Christians- How do you know Jesus and the Bible are true?

[joelr]

What is interesting is that, as Singer says, Psalm 22:16 does not appear in the New Testament. That does sounds as if "pierced" was the wrong translation or they would have used it, but it does not mean that the Psalm is not describing a crucifixion.
It is interesting that the Septuagint has "pierced" and not "like a lion". This has nothing to do with Christians. It could be that earlier Hebrew had "pierced". It could be that the mistake happened in the Septuagint and Christians have gone with that translation.

1 [For the end, concerning the morning aid, a Psalm of David.] 2 O God, my God,... PSALMS / ΨΑΛΜΟΙ21 - Bilingual Septuagint

www.ellopos.net

"Despite the tradition that it was perfectly translated, there are large differences in style and usage between the Septuagint’s translation of the Torah and its translations of the later books in the Old Testament. In the 3rd century CE Origen attempted to clear up copyists’ errors that had crept into the text of the Septuagint, which by then varied widely from copy to copy, and a number of other scholars consulted the Hebrew texts in order to make the Septuagint more accurate."

I don't know how much editing went on in the 3rd century, but this -

"Origen's LXX was revised and edited by two of his disciples, Pamphilus and Eusebius. "

suggests the text was changed to reflect what Christians wanted it to say.

THE GREEK SEPTUAGINT

 

[Kenny]

And yet.....
Were you under the assumption that you are the king of the world or just the forum, and we must strictly adhere to your every literal command?
Maybe you could use some of that energy to actually answer a question and provide some evidence for a change. Up to you of course, since I'm not the dictator of the threads.

Strawman and argumentative (I'm accustomed as well as others)

I answered. As I said, some was transcribed 3rd and 2nd century B.C. The authors are spoken of in legends, which are legends and generally not true.
There are different versions of scripture in the Septuagint as we see from letters of people around in the 2nd century. So the legends about who wrote it and that they are perfectly reliable are not true. By the 3rd century there were errors in copies of the Septuagint. The original OT is now unknown because modern translations use the The Masoretic Text from the 11th century.

A Brief History of the Septuagint

Joomla! - the dynamic portal engine and content management system

biblearchaeology.org

I think the Jewish translators knew Hebrew better than today's scholars... Psalms stands as written

 

[Brian2]

"Despite the tradition that it was perfectly translated, there are large differences in style and usage between the Septuagint’s translation of the Torah and its translations of the later books in the Old Testament. In the 3rd century CE Origen attempted to clear up copyists’ errors that had crept into the text of the Septuagint, which by then varied widely from copy to copy, and a number of other scholars consulted the Hebrew texts in order to make the Septuagint more accurate."

I don't know how much editing went on in the 3rd century, but this -

"Origen's LXX was revised and edited by two of his disciples, Pamphilus and Eusebius. "

suggests the text was changed to reflect what Christians wanted it to say.

THE GREEK SEPTUAGINT

Yes the LXX done after the Pentateuch is a bit of a mystery, but it seems that many of the OT quotes in the gospels are from the Septuagint and show what the Septuagint said in the first century.

 

[Brian2]

- The basic forms of worship of both the Jewish and Christian communities were heavily influenced in their formative period by Hellenistic practices, and this remains fundamentally unchanged to the present time. Finally, the central religious literature of both traditions—the Jewish Talmud (an authoritative compendium of law, lore, and interpretation), the New Testament, and the later patristic literature of the early Church Fathers—are characteristic Hellenistic documents both in form and content.

Your idea is that the Jewish worship was formed in the Hellenistic period. This is not true according to the Bible. The forms of worship were written 1000 years before at the time of Moses.

All other religions in that time and region were Hellenized with fictional savior deities. You need evidence to suggest this one is true. The evidence does not suggest that at all.
Why do you keep on with this? Again, Muslims will say the same "you seem to think the Quran isn't really a revelation from Gabrielle, if you just started with that then you would see it's true"........
Evidence please? Reason to start with an absurd and improbable starting point? Just because you accept a story as true does not mean it is or others should accept it as true? How hard is this to fathom???

I gave the evidence already that the gospel themes etc can be found in the OT, in writings that existed a long time before the Hellenistic or Persian period.
You can believe that or not but speculation that the Pentateuch and other parts of the OT were written under the influence of Persia or Greece is no more than speculation based squarely on the idea that supernatural writings are unlikely because you and other skeptics don't believe that sort of stuff.

The most wrong thing you have come up with so far.
Communion, baptism, dying/rising savior son/daughter of a supreme God, personal salvation through a savior deity to get to heaven.
In the OT heaven WAS ONLY FOR YAHWEH. There was NO AFTERLIFE. God as a man would have been never suggested, that is a Greek invention.

