Adam and Eve as a Myth

[Jayhawker Soule]

By the way, you quote (in part):

However, John Painter states that placing the blame for the siege of Jerusalem on the death of James is perhaps an early Christian invention that predates both Origen and Eusebius and that it likely existed in the traditions to which they were both exposed.[90] Painter states that it is likely that Eusebius may have obtained his explanation of the siege of Jerusalem from Origen.[76]

A couple of points:

1. If you choose to quote something, have enough respect for both the material and your audience to reference the source.
2. Secondly, if you're going to reference Painter as an argument in favor of interpolation, have the intellectual honesty to also quote:

   John Painter states that nothing in the James passage looks suspiciously like a Christian interpolation and that the account can be accepted as historical.(Painter pages 139-142). Painter discusses the role of Ananus and the background to the passage, and states that after being deposed as High Priest for killing James and being replaced by Jesus the son of Damnaeus, Ananus had maintained his influence within Jerusalem through bribery.(Painter page 136) Painter points out that as described in the Antiquities of the Jews (Book 20, Chapter 9, 2) Ananus was bribing both Albinus and Jesus the son of Damnaeus so that his men could take the tithes of other priests outside Jerusalem, to the point that some of whom then starved to death.(Painter pages 139-142). Philip Carrington states that there is no reason to question the authenticity of the Josephus passage on James, and elaborates the background by stating that Ananus continued to remain a power within the Jewish circles at the time even after being deposed, and that it is likely that the charges brought against James by Ananus were not only because of his Christian association but because he objected to the oppressive policies against the poor; hence explaining the later indignation of the more moderate Jewish leaders. [ibid]

   What we have from you is little more than disingenuous and rather thoughtless quote-mining.

You're really not doing yourself any favors here.

 

[waitasec]

Not to spoil Jay's expectations or anything, but... [ ]

.. the fact that the most-cited Josephus contains one statement mentioning Jesus which is agreed to be a forgery, that in the Testimonium referencing the execution by Pilate. And the mention of him as a brother of James, with a reference to calling him 'Christ", which the Hebrew Josephus would never have done, and shows, for want of a better word, extrapolation.

If this person is concretely historical, why the need for deception and 'artistic license'? The passages most favored for citation are not present in earlier manuscripts in the case of wording of references to James.

It's not as concrete as people want to make out, and proclaim loudly. It's not settled, it's clearly open to question. Im not saying anything concrete. Merely objecting to overblown concrete positives and eyerolling at legitimate skepticism.

thanks.
from what i gather, it wasn't the only statement josephus made about jesus, or did i misunderstand you?

 

[javajo]

Perhaps it is just faith that I believe, (I in my private heart of hearts, to myself, know, Adam and Eve, Abraham, and Jesus are real historic figures) these people were real. So much has been written about them, Josephus the historian wrote of them as actual people, and several historians and ancient writings speak of Jesus, and with Jesus, the world was turned upside down! America, which began with many Christian ideas and principles has been a light in the dark world, helping the poor, the sick, the hungry and thirsty, saving the whole world from monsters like Hitler and Hirohito and saving people from cruel and evil dictators and regimes, spreading freedom and democracy across the world, etc. The influence of Christ for good is still shedding light in the darkness and spreading hope to the hopeless. Christ, whose character was impeccable, spoke of Abraham and Adam and Eve. Levites for centuries, up to AD 70, traced their ancestry to Levi with genealogies kept secure until Titus besieged Jerusalem, (Levi was the son of Jacob, the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham). Abraham was only 9 generations from Noah who was only 9 from Adam. 14 from Abe to David, 14 from him to the Babylonian captivity, and 14 from then to Christ. It is all very well recorded. I suppose if people don't want to believe, they will find any reason is all I can come up with.

 

[Quagmire]

Perhaps it is just faith that I believe, (I in my private heart of hearts, to myself, know, Adam and Eve, Abraham, and Jesus are real historic figures) these people were real. So much has been written about them, Josephus the historian wrote of them as actual people, and several historians and ancient writings speak of Jesus, and with Jesus, the world was turned upside down! America, which began with many Christian ideas and principles has been a light in the dark world, helping the poor, the sick, the hungry and thirsty, saving the whole world from monsters like Hitler and Hirohito and saving people from cruel and evil dictators and regimes, spreading freedom and democracy across the world, etc. The influence of Christ for good is still shedding light in the darkness and spreading hope to the hopeless. Christ, whose character was impeccable, spoke of Abraham and Adam and Eve. Levites for centuries, up to AD 70, traced their ancestry to Levi with genealogies kept secure until Titus besieged Jerusalem, (Levi was the son of Jacob, the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham). Abraham was only 9 generations from Noah who was only 9 from Adam. 14 from Abe to David, 14 from him to the Babylonian captivity, and 14 from then to Christ. It is all very well recorded. I suppose if people don't want to believe, they will find any reason is all I can come up with.

