Spice
StewardshipPeaceIntergityCommunityEquality
Are you familiar with the Lost Sayings Gospel Q? They appear to be the oldest set of Jesus sayings. 40-80 C.E.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Did Jesus Christ Actually Exist?
- Thread starter Comradio251
- Start date
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
Did Jesus Christ Actually Exist?
The mythical Jesus of Pauline-Christianity people (of dying/rising/ascending god/son of god, god in the flesh) never existed; but the real (Jesus)Yeshua son of Mary (Maryam)- the truthful Israelite Messiah who did not die on the Cross/Pole but died a natural death afterwards at the age of about 120 years, did exist , please, right?
Regards
The mythical Jesus of Pauline-Christianity people (of dying/rising/ascending god/son of god, god in the flesh) never existed; but the real (Jesus)Yeshua son of Mary (Maryam)- the truthful Israelite Messiah who did not die on the Cross/Pole but died a natural death afterwards at the age of about 120 years, did exist , please, right?
Regards
Please give a link to original text from that era (long before Jesus).
Even if we would believe your claims are true, it would be good to understand that Jesus said, he is not speaking his own, but he speaks as God has commanded him to speak.
Jesus therefore answered them, "My teaching is not mine, but his who sent me.
John 7:16
For I spoke not from myself, but the Father who sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.
John 12:49
Jesus repeated many things that God had made his prophets to speak also before Jesus. I don't think it is necessary to say all the words of Jesus are original, because lot of it is what God had already send to world earlier.
For example I think these indicate that God has many sons:
But as many as received him, to them he gave the right to be-come God’s children, to those who believe in his name: who were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
John 1:12-13
He who does righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous. He who sins is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. To this end the Son of God was revealed: that he might destroy the works of the devil. Whoever is born of God doesn’t commit sin, because his seed remains in him, and he can’t sin, because he is born of God. In this the children of God are revealed, and the children of the devil. Whoever doesn’t do righteousness is not of God, neither is he who doesn’t love his brother.
1 John 3:7-10
Why should they be mentioned? It is not necessary.
By what is said in the Bible, Jesus is not a deity.
By what I know, Greek believed in many gods and sons of gods, not just one.
I can accept that the idea many have about Jesus is very similar to the other alleged ideas. However, I think it is not the same as what is said in the Bible. And for me the main thing about Jesus is his words, not the ideas of how he died, or do other people call him god.
It seems to me that you are offering only your interpretation. Sorry, I don't think there is any good reason to accept it as the truth.
Sorry, I don't think there is anything substantial supporting your belief.
And it seems Zoroastrianism came from the influence of the Bible God, which would explain the similarities. It is possible that the same God has given similar ideas to many nations. And the similarities are not necessary the proof for copying.
joelr
Well-Known Member
Petra Pakken'swork is not considered "confirmation bias".
Petra Pakkanen, Interpreting Early Hellenistic Religion (1996)
- Four big trends in religion in the centuries leading up to Christianity
- Christianity conforms to all four
- 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
J.Z. Smith, James Tabor, Klause, who is arguing with the Hellenism specialists?
How about quoting one scholar again and again? Did you really just say that while quoting Litwa for the 3rd time?
joelr
Well-Known Member
Yes, I believe Mark Goodacre has put Q to bed. His work strongly suggests Q is not needed.
The Case Against Q: A Synoptic Problem Web Site by Mark Goodacre
This Synoptic Problem Web Site is the home page for Q sceptics. It expounds the Farrer Theory, which maintains Markan Priority but dispenses with Q. Its author, Mark Goodacre is Lecturer in New Testament at the University of Birmingham, United Kingdom.
markgoodacre.org
joelr
Well-Known Member
This is what we have:
Carrier, OHJ;
The Romulus tale is widely attested as pre-Christian. Plutarch is writing c. 80-120 CE, is recording a long-established Roman tale and custom, and his sources are unmistakenly pre-Christian; Cicero, Laws 1.3, Republic 2.10, Livy, From the Founding of the City 1.16.2-8 (1.3-1.16 relating the whole story of Romulus); Ovid, Fasti 2.491-512 and Metamorphoses 14.805-51; and Dionysis of Halicarnassus, Roman Antiquities 2.63.3 (1.71-2.65 relating the whole story of Romulus); Cassius Dio, Roman History 56.46.2.
