Did Jesus Christ Actually Exist?

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

No I said Krishna is the deity who is on Earth. Brahman in Advaita Vedanta is more than just God, he is the ultimate reality and all consciousness.

When you say Brahman is more than just God, you have to first define what is the meaning of God. As far as I can understand the biblical God and the Quranic Allah are all ultimate reality and all consciousness Just as Brahman. We have created a false sense of ego by thinking that our concept is somehow superior when actually it is the same as those of others
Also, when you say that Krishna is the deity who is on earth, the question arises that whether he is the only deity or Rama was also a deity, Swayambhu Manu was also a deity, Brahma was also a deity, Moses was also a deity, Muhammad also a deity. So, we have to be more circumspect in making glorious claims.

 

[joelr]

If you would go by the evidence, you would say you don't know.

That is absurd, I have given you several examples of evidence from historians and archaeologists work. Again, denial doesn't counter evidence.

I think it is wrong to make baseless accusations.

Sure is. Except I'm using the consensus of all historical scholars, and can direct you to places they provide compelling evidence. Someday (never) when you actually watch it, you will see some evidence. There is plenty more.


Seams and Sources: Genesis 5-11 and the Historical-Critical Method

25:15 Gilgamesh flood story, Sumerian flood story comparisons


26:21 - there are significant contrasts as well between the Mesopotamian flood story and it’s Israelite ADAPTATION. Israelite story is purposely rejecting certain motifs and giving the opposite or an improved version (nicer deity…)



Professor Christine Hayes of Yale University -


Yale Divinity lectures


Seams and Sources: Genesis 5-11 and the Historical-Critical Method

10:45 snake in Eden is a standard literary device seen in fables of this era


(10:25 - snake not Satan, no Satan in Hebrew Bible)





14:05 acceptance of mortality theme in Eden and Gilamesh story





25:15 Gilgamesh flood story, Sumerian flood story comparisons


26:21 - there are significant contrasts as well between the Mesopotamian flood story and it’s Israelite ADAPTATION. Israelite story is purposely rejecting certain motifs and giving the opposite or an improved version (nicer deity…)





36:20 2 flood stories in Genesis, or contradictions and doublets.


Yahweh/Elohim, rain/cosmic waters flowing,





40:05 two creation stories, very different. Genesis 1 formalized, highly structured


Genesis 2 dramatic. Genesis 1 serious writing style, Genesis 2 uses Hebrew word puns.


Genesis 1/2 use different terms for gender


Genesis 1/2 use different names, description and style for God





Both stories have distinctive styles, vocabulary, themes, placed side by side. Flood stories are interwoven.


Genesis to 2nd Kings entire historical saga is repeated again in Chronicles.

I think your argument is like a man saying, "after walking 500 miles, I conclude earth is 500 miles wide".

Nope, it's not at all like that. It's like seeing that Genesis is constructed from several earlier myths and re-worked to make Yahweh seem like a "better" deity. But what you "think" is not of use because you cannot provide evidence. It's the opinion of a non-historian who knows nothing about the fields.

But it's also proven through intertextuality and taught in all historical textbooks in University courses.

These are all peer-reviewed PhD textbooks/monographs,


John Collins, Introduction to the Hebrew Bible 3rd ed.
“Biblical creation stories draw motifs from Mesopotamia, Much of the language and imagery of the Bible was culture specific and deeply embedded in the traditions of the Near East.
2nd ed. The Old Testament, Davies and Rogerson
“We know from the history of the composition of Gilamesh that ancient writers did adapt and re-use older stories……
It is safer to content ourselves with comparing the motifs and themes of Genesis with those of other ancient Near East texts.
In this way we acknowledge our belief that the biblical writers adapted existing stories, while we confess our ignorance about the form and content of the actual stories that the Biblical writers used.”
The Old Testament, A Historical and Literary Introduction to the Hebrew Scriptures, M. Coogan
“Genesis employs and alludes to mythical concepts and phrasing, but at the same time it also adapts transforms and rejected them”
God in Translation, Smith
“…the Bibles authors fashioned whatever they may have inherited of the Mesopotamian literary tradition on their own terms”
THE OT Text and Content, Matthews, Moyer
“….a great deal of material contained in the primeval epics in Genesis is borrowed and adapted from the ancient cultures of that region.”

The Formation of Genesis 1-11, Carr
“The previous discussion has made clear how this story in Genesis represents a complex juxtaposition of multiple traditions often found separately in the Mesopotamian literary world….”
The Priestly Vision of Genesis, Smith
“….storm God and cosmic enemies passed into Israelite tradition. The biblical God is not only generally similar to Baal as a storm god, but God inherited the names of Baal’s cosmic enemies, with names such as Leviathan, Sea, Death and Tanninim.”

Is there some mystery in Bible? What it is?

You don't even know what "mystery religion" means. It's not a mystery. It means it's a cult that uses specific
Greek theology and conceives the religion in mystery terms. The NT does just this.

Mysteries in scripture


1C. 4:1 We are entrusted with the mysteries God has revealed


R. 11:25 (Do not) be ignorant of this mystery


R. 16:25 (the) message I proclaim about Jesus Christ is in keeping with the revelation of the mystery hidden for long ages past but now revealed


1C. 2:6, 7 (We) speak a message of wisdom among the mature….(and) declare God’s wisdom, a. Mystery that has been hidden


1C. 15:51 Listen I will tell you a mystery: we will not all sleep, but we will all be changed


1C. 3:1-2 I could not address you as people who live by the spirit but as people who are still worldly - mere infants in Christ. I gave you milk, not solid food, for you were not ready for it. Indeed, you are still not ready. (Milk and solid food is mystery cult terminology)


H. 5:13-14 Anyone living on milk, being still an infant, is not acquainted with the teaching about righteousness. But solid food is for that mature. (Clearly conceiving the religion in mystery terms)


Mark 4:11-12 (Jesus) told them, “The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables, so (they won’t understand)”


Dead giveaway Mark is conceiving the teachings in mystery cult terms

Only if one does not know what is said in the Bible.

Great, please tell me which one doesn't describe the NT?

Changes made from Hellenism to all local religions, including Judaism.


-the seasonal drama was homologized to a soteriology (salvation concept) concerning the destiny, fortune, and salvation of the individual after death.


-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.


-his process was carried further through the identification of the experiences of the soul that was to be saved with the vicissitudes of a divine but fallen soul, which had to be redeemed by cultic activity and divine intervention. This view is illustrated in the concept of the paradoxical figure of the saved saviour, salvator salvandus.



-Other deities, who had previously been associated with national destiny (e.g., Zeus, Yahweh, and Isis), were raised to the status of transcendent, supreme




-The temples and cult institutions of the various Hellenistic religions were repositories of the knowledge and techniques necessary for salvation and were the agents of the public worship of a particular deity. In addition, they served an important sociological role. In the new, cosmopolitan ideology that followed Alexander’s conquests, the old nationalistic and ethnic boundaries had broken down and the problem of religious and social identity had become acute.



