JESUS, God, the Ordinal First and Last

[dybmh]

Imagine that, I get sloppy after having to correct 15 nonsense posts, containing zero counter information, all denial of scholarship and pointless points about how a few people may have come from Egypt? As if that has anything to do with the point?

The point is, the israelites weren't simply "canaanites". That's not what the evidence is showing. And what I've been doing is, watching the videos in their entirety, and pointing out all the qualifications that are made and how the black and white statements you've been making are not what's described in your sources.

Also, when your sources are simply ignorant of the Hebrew bible I point that out too.

Another topic you abused. The consensus puts the Israelites far after Mesopotamian myths were written. Although there isn't evidence of oral stories it doesn't matter. Sometime around 1000 BCE some scholar read Mesopotamian myths and maybe began an oral story. Evidence does not back that up.
The Flood Myth

I think you already posted this. But, I haven't watched it. when I have time, I'll look at it.

Map of timeline. 1200 BCE Bronze Age Collapse, Israel formed around 1000BCE.

Israel was a "people" pre 1200bce. How long does it take to become a people, at least 100 years. That means 1300bce is a moderate estimate on the Israelite people.

Epic of Gilamesh 2900 BCE, Sumerian and Mesopotamian empire.

No. This is inflated by 800 years. I just watched that clip. He doesn't say that. He says the historic Gilgamesh was 2800bce. The epic of gilgamesh is "maybe" 2100bce. That's what he says.

No evidence that stories like Noaha Ark were transmitted by oral storytelling. No early prophets mention Noah. Noah was written later. Flood stories do not suggest there was any flood. They are telling philosophical stories.

Yes, you're definitely repeating. I already countered this. 1) The prophets aren't telling history, they are about rebuke. Not finding anything about noah's flood there is kind of like not finding elephants at the bottom of the ocean. One wouldn't expect to find elephants at the bottom of the ocean, one also wouldn't expect to find the prophets talking about noah's flood. In Dune, one wouldn't expect the fremen to be talking about Caladan. Does that mean the beginning of the story in Dune is fake, or copied. This is a *duh*.

Also, the flood is mentioned in Psalms 29. I said this already. You haven't refuted any of this.

So the scholar who says "the prophets didn't mention the flood" is ignoring or ignorant of Psalms 29.

If you agree it's mythology then great, we agree.

Great! We also now agree that montheism wasn't something borrowed in 600bce, there was evidence of it as a minority position long before that. We also agree that the name of the goddess on the inscriptions is ambiguous. I notice you've started calling it "asherah/astarte", that's progress. We also agree that God vs. the Devil isn't in the Hebrew bible, that's been dropped off your list of things borrowed. We're getting there. And, how many times did Dever in the video admit that his conclusions about asherah are not a concensus? 5 times, 10 times. Really "asherah" has lost all it's meaning to Dever. It's just a generic name for any female deity, from anywhere.

The lecture from Dever provides more than enough evidence to demonstrate a female deity was worshipped. The name doesn't matter, my position is th eBible is not an accurate picture and you understood this from the start.

Well, the name doesn't matter to you. The point is, the Hebrew bible isn't borrowing "asherah" from the canaanites. One of my points from the very begininng was, the canaanite connection is very weak if we examine the details. And here were having examined the details, and it turns out I was right. All that can be claimed is a female deity had a presence in the border areas, not in the temple. And the figurines are a mystery, they don't really match any of the deities that have been described. Dever likes the idea of a divine feminine. Lot's of people do. I do too. But that doesn't make the Asherah or the asherim in the Hebrew bible canaanite. Not even close. It's all a big assumtption that's been repeated.

In fact, post #383 - "Early religious sites show Yahweh was worshipped with his consort Ashera in many homes."

But, they're not. There has been no evidence what so ever of a yahweh worshipped in the homes. And there has been no evidence what so ever of the figurines being worshipped in the israelite homes. The only thing that was brought was a naos from where??? Greece!

"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."

The borrowing, so far, has not been established. The intertexuality, is extremely weak. We can look at the one example brought ( which was Isaiah 27:1 ) if you want. Basically the name is similar, the concept is similar, but the wording doesn't show intertextuality, not in the same way as the example given. Also the israelites may have mesopotamian roots. there is archeological evidence of this in Mediggo.

MANY HOMES a female goddess was worshipped. The evidence bears this out.

No, there's no evidence of worship. Dever has said there are multiple theories, there is no concensus. The figurines were in the homes, but no one really knows what they were used for. There is no evidence bearing anything resembling worship. There is nothing in the Dever video showing this. I went through the entire video in detail. please bring a time stamp if you disagree.