The story was even acknowledged by Christians: Tertullian, Apology 21.
Are you actually asking for original text when the earliest copy of Mark is a fragment from late 2nd or early 3rd century, Papyrus 137 is an early Greek fragment of the New Testament??????? The earliest. Not one historian ever would suggest Romulus, a tale widely known before 0 AD, was made up after the Gospels? Again, Tertullian, Apology 21, he acknowledged it. All of these historical writings are pre-Christian.
As usual you are making things up with zero evidence. It's like you are trying really hard to make a myth into a real history.
joelr
Well-Known Member
My face hurts, from face palming, over and over.
"My claims". Are the Gospels "your claims"? No. Historical claims are from historical sources. Now you doubt Rabbi Hillel????????
He is a huge part of Jewish history,
Hillel the Elder - Wikipedia
Oh no, I cannot help it. face. palm. You mean the book makes that claim. As the Quran makes the claim Muhammad speaks the words of God. As the Mormon Bible makes the claim Smith speaks the words of god. Same with J.W.s, same with Hindu text, same with every religion ever.
Doesn't make it real. I cannot believe your source is "the book says so".
Oh no, you are actually giving the words, as if the author cannot possibly make stuff up, like every revelation EVER.
Muhammad also said his words are from God, given through Gabrielle. Smith said the words are from God through Moroni.
Evidence......none. Evidence it's a blend of old myths, plenty.
There is no God, you have not demonstrated any God. You have a book that makes claims. Like the Quran and Hindu scriptures.
The older wisdom material in the OT is similar to Mesopotamian and Egyptian wisdom. Nnot original.
The Book of Proverbs
Book of Proverbs - Wikipedia
The book is an anthology made up of six discrete units. The Proverbs of Solomon section, chapters 1–9, was probably the last to be composed, in the Persian or Hellenistic periods. This section has parallels to prior cuneiform writings.[19] The second, chapters 10–22:16, carries the superscription "the proverbs of Solomon", which may have encouraged its inclusion in the Hebrew canon. The third unit, 22:17–24:22, is headed "bend your ear and hear the words of the wise". A large part of this section is a recasting of a second-millennium BCE Egyptian work, the Instruction of Amenemope, and may have reached the Hebrew author(s) through an Aramaic translation. Chapter 24:23 begins a new section and source with the declaration, "these too are from the wise". The next section at chapter 25:1 has a superscription to the effect that the following proverbs were transcribed "by the men of Hezekiah", indicating at face value that they were collected in the reign of Hezekiah in the late 8th century BCE. Chapters 30 and 31 (the "words of Agur," the "words of Lemuel," and the description of the ideal woman) are a set of appendices, quite different in style and emphasis from the previous chapters.[20]
The "wisdom" genre was widespread throughout the ancient Near East, and reading Proverbs alongside the examples recovered from Egypt and Mesopotamia reveals the common ground shared by international wisdom.[21]
It says THE son of god was revealed. The rest is clearly metaphorical language. Where does it say every son is born of Yahweh and a virgin, has magic power, will die and resurrect and get followers into heaven?
You are now comparing the average follower as being the same as Jesus, the Greek savior deity? Complete insanity?
Because messianism became popular and there is only one son of god, the messiah. It's a Persian myth adopted by the Hebrews.
