• 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!

JESUS, God, the Ordinal First and Last

joelr

Well-Known Member
"originally conceived" is an unfounded assumption. This ignores that primtive people passed on their their creation stories and myths orally. The first one to write it down is not the defacto original source. Further, it is well known that the Jewish people value our oral traditions and were reticent to write them down.

Therefore, it's possible that the Jewish stories came from the Sumerians. And it's equally possible that the Sumerians got the stories from the ancient Jewish people.

Challenge: Can you find in the sumerian religion, ugarites, or whomever else is claimed to be the original source for Jewish creation stories, God taking a day of rest and sharing that day with creation?


Yes the Sumerians may have gotten it from smaller tribes. Not Jewish tribes? The first Israelites were around 1200 BCE and emerged from the Canaanite nation. Early religious sites show Yahweh was worshipped with his consort Ashera in many homes. Ashera was originally a Canaanite deity who was borrowed when they split.
But going any further back there are only Canaanites and then Egyptians. The Mesopotamains go back thousands of years and also write similar things about their Gods as was written about Yahweh.

Noah is just a myth and re-working of the Epic of Gilamesh from Mesopotamia.
This page goes over the 6 day narrative you asked about and brings up comparisons on each day.

"Genesis creation narrative - Wikipedia
Day 7 doesn't have a direct comparison, just:
"Creation is followed by rest. In ancient Near Eastern literature the divine rest is achieved in a temple as a result of having brought order to chaos. Rest is both disengagement, as the work of creation is finished, but also engagement, as the deity is now present in his temple to maintain a secure and ordered cosmos."

There is no doubt among historical scholarship that Genesis and other myths in the OT are taken from Mesopotamian sources and later theology from Persian.

Relationship to the Bible[edit]

Various themes, plot elements, and characters in the Hebrew Bible correlate with the Epic of Gilgamesh – notably, the accounts of the Garden of Eden, the advice from Ecclesiastes, and the Genesis flood narrative.

Garden of Eden[edit]

The parallels between the stories of Enkidu/Shamhat and Adam/Eve have been long recognized by scholars.[64][65] In both, a man is created from the soil by a god, and lives in a natural setting amongst the animals. He is introduced to a woman who tempts him. In both stories the man accepts food from the woman, covers his nakedness, and must leave his former realm, unable to return. The presence of a snake that steals a plant of immortality from the hero later in the epic is another point of similarity. However, a major difference between the two stories is that while Enkidu experiences regret regarding his seduction away from nature, this is only temporary: After being confronted by the god Shamash for being ungrateful, Enkidu recants and decides to give the woman who seduced him his final blessing before he dies. This is in contrast to Adam, whose fall from grace is largely portrayed purely as a punishment for disobeying God.

Advice from Ecclesiastes[edit]

Several scholars suggest direct borrowing of Siduri's advice by the author of Ecclesiastes.[66]

A rare proverb about the strength of a triple-stranded rope, "a triple-stranded rope is not easily broken", is common to both books.[citation needed]

Noah's flood[edit]

Andrew George submits that the Genesis flood narrative matches that in Gilgamesh so closely that "few doubt" that it derives from a Mesopotamian account.[67] What is particularly noticeable is the way the Genesis flood story follows the Gilgamesh flood tale "point by point and in the same order", even when the story permits other alternatives.[68] In a 2001 Torah commentary released on behalf of the Conservative Movement of Judaism, rabbinic scholar Robert Wexler stated: "The most likely assumption we can make is that both Genesis and Gilgamesh drew their material from a common tradition about the flood that existed in Mesopotamia. These stories then diverged in the retelling."[69] Ziusudra, Utnapishtim and Noah are the respective heroes of the Sumerian, Akkadian and biblical flood legends of the ancient Near East.