Henotheism: transforming / reinterpreting polytheism into monotheism. (Judaism introduced monolatric concepts.)
Individualism: agricultural salvation cults retooled as personal salvation cults. Salvation of community changed into personal individual salvation in afterlife. All original agricultural salvation cults were retooled by the time Christianity arose.
- Cosmopolitianism: all races, cultures, classes admitted as equals, with fictive kinship (members are all brothers) you now “join” a religion rather than being born into it

Savior deities who underwent a passion and obtain victory over death and share this victory with followers. Stories set on Earth.

A devil at war with God (that one is Persian). Judiasm had NONE of these religious aspects. NONE.

Again you are basing all this on the speculation that the OT was made up after the time the Bible suggests it was written.
As I said, the gospel can be seen in the OT and the OT was a Hebrew history and wisdom and all those things are found there.

Yes during the 2nd Temple Period while ruled by the Persians they began to incorporate the Persian theology. It shows up in David, Isaiah but mostly in the NT:

So you say that David is not a real person I presume, and that the story about him is made up in the 2nd Temple period.
OK you are entitled to believe speculation.

 

[Muffled]

In your opinion, you believe that they are mistaken.

It may not have ever crossed your mind that it's quite possible that you and other Christians are mistaken about what will happen in the afterlife.

I believe God does not make mistakes.

 

[Muffled]

No, not in a physical resurrection. It was a spiritual resurrection they believed in.

I don't believe false beliefs are helpful. It certainly puts the person in opposition to Gods plan which is a physical resurrection.

 

[Muffled]

The problem for some of us is that we don't know that the Bible or NT is true. However, in your opinion, do the gospels claim that Jesus was physically brought back to life? I think it does, but I doubt it really happened but, if God can do anything, then maybe.

I believe there is a continuity. Elijah raised a dead person in the Ot. Paul was reported raising a dead woman. In my time there was a report of a resurrection in Africa.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

I believe God does not make mistakes.

Well, I believe God does make mistakes, assuming he even exists. According to Genesis 6:6-7, God regretted creating not only mankind but also every animal, every creature that creeps on the ground, and the birds of the air. These verses suggest that God recognized his mistake in creating mankind and regretted it. One definition of the word regret is "to feel sorry, disappointed, distressed, or remorseful about." The Bible contains several other verses that mention God's regrets in addition to creating humanity, all animals, and birds (1 Samuel 15:11; 2 Samuel 24:16; Jeremiah 42:10). There are also scriptures that claim that God never changes, such as Numbers 23:19, which says, "God is not a man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind. Has he said it, and will he not do it? Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it?" And Malachi 3:6 says, "I the Lord do not change; therefore you, O children of Jacob, are not consumed." However, several other scriptures imply that God does change his mind (Jeremiah 18:5–10; Joel 2:13; Jonah 4:2), describe God changing his mind (Exodus 32:14; Amos 7:3, 6; Jonah 3:10), or assume that God will eventually change his mind (Jeremiah 26:3; Joel 2:14; Jonah 3:9).

Amos 7:3 "The Lord changed His mind about this. "It shall not be," said the LORD.

Amos 7:6 "The Lord changed His mind about this. "This too shall not be," said the Lord God.

Exodus 32:14 "So the Lord changed His mind about the harm that He said He would do to His people."

I believe that it is quite obvious that these multiple verses clearly contradict Numbers 23:19 and Malachi 3:6. The Bible also mentions God changing his mind about bringing disasters down on his own people as punishment for their transgressions against him (Jeremiah 26:13; 1 Chronicles 21:15; Joel 2:13).

For the record, Jeremiah 26:13, 1 Chronicles 21:15, and Joel 2:13 coincide with Isaiah 45:7 (NIV), which states, "I form the light and create darkness; I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the Lord, do all these things." The New King James uses the word "calamity" instead of "disaster," and the King James Version uses the word "evil." Personally, I believe that the term "evil" is more apt to characterize both God's actions and God himself.

It appears that God is incapable of learning from his own mistakes, even after expressing regret for creating humanity, the animals, every creature that creeps on the ground, and the birds in the air. After he threw a cosmic tantrum and wiped out all of humanity (with the exception of Noah and his family), he foolishly repopulated the world with the same kind of morally flawed humans he had just destroyed. Shouldn't an all-knowing and all-powerful God know better than to make the same mistake twice? However, despite being all-knowing and all-powerful, God did commit the same mistake twice, which, in my opinion, was either extremely irresponsible in terms of morality or God is a psychotic and sadistic monster who delights in cruelly punishing flawed humanity for acting precisely as he intended for humanity to behave. You would think that an all-knowing (Psalm 139:1-6; Isaiah 46:9–10; 1 John 3:20), all-powerful (Psalm 147:5; Job 42:2; Daniel 2:21), and ever-present (Psalm 139:7–10; Isaiah 40:12; Colossians 1:17) would know better than to make the same mistake twice, much less make a grave mistake once. For the record, in spite of my criticism of the Bible, I still take whatever it says with a grain of salt.