Belief in a world Saviour
An important theological development during the dark ages of 'the faith concerned the growth of beliefs about the Saoshyant or coming Saviour. Passages in the Gathas suggest that Zoroaster was filled with a sense that the end of the world was imminent, and that Ahura Mazda had entrusted him with revealed truth in order to rouse mankind for their vital part in the final struggle. Yet he must have realized that he would not himself live to see Frasho-kereti; and he seems to have taught that after him there would come 'the man who is better than a good man' (Y 43.3), the Saoshyant. The literal meaning of Saoshyant is 'one who will bring benefit' ; and it is he who will lead humanity in the last battle against evil.c and so there is no betrayal, in this development of belief in the Saoshyant, of Zoroaster's own teachings about the part which mankind has to play in the great cosmic struggle. The Saoshyant is thought of as being accompanied, like kings and heroes, by Khvarenah, and it is in Yasht r 9 that the extant Avesta has most to tell of him. Khvarenah, it is said there (vv. 89, 92, 93), 'will accompany the victorious Saoshyant ... so that he may restore 9 existence .... When Astvat-ereta comes out from the Lake K;tsaoya, messenger of Mazda Ahura ... then he will drive the Drug out from the world of Asha.' This glorious moment was longed for by the faithful, and the hope of it was to be their strength and comfort in times of adversity.
Just as belief in the coming Saviour developed its element of the miraculous, so, naturally, the person of the prophet himself came to be magnified as the centuries passed. Thus in the Younger Avesta, although never divinized, Zoroaster is exalted as 'the first priest, the first warrior, the first herdsman ... master and judge of the world' (Yt 13. 89, 9 1), one at whose birth 'the waters and plants ... and all the creatures of the Good Creation rejoiced' (Y t 13.99). Angra Mainyu, it is said, fled at that moment from the earth (Yt 17. 19); but he returned to tempt the prophet in vain, with a promise of earthly power, to abjure the faith of Ahura Mazda (Vd 19 .6
Really, because Paul seems to think he resurrected in a new spiritual body, undescribable. Not physical like the Persian/Jewish version. That is the Hellenistic resurrection, a spirit body.
Making him a deity.
In Classical Greek religion.In Hellenistic religion it was about a savior figure.
-his led to a change from concern for a religion of national prosperity to one for individual salvation, from focus on a particular ethnic group to concern for every human. The prophet or saviour replaced the priest and king as the chief religious figure.
Each persisted in its native land with little perceptible change save for its becoming linked to nationalistic or messianic movements (centring on a deliverer figure)
Perfect.
“But Christianity is different”, that is exactly how syncretism works. There are always subtle changes in every mystery. It's never the same.
What is the same:
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)
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
joelr
Well-Known Member
Unless you have evidence, I do not care what beliefs you hold. I care about what is true.
Here, Satan is not an enemy of Yahweh.
In 2 Samuel 24,[18] Yahweh sends the "Angel of Yahweh" to inflict a plague against Israel for three days, killing 70,000 people as punishment for David having taken a census without his approval.[19] 1 Chronicles 21:1[20] repeats this story,[19] but replaces the "Angel of Yahweh" with an entity referred to as "a satan".[19]
Yahweh once again gives Satan permission to test Job. Not emenies.
And in this lecture we get the same, more evidence,
The Invention of Hell
39:50 No heaven or developed concept of afterlife. Abraham is promised to be the father of many nations not eternal life. Then sleeps with ancestors in Sheol.
44:20
Greek Hellenism/2nd Temple Judaism/Persian ideas
48:12
Dualism is from Persian religion - heaven/hell, God/devil and from Greek religion
Abraham was happy with prosperity, not an afterlife
1:00:30
Christian hell is a hybrid of Greek and Persian influence.
and:
During the Second Temple Period, when Jews were living in the Achaemenid Empire, Judaism was heavily influenced by Zoroastrianism, the religion of the Achaemenids.[35][9][36] Jewish conceptions of Satan were impacted by Angra Mainyu,[9][37] the Zoroastrian spirit of evil, darkness, and ignorance.
The idea of Satan as an opponent of God and a purely evil figure seems to have taken root in Jewish pseudepigrapha during the Second Temple Period,[39] particularly in the apocalypses
There are entire books on the development of Satan by experts. Elaine Pagels is one and mirrors all this information.
You can ignore evidence, scholars presenting it, I do not care. I care about who has the actual evidence. You do not. Denial is not evidence.
You said that. It's your go-to when you have nothing to say but still cannot accept what is clearly true. When you have counter evidence let me know. Denial is not counter-evidence.
I'll just post more evidence from another scholar.