Additional biblical parallels[edit]

Matthias Henze suggests that Nebuchadnezzar's madness in the biblical Book of Daniel draws on the Epic of Gilgamesh. He claims that the author uses elements from the description of Enkidu to paint a sarcastic and mocking portrait of the king of Babylon.[70]

Many characters in the Epic have mythical biblical parallels, most notably Ninti, the Sumerian goddess of life, was created from Enki's rib to heal him after he had eaten forbidden flowers. It is suggested that this story served as the basis for the story of Eve created from Adam's rib in the Book of Genesis.[71] Esther J. Hamori, in Echoes of Gilgamesh in the Jacob Story, also claims that the myth of Jacob and Esau is paralleled with the wrestling match between Gilgamesh and Enkidu.[72]



William Dever Biblical archaeologist:

Is there mention of the Israelites anywhere in ancient Egyptian records?
No Egyptian text mentions the Israelites except the famous inscription of Merneptah dated to about 1206 B.C.E. But those Israelites were in Canaan; they are not in Egypt, and nothing is said about them escaping from Egypt.
Tell us more about the Merneptah inscription. Why is it so famous?
It's the earliest reference we have to the Israelites. The victory stele of Pharaoh Merneptah, the son of Ramesses II, mentions a list of peoples and city-states in Canaan, and among them are the Israelites. And it's interesting that the other entities, the other ethnic groups, are described as nascent states, but the Israelites are described as "a people." They have not yet reached a level of state organization.

So the Egyptians, a little before 1200 B.C.E., know of a group of people somewhere in the central highlands—a loosely affiliated tribal confederation, if you will—called "Israelites." These are our Israelites. So this is a priceless inscription.

Does archeology back up the information in the Merneptah inscription? Is there evidence of the Israelites in the central highlands of Canaan at this time?
We know today, from archeological investigation, that there were more than 300 early villages of the 13th and 12th century in the area. I call these "proto-Israelite" villages.

Forty years ago it would have been impossible to identify the earliest Israelites archeologically. We just didn't have the evidence. And then, in a series of regional surveys, Israeli archeologists in the 1970s began to find small hilltop villages in the central hill country north and south of Jerusalem and in lower Galilee. Now we have almost 300 of them.

The origins of Israel
What have archeologists learned from these settlements about the early Israelites? Are there signs that the Israelites came in conquest, taking over the land from Canaanites?
The settlements were founded not on the ruins of destroyed Canaanite towns but rather on bedrock or on virgin soil. There was no evidence of armed conflict in most of these sites. Archeologists also have discovered that most of the large Canaanite towns that were supposedly destroyed by invading Israelites were either not destroyed at all or destroyed by "Sea People"—Philistines, or others.

So gradually the old conquest model [based on the accounts of Joshua's conquests in the Bible] began to lose favor amongst scholars. Many scholars now think that most of the early Israelites were originally Canaanites, displaced Canaanites, displaced from the lowlands, from the river valleys, displaced geographically and then displaced ideologically.

So what we are dealing with is a movement of peoples but not an invasion of an armed corps from the outside. A social and economic revolution, if you will, rather than a military revolution. And it begins a slow process in which the Israelites distinguish themselves from their Canaanite ancestors, particularly in religion—with a new deity,


Archeology of the Hebrew Bible
 

101G

Well-Known Member
Asking for evidence to differenciate your claims from that of alien abductions or race supremecy claims is "nothing constructive"?
first myths, now, alien abductions or race supremecy. that's what facebook and tweeter are for. lol, lol, lol, Oh dear.
IF you disbelieve evolution you need to demonstrate it isn't true.
already have.
"Ok so you bought into creationism. So? I would say link to a scientific paper demonstrating evolution is false but I already know they don't exist. So you don't care about what is actually true. Ok got it.
let 101G lay down the Spirit/Law for you. science is the observation of the EYES, but we walk by Faith and not by sight. translation, or in layman's terms. salvation/Christianity is the observation of the Spirit, see the difference now, Science observes the created world, we observes the one who Created this world. please note that for future references.

101G.
 

101G

Well-Known Member
Your disrespectful style makes it funnier when you are wrong every time. Or invent a strawman to "LOL" at.
again, personal opinions? lol, lol, lol,
and "disrespectful style?" if U take it that way, it's on U...... :rolleyes:

101G
 

101G

Well-Known Member
Cool, so you concede, the Bible theology from the 2nd Temple Period onwards is Persian theology.
The Apocalyptic authors were incorrect and those predictions are temporal narcissism.
In Revelations those horsemen were already released and it was an event that already happened.
Cyrus had a massive impact on the Hebrew people and theology and the doctrines used are all the familiar doctrines of Christianity.
They were not in Judaism but were in Christianity and clearly taken from this mythology.
There is the origin of many of your mythologies.