 

[Trailblazer]

I don't believe false beliefs are helpful. It certainly puts the person in opposition to Gods plan which is a physical resurrection.

I don't believe false beliefs are helpful. It certainly puts the person in opposition to Gods plan which is not a physical resurrection.

 

[CG Didymus]

I don't believe false beliefs are helpful. It certainly puts the person in opposition to Gods plan which is a physical resurrection.

I don't believe false beliefs are helpful. It certainly puts the person in opposition to God's plan which is what? Both physical resurrection Christians and spiritual resurrection Baha'is can't be right. One or both have a false belief. Since, I think, the NT clearly claims that Lazarus and others were brought back to life, and that it says that Jesus showed himself to be alive, if that's not true, then the NT is false.

But, if the NT is true, then the Baha'i Faith and their prophets are false. The Baha'is, however, try to have it both ways by saying that the resurrection was like a parable and meant to be taken symbolically. They claim that Christians misinterpreted it and thought the resurrection was literally true. I really, really don't think so. For me, it's either a hoax or it's true. But a symbolic parable? No.

 

[joelr]

Strawman and argumentative (I'm accustomed as well as others)

Uh, actually neither. Like I said - no evidence. Not only no evidence of supernatural happenings now no evidence of this rhetoric you claim?
Neither?

As to strawman, you gave me flack for providing sources on a question about the Greek OT.
I said:

"And yet.....
Were you under the assumption that you are the king of the world or just the forum, and we must strictly adhere to your every literal command?
Maybe you could use some of that energy to actually answer a question and provide some evidence for a change. Up to you of course, since I'm not the dictator of the threads."

Which was well deserved because I answered the question and added some source material. You didn't ask, but it's well understood this is an open forum and answers may take any liberty. It's certainly not something you come at someone rude like that over? You ignore the extra if you don't care.
So I called you out on that rude behavior. Not a strawman and not argumentative.
A response to this -

"
I'm not sure if it is just how you read something. I didn't ask "when", I didn't ask who constructed the entire crucifixion, I didn't ask where you get your sources from..................

I asked "WHO wrote the Septuagint".

I already answered and then I speak up for myself (it's pretty rude) and you call it argumentative? Once again, acting like the king of the world (you can tell me what to write in a response and I can't cll out a rude reply? Wow, now it's worse). But a king who doesn't know what a strawman is.

A Brief History of the Septuagint

Joomla! - the dynamic portal engine and content management system

biblearchaeology.org

I think the Jewish translators knew Hebrew better than today's scholars... Psalms stands as written

You just proved my point here with this link? There are obvious errors in the Septuagint so your above statement is demonstrably incorrect.

Isaiah 28:16 -- Another Septuagint Mistranslation​

Bible Errors - Isaiah 28:16 -- Another Septuagint Mistranslation

Isaiah 28:16 -- Another Septuagint Mistranslation https://www.jesuswordsonly.com/topicindex/568-isaiah-2816-another-septuagint-mistranslation.html The origin of the false teaching that we can say a sinner's prayer, not repent of sin, but confess belief alone and be justified and saved, is Paul's

sites.google.com

​

148 errors in Genesis and Exodus -​

Lay it to Heart - The Septuagint is Incorrect

The Septuagint is not the inspired, infallible, inerrant, preserved word of God. It has errors and is inaccurate.

www.layittoheart.com

Your Link -
"Later generations embellished the story. Philo of Alexandria, writing in the first century AD, says that each of the seventy-two translators were shut in a separate cell, and miraculously all the texts were said to agree exactly with one another, thus proving that their version was directly inspired by God."

"It is difficult to know how much credence to give to these accounts. There are several known historical inaccuracies in the Letter of Aristeas. "

Like I said. the original stories about authorship are known to be wrong because there are many errors.


"The original Septuagint translation of Daniel was thought to be too much of a paraphrase. It was replaced by another translation whose origins would seem to lie in Asia Minor, that ascribed to Theodotion at the end of the second century AD. Indeed, only one manuscript of the Septuagint of Daniel has survived - a tenth-century manuscript from the Chigi collection in the Vatican."




There is reason to believe the text they were using had errors:

Hebrew​

There are a number of words which are used in Hebrew for piercing the body: ratz‘a, to pierce, to bore with an awl (Exodus 21:6); dakar, to pierce (Zechariah 12:10, Isaiah 13:15); nakar, to pierce, to bore, to perforate (2 Kings 18:21). This last word is used in a very significant sense in the last verse cited: “It [the reed] will go into his hand and pierce it.” Any of these words would be far better suited for use in this passage than one that is generally used to denote digging the soil. In New Testament references to the crucifixion, we find: “They will look upon him whom they pierced [ekekentesan]” (John 19:37) and “those who pierced [ekekentesan] him” (Revelation 1:7). In both examples, the Greek verb is ekkenteo, “to pierce” and not the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew krh, orusso, “to dig” as for example in “dug in [oruxen] the ground” (Matthew 25:18).