-Most of these groups had regular meetings for a communal meal that served the dual role of sacramental participation (referring to the use of material elements believed to convey spiritual benefits among the members and with their deity)


-Hellenistic philosophy (Stoicism, Cynicism, Neo-Aristotelianism, Neo-Pythagoreanism, and Neoplatonism) provided key formulations for Jewish, Christian, and Muslim philosophy, theology, and mysticism through the 18th century


- 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.


-Other traditions even more radically reinterpreted the ancient figures. The cosmic or seasonal drama was interiorized to refer to the divine soul within man that must be liberated.


-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)


-and apocalyptic traditions (referring to a belief in the dramatic intervention of a god in human and natural events)


- Particularly noticeable was the success of a variety of prophets, magicians, and healers—e.g., John the Baptist, Jesus, Simon Magus, Apollonius of Tyana, Alexander the Paphlagonian, and the cult of the healer Asclepius—whose preaching corresponded to the activities of various Greek and Roman philosophic missionaries

 

[joelr]

I am sure you can't found there even one real contradiction. If you disagree, please show the biggest contradiction you can find.

Jesus Interrupted – Revealing The Hidden Contradictions In The Bible And Why We Don’t Know About Them Bart D. Ehrman : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

Bart D. Ehrman

archive.org

pg 23:

This is an illustration of discrepancies within the New Testament that I frequently use with my students. 2 It is a “textbook case” be¬ cause both Mark and John give explicit indications of when Jesus dies. And he dies at different times, depending on which Gospel you read.

Mark was probably the first Gospel to be written. Scholars have long thought that it was produced about thirty-five or forty years after Jesus’ death, possibly around 65 or 70 CE. S The first ten chapters of Mark are about Jesus’ public ministry in Galilee, the northern part of Israel, where he teaches, heals the sick, casts out demons, and confronts his Jewish opponents, the Pharisees. At the end of his life he makes a journey to Jerusalem in order to celebrate the Jewish feast of Passover; while he is there he is arrested and crucified (chap¬ ters 11—16).

To make sense of Mark’s dating of the crucifixion (and of John’s, for that matter), I need to provide some important background in¬ formation. In the days of Jesus, the Passover, held annually, was the most important Jewish festival. It was instituted to commemorate the events of the Exodus that had occurred centuries earlier, in the t
ime of Moses, as recounted in the Old Testament book of Exodus (Exodus 5—15). According to that account, the children of Israel had been enslaved in Egypt for four hundred years, but God heard their cries and raised up for them a savior, Moses. Moses was sent to the Pharaoh and demanded, speaking for God, that he “let my people go.” But the Pharaoh had a hard heart and refused. In order to persuade him, God empowered Moses to send ten horrible plagues against the Egyptians, the last of which was the most awful: every firstborn Egyptian child and animal would be killed by the angel of death.

The Israelites were given instructions to avoid having their own children slain. Each family was to sacrifice a lamb, take some of its blood, and spread it on the doorposts and lintel of the house where they lived. Then, when the angel of death arrived that night, he would see the blood on the door and “pass over” that Israelite house, moving on to houses without the blood, to murder a firstborn child. And so it happened. Pharaoh was struck to the heart, and in anguish he let the Israelites (600,000 men, plus the women and children) leave his land. But after they set out, he had a change of heart, marshaled his army, and chased after them. He tracked them down at the Red Sea—called the “Sea of Reeds” in Hebrew—but God performed yet another miracle, allowing Moses to part the waters of the sea so the Israelites could cross on dry land. When the Egyp¬ tian armies followed in chase, God caused the waters to return and drowned the whole lot of them.

And so Israel was saved from its slavery in Egypt. God com¬ manded Moses that from that time onward the Israelites were to commemorate this great event by a special meal, the annual Passover celebration (Exodus 12). In Jesus’ day, Jews from around the world would come to Jerusalem to celebrate the event. On the day before the celebratory meal was eaten, Jews would bring a lamb to the Jerusalem Temple, or more likely purchase one there, and have it slaughtered by the priests. They would then take it home to prepare the meal. This happened on the Day of Preparation for the Passover.
Now the only confusing aspect of this celebration involves the way ancient Jews told time—the same way modern Jews do. Even today the “Sabbath” is Saturday, but it begins on Friday night, when it gets dark. That is because in traditional Judaism the new day begins at nightfall, with the evening. (That’s why, in the book of Genesis, when God creates the heavens and the earth, we’re told that “there was evening and morning, the first day”; a day consisted of night and day, not day and night.) And so the Sabbath begins Friday night—and in fact every day begins with nightfall.

And so, on the Day of Preparation the lamb was slaughtered and the meal was prepared in the afternoon. The meal was eaten that night, which was actually the beginning of the next day: Passover day. The meal consisted of a number of symbolic foods: the lamb, to commemorate the original slaughter of the lambs in Exodus; bitter herbs, to remind the Jews of their bitter slavery in Egypt; unleav¬ ened bread (bread made without yeast) to remind them that the Israelites had to flee from Egypt without much warning, so that they could not wait for the bread to rise; and several cups of wine. The Passover day, then, began with the evening meal and lasted ap¬ proximately twenty-four hours, through the morning and afternoon of the next day, after which would begin the day after Passover.

Now we can return to Mark’s account of Jesus’ death. Jesus and his disciples have made a pilgrimage to Jerusalem for the Passover feast. In Mark 14:12, the disciples ask Jesus where they are to prepare the Passover meal for that evening. In other words, this is on the Day of Preparation for Passover. Jesus gives them instructions. They make the preparations, and when it is evening—the beginning of Passover day—they have the meal. It is a special meal indeed. Jesus takes the symbolic foods of the Passover and imbues them with yet more symbolic meaning. He takes the unleavened bread, breaks it, and says, “This is my body.” By implication, his body must be broken for salvation. Then after supper he takes the cup of wine and says, “This is my blood of the covenant, that is poured out for many” (Mark 14:22—25), meaning that his own blood must be shed.
After the disciples eat the Passover meal they go out to the Garden of Gethsemane to pray. Judas Iscariot brings the troops and performs his act of betrayal. Jesus is taken to stand trial before the Jewish au¬ thorities. He spends the night in jail, and the next morning he is put on trial before the Roman governor, Pontius Pilate, who finds him guilty and condemns him to death by crucifixion. We are told that he is crucified that same day, at nine o’clock in the morning (Mark 15:25). Jesus, then, dies on the day of Passover, the morning after the Passover meal was eaten.

All this is clear and straightforward in Mark’s Gospel, but despite some basic similarities, it is at odds with the story told in the Gospel of John, which is also clear and straightforward. Here, too, Jesus goes to Jerusalem in the last week of his life to celebrate the Passover feast, and here, too, there is a last meal, a betrayal, a trial before Pilate, and the crucifixion. But it is striking that in John, at the beginning of the account, in contrast to Mark, the disciples do not ask Jesus where they are “to prepare the Passover.” Consequently, he gives them no in¬ structions for preparing the meal. They do eat a final supper together, but in John, Jesus says nothing about the bread being his body or the cup representing his blood. Instead he washes the disciples’ feet, a story found in none of the other Gospels (John 13:1—20).