The Iranian Impact on Judaism
excerpted from N. F. Gier, Theology Bluebook, Chapter 12
The central ideas of heaven and a fiery hell appear to come directly from the Israelite contact with Iranian religion. Pre-exilic books are explicit in their notions the afterlife: there is none to speak of. The early Hebrew concept is that all of us are made from the dust and all of us return to the dust. There is a shadowy existence in Sheol, but the beings there are so insignificant that Yahweh does not know them. The evangelical writer John Pelt reminds us that “the inhabitants of Sheol are never called souls (nephesh).”4
Saosyant, a savior born from Zoroaster's seed, will come and the dead shall be resurrected, body and soul. As the final accounting is made, husband is set against wife and brother against brother as the righteous and the damned are pointed out by the divine judge Saosyant. Personal and individual immortality is offered to the righteous; and, as a final fire melts away the world and the damned, a kingdom of God is established for a thousand years.7 The word paradis is Persian in origin and the concept spread to all Near Eastern religions in that form. “Eden” not “Paradise” is mentioned in Genesis, and paradise as an abode of light does not appear in Jewish literature until late books such as Enoch and the Psalm of Solomon.
Satan as the adversary or Evil One does not appear in the pre-exilic Hebrew books. In Job, one of the very oldest books, Satan is one of the subordinate deities in God's pantheon. Here Satan is God's agent, and God gives him permission to persecute Job. The Zoroastrian Angra Mainyu, the Evil One, the eternal enemy of God, is the prototype for late Jewish and Christian ideas of Satan. One scholar claims that the Jews acquired their aversion to homosexuality, not present in pre-exilic times, to the Iranian definition of the devil as a Sodomite.8
In 1 Chron. 21:1 (a book with heavy Persian influences), the Hebrew word satan appears for the first time as a proper name without an article. Before the exile, Satan was not a separate entity per se, but a divine function performed by the Yahweh's subordinate deities (sons of God) or by Yahweh himself. For example, in Num. 22:22 Yahweh, in the guise of mal'ak Yahweh, is “a satan” for Balaam and his ***. The editorial switch from God inciting David to take a census in 2 Sam 24:1, and a separate evil entity with the name “Satan” doing the same deed in 1 Chron. 21:1 is the strongest evidence that there was a radical transformation in Jewish theology. Something must have caused this change, and religious syncretism with Persia is the probable cause. G. Von Rad calls it a “correction due to religious scruples” and further states that “this correction would hardly have been carried out in this way if the concept of Satan had not undergone a rather decisive transformation.”............
Nope. The Persian expert Mary Boyce puts the Persian myths at ~
between 1 700 and 1 500 B.C.
The Bible didn't mention one single Persian belief until after they had been in Israel for centuries. It goes beyond "similarities".
Messianism, a final battle at the end of times where god defeats the devil and all followers bodily resurrect on a paradise on earth. God gives frewill so people can choose to do good or bad, the supreme god is uncreated.
The Persians had a myth. It doesn't become true because Israel borrowed it. Your hard denial is understandable. The only other choice is to admit your beliefs are wrong. I was taken aback as well. Making up a convoluted history that Yahweh (even though he said other nations were bad) was actually being their god with a different name. And even though his "people" was Israel, he was giving the true secrets, that later became doctrine in the Bible, to the Persians instead of his own people.
Yeah, that is a convoluted mess.
But you still haven't given evidence for God. Yahweh in the early OT was a typical Near Eastern deity, a warrior deity at that. Very typical sayings and actions, even fought the leviathan like other older Mesopotamian deities.
Evidence here:
Dr. Francesca Stavrakopoulou, Professor of Hebrew Bible and Ancient Religion at the University of Exeter,
Francesca Stavrakopoulou PhD
9:00
The idea that the Israelite religion was extraordinary and different from religions of surrounding religions and cultures and this deity is somehow different and extraordinary and so this deity is wholly unlike all other deities in Southeast Asia. Historically this is not the case. Nothing unusual or extraordinary about Yahweh.