Great, that backs up what I've been saying all along. The Israelites did not come from Egypt as Exodus says but were Canaanites who moved to the hills. This is excellent evidence, and it shows they were not around as a formed nation until 1000 BCE.

1) The egyptian inscriptions describe them as a nomadic people not a nation.
2) If there were polytheistic beliefs among the general population, there's no way to identify them as israelite

There is no evidence that monotheism was a big part of the religion. Whatever you are going for here, looking for something, anything to show some sort of issue on my part is pointless. Yes I'm getting fed up with responding to nothingness.

Well, it is important since you had been saying that montheism was borrowed, and there's no evidence of it pre-persian influence. But there's plenty of evidence pre-persian influence, just as a minority position among the elites.

The Persian thing isn't a debate. Messianic ideas, end times and a resurrection for everyone is part of Judaism and it shows up after the Persian occupation.

Notice how several of the previous items on the "borrow" list have dropped off. That's how I know I'm winning the debate. Also, previously it was a cosmic saviour, now it's messianic ideas. Take a look at deuteronomy 28, the blessings. That's the messianic era, long before the late chapters of Isaiah. You know who else talked about the end of days? Jacob. Waaaaay back in Genesis. So these ideas didn't just show up in Isaiah.

Also, if the persian messiah myth is about a cosmic saviour, then its not a match at all anymore.

And that leaves just 1 item on the list. I wonder how similar these ideas are if we can actually examine the details. I'll put that on my list of things to research.

Sorry, you are not qualified to change Boyce's opinions based on evidence. She feels the Israelites were influenced by the Persian theology.

And yet, I did a fine job refuting them in post#399. The comparrison required Christianity. That's not the Hebrew bible! That's completely off topic.

As F.S. explains, it happens subtley. A religious thinker one days claims.."we are also getting a messiah" and then they too beging getting revelations about a coming messiah, and they too are going to have the end times with a resurrection for all.

And yet, there is no "messiah" in the text of Isaiah. There is a future king.

 

[dybmh]

From a Jewish theology site:

LOL. Yeshua, citing the NT, King Messiah... which site, did you get this from?

Nevermind, nevermind, you copied and pasted it.

Bless your heart, you've been duped by a Messianic Judiasm site. You do know they're a Christian denomination?

Messianic Judaism is a modernist and syncretic movement of Protestant Christianity that incorporates some elements of Judaism and other Jewish traditions into evangelicalism.

Messianic Judaism - Wikipedia
​

This group hides it pretty well, but they still left an artifact on their twitter page identifying them as messianic judaism.

Notice the number of followers... yeah, these folks are super popular. Lot's of social confirmation, huge concensus opinion. { extreme sarcasm }

Did you look at their statement of faith? Faith Statement

• Believe in both the OT and the NT
• Believe in the trinity
• Yeshua was born from a virgin
• Cleansed in the blood shed by Yeshua
• Faith in Yeshua cleanses from sin
• Yeshua was the pascal lamb
• literal Baptism
• spiritual Baptism
• gifts of the holy spirit as described in galatians
• righteousess comes from grace from faith
• offerings were fullfilled by Yeshua

So yeah, it's not a Jewish theology site.

In spite of the scholarship debate over the application of the title “Servant” in the opening verses of Isaiah 42, the majority of ancient Jewish commentators have interpreted Isaiah 42:1-4 to refer to the King Messiah.

Even if this is true, and I'm guessing it's more 50/50, what commentators say is irrelevant. All that matters is what is in the text itself. I already told you, these ideas are in commentary, not in the text itself.

Here's a challenge. Look at chapter 42. Read it from the beginning, verse by verse. Try to find the "salvation" in the chapter. There's a few verses in there, that sound a little salvation-y. But if you pay attention to who is doing the saving... it's the people, not an individual.

In the second part of scroll of Isaiah there are four distinct Messianic servant prophecies (Isaiah 42:1-7; 49:1-7; 50:4-11; 52:13-53:12).

LOL. Did you read any of these? Isa 49 names the servant. Guess who it is? It's Israel. Literally, that's what it says. Isa 50, there is no salvation at all. Isa 52-53, is talking about the nation of Israel being the target of their persecution and bearing he sin of these nations in silence.

It’s important to understand and distinguish between the two types of servant prophecies. The Brit Ha-Chadashah (NT) applies the Messianic Servant passages of Isaiah to Yeshua (Jesus) the King Messiah (Matt. 12:17-20, Luke 2:32; 4:16-18, Acts 8:30-35).