After the meal they go out. Jesus is betrayed by Judas, appears before the Jewish authorities, spends the night in jail, and is put on trial before Pontius Pilate, who finds him guilty and condemns him to be crucified. And we are told exactly when Pilate pronounces the sentence: “It was the Day of Preparation for the Passover; and it was about noon” (John 19:14).

Noon? On the Day of Preparation for the Passover? The day the lambs were slaughtered? How can that be? In Mark’s Gospel, Jesus lived through that day, had his disciples prepare the Passover meal, and ate it with them before being arrested, taken to jail for the night, tried the next morning, and executed at nine o’clock a.m. on the Passover day. But not in John. In John, Jesus dies a day earlier, on the Day of Preparation for the Passover, sometime after noon.

 

[joelr]

I am sure you can't found there even one real contradiction. If you disagree, please show the biggest contradiction you can find.

Pt 2:

I do not think this is a difference that can be reconciled. People over the years have tried, of course. Some have pointed out that Mark also indicates that Jesus died on a day that is called “the Day of Preparation” (Mark 15:42). That is absolutely true—but what these readers fail to notice is that Mark tells us what he means by this phrase: it is the Day of Preparation “for the Sabbath” (not the Day of Preparation for the Passover). In other words, in Mark, this is not the day before the Passover meal was eaten but the day before Sabbath; it is called the day of “preparation” because one had to pre¬ pare the meals for Saturday on Friday afternoon.

And so the contradiction stands: in Mark, Jesus eats the Passover meal (Thursday night) and is crucified the following morning. In John, Jesus does not eat the Passover meal but is crucified on the day before the Passover meal was to be eaten. 4 Moreover, in Mark, Jesus is nailed to the cross at nine in the morning; in John, he is not con¬ demned until noon, and then he is taken out and crucified.

Some scholars have argued that we have this difference between the Gospels because different Jews celebrated Passover on different days of the week. This is one of those explanations that sounds plau¬ sible until you dig a bit and think a bit more. It is true that some sec¬ tarian groups not connected with the Temple in Jerusalem thought that the Temple authorities followed an incorrect calendar. But in both Mark and John, Jesus is not outside Jerusalem with some sec¬ tarian group of Jews: he is in Jerusalem, where the lambs are being slaughtered. And in Jerusalem, there was only one day of Passover a year. The Jerusalem priests did not accommodate the calendrical oddities of a few sectarian fringe groups.

What is one to make of this contradiction? Again, on one level it seems like a rather minor point. I mean, who really cares if it was one day or the next? The point is that Jesus got crucified, right?

Well, that is both right and wrong. Another question to ask is not “Was Jesus crucified?” but also “What does it mean that Jesus was crucified?” And for this, little details like the day and time actu¬ ally matter. The way I explain the importance of such minutiae to
my students is this: When, today, a homicide is committed, and the police detectives come in to the crime scene, they begin searching for little scraps of evidence, looking for the trace of a fingerprint or a strand of hair on the floor. Someone might reasonably look at what they are doing and say, “What’s wrong with you? Can’t you see that there’s a dead body on the floor? Why are you snooping around for a fingerprint?” Yet sometimes the smallest clue can lead to a solution of the case. Why, and by whom, was this person killed? So, too, with the Gospels. Sometimes the smallest piece of evidence can give important clues about what the author thought was really going on.

I can’t give a full analysis here, but I will point out a significant feature of John’s Gospel—the last of our Gospels to be written, probably some twenty-five years or so after Mark’s. John is the only Gospel that indicates that Jesus is “the lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.” This is declared by John the Baptist at the very beginning of the narrative (John 1:29) and again six verses later (John 1:35). Why, then, did John—our latest Gospel—change the day and time when Jesus died? It may be because in John’s Gospel, Jesus is the Passover Lamb, whose sacrifice brings salvation from sins. Exactly like the Passover Lamb, Jesus has to die on the day (the Day of Preparation) and the time (sometime after noon), when the Passover lambs were being slaughtered in the Temple.

In other words, John has changed a historical datum in order to make a theological point: Jesus is the sacrificial lamb. And to convey this theological point, John has had to create a discrepancy between his account and the others.”

This preliminary study of just one small discrepancy can lead us to several conclusions that I will be stating more forcefully at the end of the chapter.

• There are discrepancies in the books of the New Testament.

• Some of these discrepancies cannot be reconciled.


There are many many more, some worse.

 

[joelr]

The fault is:
1) Older found is not necessary the oldest.

In this case they are dated older, their are writings from other sources showing they are older, examples already given. Historians and writers of the time period. You buy a complete myth and now you challenge historians? Absurd. Yet another fallacy.

2) The dating of scriptures can be wrong.

You haven't debunked all forms of dating. But this material is widely known through historians, leaders and all writings of the time.

Even the Encyclopaedia Biblica : a critical dictionary of the literary, political, and religious history, the archaeology, geography, and natural history of the Bible by Cheyne, T. K. (Thomas Kelly), 1841-1915; Black, J. Sutherland (John Sutherland), 1846-1923. admits this is Hellenism found in the NT.

You have ZERO evidence.

3) People can have similar ideas without copying.

It is impossible there were that many ideas, Yahweh never mentioned, then suddenly all the Greek theology shows up. But you are already defeated, Judaism has a widely known offshoot called Hellenistic Judaism, where Judaism was combined with Greek religion.
It didn't survive. But Christianity is likely the remains of this group.

Please give me evidence of any speculation. So far you have lost every exchange with denial, and speculation.

4) Similarity doesn't mean that the matter is not true.

souls going to heaven from a resurection of a magic being is fantasy. You need massive evidence to demonstrate it's anything but a myth. That doesn't exist.
You bought into a myth.

The reason why I believe it is more likely that people copied from Jesus those things is that there is only the external matters, not the internal matters. With internal matters I mean the teachings of Jesus. All what you list are actually meaningless, without the deeper ideas. The greatness of Jesus comes from what he said. Romulus doesn't seem to have any meaningful teachings, which is why I think he is not the paragon of Jesus.

I didn't give teachings of Romulus. Just an outline of the similarities.

The internal teachings were already in Judaism, being taught by Hillell. I already gave the examples. Another loss.

Apparently you didn't read my answers.

Yes, no evidence, denial, guesses and refusal to accept reality. Sorry, you have no case whatsoever. And now, after ignoring ALL of my evidence you have the nerve to say I didn't read your answers. The irony and hypocritical attitude is beyond belief.


Hillel (Hebrew: הִלֵּל Hīllēl; variously called Hillel the Elder, Hillel the Great, or Hillel the Babylonian;[1][2] died c. 10 CE) was a Jewish religious leader, sage and scholar associated with the development of the Mishnah and the Talmud and the founder of the House of Hillel school of tannaim. He was active during the end of the first century BCE and the beginning of the first century CE.[3]

He is popularly known as the author of three sayings:[4]

• "If I am not for myself, who will be for me? And being for myself, what am I? And if not now, when?"
• "That which is hateful to you, do not do unto your fellow. That is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation;[a] go and learn."
• "Be of the disciples of Aaron, loving peace and pursuing peace, loving mankind and drawing them close to the Torah."

