Good for that Healer! I hope he's being well cared for now...
Thank you so much!!!! :D
@Pinche: The books "The Search For The Twelve Apostles" by William Steuart McBirnie and "The Twelve: The Lives Of The Apostles After Calvary" by C. Bernard Ruffin deal with the apostles.
A great talk. One of the best series of video's I've seen on this subject is TruthSurge's "Beyond a reasonable doubt- excavating the empty tomb", well worth a watch on CZcams
I don't know where this is, but 40 years ago, many universities embraced the bathroom tile motif. I live with it daily.
Agreed. TrthSurge just uploaded a new episode in the series. Excellent.
Master's thesis on historical Jesus. Interesting.. I spent many hours looking that stuff up as well.. there was roughly 70 historians living in and and Jerusalem during the supposed time line of Jesus.. not one wrote about Jesus Christ? Most the Apostles didn't know how to write? And what was written was word of mouth for 60-150 years at average? By unknown authors? Year 1 wasn't in effect for over 400 years? Political reasons made Christianity happen, it evolved from the people's superstitions
Finally, someone besides me sees Christianity for what it really is - a political party pretending to be a religion.
Damn!! Santa fights back!!
*****
oh for heaven's sake.. really? seriously... really?? Ok, please accept my humble apology for the damage incurred by your retinas from the reading my comment. Rest assured that your eyes will heal in time, however, the anal retentia will be much more problematic for you long term. :-)
***** What's wrong with looking like Santa? Anyone might put on a few extra pounds, when tempted with so much cookies and milk.
hahaha u cracked me up XD
Minnesota Athiests see ... There are some Americans with Brains. Power to you Guys .
it's Story that made people feel better about life because life is hard
Thank you for posting this video! And thank you Mr. Price for being so eloquent! I enjoyed all of your works! May you live a long life, sir!
Challuayacu Dr. Price!
@Agimaso Schandir: The fact is, according to books such as "The New Answers Book 4" by Ken Ham and "Tower of Babel" by Bodie Hodge prove other accounts from a round the world of the story of the Tower of Babel. The reason why He scattered them in the first place is because they were rebelling against His command to replenish the earth by wanting to stay in that one place.
What are you, Ken Ham's girlfriend or something? Does Mrs. Ham know about you two?
Agreed. That will raise much more convincing arguments, indeed.
@keishahawkins Do you understand the term 'peer review' at all? Particularly in the case of Richard Carrier, his books have been published by a university, which means the level of scrutiny they have been subjected to prior to publication, scrutiny by his academic peers mind you, not by some brainwashed fanatic who believes in fairytales, is intense and beyond academic reproach. It means that not only his factual evidence but his methodology has been vigorously examined and found to be sound. That is what the words mean. I don't need to know much more than that to give them some serious thought. And when several academics of a similar standard start saying the same things then I believe it can't be ignored. And the thing about truth that you guys don't seem to get... It doesn't stop being ťrue just because you don't believe it.
She's not going to listen. She'd rather hand her power over to the purveyors of mythology.
3 years and counting @keishahawkins .....
@@ghostriders_1 6y now
Which of his books has these in them?
@Garret AJ: Answers in Genesis has a book called "The New Answers Book 1" in which they answer how animals spread throughout he earth after the flood. Also, Dr. Carl Werner write a book called "Living Fossils" where he shows that modern day plants and animals were living at the same time as dinosaurs, because they were found at dinosaur dig sites alongside them, as was admitted by the scientists he spoke with.
Keisha Hawkins What do you mean modern day plants were discovered next to dinosaurs? You mean the plants ancestors or several layers above?
Carl Werner, the creationist??? Really?
OK, well, OK then. Just, OMG, Carl Werner! Wow! How to argue against such an authority. Wow :p
What scientists, where they some kind of paleontologists? Were they misquoted?
Living fossils: You mean like present day humans?
Keisha Hawkins This type of evidence would warrant a Nobel prize. If it were true.
So my guess is you're making assumptions that the scientific community is just guessing and making blind assertions. They are doing science (which is a method) do decipher what's true. Bringing a hypothesis to a theory is a process that is rigorous and requires mountains of evidence.
Scientists don't get a free pass. They have to work very hard to prove what they say. Carl Werner is no exception.
Older viewers will remember the days when the only video recording devices were potatoes.
We need more CHARACTERS like this in the theological camp.
Thanks for the post. I knew of some of these, but not all. Didn't know there was that many. Do you know how many were literally within Jesus' supposed life span?
None of the accounts can be dated to Jesus' alleged lifetime. The earliest was written at least 80 years after the alleged Crucifixion would've happened.
looks like you are in a bathroom
Eternal Cycles No, it's the holding cell in the Richard Burton as O'Brian interrogator of the film 1984.
May I please get a link to your Thesis?
I agree with eternal , looks like a bathroom! Maybe curtains or something would help.
I my POV is much more interesting to point out the parallels of the gospels with the helenistic literature and pagan cultures that we have more certainty that were already at place between 90-180CE. I think it is much more convincing because it would use the same skeptical parameters we ask believers to use in the first place.
@Garrett AJ: No one denies that editors have come later and added things such as the death of Moses in Deuteronomy. But it is accepted that Moses wrote the vast majority of the Torah.
Keisha Hawkins
Firstly the bible states that it is the inerrant word of god.
Secondly Moses didn't exist apart from in the bible.
Keisha Hawkins
Actually it is accepted that the Torah was written during the Babylonian exile around the 6th
century BC (About 700 years after Moses allegedly lived). The book Of Genesis, The Exodus are an amalgamation of older Akkadian and Sumerian literature. The wisdom books like Proverbs can be accounted for in the Babylonian Code Of Hamurabi and the 10 commandments can be found word for word in the Negative Confession from The Egyptian Book Of The Dead. All these scriptures predate the Torah by at least 1000 years. The archeological evidence also shows that the worship of Yaweh/Jehova as the one true god was not implemented in Israel until the reign
of Josiah (538 -515BC) and that prior to this The Israelites worshiped a pantheon of gods from the Canaanite religions that are based on Sumerian mythology which Yaweh/Jehova was the war god, son of the chief god El and his wife Ahserah. At some point Yaweh/Jehova replaced his father and was associated to Asherah his consort. All this arose with the discovery of inscriptions in ancient Hebrew that mention a pair of gods: Jehovah and his Asherah. At two sites, Kuntiliet Ajrud in the southwestern part of the Negev hill region, and at Khirbet el-Kom in the Judea piedmont, Hebrew inscriptions have been found that mention "Jehovah and his Asherah," "Jehovah Shomron and his Asherah, "Jehovah Teman and his Asherah." The authors were familiar with a pair of gods, Jehovah and his consort Asherah, and send blessings in the couple's name. These inscriptions, from the 8th century BCE and the study of The Ugaritic Texts.
@antihero gnome: Actually, I said late first century, not second century. Therefore, they were quoted from almost a century before 180 AD. The reason why the early church accepted the Gospels is because they were written early, they were eyewitness accounts, having either been written by an apostle or close associates of them, and the early church fathers quoted from them. Daniel Wallace quotes from several of the church fathers who quoted the NT well before Irenaeus.
+Keisha Hawkins That is incorrect the first one that seems to allude to the Gospels is Clement by they are not actual quotes, then Papias around 140AD quotes from Matthew and MArk but nothing he quotes is found in either MAtthew or MArk. THe first that mentions the GOspel authors by name is Ireaneus in180AD. there is no question about this
@antihero gnome: There are other scholars, who have also quoted from Clement to prove that the same message that the apostles taught was the same that the early church accepted, and Phil Fernandes is one of them in his book "Hijacking the Historical Jesus". Obviously, there are a lot of scholars who consider Clement to be a reliable source.