The translator into the Septuagint Greek most likely had a defective Hebrew text before him that had dropped the ’aleph and had an extended yod which appeared to be a vav and so he read the text as krv. We can assume this because it is more likely that a scribe for some reason left out the letter ’aleph than that he inadvertently inserted one. In addition, confusion over whether a letter is a yod or vav is common. The Septuagint renders the controversial word into the Greek as oruxan, “they dug.” Indeed, the Septuagint consistently translated karu as oruxan wherever it was mentioned in that work. Only in Psalm 22 did Christian versions of the Bible render oruxan as “they pierced.” In all 5 citations of this word it was rendered “to dig.” Perhaps the translator of the Septuagint conflated this word at Psalm 22 with the thought “they dug their nails (claws) into me,” “they dug into my flesh,” or simply translated the text before him without b5ing to analyze it. In either case, neither the Hebrew nor the Greek words mean or justify the later Christian interpretative rendering, “they pierced.”

We must also consider that while there are some Hebrew verbs that have an ’aleph intrusion in some forms of the verb, there is no example of this occurring in the verb krh.4 Advocates of the Christian reading have no example of ’aleph intrusion into krh and can only point to verse 17b in trying to establish their case. This leaves their argument as mere speculation with absolutely no proof to support their allegation. The presence of the ’aleph in those verb forms where it appears may simply be orthographic variations reflecting variant dialect pronunciation in the Hebrew spoken in different parts of ’Eretz Yisrael that made their way into the biblical text but which are no longer discernible in Hebrew speech. In any case, the presence of the ’aleph makes the Christian position all the more dubious.

Chapter 37c - THE CRUCIFIXION OF JESUS AND PSALM 22

The incorrect spelling is most likely due to a defective manuscript, a similar error is found in the Septuagint reading.

jewsforjudaism.org

It looks very probable that the intended text is a story about Daniel and his enemies.

Even if all versions of the Hebrew said "pierced" how would this matter? Mark is clearly writing fiction, there are many lines of evidence to demonstrate this from many angles. All very probable, together there is no way it's not a fictive biography. We already know he constructed the crucifixion narrative from Psalms so if the word "pierced" was also in Psalms that would make sense. He already uses Psalms verbatim and is clearly constructing a fictive story using this text. So if he also got the word pierced from Psalms this would not be unusual. It seems he did not but that doesn't change much.

My post about how Mark wrote the narrative was to demonstrate some of this evidence. He isn't writing about an event. He's making up a story. You don't describe an event by borrowing a bunch of lines from Psalms, that is how fiction is written.

 

[joelr]

I think the Jewish translators knew Hebrew better than today's scholars... Psalms stands as written

Again, you have zero interest about what is actually true and only interest in anything that confirms your beliefs.

"
Even if the story given in the Letter of Aristeas were true, the Greek translation deals only with the first five books of the Old Testament. Most scholars note that there are differences in style and quality of translation within the LXX and assign a much greater time frame than the seventy-two days allotted in the Letter of Aristeas. In his book, Textual Criticism of the Old Testament: The Septuagint after Qumran, Ralph Klein notes, " the Letter of Aristeas is riddled with many historical improbabilities and errors. . .And yet, however legendary and improbable the details, many still believe that some accurate historical facts about the LXX can be distilled from Aristeas: (1) the translation began in the third century BC; (2) Egypt was the place of origin; and (3) the Pentateuch was done first." (p. 2).

Dr. F. F. Bruce correctly points out that, strictly speaking, the LXX deals only with the Law and not the whole Old Testament. Bruce writes, " The Jews might have gone on at a later time to authorize a standard text of the rest of the Septuagint, but . . . lost interest in the Septuagint altogether. With but few exceptions, every manuscript of the Septuagint which has come down to our day was copied and preserved in Christian, not Jewish, circles." (The Books and the Parchments, p.150). This is important to note because the manuscripts which consist of our LXX today date to the third century AD. Although there are fragments which pre-date Christianity and some of the Hebrew DSS agree with the LXX, the majority of manuscripts we have of the LXX date well into the Christian era. And, not all of these agree."

THE GREEK SEPTUAGINT

 

[joelr]

Yes the LXX done after the Pentateuch is a bit of a mystery, but it seems that many of the OT quotes in the gospels are from the Septuagint and show what the Septuagint said in the first century.

But these guys - Origen's LXX was revised and edited by two of his disciples, Pamphilus and Eusebius. " were 2nd century and known for editing text. They were responsible for making new copies, the only way was to re-write a text. So anything they felt didn't agree with their theology could be changed.

A lot of the Septuagint is correct, of course. The Sermon on the Mount is believed to have been written from the Septuagint.

 

[joelr]

Your idea is that the Jewish worship was formed in the Hellenistic period. This is not true according to the Bible. The forms of worship were written 1000 years before at the time of Moses.