Hey, if you want to show that the NT borrowed from persian myths, have at it. This is completely irrelevant to the Hebrew bible. All you need to do is read the text to see that there is no "messiah" in the text.

In Isaiah 42:1-4 it is clear that the servant is an individual who has been given the Ruach Ha-Kodesh (Holy Spirit) and called to establish justice in the land (earth).

Nope, it is not clear it is *an individual*. The subject very quickly shifts to the nation, and repeatedly in Isaiah, the servant is specified at the Jewish people.

Isa 42:2 He will not cry out, lo-yisa nor exalt Himself (endure, resist, lift up), nor cause his voice to be heard in the street.


“He will not strive, nor cry; neither will any man hear his voice in the streets.” -Matthew 12:19


“He will not lift up his voice…” - Yarchi, Kimchi, & Ben Melech


To put it concisely, He will not seek glory for Himself or cry out in defence of Himself.

And? There's no "salvation here". Oh yeah, the NT comments on it.

Isa 42:3 Kaneh A reed ratzutz crushed, (bruised, oppressed) lo He will not break, and the smoking flax (a dying flame) He will not quench: le-emet for truth He will bring forth judgment.


“A bruised reed He will not break, and dying flame He will not put out, until He sends forth judgment to victory.” -Matthew 12:20


Notice that the Septuagint (Greek OT) version quoted by Matthew (Levi) further illuminates the form that the judgement Messiah brings will take. His judgement will bring about the immutable truth of all things and victory over judgement that condemns, for those who receive Him.

All NT commentary. Totally irrelevant.

"The meek, who are like a bruised reed, shall not be broken; and the poor, who are as obscure as flax (or a lamp ready to go out), shall not be extinct:'' -Targum Yonatan

Look at that! The Jewish commentary says it's NOT an individual. The meek are plural, the poor are plural. Still no "salvation". Wasn't this supposed to support your argument?

“Ratzutz” describes something cracked, that is, half broken. Thus, it is inferred that not only will He not break it, He will also restore it.

Half broken means it will be restored? Anyway, that's not what Ratzutz means. It means broken or crushed, not cracked, not bruised. Klein Dictionary, רצץ 1

Isa 42:4 He will not yichheh grow weak (fail, be faint, be restrained) nor be yarutz discouraged (crushed, oppressed), until He has yasiym set (appointed) mishpat judgment ba-aretz in the land (earth): u’torato and His Torah will be awaited by the iyiym islands (coastlands, Mediterranean).

What a terrible translation. Anyway, the future king will be a leader. Still no salvation. So where or where is this "messiah" in Isaiah?

The Servant (Yeshua) is now identified alongside the figures of the previous verse. He will both ensure the restoration of the broken (v.3) and remain in strength to bring about justice in the land of Israel (v.4). Thus, the Torah (Instruction) He imparts will bear fruit among the nations. Notice that the Torah is His. Both the literal Torah of Moses and the living Torah (Instruction) of the Messiah are born of His authorship. Messiah is the author and goal of the Torah (Romans 10:4).

Nopey-nope. The restoration is a mistranslation. There is no "fruit". Yes the Torah belongs to the nation. And it closes with a citation to Romans.

See, in order to find the "messiah" in Isaiah, one needs the NT and mistranslations.

And this is what Boyce does too, right? Don't they cite Paul as evidence the "messiah" is borrowed?

 

[dybmh]

I'm sorry, the debate is over. You spent 15 posts denying scholarship, calling scholars delusional, picking at nonsense points. Now it appears you did this to waste enough time to get to a point where you can now claim I'm "spamming endlessly" and put it in a bad light.
I'm not falling for this, which was spoken about already.
I have given enough sources. It's clear now that even if you have no argument against the source or consensus you will just call them "delusional", or simply say they are wrong.
Meanwhile anytime I use anything less than a PhD they are automatically disqualified to weigh in.

No, just 1 scholar sounded delusional. Did you notice he was reading from a script on the other video where he was featured?

Scholars get dismissed when they misrepresent or demonstrate ignorance of the topic they are writting about.

And Dever has said there is no concensus. Francesca said these topics are fraught with dispute and disagreement. Dr. Baden said we don't have a complete picture and these things can be misinterpretted.

And yes, repeat posting the same videos, repeat quoting the same conclusions without engaging with the rebuttal, is spamming.

Yet you want to change a consensus opinion. Even when the last video linked to was an apologist attempting to debunk intertextuality by using superficial comparisons. Which they explained was a huge mistake and lack of education.

It turns out, there isn't a concensus opinion on a lot of what you're saying.