@Agimaso Schandir: My point in the earlier post is that only scriptures that Jesus and the Jews quote from that they claim came from from Moses were actually written by Moses. So the other scriptures that you quote are irrelevant. The books "Reinventing Jesus" by Daniel Wallace, "Hijacking the Historical Jesus" by Phil Fernandes and "Finding the Historical Christ" by Paul Barnett answer the question of whether Jesus existed. The book "Evidence for the Historical Jesus" by Josh McDowell gives evidence for Jesus as well as Moses. And tradition in and of itself does not invalidate Moses' authorship. Even Jesus, who claimed to be God, attributed the Torah to Moses. Since all Scripture is inspired by God, Jesus should know more than anyone whether or not Moses wrote that portion of the Bible.
ancient adventure novel: SUDDENLY, PIRATES!
21st century space opera: SUDDENLY, PIRATES!
Pirates have nothing better to do than introduce themselves into plots at the vital moment.
Cool, can you please show me some form of documentation then? Maybe even where you attained your Master's?
I think Wikipedia has a page on him, should have what you're looking for.
who cares about degrees. Not having a piece of paper does not make someone wrong
Do you think 'pagan myths' were limited to Osiris and Mithras? Where do you think the concept of hell originated? The concept of a god/man was painfully Greek (and Egyptian)... so do you consider these pre-Israel cultures pagan or not?
What happened to my favourite comment on this video? It went something like "The best lecture ever given in a men's changing room."
"And what was written was word of mouth for 60-150 years at average?"
Isn't that a bit on the "late" side?
Setting the crucifixion at 33 AD we get a temporal distance to:
Mark ca. 37-45 years (ca. early 70s AD)
Luke/Matthew ca. 50-60 years (ca. 80s AD)
John ca. 60-90 years (ca. 90s-110s AD)
Or you're perhaps going for much later composition dates?
Not that it really matters as we don't necessarily even credit eye witness (such as "alien abductees") when they make fantastic but unsupported claims
The reason you can't dismiss Price like that is that we already know that religions develop in ways that include random borrowing of ideas. You also have to understand that he doesn't start from the pagan parallels and then concludes that Jesus was a myth because he's similar. Rather, we start from the Jesus story being improbable due to obviously legendary content, contradictions, lots of different views of Jesus etc
@Gnomefro: There is also a book called "Myth?" by David E. Anderson that deals with this issue as well, proving that the apostles did not borrow from pagan mythology. To them, Jesus was someone who really existed and who was raised from the dead, which is why they called themselves witnesses (Acts 2:32, 3:15, 5:32, 10:39-41, 13:31, 2 Peter 1:16). Also, if they knew they borrowed the story from earlier sources, why would they be willing to suffer and die for it? People may die for what they believe to be true, but nobody dies for what they know to be false.
Keisha Hawkins There are also works by Joseph Campbell that show otherwise. Not to mention recent works by Richard Carrier.
Keisha Hawkins I always like "but why would they die for something they knew to be false" bit, and what is even more incredible is in this case you give the answer in your own comment "To them, Jesus was someone who really existed and who was raised from the dead..."
Maybe you need to look up kamikaze for an example.
@antihero gnome: Yet again, in Daniel Wallace's book, he quotes directly from Clement, as well as Papias. According to him and other scholars, the reason why the Gospels were accepted early on was because the early church fathers quoted from them, which means there were quotations of these works before Ireneaus, because by the time of Ireneaus' writings, the church had already canonized most of the NT books. They only accepted those that were considered authentic, and they had to have been quoted from early on, not in the late second century.
+Keisha Hawkins
The evidence for Clement is by no means conclusive. In two places the writer repeats the words of Jesus which are similar to those in the Gospels, but not quotations. He never refers to Gospel stories or sayings even though they would have supported his argument, instead referring to the Old Testament:
In chapters 3-6 he lists Abel, Joseph, Moses, and David as people who suffered through jealousy, but doesn't mention Jesus (as in Matthew 27:18 and Mark 15:10).
Likewise, in chapters 7 and 8 he uses Ezekiel and Isaiah as examples of people preaching repentance, but not Jesus (as in Matthew 18:3 or Luke 13:3).
In chapters 9-12 he uses only the Old Testament for examples of faith.
In chapter 16 he refers to Jesus' humility but does not refer to his humble birth in a barn (instead quoting the Old Testament).
In chapter 17 he talks about people dressed in animal skins who announce the coming of Christ, but omits John the Baptist from the list of prophets.
In chapter 46 he brings together statements from Mark and seems to be quoting sayings that had been circulating but never refers to the writings of Mark directly.
Papias quotes from Mark and Matthew but none of what he quotes are actually found in Mark and Matthew, so which Mark and Matthew is Papias quoting from?
There is something that bother me about the "Jesus may have been some random guy" hypothesis. At what point do you take so many of the attributes away from the religious Jesus character that saying he existed, but as some little known itinerant preacher, becomes meaningless?
Every culture in the ancient Middle East had its own savior-based mystery cult. Christianity is just a mystery cult that got official backing.
Yes, it’s like saying I don’t believe in Superman, but I do believe in Clark Kent.
@Vanessa McClean: Actually, I was referring to the scholars who are trying to make Christians lose their faith. And if people didn't care about what it is that we believe, they wouldn't attack it so much. They would allow us the freedom to practice what we believe, and not try to stop us from doing it. And by the way, you do care what I believe, because you responded to me, informing me about Hector Avalos and his videos. Plus, we are not forcing what we believe onto other people; others are doing that to us. Why do you think atheism and other religions are allowed to flourish here? We are not against freedom of religion, or the lack thereof. However, people are against us practicing our religion, and this is why people of faith feel that they are being pressured to choose between their faith and the law. Never mind that we are supposed to be tolerant, but I guess being tolerant only works one way. And yet again, insulting someone's faith does not make you look good. You don't have to abide by the laws; break them. And plus, you can't speak for everyone listening to me. I am on here because I am required by God, as I have previously explained to another person on here, in 2 Peter 3:15 to give a defense of the faith. I know that not everyone is going to listen; that's not my problem, nor my main concern. As God told the prophet Ezekiel 2:7 that his job was to speak the words of God, regardless of whether his people heard him or not. So it is with us. Jesus requires us to share the gospel. That's our job. It is not our job to convert anyone; only God can turn someone's heart. Bo Jinn says in the book "Illogical Atheism" that no amount of evidence is going to make anyone believe in the Bible, and that is true, especially when they have their minds made up. Paul talks about people being hard hearted in Eph. 4:18, and people are definitely that today.
When you Christians are killing people because we don't believe your lies, that kinda shoots your argument in the head, doesn't it.
@Agimaso Scahndir: Carl Werner is not claiming to be any authority. In fact, according to his book, he was a believer in evolution until challenged by a friend to prove it. Thus, the book and video series was born showing that evolution is not as well proven as is thought to be, and this after interviewing experts, including paleontologists and visiting museums and even his own research. As he points out, it is commonly thought that plants did not live until after the time of the dinosaurs. He shows pictures of fossilized plants that were found in the same rock layers with dinosaurs, and then the modern counterpart that shows no change at all. I never said anything about humans; the book only examines modern plants and animals that were found in dinosaur rock layers.
Dr. Price is absolutely correct. His method is quite tedious.
@170221dn: As I mentioned before, Josh McDowell mentioned evidence of Moses in his book "Evidence for the Historical Jesus".
Keisha Hawkins
Well in his book : ‘’ The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts’’ Dr. Israel Finkelstein clearly demonstrates that there was never an Exodus and that Moses did not exist. And in ‘’The Jesus Puzzle’’ and ‘’ On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt’’ both Earl Doherty and Dr. Richard Carrier show without question that there is absolutely no evidence to claim that Jesus actually existed.
SO what’s your point.