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.
see above above...

101G
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
Personal opinion again? my God get a life.

101G

Nope, scholarship from a journal and World History about Genesis being constructed from Mesopotamian mythology, is not personal opinion.
Personal opinion is all you have entered as evidence this entire exchange. Yet now you make as if there is something wrong with it. So you just destroyed your entire argument, and even told yourself to get a life. How easy is this. I must say I finally agree with you!

Biblical historicity is "nothing constructive".....ha, you can't make this stuff up.....perfect assessment of fundamentalism.

The need for constant ad-hom every post just shows you are insecure and cannot handle loss so don't stop that. It's very satisfying.

Try again. Maybe some actual evidence? You were doing better with the Bible code numerology with colors. It's pseudo-science crank but at least it was some form of evidence.......
 

101G

Well-Known Member
Every post, foot goes right in mouth. You are your worst enemy, Do settle down it will serve you well.
so, I already posted this:

"The god's name was written in paleo-Hebrew as (יהוה‎ in block script), transliterated as YHWH; modern scholarship has reached consensus to transcribe this as Yahweh.["
and am using the consensus in scholarship for use. It might trace back to Egypt, either way it's as fictional as Edom, Paran and Teman.
In fact Yahweh was also a divine warrior, just like th eother mythical Gods of the era and place.

In the earliest Biblical literature Yahweh has characteristics of a storm-god typical of ancient Near Eastern myths, marching out from a region to the south or south-east of Israel with the heavenly host of stars and planets that make up his army to do battle with the enemies of his people Israel:[17]

Yahweh, when you went out of Seir,
when you marched out of the field of Edom,
the earth trembled, the sky also dropped.
Yes, the clouds dropped water.
The mountains quaked at Yahweh’s presence,
even Sinai at the presence of Yahweh, the God of Israel.
...
From the sky the stars fought.
From their courses, they fought against Sisera.[41]

Yahweh is just another of the mythical deities from Canaanite and Israelite stories:

Yahweh filled the role of national god in the kingdom of Israel (Samaria), which emerged in the 10th century BCE; and also in Judah, which emerged probably a century later[46] (no "God of Judah" is mentioned anywhere in the Bible).[43][44] During the reign of Ahab (c. 871–852 BCE), and particularly following his marriage to Jezebel, Baal may have briefly replaced Yahweh as the national god of Israel (but not Judah).[47][48]

In 9th century and the rejection of Baal worship associated with the prophets Elijah and Elisha the Yahweh-religion began to separate itself from its Canaanite heritage; this process continued over the period 800-500 BCE with legal and prophetic condemnations of the asherim, sun-worship and worship on the high places, along with practices pertaining to the dead and other aspects of the old religion.[49] Features of Baal, El, and Asherah were absorbed into Yahweh, El (or 'el) (Hebrew: אל) became a generic term meaning "god" as opposed to the name of a specific god, and epithets such as El Shaddai came to be applied to Yahweh alone.[50] In this atmosphere a struggle emerged between those who believed that Yahweh alone should be worshipped, and those who worshipped him within a larger group of gods;[51] the Yahweh-alone party, the party of the prophets and Deuteronomists, ultimately triumphed, and their victory lies behind the biblical narrative of an Israel vacillating between periods of "following other gods" and periods of fidelity to Yahweh.[51]

The oldest plausible occurrence of his name is in the phrase "Shasu of Yhw" (Egyptian: yhwꜣw) in an Egyptian inscription from the time of Amenhotep III (1402–1363 BCE),[23][24] the Shasu being nomads from Midian and Edom in northern Arabia.[25] The current consensus is therefore that Yahweh was a "divine warrior from the southern region associated with Seir, Edom, Paran and Teman".[26] There is considerable although not universal support for this view,[27] but it raises the question of how Yahweh made his way to the north.[28] An answer many scholars consider plausible is the Kenite hypothesis, which holds that traders brought Yahweh to Israel along the caravan routes between Egypt and Canaan.[29] This ties together various points of data, such as the absence of Yahweh from Canaan, his links with Edom and Midian in the biblical stories, and the Kenite or Midianite ties of Moses,[
see post above, above...