9:44 - Biblical ideas are based on ideas that Yahweh was unique. Nothing unique, find examples in much earlier religions, Yahweh is a local iteration of common deities
So now, he acts like a typical deity of the time, tells the real stuff to the Persians, never admits this, but they borrow the Persian myths and change Judaism. Until Hellenism comes along and a radical change happens. So he seemed to like the Greeks as well a whole lot more and gave them all the NT theology.
Total mess. OR, it's just syncretism, like every religion ever. That is what the evidence demonstrates. Feel free to demonstrate this god you speak of. He;s a warrior, then when Greek/Persian ideas say god is not seen and a spirit, suddenly Yahweh is not seen and a spirit. Wow, what a coincidence.
Exodus 15:3:
Yahweh is a man of war;
Yahweh is his name.
Isaiah 42:13:
Yahweh goes forth like a mighty man;
like a man of war(s) he stirs up his fury.
Zephaniah 3:17: Yahweh, your God, is in your midst,
a warrior who gives victory.
Psalm 24:8:
Who is the King of Glory?
Yahweh, strong and mighty;
Yahweh, mighty in battle.
In these passages Yahweh is explicitly called a warrior or directly compared to a warrior. If one
moves out from simple designations to actual functioning, the metaphor or image is even more
extensively present. Yahweh is the subject of many verbs that belong to the sphere of warfare
Last edited:
Augustus
…
That’s not a reply to what I said:
You haven’t actually addressed it yet, so not much point in giving you something else.
You quote Litwa when you think it suits, but pointedly ignore what he says when it goes against your preferences.
As he is a scholar who highlights common tropes but does not try to force temporally and geographically diverse figures into excessively reified categories I’m interested in why you think he is wrong.
Spice
StewardshipPeaceIntergityCommunityEquality
After browsing you link, I'll say, I think it goes without question that the Gospel of Mark was the foundation of Matthew and Luke. However, the only two documents known to be earlier are the Passion Narrative and Gospel Q. Q may only be in fragments, but those fragments certainly correlate with Mark.
You seem to accept that kind of evidence when it is supporting your beliefs.
My point was to show why all the words of Jesus are not original in Biblical point of view. He is speaking the same as what God has made His prophets to speak many times earlier. I can understand if you don't believe that he really said what he said, but it was not the point.
Is what you give and expect people to believe you.
"Angel of Yahweh" is not necessary the Satan.
It seems to me that you mix up opinions with evidence.
If something is not in the books we know, it does not mean it didn't exist.
But didn't you say paradise means garden, which Eden obviously is? I think the idea comes from Genesis.
joelr
Well-Known Member
It is but I can be more precise. You seem to be claiming, based on Litwa that certain cat
Tactic. Pretend like I'm the one not answering so you just cannot possibly give more information.
Where did I quote Litwa?
Where do I ignore what he says? In fact where does he state the mystery religions are not really a thing? What he's talking about is gathering information to assume Jesus is entirely mythical.
I don't have to ignore that, I already said I have no idea about that. What the heck are my "preferences."? Do you even know?
First, I never said he's wrong. It seems you are twisting his words to fit your agenda actually. While accusing me of doing it.
What I did comment on is the factthat you said this:
"Just quoting the same few scholars again and again doesn’t make them any more authoritative."
and then quoted the same scholar over and over. Even worse you quote Litwa as if he's the final word. But, on a subject I don't even care about. This entire response is out in left field.
joelr
Well-Known Member
Goodacre is the expert, I have heard several scholars say his work is the most informative on this issue.
He gives 10 reasons why he feels the evidence points to Q being a made-up document. I cannot argue against them.
- The Legacy of Scissors-and-Paste Scholarship
Q belongs to another age, an age in which scholars solved every problem by postulating another written source. The evangelists were thought of as 'scissors and paste' men, compilers and not composers, who edited together pieces from several documents. Classically, the bookish B. H. Streeter solved the synoptic problem by assigning a written source to each type of material - triple tradition was from Mark; double tradition was from 'Q'; special Matthew was from 'M' and special Luke was from 'L'. Most scholars have since dispensed with written 'M' and 'L' sources. The time has now come to get up-to-date, and to dispense with Q too.
joelr
Well-Known Member
Please give me an example of where I say "the book says it's true, so it must be true".