The Golden Rule​

[edit]
The comparative response to the challenge of a prospective convert who asked that the Torah be explained to him while he stood on one foot, illustrates the character differences between Shammai and Hillel. Shammai dismissed the man. Hillel gently chided the man: "What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow: this is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn."[21] This rule is commonly called the Golden Rule, which has been practiced by a wide range of peoples, and through Christianity, the Enlightenment Age and Kant's categorical imperative is practised to this day.

Love of peace​

[edit]
The exhortation to love peace emanated from Hillel's most characteristic traits—from that proverbial meekness and mildness—as in the saying: "Let a man be always humble and patient like Hillel, and not passionate like Shammai".[22] Hillel's gentleness and patience are illustrated in an anecdote that describes how two men made a bet on the question of whether Hillel could be made angry. Though they questioned him and made insulting allusions to his Babylonian origin, they were unsuccessful.[22]

Obligations to self and others​

[edit]
From the doctrine of man's likeness to God, Hillel deduced man's duty to care for his own body. According to Midrash Leviticus rabbah he said "As in a theater and circus the statues of the king must be kept clean by him to whom they have been entrusted, so the bathing of the body is a duty of man, who was created in the image of the almighty King of the world." In this work, Hillel calls his soul a guest upon earth, toward which he must fulfill the duties of charity.

In Avot, Hillel stated "If I am not for myself, who is for me? And being for my own self, what am 'I'? And if not now, when?"[23] The third part contains the admonition to postpone no duty, the same admonition he gave with reference to study: "Say not, 'When I have free time I shall study'; for you may perhaps never have any free time."[24]

The precept that one should not separate oneself from the community, Hillel paraphrases (referencing Ecclesiastes 3:4) in the following saying: "Appear neither naked nor clothed, neither sitting nor standing, neither laughing nor weeping."[25] Man should not appear different from others in his outward deportment; he should always regard himself as a part of the whole, thereby showing that love of man Hillel taught. The feeling of love for one's neighbor shows itself also in his exhortation (Avot 2:4).

How far his love of man went may be seen from an example that shows that benevolence must be given with regard to the needs of the poor. Thus, Hillel provided a riding horse to a man of good family who became poor, in order that he not be deprived of his customary physical exercise; he also gave him a slave, that he might be served.[26

 

[joelr]

The consensus has been many times wrong. I rather take solid evidence and proof.

1) Please show me where the consensus in historical scholarship was wrong.

2) If you would rather take solid evidence and proof why do you believe a magic myth based on anecdotal evidence and stories? So that is actually not true at all. Unless you give different logic to your religion which is special pleading and a fallacy.

I think those claims show person doesn't know the Bible.

Right, Biblical scholars, Sanders, Wright and Lincoln don't know the Bible. This is obviously the case of a fundamentalist not knowing history.

Plus, the Bible doesn't SAY what and where it copied, that isn't how it works, so even saying this is an issue about knowing the Bible is fallacious. You are not even wrong.
These scholars understand where the theology of the Bible was borrowed from. Sorry, it's a syncretic mythology.

Biblical idea is that unrighteous will die and righteous will live. That idea comes from the beginning of the Bible. I don't think it is later addition.

And what does the line actually say?

only in Hellenistic times (after c. 330 BCE) did Jews begin to adopt the Greek idea that it (Hell) would be a place of punishment for misdeeds, and that the righteous would enjoy an afterlife in heaven

Are you so blinded by belief that you cannot even see they are talking about the idea of hell as a place of punishment?

I get the feeling you don't read my answers,

I respond directly to your answers. But I have been noticing you have not looked at any evidence. And commenting on it. And guess what? Now you are using more of my words against me. You cannot even come up with an original argument. Weak.

but I want to say again, similar ideas doesn't necessary mean they are copied.

They are far more than similar. Even the apologetic, fundamentalist -

Encyclopaedia Biblica : a critical dictionary of the literary, political, and religious history, the archaeology, geography, and natural history of the Bible, admitted to this. Sorry, you lose.

There is a good Biblical reason to think Persians were affected by Bible God

Scholars can show where the first influences show up in the Bible.

You haven't demonstrated any God whatsoever. You demonstrated a book of claims. Every nations had that. None are real and can be shown to be real.
The early writings have none of this but do copy Mesopotamian, Near Eastern actions, sayings of gods and Yahweh does all of them. He is a warrior, fights a Leviathan, all bodyparts described, walks with people.

The Persian additions didn't come until after.

So you have no good reason. Denial and speculation don't count. Please source some scholarship.

and that could explain why Persians also had similar ideas.

Sure, show me a scholar who does historical work who finds this possible.

I gave you Grier, Boyce and Collins. I don't care about random amateur speculations that are obviously bias, not based in reality but trying to save a belief system.



Doctrines taken from Persia into Judiasm.






fundamental doctrines became disseminated throughout the region, from Egypt to the Black Sea: namely that there is a supreme God who is the Creator; that an evil power exists which is opposed to him, and not under his control; that he has emanated many lesser divinities to help combat this power; that he has created this world for a purpose, and that in its present state it will have an end; that this end will be heralded by the coming of a cosmic Saviour, who will help to bring it about; that meantime heaven and hell exist, with an individual judgment to decide the fate of each soul at death; that at the end of time there will be a resurrection of the dead and a Last Judgment, with annihilation of the wicked; and that thereafter the kingdom of God will come upon earth, and the righteous will enter into it as into a garden (a Persian word for which is 'paradise'), and be happy there in the presence of God for ever, immortal themselves in body as well as soul. These doctrines all came to be adopted by various Jewish schools in the post-Exilic period, for the Jews were one of the peoples, it seems, most open to Zoroastrian influences - a tiny minority, holding staunchly to their own beliefs, but evidently admiring their Persian benefactors, and finding congenial elements in their faith. Worship of the one supreme God, and belief in the coming of a Messiah or Saviour, together with adherence to a way of life which combined moral and spiritual aspirations with a strict code of behaviour (including purity laws) were all matters in which Judaism and Zoroastrianism were in harmony; and it was this harmony, it seems, reinforced by the respect of a subject people for a great protective power, which allowed Zoroastrian doctrines to exert their influence. The extent of this influence is best attested, however, by Jewish writings of the Parthian period, when Christianity and the Gnostic faiths, as well as northern Buddhism, all likewise bore witness to the profound effect: which Zoroaster's teachings had had throughout the lands of the Achaernenian empire.