101G
 

101G

Well-Known Member
That doesn't address the statement at all? It's just more ad-hom and self CONGRATULATORY nonsense (as usual).
Do you reject the OT or not and what is your source for doing so or not doing so?

You wanted to know how ignorant can one be?
Well, one can believe a complete mythology, with clear and obvious evidence that it's all taken from nations they came into contact with, made up new deities with the same theology (as every single nation did then), and even though it's obvious this is a myth (no evidence whatsoever) same as Zeus or Horus they still think it's real.
About that much can one be.
next

101G
 

101G

Well-Known Member
Yes the Sumerians may have gotten it from smaller tribes. Not Jewish tribes? The first Israelites were around 1200 BCE and emerged from the Canaanite nation. Early religious sites show Yahweh was worshipped with his consort Ashera in many homes. Ashera was originally a Canaanite deity who was borrowed when they split.
But going any further back there are only Canaanites and then Egyptians. The Mesopotamains go back thousands of years and also write similar things about their Gods as was written about Yahweh.

Noah is just a myth and re-working of the Epic of Gilamesh from Mesopotamia.
This page goes over the 6 day narrative you asked about and brings up comparisons on each day.

"Genesis creation narrative - Wikipedia
Day 7 doesn't have a direct comparison, just:
"Creation is followed by rest. In ancient Near Eastern literature the divine rest is achieved in a temple as a result of having brought order to chaos. Rest is both disengagement, as the work of creation is finished, but also engagement, as the deity is now present in his temple to maintain a secure and ordered cosmos."

There is no doubt among historical scholarship that Genesis and other myths in the OT are taken from Mesopotamian sources and later theology from Persian.

Relationship to the Bible[edit]

Various themes, plot elements, and characters in the Hebrew Bible correlate with the Epic of Gilgamesh – notably, the accounts of the Garden of Eden, the advice from Ecclesiastes, and the Genesis flood narrative.

Garden of Eden[edit]

The parallels between the stories of Enkidu/Shamhat and Adam/Eve have been long recognized by scholars.[64][65] In both, a man is created from the soil by a god, and lives in a natural setting amongst the animals. He is introduced to a woman who tempts him. In both stories the man accepts food from the woman, covers his nakedness, and must leave his former realm, unable to return. The presence of a snake that steals a plant of immortality from the hero later in the epic is another point of similarity. However, a major difference between the two stories is that while Enkidu experiences regret regarding his seduction away from nature, this is only temporary: After being confronted by the god Shamash for being ungrateful, Enkidu recants and decides to give the woman who seduced him his final blessing before he dies. This is in contrast to Adam, whose fall from grace is largely portrayed purely as a punishment for disobeying God.

Advice from Ecclesiastes[edit]

Several scholars suggest direct borrowing of Siduri's advice by the author of Ecclesiastes.[66]

A rare proverb about the strength of a triple-stranded rope, "a triple-stranded rope is not easily broken", is common to both books.[citation needed]

Noah's flood[edit]

Andrew George submits that the Genesis flood narrative matches that in Gilgamesh so closely that "few doubt" that it derives from a Mesopotamian account.[67] What is particularly noticeable is the way the Genesis flood story follows the Gilgamesh flood tale "point by point and in the same order", even when the story permits other alternatives.[68] In a 2001 Torah commentary released on behalf of the Conservative Movement of Judaism, rabbinic scholar Robert Wexler stated: "The most likely assumption we can make is that both Genesis and Gilgamesh drew their material from a common tradition about the flood that existed in Mesopotamia. These stories then diverged in the retelling."[69] Ziusudra, Utnapishtim and Noah are the respective heroes of the Sumerian, Akkadian and biblical flood legends of the ancient Near East.