@@antiherognome6703 Carrier is good. So is David Fitzgerald
@antihero gnome: There are accounts all over the world of the same ones found in Genesis, so it was not copied. Also, according to the book "In Defense of the Bible" by Steven B. Cowan and Terry L. Wilder, the writers give evidence that the Torah was written years earlier, and not during the Babylonian exile. They also deal with many of the issues you raised, so those issues have been already been answered.
Keisha Hawkins
Well of course you are citing evangelical scholars and I have check out "In Defense of the Bible’’ but as with most evangelical based scholarship I find their ‘’evidence’’ not very solid or convincing and their methodology which is based on a presupposition rather flawed. I know I studied in an evangelical biblical college.
This from the Ancient History Encyclopedia:’’ Most scholars think that the final major redactions took place after 539 BCE, when Cyrus the Great conquered the Neo-Babylonian Empire.’’
You can argue that the writings are based on an older oral tradition but again these traditions would be of names or maybe some events. Of course there is pretty solid evidence that shows that the stories contained in Genesis were written much later. When you have the Patriarchs like Abraham riding camels when camels were not domesticated in the Levant until 900 BC. Shows that the authors of these stories were projecting event into the past.
"Apollonius couldn't have been a source for the life of Jesus" Why not? If Apollonius was first century, then he could easily have had a significant impact. The gospels did not exist until at least 70 CE. so Apollonius may well have been more relevant than Jesus by that time.
@antihero gnome: As I have previously mentioned, the scholars in the book give evidence for the Exodus. Again, it is just that people do not want to believe that the Bible is true, so they willingly ignore evidence that is out there that proves otherwise.
+Keisha Hawkins
‘’As I have previously mentioned, the scholars in the book give evidence for the Exodus. Again, it is just that people do not want to believe that the Bible is true, so they willingly ignore evidence that is out there that proves otherwise.’’
Their evidence is weak and misleading and goes against the actual data. Even the most conservative scholars
argue that there was an Exodus but that it was only limited to a few families. Which could be possible but there is no evidence so it’s only speculation. First the bible states that 600,000 men (excluding women and children) who left Egypt. So that would add up to at least 1 maybe 2 million people. The total population of Egypt at that time was about 3 million. Don’t you think the departure of such an amount of people not to mention slave workers would have crippled Egypt? Yet Egypt remained an economic and military power for 1000 years after this even isalleged to have happened. Also you would think that a million people wandering the desert for 40 years (on a trip that only takes a few days by foot) would have left a trace of their passage. But there is not one piece of evidence that shows this happened. Third you would expect that a slave nation held captive for 400 years would show traces of this in their language by either adapting words or expressions from their captors. There is absolutely no Egyptian influence on the Hebrew language in fact Hebrew came from Proto-Phoenician which is a nation directly north of Canaan. Also it has been proven that workers who built the temples, pyramids and other works of architecture belonged to a privileged class of citizens in Egypt. They were treated like nobility. There is no evidence that shows Jewish slaves were present at any time in Egypt.
William G. Dever is the son of a fundamentalist preacher and now professor of Near Eastern archaeology and anthropology at the University of Arizona he is not by any means a minimalist like Finkelstein or Herzog who find no historical basis for the Bible . In his book What Did the Bible Writers Know and When Did They Know It he writes: ‘’ …the overwhelming archaeological evidence today of largely indigenous origins for early Israel leaves no room for an exodus from Egypt or a 40-year pilgrimage through the Sinai wilderness.’’
Even scholars that claim there is some truth to the Bible are honest enough to admit there is rather scanty evidence to support this.
how so?
@antihero gnome: Not all scholars believe that the evidence for the Exodus is weak nor misleading. There are some scholars who believe that the evidence for the Exodus is compelling.
+Keisha Hawkins There is also a fringe of scholars that believe that the Hebrew prophets were of alien origin. so what does this tell us. let's stay in reality please
Simcha Jacobovich is a journalist, not a scientist.
@agimaso Schandir: Creationists have already explained what a kind is, and yes it does exist, because it extends beyond the flood story. In fact, God mentions it first in Genesis 1 during creation. What it simply means is that people and animals will always produce what they are, whether a dog, cat, or human. And creationists have already explained how related wolves and dogs are, so wolves would be included in the dog kind. And creationists have already explained how animals have reproduced since the flood that does not contradict what the Bible states.
Prove it.
17022dn: Actually, I personally looked up modern versions to see if the word unicorn occurred in them; they do not. As I mentioned before, they use the term wild ox. Also, the reason why people all over the world know about the flood is because, as I said before, after people were scattered all over the world, hey kept the stories if not only the flood, but also creation all the way to the Tower of Babel. Plus, the Bible says clearly in Psalm 104:8 that the mountains were raised after the flood; therefore, the mountains were not at their height now. People assume that the mountains were always at their height, but the Bible says otherwise.
Gee, someone never heard of geology, did she?
Robert M. Price, here are his credentials as Presented to Wikipedia described by Robert M. Price himself.
"A former Baptist minister, he was the editor of the Journal of Higher Criticism from 1994 until it ceased publication in 2003, and has written extensively about the Cthulhu Mythos, a "shared universe" created by the writer H. P. Lovecraft.[7] He also co-wrote a book with his wife, Carol Selby Price, Mystic Rhythms: The Philosophical Vision of Rush (1999), on the rock band Rush. "Robert M. Price is a fellow of the Jesus Seminar, a group of 150 writers and scholars who study the historicity of Jesus, the organizer of a Web community for those interested in the history of Christianity,[8] and sits on the advisory board of the Secular Student Alliance.[3] He is a religious skeptic, especially of orthodox Christian beliefs, occasionally describing himself as a Christian atheist."
As I read Robert M. Price's Resume, he comes across as a man who’s views change with times based on what might sell on the book shelves month to month. "describing himself as a Christian atheist." ???
Wrong. His views change based on new discoveries
Wait, you can read? I'm shocked.
@Van Smack: The books ""Evidence For The Historical Jesus" by Gary Habermas and "Myth?" by David E. Anderson, among others, clearly prove that wrong. Even the book "Searching For Jesus" by Robert J. Hutchinson prove that a good number of non-Christian scholars do not deny the existence of Jesus, but they dispute what is in the Gospels. His book is intended to give the archaeological evidence that proves that the gospel accounts of Jesus's life are indeed correct.
Praise God
Prove he exists first.
@Vannesa McClean: It was nice talking to you.
@antihero gnome: I am in reality. Again, it is just that some scholars are determined to believe that the Bible is mythical, and approach it as such. And there are others who believe it to be historical, and take things from there. This is why there are competing views as to whether or not the Exodus happened. But it doesn't change the fact that there are some scholars who believe the Exodus happened, and use archaeology to prove it.
+Keisha Hawkins
No one is saying the Old Testament is a complete fairy-tale. There is evidence for a Kingdom of David and Solomon although not the magnificent kingdoms as described in the Bible but we are pretty sure they existed. We are also pretty sure to have found the site of mount Sinai. But these findings in no way corroborate any of the supernatural claims of the Bible any more than Mount Olympus or the city of Troy which has also been found proves the existence of the Greek gods.
The evidence shows that Israel itself was under Egyptian rule at the time of the Exodus is supposed to have occurred. Egypt also reigned in the Sinai region. It sort of destroys the exodus as depicted in the Bible to have occurred as written because there is no evidence to support it historically. I can accept that places and names have historical meaning in the Old Testament but to take stories that go against everything that we know about the laws of nature and in fact that dismiss the rules of reality itself and imply the intervention of an exterior magical force that influenced people and events is a lot to accept without any evidence.
@vivahernando1: You completely took that verse out of context, but that's not surprising. What I am simply doing is following the command set forth by Peter in 1 Peter 3:15 to always be ready to give a defense of the faith. In Jude 3, we are told to earnestly contend for the faith. Therefore, I am required to do what I am doing. The Bible should be read in context. But again, it is not surprising that people love to take it out of context.