Just as this post proves that if someone wants to believe something badly enough, they don't generally need a reason.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Perhaps it is just faith that I believe, (I in my private heart of hearts, to myself, know, Adam and Eve, Abraham, and Jesus are real historic figures) these people were real. So much has been written about them, Josephus the historian wrote of them as actual people, and several historians and ancient writings speak of Jesus, and with Jesus, the world was turned upside down! America, which began with many Christian ideas and principles has been a light in the dark world, helping the poor, the sick, the hungry and thirsty, saving the whole world from monsters like Hitler and Hirohito and saving people from cruel and evil dictators and regimes, spreading freedom and democracy across the world, etc. The influence of Christ for good is still shedding light in the darkness and spreading hope to the hopeless. Christ, whose character was impeccable, spoke of Abraham and Adam and Eve. Levites for centuries, up to AD 70, traced their ancestry to Levi with genealogies kept secure until Titus besieged Jerusalem, (Levi was the son of Jacob, the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham). Abraham was only 9 generations from Noah who was only 9 from Adam. 14 from Abe to David, 14 from him to the Babylonian captivity, and 14 from then to Christ. It is all very well recorded. I suppose if people don't want to believe, they will find any reason is all I can come up with.

What do you believe this proves. Yes, there was a highly stylized and heavily redacted narrative. So?

 

[Penumbra]

***Mod Post***

The thread was cleaned up a little bit due to uncivil comments.​

 

[waitasec]

Perhaps it is just faith that I believe, (I in my private heart of hearts, to myself, know, Adam and Eve, Abraham, and Jesus are real historic figures) these people were real. So much has been written about them, Josephus the historian wrote of them as actual people, and several historians and ancient writings speak of Jesus, and with Jesus, the world was turned upside down! America, which began with many Christian ideas and principles has been a light in the dark world, helping the poor, the sick, the hungry and thirsty, saving the whole world from monsters like Hitler and Hirohito and saving people from cruel and evil dictators and regimes, spreading freedom and democracy across the world, etc. The influence of Christ for good is still shedding light in the darkness and spreading hope to the hopeless. Christ, whose character was impeccable, spoke of Abraham and Adam and Eve. Levites for centuries, up to AD 70, traced their ancestry to Levi with genealogies kept secure until Titus besieged Jerusalem, (Levi was the son of Jacob, the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham). Abraham was only 9 generations from Noah who was only 9 from Adam. 14 from Abe to David, 14 from him to the Babylonian captivity, and 14 from then to Christ. It is all very well recorded. I suppose if people don't want to believe, they will find any reason is all I can come up with.

are you advocating for willful ignorance?

look, i understand the need to hope. it's whats gets us through...but i can't hope my way through a brick wall.

 

[javajo]

Just as this post proves that if someone wants to believe something badly enough, they don't generally need a reason.

Believe me, in my early twenties I questioned whether I believed it and actually hoped it wasn't true so I could pursue some more, lets say "trippy" religions (which I did) and I'll leave it at that. For me, and I speak only for me, the weight of evidence and even what I experienced pursuing other religions fell heavily and unequivocally in favor of Christ. But that's just me.

What do you believe this proves. Yes, there was a highly stylized and heavily redacted narrative. So?

I really wasn't trying to prove anything, it just all adds up to me is all and if it were not for the Diaspora I imagine we would have many genealogies still with us today. For me, I think with the Bible and history and Christ's influence that there is plenty enough still preserved that one may piece it together.

 

[Quagmire]

Believe me, in my early twenties I questioned whether I believed it and actually hoped it wasn't true so I could pursue some more, lets say "trippy" religions (which I did) and I'll leave it at that. For me, and I speak only for me, the weight of evidence and even what I experienced pursuing other religions fell heavily and unequivocally in favor of Christ. But that's just me.

I wasn't talking about your religious beliefs so much as I was about your synopsis of American History.

 

[camanintx]

Also, some scientists say we all came from a common set of parents from somewhere in the middle east.

Says who?

 

[javajo]

I wasn't talking about your religious beliefs so much as I was about your synopsis of American History.

Rainbows and Unicorns! (Romney's speech inspired me today although I'm still in the Obama camp for now) I know there are many stains on our history, but we have done and still do a LOT to help others and share freedom around the world.

Says who?

I honestly do not remember. I don't know if I saw it on the news or a show or read it. But I have heard it. I've heard something like that about language as well. It does make more sense that as humans our first parents were both human as opposed to thinking each "race" evolved separately on its own. We are far too similar for that.

 

[Quagmire]

Rainbows and Unicorns!

Basically.

I know there are many stains on our history,

But it works better for you if you ignore those.

but we have done and still do a LOT to help others around the world.

Which doesn't begin to justify a fraction of what you said in you previous post.

I honestly do not remember.

I don't blame you.

I don't know if I saw it on the news or a show or read it. But I have heard it. I've heard something like that about language as well. It does make more sense that as humans our first parents were both human as opposed to thinking each "race" evolved separately on its own. We are far too similar for that.

Who is saying each "race" evolved on it's own?