There is no evidence any of that is true. All religions write stories that go back to the beginning of everything, Judaism is no different.
Abraham is considered a literary character as is Moses.
Early Judaism can be shown to be polytheism, around 1000-600 B.C. The Bible is a version of the religion elites thought it should be.

But I never said Jewish worship was formed in the Hellenistic period? That is a gross misunderstanding.
During the 2nd Temple Period when encountering the Persians we see Persian myths slowly creep in and Hellenism never makes it into the OT because it wasn't until the Greeks conquer Judea 332 - 110 B.C, then Greek ideas (Hellenism) flow into Judaism which become the now dead Hellenistic Judaism and then Christianity. The clip you were responding to said the NT was Hellenistic. Not the old Jewish stuff?

I gave the evidence already that the gospel themes etc can be found in the OT, in writings that existed a long time before the Hellenistic or Persian period.
You can believe that or not but speculation that the Pentateuch and other parts of the OT were written under the influence of Persia or Greece is no more than speculation based squarely on the idea that supernatural writings are unlikely because you and other skeptics don't believe that sort of stuff.

That is completely wrong.
There are many references. A good basic overview is -

2:26 One big influence, Persians, conquer Judea 539-332 B.C.


2:50 Persian religion, Zoroastrianism had ideas Judaism did not have but picked up.


- War of good God vs Evil God/light vs dark/ God vs Satan


- Bad people burn in hell, good people wait in heaven


- A river of fire will flow over the universe burning everything up (even hell itself)


- A new better world created in it’s place


- All good people will be resurrected by God to live in that new world happily ever after


More specific lectures from Yale Divinity can show Dr Collins the expert in Persian influence and the actual examples in scripture are available.

The Greek influence is the NT.
From the same video the basics are explained here:

5:26 Mystery cults, come from Greek religions. Every culture that was conquered by Greeks, Egyptians, Persians, Thracians, all took the Mystery cult theology and added it to their local religion and came up with the Mystery religions.


6:06 Basic Mystery cult, common features:


- Individuals “initiated” into the mysteries, ritually and by teaching sworn secrets about the universe. Something about the cosmos one needed to be saved, secrets. Many secrets are now lost.


- purpose was to gain salvation in the afterlife


- all use baptism and communion(communal meals)


- fictive kinship “brotherhood”


9:00 - Trends in Hellenistic religion


- Petra Pakkanen, Interpreting Early Hellenistic Religion (1996)


- Four big trends in religion in the centuries leading up to Christianity


- Christianity conforms to all four


9:16 Four Trends


- Syncretism: combining a foreign cult deity with Hellenistic elements. Christianity is a Jewish mystery religion.


- Henotheism: transforming / reinterpreting polytheism into monotheism. Judaism introduced monolatric concepts.


- Individualism: agricultural salvation cults retooled as personal salvation cults. Salvation of community changed into personal individual salvation in afterlife. All original agricultural salvation cults were retooled by the time Christianity arose.


- Cosmopolitianism: all races, cultures, classes admitted as equals, with fictive kinship (members are all brothers) you now “join” a religion rather than being born into it


12:34 Savior deities, dying/rising, pre-Christian, Osiris, Adonis, Romulus, Zalmoxis, Inanna (oldest 1700 B.C., female deity resurrected in 3 days)


13:32 Worship of Inanna was continued in Tyre during the origin of Christianity (Tyre is mentioned in Bible). Highly unlikely it’s a coincidence that a Jewish sect decided to build their own version of a dying/rising deity using the Jewish concepts of angels instead of Gods.


15:37 bad scholarship on internet, Horus not a dying/rising God. Mithras is also not. Mithras does undergo a passion, no death.


18:30 All Mystery religions have personal savior deities


- All saviors


- all son/daughter, never the supreme God (including Mithriasm)


- all undergo a passion (struggle) patheon


- all obtain victory over death which they share with followers


- all have stories set on earth


- none actually existed


- Is Jesus the exception and based on a real Jewish teacher or is it all made up?

21:00


Pagan /Jewish element, Judea-Pagan Syncretism


Pagan - Savior son of God


Jewish - Messianic resurrection cult


Pagan - Undergoes ordeal by which he obtains victory over death


Jewish - based on blood atonement theology (substitutionary sacrifice)


Pagan - which he shares with those initiated into his cult for individual salvation


Jewish - adapting Passover and Yom Kippur


Pagan - in a universal brotherhood


Jewish - first by circumsision, then without


Pagan - through a baptismal invitation and communal meal


Jewish - through a baptismal invitation and communal meal

23:36 was difficult to convert to Judaism, Paul made innovations to make it easier. Original Torah observant sect of Christianity became smaller and smaller and disappears around 5th century. Islam may be re-emergence of a lost version of this original Christian sect. Halal is basically Kosher.

25:54 “But Christianity is different”, that is how syncretism works.