1st Persian influence on Judaism


Cyrus' actions were, moreover, those of a loyal Mazda-worshipper, in that he sought to govern his vast new empire justly and well, in accordance with asha. He made no attempt, however, to impose the Iranian religion on his alien subjects - indeed it would have been wholly impractical to attempt it, in view of their numbers, and the antiquity of their own faiths - but rather encouraged them to live orderly and devout lives according to their own tenets. Among the many anarya who experienced his statesmanlike kindness were the Jews, whom he permitted to return from exile in Babylon and to rebuild the temple in Jerusalem. This was only one of many liberal acts recorded of Cyrus, but it was of particular moment for the religious history of mankind; for the Jews entertained warm feelings thereafter for the Persians, and


this made them the more receptive to Zoroastrian influences. Cyrus • himself is hailed by 'Second Isaiah' (a nameless prophet of the Exilic period) as a messiah, that is, one who acted in Yahweh's name and with his authority. 'Behold my servant whom I uphold' (Yahweh himself is represented as saying). '(Cyrus) will bring forth justice to the nations. . . . He will not fail . . . till he has established justice in the earth' (Isaiah 42. I, 4). The same prophet celebrates Yahweh for the first time in Jewish literature as Creator, as Ahura Mazda had been celebrated by Zoroaster: 'I, Yahweh, who created all things ... I made the earth, and created man on it .... Let the skies rain down justice ... I, Yahweh, have created it' (Isaiah 44.24, 45. 8, 12). The parallels with Zoroastrian doctrine and scripture are so striking that these verses have been taken to represent the first imprint of that influence which Zoroastrianism was to exert so powerfully on postExilic Judaism.




Mary Boyce


EVIDENCE.

 

[joelr]

They are experts who have studied related areas for decades. Yet basically none of them have thought his existence was significantly in doubt based on their studies.

Nope, no one did a historicity study since 1926. Carrier was th efirst to do so in modern times. He found there were many assumptions that didn't hold up.

No. Most agree that Christianity is a product of its time and place. Whether it should be classified as a "mystery religion" is debatable.

It's not.


Mysteries in scripture


1C. 4:1 We are entrusted with the mysteries God has revealed


R. 11:25 (Do not) be ignorant of this mystery


R. 16:25 (the) message I proclaim about Jesus Christ is in keeping with the revelation of the mystery hidden for long ages past but now revealed


1C. 2:6, 7 (We) speak a message of wisdom among the mature….(and) declare God’s wisdom, a. Mystery that has been hidden


1C. 15:51 Listen I will tell you a mystery: we will not all sleep, but we will all be changed


1C. 3:1-2 I could not address you as people who live by the spirit but as people who are still worldly - mere infants in Christ. I gave you milk, not solid food, for you were not ready for it. Indeed, you are still not ready. (Milk and solid food is mystery cult terminology)


H. 5:13-14 Anyone living on milk, being still an infant, is not acquainted with the teaching about righteousness. But solid food is for that mature. (Clearly conceiving the religion in mystery terms)


Mark 4:11-12 (Jesus) told them, “The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables, so (they won’t understand)”


Dead giveaway Mark is conceiving the teachings in mystery cult terms


Milk, being an infant, solid food/milk, all terms used to describe the mystery cults.

Whether similarities are a result of direct causation/imitation, parallel development or simply reflect common cultural tropes is very debated.

Hellenism is from 300 BCE. The Greeks invaded in 167 BCE. The experts on Hellenism are not debating. It influenced Christianity.

Hellenistic influences say nothing meaningful about the existence of Jesus though. Gods could be both real people of entirely mythical.

So?

There are countless stories based on the "heroes journey" archetype. That simply reflects common tropes. Many authors will not even be consciously using the structure, let alone deliberately copying any particular example of it.

I know.

Countless fantasy stories with mining dwarves, elegant elves, magical artefacts and other common tropes.

Yes, they don't use Persian messianic expectation and Hellenism combined with Judaism. That is the NT.

Once things become common tropes, you cannot assume anyone using them is directly copying any other specific text that uses them.

There is enough evidence Mark used Romulus. The Persian/Hellenism thing isn't debated.

Once things become part of a common culture, we can identify examples of things which draw from the same cultural wellspring, but assuming there must be causative relations between any specific examples is fallacious.

Dr Tabor doesn't think so, and he used evidence. Please explain where Tabor is "fallacious". Far more than causative relations. It's literal; copying. All the nations that the Greek colonists occupied took the SAME beliefs and made a mystery religion. Christianity is the Jewish version.

Death and Afterlife: The Origins of the Idea of Bodily Resurrection


Dr. James D. Tabor

1:25 In the Hellenistic period we see large changes as Greek ideas are added into Jewish theology.


2:20 Platonic concept - the human body is a prison for the soul, humans are immortal, the departed soul goes to Hades the realm of the dead. “I am a child of earth and starry heaven but heaven alone is my home”.


This idea is shifted into Jewish thought in the Hellenistic period.


Above - divine, immortal, eternal, unchanging, imperishable


Below - human, mortal, temporary, transient, perishable



4:33 Cicero, Republic 6:


“Do you indeed strive and see that it is not you, but your body, that is mortal; for you are not the man that your human form reveals; but the soul of each man is his real self, not the human figure which the eye can see….”


This is pure Hellenistic dualism.


7:00 this is the idea that “took over the world”


12:00 Very common epitaph, Non fun, fun, non sum, no curo. I was not, I was, I am not, I don’t care.


Appears so often it was initialed - NFNN

No. He's simply inventing probabilities that reflect his own opinions. These probabilities are made up.

Now you are making things up. He explains how he arrived using math. You can skip the book, I don't care if you are interested in truth or not.

He is outlining his thinking same as any argument that doesn't assign subjective personal probabilities to unique events that have no innate probabilistic foundations.

Bayes theorem can be applied to history.

There are 3 issues I know of where Carrier is out of step with an overwhelming scholarly consensus (Hitler’s religious views, the history of science and Mythicism) and out of step in exactly a manner that matches his ideological beliefs.

Why do you keep shifting back to mythicism?
I'm using Carrier's book to show the assumptions made are not as strong as once thought. You refuse to investigate. I don't care.
But now you are making it clear you know nothing about his or Latasters work. Even worse you are inventing things. Go live in a fantasy world, I do not care.

If we are assigning probabilities, the odds certainly don’t favour him being correct and the diverse experts of all ideological persuasions being wrong.

Sigh. You really have no clue what you are talking about.

But you really want to go there. Ok.
Please explain why each assumption Carrier addresses is actually a good assumption. If you cannot, you are all hot air.

 

[joelr]

When you say Brahman is more than just God, you have to first define what is the meaning of God. As far as I can understand the biblical God and the Quranic Allah are all ultimate reality and all consciousness Just as Brahman. We have created a false sense of ego by thinking that our concept is somehow superior when actually it is the same as those of others
Also, when you say that Krishna is the deity who is on earth, the question arises that whether he is the only deity or Rama was also a deity, Swayambhu Manu was also a deity, Brahma was also a deity, Moses was also a deity, Muhammad also a deity. So, we have to be more circumspect in making glorious claims.

I was generalizing. I'm not going through every aspect of Hinduism to a Christian, no one is interested and it isn't helping the discussion.

The Hindu text says Brahman is consciousness, Yahweh is no such thing. It's maybe implied after Aquinas and others borrowed Platonic philosophy and put it to Yahweh but its not part of the religious text.

"I Am that I Am" also translates to
"I am who (I) am", "I will become what I choose to become", "I am what I am", "I will be what I will be", "I create what(ever) I create", or "I am the Existing One". So that isn't what it's made out to be. Saying he is all reality or whatever.
The writers were trying to make their deity sound better than past deities by not giving a name. The point of religion back then was to give a seperate identity. Not define god.