Additional biblical parallels[edit]

Matthias Henze suggests that Nebuchadnezzar's madness in the biblical Book of Daniel draws on the Epic of Gilgamesh. He claims that the author uses elements from the description of Enkidu to paint a sarcastic and mocking portrait of the king of Babylon.[70]

Many characters in the Epic have mythical biblical parallels, most notably Ninti, the Sumerian goddess of life, was created from Enki's rib to heal him after he had eaten forbidden flowers. It is suggested that this story served as the basis for the story of Eve created from Adam's rib in the Book of Genesis.[71] Esther J. Hamori, in Echoes of Gilgamesh in the Jacob Story, also claims that the myth of Jacob and Esau is paralleled with the wrestling match between Gilgamesh and Enkidu.[72]



William Dever Biblical archaeologist:

Is there mention of the Israelites anywhere in ancient Egyptian records?
No Egyptian text mentions the Israelites except the famous inscription of Merneptah dated to about 1206 B.C.E. But those Israelites were in Canaan; they are not in Egypt, and nothing is said about them escaping from Egypt.
Tell us more about the Merneptah inscription. Why is it so famous?
It's the earliest reference we have to the Israelites. The victory stele of Pharaoh Merneptah, the son of Ramesses II, mentions a list of peoples and city-states in Canaan, and among them are the Israelites. And it's interesting that the other entities, the other ethnic groups, are described as nascent states, but the Israelites are described as "a people." They have not yet reached a level of state organization.

So the Egyptians, a little before 1200 B.C.E., know of a group of people somewhere in the central highlands—a loosely affiliated tribal confederation, if you will—called "Israelites." These are our Israelites. So this is a priceless inscription.

Does archeology back up the information in the Merneptah inscription? Is there evidence of the Israelites in the central highlands of Canaan at this time?
We know today, from archeological investigation, that there were more than 300 early villages of the 13th and 12th century in the area. I call these "proto-Israelite" villages.

Forty years ago it would have been impossible to identify the earliest Israelites archeologically. We just didn't have the evidence. And then, in a series of regional surveys, Israeli archeologists in the 1970s began to find small hilltop villages in the central hill country north and south of Jerusalem and in lower Galilee. Now we have almost 300 of them.

The origins of Israel
What have archeologists learned from these settlements about the early Israelites? Are there signs that the Israelites came in conquest, taking over the land from Canaanites?
The settlements were founded not on the ruins of destroyed Canaanite towns but rather on bedrock or on virgin soil. There was no evidence of armed conflict in most of these sites. Archeologists also have discovered that most of the large Canaanite towns that were supposedly destroyed by invading Israelites were either not destroyed at all or destroyed by "Sea People"—Philistines, or others.

So gradually the old conquest model [based on the accounts of Joshua's conquests in the Bible] began to lose favor amongst scholars. Many scholars now think that most of the early Israelites were originally Canaanites, displaced Canaanites, displaced from the lowlands, from the river valleys, displaced geographically and then displaced ideologically.

So what we are dealing with is a movement of peoples but not an invasion of an armed corps from the outside. A social and economic revolution, if you will, rather than a military revolution. And it begins a slow process in which the Israelites distinguish themselves from their Canaanite ancestors, particularly in religion—with a new deity,


Archeology of the Hebrew Bible
more myths ........ :frowning:

101G
 

101G

Well-Known Member
Nope, scholarship from a journal and World History about Genesis being constructed from Mesopotamian mythology, is not personal opinion.
Personal opinion is all you have entered as evidence this entire exchange. Yet now you make as if there is something wrong with it. So you just destroyed your entire argument, and even told yourself to get a life. How easy is this. I must say I finally agree with you!

Biblical historicity is "nothing constructive".....ha, you can't make this stuff up.....perfect assessment of fundamentalism.

The need for constant ad-hom every post just shows you are insecure and cannot handle loss so don't stop that. It's very satisfying.

Try again. Maybe some actual evidence? You were doing better with the Bible code numerology with colors. It's pseudo-science crank but at least it was some form of evidence.......
U haven't disproved a thing......o_O YIKES!

101G
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
first myths, now, alien abductions or race supremecy. that's what facebook and tweeter are for. lol, lol, lol, Oh dear.

Yes this is a religious forum. Religion is mythology. It's clear that your best rebuttal is "oh dear". Exactly, you can't defend that you believe fiction. Yes your claims are no different than a race supremacist saying they "believe" they are correct. Still waiting for evidence.

already have.