@antihero gnome: Actually, according to Daniel Wallace in the book "Reinventing Jesus", the church fathers started quoting from the Gospels as early as the late first century. According to the book "I Don't Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist" by Norman Geisler and Frank Turek, they give a chart of the early church fathers who quoted from the NT books starting in 95 AD and ending in 110 AD. 25 of the 27 NT books had been quoted from. Also, evangelical scholars have been admitted that the gospels are anonymous, but include the fact that the early church fathers were in agreement that the men whose names are on them actually wrote them. One of the criteria for a NT book to be included in the canon was that it had to be written by an apostle, or someone who knew an apostle, as is the case with Mark and Luke, who were not eyewitnesses. This is why the Gnostic Gospels were rejected, because they were not only late, but also, they were not written by eyewitnesses like the Gospels.
+Keisha Hawkins
‘’according to Daniel Wallace in the book "Reinventing Jesus", the church fathers started quoting from the Gospels as early as the late first century.’’
That is one fact that is correct, the first mention of the Gospels comes in the year 180AD.
‘’Norman Geisler and Frank Turek, they give a chart of the early church fathers who quoted from the NT books starting in 95 AD and ending in 110 AD. 25 of the 27 NT books had been quoted from.’’
Of course the quotes are reported in the writings of Irenaeus since none of the original writings by Ignatius or Polycarp or Papias has survived. And their testimony is reported in later sources. It’s like the story of I know a guy, who knows a guy, who knows a guy, who knows a guy who knew Jesus. Even the surviving writings of Clement or Origen are from the 4th and 5th century.
‘’ but include the fact that the early church fathers were in agreement that the men whose names are on them actually wrote them.’’
See my previous comment.
‘’This is why the Gnostic Gospels were rejected, because they were not only late, but also, they were not written by eyewitnesses like the Gospels.’’
Well the early Church fathers quote the gnostic Gospels at least 400 times which is more than the quotes that are alluded to the official Gospels.
There is no reason to believe that the gnostic Gospels were written very much later that the canonical scriptures. The Gospel of Thomas for instance is estimated around the year 140 AD based on the teachings of Thomas who was an Apostle.
Don’t you find it strange that Matthew would basically copy the Gospel of Mark since Matthew is supposedly an eyewitness while Mark is not?
oh, i thought you were talking about the early Christians patterning Jesus after pagan myths/gods
Christ is basically the Dioscuri, from the Ordinance of Melchi-Zedek as the bible self it puts in place. Archangel and Highpriest. Dark and Light. Good and Evil. This dualism (from Zoroastrism) is all over the O.T. and N.T. as well. The dioscuri known in Greek mythology (Gemini) and in Mithraism. Also the origin of the trinity.
The Messiah would have been born during the Jewish fall feast of Tabernacles, [during the Roman census] Which explains the pile of fodder (hay in a manger?). The caravan was in transit, and was at rest for the week long feast when Messiah was conviently born.
The supposed savior of souls of Christians, was just the most recent savior-myth story. Example as follows, from the book, and please note how Chrishna was spelled, before the Christians came up with the word Christ, and how the Hindus then changed the spelling of their supposed savior to "Krishna."
The World’s Sixteen Crucified Saviors … Christianity before Christ, by Kersey Graves … first published in 1875.
and finally these twenty Jesus Christs (accepting their character for the name) laid the foundation for the salvation of the world, and ascended back to heaven.
1. Chrishna of Hindostan.
2. Budha Sakia of India.
3. Salivahana of Bermuda
4. Zulis, or Zhule, also Osiris and Orus, of Egypt.
5. Odin of the Scandinavians.
6. Crite of Chaldea.
7. Zoroaster and Mithra of Persia.
8. Baal and Taut, “the only Begotten of God,” of Phenicia.
9. Indra of Thibet.
10. Bali of Afghanistan.
11. Jao of Nepaul.
12. Wittoa of the Bilingonese.
13. Thammuz of Syria.
14. Atys of Phrygia.
15. Xamolxis of Thrace.
16. Zoar of the Bonzes.
17. Adad of Assyria.
18. Deva Tat,aud Sammonocadam of Siam.
19. Alcides of Thebes.
20. Mikado of the Sintoos.
21. Beddru of Japan.
22. Hesus or Eros, and Bremrillah, of the Druids.
23. Thor, son of Odin, of the Gauls.
24. Cadmus of Greece.
25. Hil and Feta of the Mandaites.
26. Gentaut and Quexalcote of Mexico.
27. Universal Monarch of the Sibyls.
28. Ischy of the Island of Formosa.
29. Divine teacher of Plato.
30. Holy One of xaca.
31. Fohi and Tien of China.
32. Adonis, son of the virgin Io of Greece.
33. Ision and Quirinus of Rome.
34. Prometheus of Caucasus.
35. Mohammud, or Mahomet, of Arabia.
These have all received divine honors, have nearly all been worshiped as Gods, or sons of Gods; were mostly incarnated as Christs, Saviors, Messiahs, or Mediators; not a few of them were reputedly born of virgins; some of them filling a character almost identical with that ascribed by the Christian’s bible to Jesus Christ; many of them like him, are reported crucified; and all of them, taken together, furnish a prototype and parallel for nearly every important incident and wonder-inciting miracle, doctrine and precept recorded in the New Testament, of the Christian’s Savior. Surely, with so many Saviors the world cannot, or should not, be lost.
From what I've learned about Josephus he is actually a very important historian at the time, which is why many apologists grasp at straws when using his mentioning of Jesus in their religious apologetics. From what I know, he didn't write much about jesus and the parts he did were obviously tampered with, probably by the church or someone trying to give credence to Christ's divinity. I could be wrong but I'd like to see your sources anyways I am interested
He wrote nothing about Jesus. Later Christians added their own forged passages to create the illusion that Jesus was this famous beloved guy. If he was so famous, why didn't Tacitus or Pliny write about him?
There could be all kinds of reasons, including job security, but given that Ehrman wrote an entire book about why he thinks Jesus existed I suppose you could read that. I don't think he argues convincingly there though and he seems to not have a consistent standard of evidence.
Religion and ignorance, it's a match made in heaven.
Filmed in a bathroom?
Hehehe 😂😂😂😂
@antihero gnome: To be a Christian does not require a person to ignore things. As a matter of fact, Christians hold to history, science and archaeology. It is just that it's a popular belief among atheists to paint Christians as people who don't believe in evidence, but that is not the case. And also, people have dealt with the issue of the authorship of Isaiah, to prove that it is written by only one person. As these people point out people who claim authorship by numerous authors usually are biased.
+Keisha Hawkins Weel that is the overwhelming conclusion and a basic fact taught in every OT theological class in every university in the WEstern world
It requires you to ignore humanity. The Crusades, the genocide of the Native Americans, the Holocaust - all perpetrated by "good Christians." How do you like yourself now?
@Agimaso Schinder: No one knows what two dogs were on the ark, but Noah only had to bring two, and from those two arose all of the variety of dogs we see today. The dog kind in the creationist view would include wolves. Answers in Genesis has an article on Dormaalocyon latouri on their website entitled "Extinct Carnivore Ancestor of Lions and Tigers and Bears?" People are free to believe what they want about the Bible, but a lot of people just want the Bible to be a fairy tale.
Keisha Hawkins
A lot of people want the bible to be true including for example the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Pope. Both now accept evolution and that large tracts of the Old Testament are not true.