 

[1213]

I do not think this is a difference that can be reconciled. People over the years have tried, of course. Some have pointed out that Mark also indicates that Jesus died on a day that is called “the Day of Preparation” (Mark 15:42). That is absolutely true—but what these readers fail to notice is that Mark tells us what he means by this phrase: it is the Day of Preparation “for the Sabbath” (not the Day of Preparation for the Passover). In other words, in Mark, this is not the day before the Passover meal was eaten but the day before Sabbath; it is called the day of “preparation” because one had to pre¬ pare the meals for Saturday on Friday afternoon.

By what I see, all the Gospels indicate that the Passover and Feast of unleavened bread went like this, the year Jesus was murdered.

(Please notice, in ancient time system there were 2 sixth hours in a 24 hour day. The 6th hour of night and day. And in Jewish system a new day begins about at 21:00, not 24:00).

Jesus was killed at 14th, which is the preparation day for 15th day Shabbat. But, I think you have a good point. Some translations say in John 19:14 that it was preparation day. More accurate translations say it was preparation of the passover, without calling it preparation day. Preparation can mean making or preparing. In this case, it would probably be better to understand it so that some were making the meal at the same time.

And it was the Preparation of the Passover, and about the sixth hour. And he said to the Jews, Behold, your king!
Joh. 19:14

I don't think this is a real contradiction. But, I think you had one of the best attempts I have seen.

 

[1213]

It is impossible there were that many ideas,

Why believe that baseless claim?

...is likely...

I didn't give teachings of Romulus. Just an outline of the similarities.

Those similarities are not meaningful in my opinion, because I think the teachings of Jesus are what makes him great.

 

[1213]

1) Please show me where the consensus in historical scholarship was wrong.

Hmmm... for example flat or round earth. Although this depends on do you still think earth is flat, as it was the consensus.

2) If you would rather take solid evidence and proof why do you believe a magic myth based on anecdotal evidence and stories?

I don't believe in magic. I believe what is said in the Bible, because I see things going as told in the Bible. And also because I understand its teachings are good.

Are you so blinded by belief that you cannot even see they are talking about the idea of hell as a place of punishment?

By what is said in the Bible, hell is second death. And it is also shown in the beginning of Genesis that death is the "punishment".

...These doctrines all came to be adopted by various Jewish schools in the post-Exilic period..

The problem is, you can't really prove they didn't have those ideas before that period.

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

I was generalizing. I'm not going through every aspect of Hinduism to a Christian, no one is interested and it isn't helping the discussion.

The Hindu text says Brahman is consciousness, Yahweh is no such thing. It's maybe implied after Aquinas and others borrowed Platonic philosophy and put it to Yahweh but its not part of the religious text.

"I Am that I Am" also translates to
"I am who (I) am", "I will become what I choose to become", "I am what I am", "I will be what I will be", "I create what(ever) I create", or "I am the Existing One". So that isn't what it's made out to be. Saying he is all reality or whatever.
The writers were trying to make their deity sound better than past deities by not giving a name. The point of religion back then was to give a seperate identity. Not define god.

We have to compare Brahman with Elohim and Yahweh with Brahma. So, you are correct that Yahweh is not pure consciousness. Yahweh is an anthropomorphic God and he is actively supporting the Jews in doing even wrong things, such as capturing of Canaan forcibly.

 

[paarsurrey]

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?
No, reasonable person can deny existence of Yeshua/Isa son of Maryam aka Mary, please, right?

Regards

 

[Augustus]

Hellenism is from 300 BCE. The Greeks invaded in 167 BCE. The experts on Hellenism are not debating. It influenced Christianity

Yes, that’s what I just said.

The question isn’t whether or not Greek speakers were influenced by Greek culture as it would be inane to think otherwise, the question is the nature of the influence and what can be derived from a story containing common cultural tropes.

If there was a human who was deified in such a culture would you:

A) expect the mythological narratives that developed around him to contain common cultural tropes surrounding deification

B) Not contain common cultural tropes surrounding deification

The fact that the myths contain common cultural tropes around deification say absolutely nothing regarding the likelihood of his existence or otherwise.

There is enough evidence Mark used Romulus. The Persian/Hellenism thing isn't debated.

The idea they reflect direct imitation is certainly debated, as claiming a similarity reflects direct imitation requires far more than saying both things have common features.

Christianity was influenced by its cultural environment in some way. So? What does this matter to anyone who isn't a hardline Christian?

Please explain why each assumption Carrier addresses is actually a good assumption. If you cannot, you are all hot air.

"Unless you respond to every assumption in an 800 page book you can't disagree with it" is a particularly vapid argument.

I've already explained why I don't accept many of his arguments as making his non-existence more probable, given his exosytence is easily explained by what we know of human psychology around apocalyptic cults (when their premise is destoyed, they find new ways to keep it going), Why mythic similarities would be equally expected if he was a real person. How he would be absolutely unique in being a whole cloth mythic god invented by those whose lives overlapped with his purported life (all 'gods' deified in this time frame were real people and you have failed to produce a single counter example), etc.

You can certainly question the validity of Bayes' theorem as actually relating to any meaningful probability

Historical events are unique and non-repeatable, assigning probabilities is by definition massively subjective. It is simply a means of formally documenting your own assumptions and beliefs. It says nothing about actual probabilities, just your personal reason for believing as you do.

Using Rank-Raglan, a literary theory regarding the development of narratives, as being evidence for or against historicity

The maths has been critiqued by multiple people more familiar with Bayes than you, me or Carrier:



So each term in our Bayes’s formula acquires errors from all of these three factors. And each factor compounds the errors in the others. As a result, for questions that are potentially vague, with a range of possible reference classes, each with poor quality or incomplete data, we should expect to have large errors.

Bias Error​

So far I’ve assumed that errors are just random. We are as likely to be higher than lower in our estimates. But this isn’t true.

Carrier, for example, seems to recognize this, and decides to use ‘a fortiori’ reasoning. Which is a way of saying “I’m going to bias the error in a way that doesn’t support my case, so I avoid the criticism that I may have accidentally biased it towards my conclusions.” This is admirable, and (barring the caveats around small values above) reasonable. But that only looks at bias from one source: bias from the available data. In reality Carrier (and anyone else doing this) will also be choosing the definitions, and choosing the reference classes, and there is no similar a fortiori process for determining which are the least favourable definitions to ones cause, and which reference classes are the most troubling, and adopting those[3].

Conclusion​

So, what can we learn?

Well, for one, the inputs to Bayes’s Theorem matter. Particularly small inputs. When we’re dealing with rare evidence for rare events, then small errors in the inputs can end up giving a huge range of outputs, enough of a range that there is no usable information to be had.

And those errors come from many sources, and are difficult to quantify. It is tempting to think of errors only in terms of the data acquisition error, and to ignore errors of choice and errors of reference class.

These issues combine to make it very difficult to make any sensible conclusions from Bayes’s Theorem in areas where probabilities are small, data is low quality, possible reference classes abound, and statements are vague. In areas like history, for example....