Not here. Please link to some papers debunking evolution.





let 101G lay down the Spirit/Law for you. science is the observation of the EYES, but we walk by Faith and not by sight. translation, or in layman's terms. salvation/Christianity is the observation of the Spirit, see the difference now, Science observes the created world, we observes the one who Created this world. please note that for future references.

101G.

Wrong. science doesn't use just eyes. It uses equations, theories, predictions to infer reality and create experiments, not always visible, to test predictions. So you also don't understand science.

I know you walk by faith. So does Islam, so does Mormonism, Hinduism. So does race supremecy. So does the KKK. They have FAITH that they are a better race.
Faith does not lead to truth.

Science observes reality. It demonstrates truths about reality.

You do NOT observe any "one" who created this world. Not at all.
You read stories from 2000 years ago when people believed in supernatural things like we now believe in science. Except they were wrong.

You hear stories from people dressed like sorcerors waving smoke. You see NO GODS. No Gods speak to you. They are all fiction from a book.

If not demonstrate evidence. Ask one to show itself or tell you a 14 digit number I have written down. Of course, you cannot. But you can make up some apologetic.."God doesn't do that blah blah...." You know who else doesn't do that. Fictional Gods.

Please not for future reference
 

101G

Well-Known Member
now that we have all the riff raff of myths out of the way lets get back to bible. Isaiah chapter. 53, the Ordinal "LAST" who is God in flesh, "HIS OWN ARM. diversified in flesh.

as said the Tanakh (Tanach) has the Lord Jesus written all over it.

next time

101G.
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
again, personal opinions? lol, lol, lol,
and "disrespectful style?" if U take it that way, it's on U...... :rolleyes:

101G

It's still funny, continue losing all by your own nonsense posts. Now, any evidence please?
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
see above above...

101G

wow, never won a debate so easy? I tried, you have nothing.


Cool, so you concede, the Bible theology from the 2nd Temple Period onwards is Persian theology.
The Apocalyptic authors were incorrect and those predictions are temporal narcissism.
In Revelations those horsemen were already released and it was an event that already happened.
Cyrus had a massive impact on the Hebrew people and theology and the doctrines used are all the familiar doctrines of Christianity.
They were not in Judaism but were in Christianity and clearly taken from this mythology.
There is the origin of many of your mythologies.




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.
 

101G

Well-Known Member
wow, never won a debate so easy? I tried, you have nothing.
won a debate? with yourself.... that don't count as a win... lol, lol, lol,
maybe to .... U .... lol, lol, Oh dear. have at it with yourself..... :p

101G.
 

101G

Well-Known Member
Now Isaiah chapter 53, God himself "EQUALLY SHARED" in flesh, per Philippians 2:6 it's just amazing how the Tanakh (Tanach) harmonize with the NT Scriptures.

Breakdown,
Isaiah 53:1 "Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the LORD revealed?" the ARM of the LORD/GOD, scripture answer. Isaiah 63:5 "And I looked, and there was none to help; and I wondered that there was none to uphold: therefore mine own arm brought salvation unto me; and my fury, it upheld me."

as Isaiah said, can you "BELIEVE?". the Lord Jesus is God, his .... "OWN ARM". this, a first grader can understand.

the ARM of God is God himself, and here in Isaiah chapter 53 God's OWN ARM is Revealed.

oh how clear can one GET?

101G.
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
more myths ........ :frowning:

101G

Yes the Bible is mythology. You concede. All of these posts are you admitting you cannot provide evidence to the contrary or simply don't care about what is true.

That was easy.
 

101G

Well-Known Member
Yes the Bible is mythology. You concede. All of these posts are you admitting you cannot provide evidence to the contrary or simply don't care about what is true.

That was easy.
so we can take this as you cannot discuss the TRUTH/Bible? thought so.

if not discuss Isaiah chapter 53 and prove it's a myths...... :D

101G.
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
U haven't disproved a thing......o_O YIKES!

101G

No I started with some evidence to back my position which is how a debate works. Or, you could just do what you are doing to hide a giant loss. Whatever works.
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
yes, the BIBLE, would like to discuss the WRITTEN WORD OF GOD? only a YES or NO will do

101G.


You haven't established any God or any words that a God wrote. The Bible is written by men using myths and wisdom from other nations. As evidence demonstrates.
 
Top