Why is it so hard to fathom that historical knowledge is based on evidence? No historian is saying "I feel this is true because a holy spirit is speaking through me".
No historian is saying "this is true because a supernatural entity, angel or whatever, came to me and told me directly, and wants me to tell everyone else".
No historian is saying "this is true because an unknown author, who isn't an eye-witness wrote a story with things that normally we would never believe but in this case, we believe it's true, for no reason except it makes us happy".
Which gives MORE EVIDENCE to the fact that the authors were just copying older text from the tradition. Because we have NO EVIDENCE of gods, angels or anything supernatural. So the reasonable explanation is they copied from older sources. And here you are admitting it.
What are you responding to by quoting ""is probably"?
If it's what I think then that is hilarious. Because your entire religion is based on claims, wishful thinking and so on. All of the evidence says it's like all other folk tales, syncretic mythology. And you think someone else can't make judgments based on probability?
Which is super hypocritical because you also would use such logic and expect to make perfect sense.
Like, Zeus, is probably a myth.
Thor, is probably a made-up storm deity.
Mormonism and the updates on Christianity, are probably not true.
Islam is probably, not the true words from God.
Are you following along? Do you see how that works?
Your stories are the same. Without special pleading, wishful, magical thinking, they are probably made up folk tales as well.
The way to tell is by evidence. Of which you have none. So maybe think twice before you attack a common sense phrase as if it means without mathematical proof we cannot know anything.
You are demonstrating how apologetics, twists, changes the topic, deflects, and does all sorts of tap-dancing to avoid basic logic.
joelr
Well-Known Member
Besides it's obviously the same character, it doesn't matter because he sends Satan to do THE EXACT SAME THING. If Yahweh sent Satan twice or one time, he still sent him on an errand or killing 70,0000 people. Including children, babies, elderly.
Then you are detached from reality and I'm interested in what is true, not what delusions people hold.
The Hebrew writings describe Satan. It's not the Persian devil.
The Persian religion is dated far older than Judaism, occupied Israel and over the next few centuries we see the Persian version of Satan being to apply to the Hebrew Satan. There is no hell in Judaism. No evil opposing force. The Persians had it. Hebrews did not. Then after a few centuries we see direct evidence of Persian myths enter the late OT books.
I gave you 2 seminars by John Collins at the Yale Divinity Lectures. A writeup by Grier and several other scholars who study this for a living.
They say things based on the best evidence. You are not going to allow your mind to accept this. Doesn't matter.
You haven't given one single shred of counter evidence.
"That the Jews were influenced by Persian beliefs is the most obvious explanation of the facts, not only the notion of resurrection (and mold it to their own faith), but they also picked up the idea of a firery hell and an eschatological war between good and evil (re-cast as God and Satan). These are fundamental to Zoroastriansim- the entire religion is founded on them, unlike Judaism, which is not. And these beliefs are described in the very pre-Christian reports from Theopompus that Holding himself cites from Plutarch and that I cite from Laertius, so it's impossible they could have come to Zoroastrianism from Christianity. Yet these are also absent from the Old Testament prior to the Persian exile. Indeed, even in the early postexilic text of Job, Satan is still an angel in the service of God, and God alone is the ultimate author of evil."
Can't come from Christianity, not in the OT, Yahweh created and is in charge of evil in the OT. From every angle the evidence is clear.
If something is not in the books and then the Persians invade and suddenly all the radical Persian differences appear in the Hebrew version, borrowing has happened. Then, all new changes appear, already in the Greek religions, and suddenly are in the Jewish version of the new Greek religions.
This is syncretism. Not exactly the same.
Also Persian doctrine is attested in Greek sources as early as the 4th century BCE. Is identified as Persian (not Jewish), which also attests for this conclusion.
You know they didn't speak English right? What you think doesn't mean anything as you don't do evidence, don't care about truth, so of course you are just going to assume the story you believe is all true and original. Truth doesn't work that way. It's not always the comfortable choice.