@xhemexx: I make that statement because it's true. In the book "Evolution's Achilles Heels" evolutionist Richard Lewontin is quoted as saying that to him, materialism is absolute, because he could not allow a Divine Foot in the door. Does that sound like someone who wants there to be a God? And in the book "The Making Of An Atheist" by James S. Spiegel he quotes Thomas Nagel, who admits that he does not want God to exist. Again, according to Romans 1:18-20, nobody has an excuse to ignore the existence of God, because His existence is proven by creation. It is just that some people suppress that knowledge for various reasons, and as a lot of scholars have pointed out, it mainly has to do with moral accountability. There is much evidence to prove the existence of God, and yet people ignore it. Why? It makes it easier for them to believe that they can live how they want without being held accountable for it.
Prove it.
Keisha Hawkins His existence is NOT proven by creation, it’s just not disproven. You need to learn what proof consists of. Not all of us are standing around with a thumb up our ass and our mouth agape as we stare out at the natural world.
Consider the following list. These are the historians and writers who DID live within Christ's alleged lifetime or within a hundred years of it, after the time:
Apollonius Persius Appian Petronius Arrian Phaedrus Aulus Gellius Philo-Judaeus Columella Phlegon Damis Pliny the Elder Dio Chrysostom Pliny the Younger Dion Pruseus Plutarch Epictetus Pompon Mela Favorinus Ptolemy Florus Lucius Quintilian Hermogones Quintius Curtius Josephus Seneca Justus of Tiberius Silius Italicus Juvenal Statius
And not one of them saw fit to write about what is alleged to be the most famous, the most important being in the ancient world. Now, if Jesus was so famous and so known, why didn't any of the historians of the era even mention him? And don't give me that Josephus crap; you know as well as I do that later Christians forged those passages to lend credence to their mythos.
@antihero gnome: Again, just because something predates what is written in the Bible does not mean that it is older than oral tradition, which is what some people believe these accounts were until they were written down. It does not follow that they were borrowed from these texts, especially when compared together. This is why books such as Ken Ham's "The New Answers Book 4" and "Flood Legends" by Charles Martin include not only the Babylonian texts of creation but also the flood to prove that although there are similarities, there are also massive differences between them, and as I said before, the differences are what's ignored. For example, there are numerous gods mentioned in the Babylonian account, while there is only One in the Genesis account. Death was involved in the Babylonian account, while the Bible makes clear that there was no death in the beginning, and this is why God looked at what. He made and said that it was very good. Death did not come until Adam and Eve sinned. Also, the later Hebrew Scriptures are not based off of any other texts, as other scholars have refuted. As I keep saying, it is all based on bias, and people's unwillingness to accept the Bible for what the authors said it was: a divinely inspired book. Why? Because the supernatural is denied.
@antihero gnome: It is not true that in the case of the OT, it is fictional. It is just that people are quick to conclude that it's fictional, because it's what they want to believe. There have been many books written to prove the historical reliability of the Bible, but people choose to ignore it.
+Keisha Hawkins THere is archeological proof that Lord Krishna the savior of humanity that was killed for the transgressions of man and was ressurected on the 3rd day. Krisna who lived 1200 years before Jesus. Do you ignore it?
www.indianweekender.co.nz/Pages/ArticleDetails/51/1421/Comment/How-science-discovered-the-historical-Krishna
Oh please. If you'd read Dianetics instead of the Bible, you'd be a Scientologist now.
Bit harsh?
@ Garrett AJ: Not all Biblical scholars agree that Moses did not write the first five books. Plus, according to Jesus and Jews in the gospels, Moses did in fact write the Law, or the first five books of the Bible. This is why they quote directly from it as his writings, and no one else's. So it doesn't matter what any scholar says about it; to Jesus, Moses was the author of these books.
Keisha Hawkins Mat 5:5, what part of the 5 books of Moses is this from since it came from "no one else's"
What about John 5:22, Mat. 19:29, Luke 6:24, Mat. 19:28...
Did Jesus or Moses even exist? How to you verify that Moses wrote them other then tradition?
Keisha Hawkins Alright, so in Deuteronomy Moses writes about his own death. Think about that for a minute.
Also, the consensus among OT scholars (even religious ones) is Moses didn't write them. This conclusion came from generations of textural study and historical application.
If there is an OT scholar that thinks Moses wrote those books then they would need to write a paper supporting their claim. Otherwise there's just too much evidence against it.
If 30 years misinformation was able to deceive an entire nation - such as what happened to the Philippines - how much more could 1500 years do to an entire world?
Im an atheist, but personally I dont think that Apollonious of Tyana is a rock solid parallel to the gospel narratives, specially because of the lose dating of the documents that appears to be from ~ 200 CE. Even proposing a late date for the autographs of the gospels they cant go that far. Between 200-300CE the copies of the gospels are already too much abundant, being collected by he early church.
@antihero gnome: I never claimed that he was in academia; that was your assumption. He is someone who did the research on his own, as did others, and refutes any idea of borrowing. Actually, Devaki was not a virgin; she had seven kids prior to Krishna. Jesus' mother, Mary, was of royal lineage, but not a princess as Devaki was. The house of David was not even in power when Jesus was born, so He had humble beginnings. According to the myth, Devaki was locked in prison and her first six kids were killed by Kansa, her uncle. There was no traveling to pay a yearly tax. Krishna also had foster parents that saved him from Kansa while Jesus was raised by His birth mother and her husband. The movie "Zeitgeist Refuted: Final Cut" refuted the whole notion that Jesus' birth and Krishna's are the same. Again, his uncle Kansa, only killed the first six kids of Devaki, so there was no slaughtering of thousands of infants, since the prophecy only mentioned the eighth child of Devaki would kill Kansa. Also, some scholars have even rejected that thousands of kids were even killed in Bethlehem, since Bethlehem was small. And that quote from Sir William Jones is wrong, because in the actual Hindu texts, none of that is mentioned. In Daniel Wallace's book, he explains the infancy gospels as second century documents, and that the early church rejected them, for obvious reasons. Jesus went into Egypt according to Hosea 11:1. Even though Krishna raised the dead and healed, these can be seen in the OT prophets Elijah and Elisha, who both raised the dead and healed people. A lot of religious figures taught similar things, but there are some things that Jesus did not teach that Krishna didAlso, Krishna had many wives; Jesus stressed marriage to only one, and had none Himself. Zeitgeist has been refuted many times, and as I have said other people have already refuted the idea of Krishna dying on a cross for sins and rising from the dead. The principal texts say he died after being struck by an arrow. The Hindu trinity is Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva, not Krishna. Also, Jesus never claimed to be the second person to the trinity. He claimed belief in one God in Mark 12:29-31 which comes from Deut. 6:4. Also, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit all have one name, according to Jesus, and that would be the name Jesus. Jesus' crucifixion was prophesied in Deut. 21:22-23, Psalm 22, Isaiah 53 and Zech. 12:10. It replaced the Levitical priesthood sacrifices that the high priest did yearly on the day of atonement. Instead of a priest slaughtering an animal for atonement, Jesus' blood was shed once for all. Also, God in Gen. 3:21 did the first animal sacrifice, and also prophesied of His crucifixion in Gen. 3:15. As Jesus said repeatedly, He came to fulfill the Hebrew Scriptures. Also, as I keep asking, if Krishna is the "savior" of humankind, then why aren't Hindus preaching it? If Krishna had eyewitnesses to His resurrection and ascension, why weren't they motivated to go and preach Krishna to the nations, as Jesus' disciples was? Because in Hinduism, it is tolerant of all other religions. Therefore, Krishna is not the savior of humanity, since all paths lead to the same god. No matter what religion you follow, it's all the same thing, and this is not what Jesus taught. Jesus taught that He was the way, the truth, and the life, and that no man could come to the Father but by Him. His apostles taught that salvation is only found in the name of Jesus. His apostles were not content to just keep Jesus as Savior to themselves; they preached Him among the non-Jews, Jesus commanded. Why don't people know Krishna as their savior? Because Jesus is the true savior, and the only one who died for our sins. It is at the name of Jesus, not Krishna, that all knees will bow and confess Him as Lord.