27:00 mysteries


Elusinian Mysteries = Mycenaean + Hellenistic


Bacchic Mysteries = Phoenician + Hellenistic


Mysteries of Attis and Cybele = Phrygian + Hellenistic


Mysteries of Baal = Anatolian + Hellenistic


Mysteries of Mithras = Persian + Hellenistic


Mysteries of Isis and Osiris = Egyptian + Hellenistic


Christian Mysteries = Jewish + Hellenistic
28:00 Christian Pesher (combining disparate passages in scripture that reveals “hidden messages”)


29:15 examples of Pesher logic taken from Old Testament and used for Jesus


32:00 Baptism, Christian version is different from Jewish/John the Baptist version of baptism. Differences are the same in all mystery religions.


- symbolic sharing of saviors ordeal


- to be born again (Osiris cult)


- united into brotherhood


- to be saved in afterlife


- cleaned of sin (Bacchus, Osiris, Mithras)


- baptism for dead (Paul mentions this 1 Cor, 15: 29)

37:05 Eucharist in Mystery religions


- become one with savior


- to be united in brotherhood


- saved in afterlife


- Lords Supper


- Rememberence, flesh/blood/death, 1 Cor 11:24-26

Christian Lords Supper is distinct in Jewish ways

Then examples of proof that the NTt is using mystery terminology.

You keep ignoring these specific examples and using vague generalities that don't fit at all, as if you are just programmed to say the same thing over and over without explaining why any of this is wrong??

The Pentateuch is not Persian, not Greek, has no heaven, baptism, eucharist, communion or ANY of the things listed above??? You are talking nonsense?

 

[joelr]

Again you are basing all this on the speculation that the OT was made up after the time the Bible suggests it was written.
As I said, the gospel can be seen in the OT and the OT was a Hebrew history and wisdom and all those things are found there.

The OT only has some Persian additions. Persian thought showed up more in other Jewish writings and completely in th eNT.
Same with Greek theology.
I can get more deeply into where Persian influence arises in the OT.


"

Apocalypticism | Eschatology, End Times, Judgement Day | Britannica

Apocalypticism, eschatological (end-time) views and movements that focus on cryptic revelations about a sudden, dramatic, and cataclysmic intervention of God in history; the judgment of all men; the salvation of the faithful elect; and the eventual rule of the elect with God in a renewed heaven and

www.britannica.com

apocalypticism, eschatological (end-time) views and movements that focus on cryptic revelations about a sudden, dramatic, and cataclysmic intervention of God in history; the judgment of all men; the salvation of the faithful elect; and the eventual rule of the elect with God in a renewed heaven and earth. Arising in Zoroastrianism, an Iranian religion founded by the 6th-century-BC prophet Zoroaster, apocalypticism was developed more fully in Judaic, Christian, and Islāmic eschatological speculation and movements.





"The Origins of Jewish Apocalyptic Literature: Prophecy, Babylon, and 1 Enoch


the Book of Watchers, 1 Enoch 1-36, was written as a result of the Babylonian Exile and its authors syncretized the Hebrew prophetic books with Babylonian elements.


While there is ample evidence that Jewish apocalyptic literature draws from many wells from the cultural milieu of the ancient Mediterranean and Near East, the earliest, the Book of the Watchers (Enoch 1-36), seems to date from the Babylonian exile or shortly thereafter"


apocalyptic literature is from the Persians and the specialist is Dr John Collins. He has some lectures explaining where in scripture this is found. It is originally from the Persians.

So you say that David is not a real person I presume, and that the story about him is made up in the 2nd Temple period.
OK you are entitled to believe speculation.

It isn't speculation. It's peer-reviewed scholarship using facts, logic, critical analysis and so on. Why would I want to speculate when there are experts in the field? If I am sick should I speculate what is wrong? Should I take the law exam and plan to speculate the answers?
I feel if you really look at who you are listening to (clearly you know zero Biblical scholars) at church or Bible study you will find these people are the ones who are completely speculating in the dark and making assumptions based on what they want to be true rather than empirical evidence.
Despite your constant belittling, I care about what is true.

How We Know Daniel Is a Forgery​

How We Know Daniel Is a Forgery • Richard Carrier Blogs

Even the historicity of Daniel the man is dubious. Unlike other prophets, he has no patronymic, profession, or place of origin, and he first appears in historical records when “Ezekiel the priest, the son of Buzi, by the Kebar River in the land of the Babylonians” lists him with the legendary...

www.richardcarrier.info

Because whether mythical or not, this hero “existed” in Jewish literature to be “tapped” as a purported legendary author of the Book of Daniel itself. Is there any reason specific to that book to warrant our concluding it is a forgery? Yes. Quite a lot in fact. And here I’ll summarize that for you. Principal peer-reviewed sources I rely on in this article are C.L. Seow’s Daniel by Westminster Knox Press (2003) and John Collins’ Daniel by Fortress Press (1993), part of the excellent Hermeneia commentary series. See also The Book of Daniel: Composition and Reception, vols. 1 and 2 (Brill, 2002), edited by John Collins and Peter Flint. This is all mainstream scholarly consensus now. Only biblical fundamentalists and similarly desperate believers still hold out hope that Daniel was actually written by an actual Daniel when it purports to have been. Mainstream scholarship has long since left them behind.​

(Notice no mention of "it can't be real because supernatural things don't exist"....)