 

[camanintx]

I honestly do not remember. I don't know if I saw it on the news or a show or read it. But I have heard it. I've heard something like that about language as well. It does make more sense that as humans our first parents were both human as opposed to thinking each "race" evolved separately on its own. We are far too similar for that.

If you're thinking of Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam, then you're grossly misrepresenting them by suggesting they were the first parents of all humans. You and all of your cousins share a common set of grandparents but that doesn't mean they didn't have brothers and sisters.

 

[fantome profane]

I honestly do not remember. I don't know if I saw it on the news or a show or read it. But I have heard it. I've heard something like that about language as well. It does make more sense that as humans our first parents were both human as opposed to thinking each "race" evolved separately on its own. We are far too similar for that.

With respect I think it is very likely that you misunderstood what you heard, in fact I would bet on it. Not necessisarily your fault. I think this is one of those cases where scientists use colourful figurative language which leads people to the wrong conclusion.

The human race cannot be traced back to a single set of human parents.

 

[javajo]

Basically.

But it works better for you if you ignore those.

Which doesn't begin to justify a fraction of what you said in you previous post.

I don't blame you.

Who is saying each "race" evolved on it's own?

I think Hitler used that as a means to justify his desire to exterminate inferior races. Darwin worked well for him and Stalin, among others.

If you're thinking of Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam, then you're grossly misrepresenting them by suggesting they were the first parents of all humans. You and all of your cousins share a common set of grandparents but that doesn't mean they didn't have brothers and sisters.

I don't know that that was it, I just remember that for some reason they could trace all of us back to two common parents. Maybe I'll research it.

With respect I think it is very likely that you misunderstood what you heard, in fact I would bet on it. Not necessisarily your fault. I think this is one of those cases where scientists use colourful figurative language which leads people to the wrong conclusion.

The human race cannot be traced back to a single set of human parents.

It was just a random memory so who knows? I do think it makes sense that we all came from the same set of parents then scattered into small groups that grew into the people groups we have today, because we are for the greatest part, very similar and "we all bleed red". Anyway its a far stretch for me to believe one set of human parents evolved from the mire, let alone many different sets, but that's just me, its just ridiculousness to me as I'm sure my belief in Adam and Eve is to you. Then again, I believe Jesus walked on water and rose physically from the dead, so...

 

[javajo]

Well, just from Google, it appears there are scientists who have come to that conclusion. Here is a study from MIT, I believe, but it is loooooooooooong: http://tedlab.mit.edu/~dr/Papers/Rohde-MRCA-two.pdf

Skipping to the end it reads:

Although even the best of the current models has numerous
limitations and underconstrained parameters, efforts
were made to bias its design towards overly conservative
assumptions, skewing the results towards slower
coalescence of ancestral lineages. Nevertheless, the simulations
predict that we all share a common ancestor who
lived just 70–170 generations ago. A single ancestor living
thousands of years ago may have, individually, contributed
nothing at all to a modern person's genotype, and
the notion of a common ancestor is of little practical importance
as far as a geneticist might be concerned. Nevertheless,
ancestry is a concept that long predates genetics,
and the finding that everyone on earth today shares such
recent common ancestors may be, for many, a remarkable
and inspiring one. Indeed, we are all related.

 

[Me Myself]

You assume an awful lot.

:cover:

 

[Quagmire]

So in other words "Yes, I chose my versions of truth by preference rather than evidence (or conscience)". Thanks for clearing that up (not that you needed to).

I think Hitler used that as a means to justify his desire to exterminate inferior races.

So you're saying that in your world, the only two versions of human origins that there are to choose between are either the Bible's or Hitler's?

I suppose that's one way to make a literal reading of the Biblical version seem worthy: "Well, it sure beats Nazism".

Darwin worked well for him and Stalin, among others.

Where exactly does Darwin say that "each race evolved separately, on it's own"?

So far in this thread you've re-written the Bible, American History, and now the Origin of Species.


(waits patiently for one more passive/aggressive non-answer).

 

[camanintx]

I think Hitler used that as a means to justify his desire to exterminate inferior races. Darwin worked well for him and Stalin, among others.

Godwin's Law is proven right again. If someone used Relativity to justify detonating an atomic bomb, would that make Einstein wrong? Besides, Hitler banned Darwin's Origin of Species.

 

[javajo]

So in other words "Yes, I chose my versions of truth by preference rather than evidence (or conscience)". Thanks for clearing that up (not that you needed to).

No problem, glad I could clarify.

So you're saying that in your world, the only two versions of human origins that there are to choose between are either the Bible's or Hitler's?

Sure! (jk)

I suppose that's one way to make a literal reading of the Biblical version seem worthy: "Well, it sure beats Nazism".

Heck yeah!

Where exactly does Darwin say that "each race evolved separately, on it's own"?

Beats me.

So far in this thread you've re-written the Bible, American History, and now the Origin of Species.

Awesome!

(waits patiently for one more passive/aggressive non-answer).

I'm to passive to be aggressive. Peace.