Carrier joins that latter debate too, in what he describes as a “cheeky” unification of Bayesian and Frequentist interpretations, but what reads as a misunderstanding of what the differences between Bayesian and Frequentist statistics are... But given the lack of mathematical care demonstrated in the rest of the book, to me it came off as indicative of a Dunning-Kruger effect around mathematics.

I had many other problems with the mathematics presented in the book, I felt there were severe errors with his arguments a fortiori (i.e. a kind of reasoning from inequalities — the probability is no greater than X); and his set-theoretic treatment of reference classes was likewise muddled (though in the latter case it coincidentally did not seem to result in incorrect conclusions)...

But ultimately I think the book is disingenuous. It doesn’t read as a mathematical treatment of the subject, and I can’t help but think that Carrier is using Bayes’s Theorem in much the same way that apologists such as William Lane Craig use it: to give their arguments a veneer of scientific rigour that they hope cannot be challenged by their generally more math-phobic peers. To enter an argument against the overwhelming scholarly consensus with “but I have math on my side, math that has been proven, proven!” seems transparent to me, more so when the quality of the math provided in no way matches the bombast.

I suspect this book was always designed to preach to the choir, and will not make much impact in scholarly circles. I hope it doesn’t become a blueprint for other similar scholarship, despite agreeing with many of its conclusions.

Source 1 and 2

 

[Esteban X]

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?
No, reasonable person can deny existence of Yeshua/Isa son of Maryam aka Mary, please, right?

Regards

I'm not saying I disagree, but what is your source for this.

 

[Esteban X]

Did Jesus Christ Actually Exist?
No, reasonable person can deny existence of Yeshua/Isa son of Maryam aka Mary, please, right?

Regards

Quite a few reasonable people, among them respectable scholars, deny the existence of Yeshua/Isa son of Maryam

 

[joelr]

By what I see, all the Gospels indicate that the Passover and Feast of unleavened bread went like this, the year Jesus was murdered.
View attachment 94908
(Please notice, in ancient time system there were 2 sixth hours in a 24 hour day. The 6th hour of night and day. And in Jewish system a new day begins about at 21:00, not 24:00).

Jesus was killed at 14th, which is the preparation day for 15th day Shabbat. But, I think you have a good point. Some translations say in John 19:14 that it was preparation day. More accurate translations say it was preparation of the passover, without calling it preparation day. Preparation can mean making or preparing. In this case, it would probably be better to understand it so that some were making the meal at the same time.

And it was the Preparation of the Passover, and about the sixth hour. And he said to the Jews, Behold, your king!
Joh. 19:14

I don't think this is a real contradiction. But, I think you had one of the best attempts I have seen.

It's funny you think an unsourced chart debunks a world class Biblical historian. The contradiction is in different Gospels.

"Now the only confusing aspect of this celebration involves the way ancient Jews told time—the same way modern Jews do. Even today the “Sabbath” is Saturday, but it begins on Friday night, when it gets dark. That is because in traditional Judaism the new day begins at nightfall, with the evening. (That’s why, in the book of Genesis, when God creates the heavens and the earth, we’re told that “there was evening and morning, the first day”; a day consisted of night and day, not day and night.) And so the Sabbath begins Friday night—and in fact every day begins with nightfall.

And so, on the Day of Preparation the lamb was slaughtered and the meal was prepared in the afternoon. The meal was eaten that night, which was actually the beginning of the next day: Passover day. The meal consisted of a number of symbolic foods: the lamb, to commemorate the original slaughter of the lambs in Exodus; bitter herbs, to remind the Jews of their bitter slavery in Egypt; unleav¬ ened bread (bread made without yeast) to remind them that the Israelites had to flee from Egypt without much warning, so that they could not wait for the bread to rise; and several cups of wine. The Passover day, then, began with the evening meal and lasted ap¬ proximately twenty-four hours, through the morning and afternoon of the next day, after which would begin the day after Passover.

Now we can return to Mark’s account of Jesus’ death. Jesus and his disciples have made a pilgrimage to Jerusalem for the Passover feast. In Mark 14:12, the disciples ask Jesus where they are to prepare the Passover meal for that evening. In other words, this is on the Day of Preparation for Passover. Jesus gives them instructions. They make the preparations, and when it is evening—the beginning of Passover day—they have the meal. It is a special meal indeed. Jesus takes the symbolic foods of the Passover and imbues them with yet more symbolic meaning. He takes the unleavened bread, breaks it, and says, “This is my body.” By implication, his body must be broken for salvation. Then after supper he takes the cup of wine and says, “This is my blood of the covenant, that is poured out for many” (Mark 14:22—25), meaning that his own blood must be shed.
After the disciples eat the Passover meal they go out to the Garden of Gethsemane to pray. Judas Iscariot brings the troops and performs his act of betrayal. Jesus is taken to stand trial before the Jewish au¬ thorities. He spends the night in jail, and the next morning he is put on trial before the Roman governor, Pontius Pilate, who finds him guilty and condemns him to death by crucifixion. We are told that he is crucified that same day, at nine o’clock in the morning (Mark 15:25). Jesus, then, dies on the day of Passover, the morning after the Passover meal was eaten.

All this is clear and straightforward in Mark’s Gospel, but despite some basic similarities, it is at odds with the story told in the Gospel of John, which is also clear and straightforward. Here, too, Jesus goes to Jerusalem in the last week of his life to celebrate the Passover feast, and here, too, there is a last meal, a betrayal, a trial before Pilate, and the crucifixion. But it is striking that in John, at the beginning of the account, in contrast to Mark, the disciples do not ask Jesus where they are “to prepare the Passover.” Consequently, he gives them no in¬ structions for preparing the meal. They do eat a final supper together, but in John, Jesus says nothing about the bread being his body or the cup representing his blood. Instead he washes the disciples’ feet, a story found in none of the other Gospels (John 13:1—20).

After the meal they go out. Jesus is betrayed by Judas, appears before the Jewish authorities, spends the night in jail, and is put on trial before Pontius Pilate, who finds him guilty and condemns him to be crucified. And we are told exactly when Pilate pronounces the sentence: “It was the Day of Preparation for the Passover; and it was about noon” (John 19:14).

Noon? On the Day of Preparation for the Passover? The day the lambs were slaughtered? How can that be? In Mark’s Gospel, Jesus lived through that day, had his disciples prepare the Passover meal, and ate it with them before being arrested, taken to jail for the night, tried the next morning, and executed at nine o’clock a.m. on the Passover day. But not in John. In John, Jesus dies a day earlier, on the Day of Preparation for the Passover, sometime after noon.
I do not think this is a difference that can be reconciled. People over the years have tried, of course. Some have pointed out that Mark also indicates that Jesus died on a day that is called “the Day of Preparation” (Mark 15:42). That is absolutely true—but what these readers fail to notice is that Mark tells us what he means by this phrase: it is the Day of Preparation “for the Sabbath” (not the Day of Preparation for the Passover). In other words, in Mark, this is not the day before the Passover meal was eaten but the day before Sabbath; it is called the day of “preparation” because one had to pre¬ pare the meals for Saturday on Friday afternoon.