Uh, yes, actually you DID claim he was in academia. This is the problem with you people - you can't remember from one minute to the next which lie you told.
@antihero gnome: Actually, the garden of Eden story does not come from the Sumerians, seeing that many other cultures around the world have the same story. In the book "Eternity In Their Hearts" by Don Richardson, he includes oral stories from a tribal group in Burma that is very similar to the garden of Eden, even down to the woman being enticed by the talking serpent. Yet, these people don't have a Bible. As the book "The New Answers Book 4" by Ken Ham shows, a lot of people have the same creation stories, including the story of the garden of Eden. It's what you would expect if these events took place, because as people spread out after the Tower of Babel event, and there are stories of that all over the world also, people would be expected to have not only oral but written accounts of these events. And this is what we find.
+Keisha Hawkins
Genesis is typical of the contemporary Mesopotamian worldview, and likely has been strongly influenced by non-Abrahamic religions or myths.Based on similarities in both the story itself as well as shared cultural worldviews, many scholars argue that the story of creation week in Genesis is strongly influenced by (if not based on) the Babylonian creation myth Enuma Elish.Similarities with Enuma Elish
1. Order of Creation
2. "Order" from "Chaos" (The Torah places more emphasis on the organization of things rather than the 'something from nothing' aspect of creation that is emphasized by the Christian Old Testament.)
3. 6th day creation of "man" or of "savage god". In the Enuma Elish, man is to be slave to the gods. In modern American Christianity, apparently God is Slave to the wills of Conservatives.
4. Concept that man is created in God's image.
5. The strange idea of light being created before the sun.
6. Virtually nothing else.
Similarities with Sumerian myths. The Sumerian myth and the Eden story share some similar aspects.
1. The setting: a garden paradise surrounded by desert.
2. Forbidden Fruits.
3. Expulsion from paradise and physical punishment for eating fruit.
4. Using a rib from a male to create womankind.
5. The meaning of the female names; Eve (life), Ti (lady of life)Similarities with Greek mythology
1. In Genesis, Eve's curiosity makes everything go sour. In Greek mythos, Pandora's curiosity makes everything go sour. In other words, female curiosity screws everything up.
2. Both Deucalion and Noah are commissioned to build boats and dump animals on, ignoring plants and marine life, and also without any sense of scale.
3. Both Noah and Deucalion get free kids.
It’s foolish to claim the Hebrew Bible as anything other than it is Legendary stories borrowed from older proximate nations. It’s in fact exactly what you would expect. I find this even more interesting and compelling than asserting any truth to these myths. To see how Judaism developed copying these various accounts of other peoples is even more fascinating than to believe it was divinely inspired by a god.
@Crusher O'Lies: I could say the same for you as far as intelligence goes, because intelligent people don't have to put other people down that disagree with them. However, many scientists disagree. The video "How DNA destroys evolution" by Mike Riddle and the video "The Biologist" by Ppsimmons prove that scientists believe that DNA itself point to a Creator, and away from evolution. The molecular biologist interviewed in the Ppsimmons video said that no one he knew in his profession believe that DNA evolved, and that a genius beyond genius (I.e. God) designed it.
+Keisha Hawkins If you want a view about evolution you ask the evolutionary biologists. If you want an opinion about DNA you go to evolutionary geneticists. You earlier made the point about listening to biblical scholars. If you were consistent you would do the same with science topics. I'm ball-parking across many scientific disciplines here, but 99% of all elite scientists in their field would not agree with all the creationist views about DNA, evolution, cosmology etc. By the way, when is the last time you ever saw a peer-reviewed scientific study conclude that 'after all the evidence is in we have no choice but to conclude that god did it. It's a miracle". You don't see it. That's because it never happens. All credible scientists (even the devoutly religious ones) are in the business of doing science, not engaging in the confirmation bias for their religion.
CZcams, could you do something about this Keisha Hawkins? She is the spammer to end all spammers!
lol! spammer to end all spammers.too funny Jennifer.. by thier many words they feel they will be heard. au contraire. but they are like petty mosquitos at times i do agree.
@antihero gnome: According to the book "The Big Argument: Does God Exist?" by John Ashton, one of the writers gives evidence for the exodus. And also, the books "Reinventing Jesus" by Daniel Wallace and "Hijacking the Historical Jesus" by Phil Fernandes prove that Jesus did in fact exist.
Keisha Hawkins
There is absolutely not one shred of evidence that the story of Exodus occurred. Ze'ev Herzog professor of archaeology at The Department of Archaeology and Ancient Near Eastern Cultures at Tel Aviv University wrote in Deconstructing ‘’The Walls Of Jericho’’ “The Israelites never were in Egypt. They never came from abroad. This whole chain is broken. It is not a historical one. It is a later legendary reconstruction-made in the seventh century [BCE]-of a history that never happened.”
The Exodus as a legendary account and Moses being a fictional character are accepted by academia it’s pretty much an open and shut case. Even Jewish scholars agree with this as Jewish commentator andauthor Rabbi David Wolpe has also known about the Exodus Myth. In his article, "Did the Exodus Really Happen?" he mentions that other rabbis wanted him to keep the fiction of the Exodus story on the down-low. The basic story of the Exodus from Egypt (extracting supernatural elements) was touted to me as one of the most historical aspects of the Bible, yet it never happened. This seriously puts into question the historicity of any and all of the Bible stories.
As far as a historical Jesus, the evidence is just not there. Even Bart Ehrman who actually believes there was a real Jesus says: ‘’ But the unfortunate thing about Jesus is that we have such scanty documentation about his life.Most people don't realize this, but Jesus is never mentioned in any Greek or Roman non-Christian source until 80 years after his death.
There is no record of Jesus having lived, in these sources. In the entire first Christian century, Jesus is not mentioned by a single Greek or Roman historian, religion scholar, politician, philosopher or poet. His name never occurs in a single inscription, and it is never found in a single piece of private correspondence. Zero! Zip references!''
@david vitrogen: Answers in Genesis has an article on their website titled "An Initial Estimate of Avian Ark Kinds" that gets into the bird kind. Evolution is not the only explanation; some people just want it to be. The story of Noah's ark was God's judgment on man, since man's wickedness was too great at that time. He is a Judge, after all, and He must judge sin. And the story must have happened, because there are hundreds of cultures all over the world with a similar story, and some of them predate the Biblical story. Of course, in the beginning, people mated with relatives, but generations later, God forbid it in Lev. 18. What else were the people supposed to do?
What were all the animals supposed to eat when the world is covered in water for over a year, mud? How did the Kangaroos get back to Australia without starving along the way? How did pandas get back to China where their only food source is? Why isn't there geological evidence that shows all the animals dinosaurs humans fish etcetera all-in-one sedimentary layer? Why do we find dinosaurs on a different layer than everything else? The flood Matt doesn't hold water.
Keisha Hawkins
Other then the usual answers to such creation crap, I've thought of some more...
What animals were "spontaneous" created - if you believe the other explanation - all of them? Could one human name all of them? No wonder Adam had to live for so long, most of his time must have been spent naming animals - including those at the bottom of the deep sea where he would not have been able to go - I know, god could have transported him there. He could have also just told him all the names and let Adam get on with his destiny with Eve and the talking garden snake.
Many of the oddities that appear in nature are not explained if you think all of today's animals descended 2000 years ago from animals on a supposed ark.
Consider the page you site, which is basically taking a smitten of what *science* has discovered and force fitting it after-the-fact into a creationist narrative. Did all those species really "have multiplied and filled the earth since the Flood"? This most have been some rapid evolution, such rapid 'kind' transforming must have been recorded in records of the past 2000 years, right?