(John Collins is an excellent OT scholar. )


And a schooled apologist tries to argue the case

Debating the Authenticity of Daniel: Methodological Analysis of Sheffield’s Case​

BY RICHARD CARRIER ON SEPTEMBER 20, 20218 COMMENTS

Debating the Authenticity of Daniel: Methodological Analysis of Sheffield's Case • Richard Carrier Blogs

I shall here critically analyze Jonathan Sheffield’s new attempt to defend the authenticity of Daniel (which I published Saturday). We’ll then discuss it on MythVision this October 2 (10am PST / 1pm EST). Thoughtful or constructive comments are strongly encouraged on both this and Sheffield’s...

www.richardcarrier.info

I shall here critically analyze Jonathan Sheffield’s new attempt to defend the authenticity of Daniel (which I published Saturday). We’ll then discuss it on MythVision this October 2 (10am PST / 1pm EST). Thoughtful or constructive comments are strongly encouraged on both this and Sheffield’s entry.

 

[Brian2]

There is no evidence any of that is true. All religions write stories that go back to the beginning of everything, Judaism is no different.
Abraham is considered a literary character as is Moses.
Early Judaism can be shown to be polytheism, around 1000-600 B.C. The Bible is a version of the religion elites thought it should be.

So there is not evidence that it is true even if the Jewish history book tells us about it.
Better to believe skeptics and conspiracy theorists who make up histories about Israel and the Jews I guess, especially when ALL religions write stories that go back to the beginning and Judaism is no different and some people think that Abraham and Moses are literary characters.

But I never said Jewish worship was formed in the Hellenistic period? That is a gross misunderstanding.
During the 2nd Temple Period when encountering the Persians we see Persian myths slowly creep in and Hellenism never makes it into the OT because it wasn't until the Greeks conquer Judea 332 - 110 B.C, then Greek ideas (Hellenism) flow into Judaism which become the now dead Hellenistic Judaism and then Christianity. The clip you were responding to said the NT was Hellenistic. Not the old Jewish stuff?

It's not really a GROSS misunderstanding, it's just a wee error. What is a gross misunderstanding is to think that much of the Bible was made up in the Monarchical and Exilic and post Exilic periods and that the authors drew on things from Persian and other cultures. But that is what happens when you think the supernatural is rubbish and so the OT cannot be true, and when you think that Jesus did not exist and so the gospel was made up, drawing on the religions of other cultures and twisting what is written in the OT.

That is completely wrong.
There are many references.

Thanks for the references but none of it is true. We have been through it before.

You keep ignoring these specific examples and using vague generalities that don't fit at all, as if you are just programmed to say the same thing over and over without explaining why any of this is wrong??

The Pentateuch is not Persian, not Greek, has no heaven, baptism, eucharist, communion or ANY of the things listed above??? You are talking nonsense?

Yes I guess I do keep ignoring these specific examples. I hope you don't expect me to answer them all individually.
I just have to answer the same sort of stuff in the same way, as if I am programmed to say the same things over and over.
But I don't need to explain why any of it is true and I do say what I think about the evidence in general terms.
As far as I can see the OT was written at the general time that is suggested in the OT and has examples of the sorts of things that you deny exist in them.
As far as I can see only something like the flood story was written before the OT version and that just shows that the story is true.
As far as I can see the OT has most things before or as a similar time to when other religions are supposed to have had them iows they could have copied from the Hebrew ideas. Even Zoroaster's time of beginning is unknown and probably was after those the Hebrews had it's ideas.
BUT even if various religions had common themes that does not have to mean plagiarising.
Even if people/demigods died and sort of came back to life in various ways most as so vague that it means nothing in relation to Jesus and the gospel and the ideas certainly existed in the Hebrew writings before the Greeks or Persians turned up on the scene.
BUT all this does come from a view of the OT that is different to your view of it.

 

[Brian2]

The OT only has some Persian additions. Persian thought showed up more in other Jewish writings and completely in th eNT.
Same with Greek theology.
I can get more deeply into where Persian influence arises in the OT.

You can get into that more deeply, but why do that when I believe the Hebrew scriptures, with reference to angels and heaven and after life etc were there before the Persian period.

"The Origins of Jewish Apocalyptic Literature: Prophecy, Babylon, and 1 Enoch


the Book of Watchers, 1 Enoch 1-36, was written as a result of the Babylonian Exile and its authors syncretized the Hebrew prophetic books with Babylonian elements.