And so the contradiction stands: in Mark, Jesus eats the Passover meal (Thursday night) and is crucified the following morning. In John, Jesus does not eat the Passover meal but is crucified on the day before the Passover meal was to be eaten. 4 Moreover, in Mark, Jesus is nailed to the cross at nine in the morning; in John, he is not con¬ demned until noon, and then he is taken out and crucified.

 

[joelr]

Why believe that baseless claim?

It's not a "baseless claim"?

Yahweh taught his theology. Then, Persians occupied and Yahweh suddenly starts changing, using Persian theology.
Then Greeks occupy, and suddenly, like all nations that were occupied, the same ideas copied by them were copied by the new Jewish Mystery religion.
Excellent evidence it was a trend and they also wanted in on it.

Those similarities are not meaningful in my opinion, because I think the teachings of Jesus are what makes him great.

Jesus teaches the same Rabbi Hillel was teaching. Krishna teaches similar wisdom. It isn't unique in any way.

Even if it was unique, philosophers can take wisdom, write it down and writers like Mark can use it for a fictional character.

We even have evidence it was done this way. The Thomas Gospel is just sayings put to Jesus' name.
Another Dead Sea Scroll was found quickly hidden, it contained sayings from another philosopher and people were making a Jesus sayings Gospel. By taking the sayings from a philosopher and using them as Jesus sayings.
Clear proof this was done.

Again, great teachings don't make the story true. Krishna had a huge impact on philosophy. Look at the philosophies he covered. Still fiction. Philosophers came up with it and a writer put it in a Krishna myth. Jesus is no exception

Table of Contents​

1. Introduction
2. The Eighteen Chapters of the Gītā
3. Just War and the Suppression of the Good
4. Historical Reception and the Gītā’s Significance
5. Vedic Pre-History to the Gītā
6. Mahābhārata: Narrative Context
7. Basic Moral Theory and Conventional Morality
8. Arjuna’s Three Arguments Against Fighting
9. Kṛṣṇa’s Response
10. Gītā’s Metaethical Theory
    1. Moral Realism
       1. Good and Evil
       2. Moral Psychology

 

[joelr]

Hmmm... for example flat or round earth. Although this depends on do you still think earth is flat, as it was the consensus.

Cool, please show me where the modern historical consensus thinks the earth is flat?
Ancient historians don't specialize in planetary measurement techniques, they do history, so this is just weird.

I don't believe in magic. I believe what is said in the Bible, because I see things going as told in the Bible.

You see resurrections, revelations, exorcisms in pigs, mass resurrections at gravesites....?

Or are you talking about basic human affairs like wars and disbelievers. Well guess what, Mormonism says the same, Islam says the same, Hinduism says the same. It's just basic psychology written by people who understood it.

And also because I understand its teachings are good.

The Mormon teachings are good, does that make it true?
Hinduism is good, does that make it true?

Repentance is the sincere regret and remorse we feel when we've done something dishonest, immoral, or otherwise harmful to others or ourselves. Anyone with a healthy conscience regrets doing something wrong. It's arrogant and blind to think that we may do as we please, no matter what the consequences. A repentant person naturally wants to undo whatever wrong has been done, or try to counteract the misdeed with pious activity. The past can't be changed, however, and good deeds can't nullify bad ones.
Srimad-Bhagavatam, 1.18.31, Purport:

"Repentance comes in the mind of a good soul as soon as he commits something wrong."

By what is said in the Bible, hell is second death. And it is also shown in the beginning of Genesis that death is the "punishment".

Hell is not in the Bible until after the Persian period introduced Hell to them.


Old Testament Interpretation


Professor John J. Collins

17:30 resurrection of individual and judgment in Daniel, 164 BC. Prior to this the afterlife was Sheol, now heaven/hell is introduced. Persian period. Resurrection and hell existed in the Persian religion.
Resurrection of spirit. Some people are raised up to heaven, some to hell. New to the OT.

The problem is, you can't really prove they didn't have those ideas before that period.

We can show they did not write them down in the Bible, the book to explain theology. As if Heaven was an afterlife they wouldn't say that in the Bible for 5 centuries. Countless generations of followers who didn't get that information.

So your suggestion is these were all known by Yahweh, but he waits until after the Persians occupy, then slowly tells his followers similar beliefs. Then hold back on all the Greek stuff until the Greek occupy, then he tells them the ideas which not only mirror the Greek theology, but it changes the old theology.

This is complete nonsense. You are doing a tapdance to rescue you beliefs. I'm not interested in fantasy land.

It's evidence of borrowing, period. Heaven is Yahwehs home, then after the Greeks use it as the rightful home of souls who are saved, then the NT has it. I mean how ridiculous do these twisted explanations need to get.

What you cannot prove is any god, revelation, magic, supernatural things, period. Borrowing can be suggested by what and when is borrowed and it is highly suggested. You are doing a tapdance, one minute it's all about "proof" even though several times I've said, it's not about proof, it's about the evidence.

And the stories also can be shown to be interdependent through intertextuality. They copied some aspects verbatim and we see this. You are going back and forth with the same no evidence here. and ignoring my points and making the same lousy argument over and over. I already said this like 4 times, given reasonable evidence.


THEN suddenly you understand the idea of proof but when it comes to claims of gods and revelations you are fine with zero proof.



The Genesis creation narrative is the creation myth[a] of both Judaism and Christianity.[1]

It expounds themes parallel to those in Mesopotamian mythology, emphasizing the Israelite people's belief in one God.

Comparative mythology provides historical and cross-cultural perspectives for Jewish mythology. Both sources behind the Genesis creation narrative borrowed themes from Mesopotamian mythology,[18][19] but adapted them to their belief in one God,

Genesis 1–11 as a whole is imbued with Mesopotamian myths.[

Genesis 2 has close parallels with a second Mesopotamian myth, the Atra-Hasis epic – parallels that in fact extend throughout Genesis 2–11, from the Creation to the Flood and its aftermath.



Religion, Identity and the Origins of Ancient Israel



K.L. Sparks, Baptist Pastor, Professor Eastern U.


As a rule, modern scholars do not believe that the Bible's account of early Israel's history provides a wholly accurate portrait of Israel's origins. One reason for this is that the earliest part of Israel's history in Genesis is now regarded as something other than a work of modern history. Its primary author was at best an ancient historian (if a historian at all), who lived long after the events he narrated, and who drew freely from sources that were not historical (legends and theological stories); he was more concerned with theology than with the modern quest to learn 'what actually happened' (Van Seters 1992; Sparks 2002, pp. 37-71; Maidman 2003). As a result, the stories about Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph are

Enuma Elish - The Babylonian Epic of Creation - Full Text

The Enuma Elish (also known as The Seven Tablets of Creation) is the Babylonian creation myth whose title is derived from the opening lines of the piece,

www.worldhistory.org

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 i

 

[joelr]

We have to compare Brahman with Elohim and Yahweh with Brahma. So, you are correct that Yahweh is not pure consciousness. Yahweh is an anthropomorphic God and he is actively supporting the Jews in doing even wrong things, such as capturing of Canaan forcibly.

And buying slaves from the heathen around you.