And what about extinct birds - not only that they are extinct, but what happened to the environments they lived in - where are those environments?
And why such rapid changing after the flood and not before, if that story was true?
It is recorded in the earth - and that record does not show such rapid change.
+keisha Hawkins I guess it depepnds where your base arguments come from. If they are naturally theist in nature and then you seek to disprove your position, you are actually already basing your search for knowledge on a confirmation bias. If you believe that a mass of evidence, albeit assumptive in nature, will have a combined effect on your overall conclusion, this in itself is an "argument ad populum" line of reasoning. The tricky point when comparing science and theism is that if a theist is proved wrong, they are no longer a theist, if the scientist is proved wrong they are still a scientist. having an open mind but maintaining a stance that needs to be invalidated is not open mindness. Its like If i say "I believe in aliens, but i am open to changing my view if you can prove me wrong.......". See what i have done here: I have made my belief first and then applied logic to its disproval....Rather than applying logic to generate my belief. Some inferences cannot be proved wrong scientifically, they can only be debated with ontological and existential reasoning. This of course is not enough to the theist because it does not signify "substantial evidence" againt the position. Herein the fallacy lies as the theist does not use this same rational and critical approach to their initial belief and why they believe it. This discrepancy is none other than self-confirmation bias. Open mindness is a state with no preconceived notions being open to the full breadth of new information........Its hard for me to see this in your reasoning. Modern theologions do not base their arguments on the bible, they admit that it is self contradictory and inaccurate, even william lane craig says that his belief is not based on biblical text but rather historical evidence of jesus and philosophical/ontological arguments for the existence of God. The bible is merely a reference, which is exactly why this is the same as me believing in aliens because I have studied mayan artifacts very closely. THe very act of me underpinning my belief with something ambiguous and highly debated, is me thinking i have seen something that the hundreds of thousand of other theists or philosophers have not. THis is such a close minded line of reasoning, cant you see ? If you have something to say, using this approach is just hindering the truth, if any, that you are trying to espouse. If your quest is to spread truth you should do it in a more philosophical way because all the arguments you have made on this page would be laughed at by modern christian apologetics as well as theism/deism. Now the true test is if you can understand why they would laugh. If you cant then your just not open minded and are being blinded by your own experience and possibly fallacious methodology of gathering information and understanding its ontological underpinnings.
@antihero gnome: Actually, what you state is wrong. The story of Adam and Eve did not come from any other texts, as I have already shown that other cultures outside of the Middle East have the same story. Also, the flood did not come from the Epic of Gilgamesh, since other cultures around the world have the same story. The fact that cultures all over the world have similar stories is a testament to them being factual. As I have already stated, if the Tower of Babel story is true, then as people spread out, they would have taken these stories with them. While we see similarities, we do see differences among them, and for some reason, the differences are ignored. It's just that people want to believe that the Bible ripped off these stories, but as I have already stated, this is bias. Some scholars believe that the biblical accounts are the originals, and all others are variations of it. As Paul says in Acts 14:15-16 and Acts 17:30-31 that God allowed other nations to go their own ways (serve other gods). These other stories attribute not only creation, but also the flood to their various gods. By then, people left the worship of God and began to worship other deities. But according to Paul, He is requiring all men to repent of their paganism and return to Him because His judgment is coming. So the biblical writers did not borrow from any pagan source; it's just that pagans corrupted the accounts after embracing false gods.
+Keisha Hawkins The oldest literature does come from Sumeria and predates anything found in Israel by over 2000 years.
www.britannica.com/art/Sumerian-literature
The later scriptures of The Hebrew Bible, the Iliad and Odyssey, which are filled with the epic and mythic lore of the Greeks; the Rig-Veda, which contains the literary products of ancient India; and the Avesta, which contains those of ancient Iran are all dependent upon Sumerian literature.
www.sacred-texts.com/ane/sum/sum05.htm
Of course your literal interpretation of the Bible which is overwhelmingly allegorical (the book of Genesis) that is not corroborated by historical data of any kind. Although there is some basis for the flood myth when the Euphrates river overflowed around the year 2900BC flooding the lower part of Mesopotamia obviously not a global flood but nevertheless devastating to the primitive people of that area. The stories that grew out of that event were later magnified and supernatural elements were added first in the Epic of Gilgamesh and later in the story of Noah which itself has a literary dependency on Gilgamesh. Most cultures around the world have legends and stories about great cataclysms and natural disasters. Flood stories are rather common.
And your assertion regarding the lineage of the Bible going back to Adam and Eve as the first humans is just ridiculous. Although as I stated above the Sumerians are the oldest culture for which we have literary evidence. There is archeological and DNA evidence for other cultures that are even much older than this. We can trace the existence and have clear archeological evidence and artifacts from the Aboriginal people of Australia that dates back to 40 000BC.
www.creativespirits.info/aboriginalculture/history/australian-aboriginal-history-timeline#axzz3kmNP7P4V
Personally I don’t consider the Bible as historically accurate and in fact it’s not it’s purpose. In fact I don’t even believe there is ample evidence to claim that Jesus himself actually lived at least not the one depicted in the Gospels but I don’t think it really matters for the theological teachings to have meaning
The Jesus story is filled with mythical elements also found in much older pagan myths, including the pagan mystery religions. The early church fathers could not deny this, as it was obvious to many at the time, and came up with the desperate claim that the devil plagiarized the Jesus story in advance in these pagan myths. The gospel writers also used Old Testament stories to create the Jesus myth - many sources were used.
@antihero gnome: As I have mentioned before, scholars have already answered the claims that the Bible copied from the code of Hammurabi, and that the God of the Bible is distinct from all others.
Keisha Hawkins
That is incorrect, the overwhelming majority OT scholars now recognise the Bible as a fictional account. It’s allegorical and was implemented as a moral code and of course in the Jewish tradition a means to give hope and meaning ‘’as God’s chosen people’’ to a nation that has been persecuted for a millennia.
@Agimaso Schinder: What I mean by pagans is anyone who does not worship the one true God. The Hebrew religion did not develop from any surrounding religion. This is why over and over again, Israel was forbidden from worshipping other gods (Ex. 23:24) and the punishment for idolatry was death (Deut. 17:2-7). It even refers to all other gods as devils (Deut. 32:17). The Jews had no respect for other gods, and considered theirs to be the only true God (Deut. 4:35).
Keisha Hawkins
The hebrew religion copied extensively
Ormuzd
The Epic of Gilgamesh
The Instruction of Amenemope
the Egyptian Book of the Dead
Gathas of Zarathushtra Yasna
Zoroastrianism
Confuscious
Mithras
Sumerian mythology
What is more even the New testament is just three copies of one original story.
170221dn
Not to mention the Babylonian Code Of Hamurabi. The evidence clearly shows how Judaism developed from the Canaanite religions that are based on Sumerian mythology. Yaweh was only a small tribal god until he got a boost in popularity when Judaism was conceived during the Babylonian exile. The cult of Yaweh as the one
true god was not implemented in Israel until the reign of Josiah around 520BC.
Christians don’t seem to understand how proximate cultures influenced each other in their belief systems. A quick study of comparative theology shows this pretty convincingly. For them to deny that the Jews copied and adapted their theology from older literature and especially a very prominent influence of Zoroastrinism is just wilful ignorance on their part.
Antihero gnome
What is your source for this?