While there is ample evidence that Jewish apocalyptic literature draws from many wells from the cultural milieu of the ancient Mediterranean and Near East, the earliest, the Book of the Watchers (Enoch 1-36), seems to date from the Babylonian exile or shortly thereafter"


apocalyptic literature is from the Persians and the specialist is Dr John Collins. He has some lectures explaining where in scripture this is found. It is originally from the Persians.




It isn't speculation. It's peer-reviewed scholarship using facts, logic, critical analysis and so on. Why would I want to speculate when there are experts in the field? If I am sick should I speculate what is wrong? Should I take the law exam and plan to speculate the answers?
I feel if you really look at who you are listening to (clearly you know zero Biblical scholars) at church or Bible study you will find these people are the ones who are completely speculating in the dark and making assumptions based on what they want to be true rather than empirical evidence.
Despite your constant belittling, I care about what is true.

No doubt you care about what is true but there are plenty of scholars who disagree with Carrier.
To me the idea that Jesus did not exist is ridiculous, and Carrier's work seems to be based on the presumption that Jesus did not exist and wanting to see other things in history that point to that idea.
Apocalypical writing as a style seems to have begun in the Persian period and was used by the Jews in and after the Exile.
Zoroaster seems to have been an example of apocalyptic writing even if the religious ideas he used had been written before him by Jewish prophets and in other Jewish writings.

How We Know Daniel Is a Forgery​

How We Know Daniel Is a Forgery • Richard Carrier Blogs

Even the historicity of Daniel the man is dubious. Unlike other prophets, he has no patronymic, profession, or place of origin, and he first appears in historical records when “Ezekiel the priest, the son of Buzi, by the Kebar River in the land of the Babylonians” lists him with the legendary...

www.richardcarrier.info

Because whether mythical or not, this hero “existed” in Jewish literature to be “tapped” as a purported legendary author of the Book of Daniel itself. Is there any reason specific to that book to warrant our concluding it is a forgery? Yes. Quite a lot in fact. And here I’ll summarize that for you. Principal peer-reviewed sources I rely on in this article are C.L. Seow’s Daniel by Westminster Knox Press (2003) and John Collins’ Daniel by Fortress Press (1993), part of the excellent Hermeneia commentary series. See also The Book of Daniel: Composition and Reception, vols. 1 and 2 (Brill, 2002), edited by John Collins and Peter Flint. This is all mainstream scholarly consensus now. Only biblical fundamentalists and similarly desperate believers still hold out hope that Daniel was actually written by an actual Daniel when it purports to have been. Mainstream scholarship has long since left them behind.​

Daniel's origin was as a young man from the first exile by Nebuchadnezzar around 605 BC.

(Notice no mention of "it can't be real because supernatural things don't exist"....)

(John Collins is an excellent OT scholar. )


And a schooled apologist tries to argue the case

Debating the Authenticity of Daniel: Methodological Analysis of Sheffield’s Case​

BY RICHARD CARRIER ON SEPTEMBER 20, 20218 COMMENTS

Debating the Authenticity of Daniel: Methodological Analysis of Sheffield's Case • Richard Carrier Blogs

I shall here critically analyze Jonathan Sheffield’s new attempt to defend the authenticity of Daniel (which I published Saturday). We’ll then discuss it on MythVision this October 2 (10am PST / 1pm EST). Thoughtful or constructive comments are strongly encouraged on both this and Sheffield’s...

www.richardcarrier.info

I shall here critically analyze Jonathan Sheffield’s new attempt to defend the authenticity of Daniel (which I published Saturday). We’ll then discuss it on MythVision this October 2 (10am PST / 1pm EST). Thoughtful or constructive comments are strongly encouraged on both this and Sheffield’s entry.

I have not time to go thru the authenticity of Daniel, only to say that various people seem to have had a variety of names and it is easy to mix people up.

 

[Muffled]

I don't believe false beliefs are helpful. It certainly puts the person in opposition to Gods plan which is not a physical resurrection.

I believe you have a false god.

 

[Muffled]

I don't believe false beliefs are helpful. It certainly puts the person in opposition to God's plan which is what? Both physical resurrection Christians and spiritual resurrection Baha'is can't be right. One or both have a false belief. Since, I think, the NT clearly claims that Lazarus and others were brought back to life, and that it says that Jesus showed himself to be alive, if that's not true, then the NT is false.

But, if the NT is true, then the Baha'i Faith and their prophets are false. The Baha'is, however, try to have it both ways by saying that the resurrection was like a parable and meant to be taken symbolically. They claim that Christians misinterpreted it and thought the resurrection was literally true. I really, really don't think so. For me, it's either a hoax or it's true. But a symbolic parable? No.

I believe they have no evidence that it is a parable. That makes their view a fantasy or maybe they are going by the words of their non-prophet.

 

[Trailblazer]

I believe you have a false god.

I believe you have false beliefs about the non-resurrection.