One of the places they heard Genesis myths from , the Assyrians, the Assyrian inscriptions idinu (Accadian, edin) means "plain" and it is from this that the Biblical word is probably derived.
The name Eden is of Hebrew origin meaning "place of pleasure." In the bible, Eden is God's garden of paradise for Adam and Eve.
"The Enuma Elish would later be the inspiration for the Hebrew scribes who created the text now known as the biblical Book of Genesis. Prior to the 19th century CE, the Bible was considered the oldest book in the world and its narratives were thought to be completely original. In the mid-19th century CE, however, European museums, as well as academic and religious institutions, sponsored excavations in Mesopotamia to find physical evidence for historical corroboration of the stories in the Bible. These excavations found quite the opposite, however, in that, once cuneiform was translated, it was understood that a number of biblical narratives were Mesopotamian in origin.
Famous stories such as the Fall of Man and the Great Flood were originally conceived and written down in Sumer, translated and modified later in Babylon, and reworked by the Assyrians before they were used by the Hebrew scribes for the versions which appear in the Bible.
Both Genesis and Enuma Elsih are religious texts which detail and celebrate cultural origins: Genesis describes the origin and founding of the Jewish people under the guidance of the Lord; Enuma Elish recounts the origin and founding of Babylon under the leadership of the god Marduk. Contained in each work is a story of how the cosmos and man were created. Each work begins by describing the watery chaos and primeval darkness that once filled the universe. Then light is created to replace the darkness. Afterward, the heavens are made and in them heavenly bodies are placed. Finally, man is created.
The Epic of Atraḥasis is the fullest Mesopotamian account of the Great Flood, with Atraḥasis in the role of Noah. It was written in the seventeenth century BCE
- The supreme god Enlil's decision to extinguish mankind by a Great Flood
- Atraḥasis is warned in a dream
- Enki explains the dream to Atraḥasis (and betrays the plan)
- Construction of the Ark
- Boarding of the Ark
- Departure
- The Great Flood"
Spice
StewardshipPeaceIntergityCommunityEquality
Yes, I did a quick read of your source, but there are other experts. There were 2 others that agree with Goodacre, but that doesn't make it "fact." So I greatly disagree that "The time has now come to get up-to-date, and to dispense with Q too." I think it's very worthwhile to continue investigating.
Information on the Lost Sayings Gospel Q
According to the Two Source Hypothesis accepted by a majority of contemporary scholars, the authors of Matthew and Luke each made use of two different sources: the Gospel of Mark and a non-extant second source termed Q. The siglum Q derives from the German word "Quelle," which means "Source." Q primarily consists of the "double tradition" material, that which is present in both Matthew and Luke but not Mark. However, Q may also contain material that is preserved only by Matthew or only by Luke (called "Sondergut") as well as material that is paralleled in Mark (called Mark/Q overlaps). Although the temptation story and the healing of the centurion's son are usually ascribed to Q, the majority of the material consists of sayings. For this reason, Q is sometimes called the Synoptic Sayings Source or the Sayings Gospel. Some scholars have observed that the Gospel of Thomas and the Q material, as contrasted with the four canonical gospels, are similar in their emphasis on the sayings of Jesus instead of the passion of Jesus.Arguments in favor of the Two Source Hypothesis can be found in the essay on The Existence of Q.
On the matter of whether Q was written, Tuckett writes (The Anchor Bible Dictionary, v. 5, p. 568): "The theory that Q represents a mass of oral traditions does not account for the common order in Q material, which can be discerned once Matthew's habit of collecting related material into his large teaching discourses is discounted (Taylor 1953, 1959). Such a common order demands a theory that Q at some stage existed in written form."
The existence of the scriptures are the evidence for the "supernatural".
It is not a fact that someone copied, it is your belief that is based on assumption that if people write similar things, it must mean they copy. Similarity doesn't necessary mean someone has copied, because it is possible people get similar ideas by other ways.
People have so poor imagination that I think it is more likely there was really something that caused the stories about Zeus and Thor.
Depends on what are the "updates".
If the words are the words in Quran, by what I know, it brings nothing new to what is already said in the Bible, if understood correctly.