170221dn You can check out a book from the Ancient Texts And Translations collection ‘’Documents From Old Testament Times’’ edited by D. Winton Thomas a preview is available online.
www.amazon.com/Documents-Old-Testament-Times-Translations/dp/1597523577
Other works I have found very interesting are
‘’The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel’’ and ‘’The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel's Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts’’ by Dr. Mark S. Smith
‘’The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts’’ by Dr. Israel Finkelstein
‘’Did God Have a Wife?’’ by Dr. William G. Dever
‘’The Mythic Past: Biblical Archaeology And The Myth Of Israel’’ and ‘’The Bible in History: How Writers Create a Past.’’ By Dr. Thomas L. Thompson
Antihero gnome
Many thanks
@antihero gnome: Just because it's taught in theological schools does not make it right. There are many people, Ken Ham included, who point out some Christians' willingness to not only compromise with the secular scholars, but to deny the reliability of the Bible altogether. He documents this in his book "Already Compromised". So just because it's taught in those schools don't make it true. I have to question a school that is supposed to build up a person's faith, but yet cause them to doubt the Bible instead.
+Keisha Hawkins. If you start using Ken Ham as a reference I will start using Joseph Atwill...
@Nunya Bis: Where does the Bible mention a Satyr? Also, the Bible mentions unicorns because in 1611 when the KJV was translated, the word didn't mean what it does today. Words do change meaning over time. There is a video called "why does the Bible mention unicorns?" that explains this further. Other translations use wild ox instead. Furthermore, other people know about the flood because it's been passed on generationally. If the Tower of Babel even happened, which many other cultures know about, too, we would expect to see descendants of these people retaining these stories and telling them, either in written form, or oral.
Keisha Hawkins
the bible is the inerrant word of god. EVERY bible printed today mentions unicorns, why would god allow this?
"Furthermore, other people know about the flood"
Yes they do because primitive peoples attribute events that we now know have natural causes to gods. The flood of the bible covered the earth, it was higher than Everest, all the people and animals would have needed oxygen masks, and ark bigger than any other boat built at the time, enough food for a year including meat for carnivores... the list of reasons why this is so ridiculous goes on.
@Agimaso Schandir: In the book "Myth?" By David E. Anderson, he includes articles from atheists who have refuted the idea. It doesn't matter what scholars saying 2,000 years later have to say; I go by what the apostles wrote, and their concern was that the Messiah promised in the OT had finally arrived. They had no reason, as pious Jews, to borrow from anyone about anything. And I stand by my comment about them dying for what they knew to be true. These men were not on a suicide mission; they were martyred, meaning they were killed, and in gruesome ways. Before that, they were beaten and imprisoned a number of times. Before Jesus' resurrection, they deserted Him (Matt. 26:56). But decades later, all but one apostle was martyred for their testimony. What happened? They saw Him raised from the dead, and no beating or death could get them to recant their story.
Keisha Hawkins
‘’ ; I go by what the apostles wrote’’
That would be convenient but it is common knowledge that the apostles did not write anything, in fact there are no writings in the New Testament by anyone who actually knew or even met Jesus.
‘’ They had no reason, as pious Jews, to borrow from anyone about anything.’’
To quote Dr. Robert M. Price who has 2 PhD’s in Theology and New Testament Studies: ‘’ I have found but one single story fron the Gospels (The rich man that asks what he should do to enter the kingdom of God) that seems to be original and not a rewrite of OT scriptures or borrowed for other savior god myths.’’
‘’And I stand by my comment about them dying for what they knew to be true.’’
So the Islamic martyrs are also dying for what they know to be true? What about the Japanese Kamikazes in WW2? Or the Hindus who were slaughtered for pacifically resisting?
You must know that dying as a martyr in the ancient world was one the most noble deaths there was. Like the Samurai committing Hara Kiri. Every religion has it martyrs and Christianity is not exclusive to this phenomenon.
‘’ They saw Him raised from the dead, and no beating or death could get them to recant their story.’’
Again the only thing we know about these people is what is written in the NT and the authors most likely were not eyewitnesses to any of the events they wrote about.
+Keisha Hawkins You can't quote some crackpot author in response to serious academics. I feel sorry for people who are so brainwashed that they won't look critically at the evidence, evidence explained by serious academics like Richard Carrier and Dr Price. They are scholars, who read both Hebrew and Greek, and they have studied this subject in depth.
***** Good grief! Prime example, I rest my case.
Ba ha ha!!! Love it!
Apollonius couldn't have been a source for the life of Jesus, since he was post-Christian. Our earliest source for him is 2nd cent CE. Chariton has been variously dated, but even the earliest date would make possiible for him to have influenced only John, and the most striking similarities are already found in the much earlier Synpotics. If there was any influence, it could only have been John to Chariton, not the other way round.
Prove it. You haven't even read what you're blathering about.
@Vanessa McClean: He may have been trying to debunk it, but it still does not take away the fact that these stories exist all over the world. And none of the "crackpot" authors quote him; they quote other sources. As they explain, this is what would be expected if the flood actually did happen, because people would have taken them all over the world after the Tower of Babel event, which there are stories of as well, as Ken Ham has in his book. They would have been preserved either orally or in written form, and that is what we see. Plus, there are many scientists out there who have given evidences of the flood. And what happened to you dropping the conversation? If I am so intellectually deficient, why do you keep talking to me?
+Keisha Hawkins Good question, I'm over and out.
"these stories exist all over the world."
Yeah, and there's nothing supernatural about that. I don't suppose you've ever read Joseph Campbell, you know, one of the required readings for English 110...
@John Pelosi: What I have mentioned is not an untruth; people just refuse to accept the fact that the biblical God is actually known, simply because they refuse to believe in His existence. As the Bible says clearly in Romans 1:18-20, God is known through His creation. It is just that people suppress that knowledge for various reasons. But it does not negate the fact that people all over the world have worshipped God. And I don't need to listen to what Robert Price says, because he is biased. What he is asserting is untrue, not me.
+Keisha Hawkins I see that you are mulishly restating this claim, that "everyone knows" as if it were a proven fact, which it is not. I see furthermore that the "Antihero Gnome" has taken great pains to instruct you on why your claim is false, yet you have not heeded his sensible words. You strangely claim that Dr. Price's scholarship is invalid due to "bias", yet overlook the fact that he was a Christian before he began his research and that in fact he has reached the point of non-bias and explains very well how he has applied historical method which is of itself, unbiased. If anyone holds a bias it is you, you have no actual proof which can refute the scholarship of Dr. Price. One can only conclude that you are a fanatic, hermetically sealed by your own resistance to facts.
Prove it, Keisha.
I think it's a washroom -- he's flushing Christianity down the drain.
:-)
Don't we normally flush shit?
And you base this upon... ? What, exactly?
Is this the "nanny-nanny-boo-boo" rebuttal to Dr. Price's argument?
Why do Christians insist on believing that their particular NME authors were somehow so different than any others?
@Garrett AJ: I am responding to your comment, just not in the way you want me to. And God already has provided evidence for His existence. According to Romans 1:18-20, creation in and of itself is proof enough that God exists. It's just that some people (atheists) suppress that knowledge, as the Bible says. This is why evolution was proposed in the first place, as Dr. Gary Parker, an ex-evolutionist, says in his book "Creation Facts Of Life". In the book "Reinventing Jesus" by Daniel Wallace, he gives evidence outside of the Bible for not only Jesus' existence, but also for his divinity. And I don't expect a quick conversion, because if you really wanted to know any of the information you're demanding of me, you would look for it on your own, because it's there. It's easy for atheists to ignore such information, because they don't want to believe anyway.
Keisha Hawkins
"This is why evolution was proposed in the first place"
evolution was proposed because christians investigating gods world discovered that a lot of it made sense if god had done it via evolution. It was only when the timelines required by evolution were discovered that evolution became a problem for a lot of religions.
As for you evidence that the god of the bible is true, quoting the bible is just a joke. The bible is the proposition IT IS NOT THE EVIDENCE.
There is no more evidence for the bible being true than there is for Robin Hood, King Arthus or Harry Potter for the matter.
he drips with scorn, and certitude
as opposed to every televangelist
and truth
Try substituting the word 'conscience' for the word God and it starts to make more sense.