Anyway, he intertexuality they brought was pretty weak. Did you look at it at all? The example they brought from the eluma elish was virtually word for word except for the swap out of blood for feathers. In Isaiah, almost every word was different except for 3. And, they made a boo-boo on the hebrew saying that a bashan is a serpent. Ummmm, no it isn't. So, there's a similar name, not identical. There's a word for fleeing, and there's a word for coiled. None of those are consecutive. It's another Noah - Nu'u similarity. Same basic name, same basic concept, somehow it's borrowing? Nah, that's pretty weak.

Then I get a new fallacy, now I have to "bring something new" as if the consensus isn't enough. Or, oh yeah, since you "debunked " it. Or one source was "delusional". Right. Oh please, I hop you will quote my new sources and please keep stringing me along so you can just again use complete denial, and use a lack of personal education to tell scholars what is correct?
"New paradim". HA.

Again, examining your own sources, a good chunk of them admit there is no concensus.

Yes, you need to either engage in debate, or bring new information.

Yes, scholars have have been shown to be wrong repeatedly in this thread. Nick Grier was wrong, Boyce was wrong Francesca was wrong. Dever was wrong. They all have made mistakes that are easy to point out and prove. Remember Francesca saying the arrowheads said Asherah on them. That was false. Remember how Boyce said that later Isaiah was the first reference to strict monotheism? That was false. Remember how Dever said there was a crescent on the naos? That was false.

Again, you gift me posts that make my point. First making fun of an entire consensus in a field shows a massive disingenuous streak. But then making fun of intertexuality when:
1)you asked how this was determined, made a criticism that I didn't explain deeper

You didn't bring any examples, that's true.
So far no good examples have been brought.

2) so now we get into a small study of examples and you put it down claiming it doesn't mean anything. Yet you asked for more information

Examples? I only recall a single example. I'll have to go back and look again.

3)the video does explain how it's a mistake to use a superficial understanding of intertextuality as the apologist does

No, I think I actually understand it. And that's why the example they brought is faulty. It doesn't fit the pattern.

4) earlier I source people with Masters and non-PhD researchers and they are immediately DISqualified because they are not experts and are not allowed to weigh in.
YET, now the consensus of the people who are allowed is treated as if it's meaningless. Oddly, just when I demonstrate it's definitely the consensus.
Then, suddenly it's discounted, spoken about in a sarcastic way and also made to look like a fallacy. Suddenly.......right when the information is enough to prove consensus.

This is sloppy. I didn't disqualify them. I was just pointing out the double standard of requiring that I come up with PHD peer-reviewed material, but you don't have to follow that same standard.

5) Oh, and there are "no real examples" and I'm just "name dropping" despite the last issue was "ok so it's the consensus but WHY? You haven't shown HOW THEY KNOW?".........

this. This is all dishonest and a huge waste of time.

This ENTIRE RESPONSE is just managing poor form, fallacies, dishonest tricks


Once again. I do not care if you use denial, I am interested in what is true. But I am done with playing games.

You haven't been able to refute a single one of my arguments. Its all just "it's true because they say it's true".

 

[dybmh]

Ha. Well some are in Jerusalem and even the Biblical society and archaeologists were uncomfortable admiting they were Israelites. But the evidence was enough to demonstrate it was. Yahweh is also in the mix.
Dever explains everything. There is no doubt many Israelite religions were worshipping a female goddess.

No, there isn't any evidence to demonstrate it. Bring an example. betcha can't. All you did was site the conclusion. Yahweh is NOT in the mix. You are not keeping track of the details. Dever spends 50+ minutes showing examples of female goddesses, not once is Yahweh involved in any way. None, zero zip.

The hairstyle is explained a bit in the video. It's associated with female deities in Egypt, Canaan and other nearby nations. So were lions and palm trees in the doorway of the temples.
The evidence is strong. You don't need to watch the video. Dever is convinced and there is good evidence. I'm looking for what is true. You do you.

The figurines don't have that hairstyle. Do you understand. If the hairstyle is significant, then the figurines are NOT a goddess, not the goddess he is talking about.

I did end up watching the video. Dever is convinced but he admits that people don't agree, and for good reason. Trees in the door ways of temples was... Greek. That's what he said.

The original was 2100, re-written a few times. The Merneptah inscription is an inscription. The lines are talking about a campaign in Canaan.
Also the date -
"The Merneptah Stele, also known as the Israel Stele or the Victory Stele of Merneptah, is an inscription by Merneptah, a pharaoh in ancient Egypt who reigned from 1213–1203 BCE.

That isn't before 1300 BCE, because of....math. An area of Canaanites maybe were calling themself Israelites before they moved out or were in a separate part of Canaan or nearby? Could be a small village? That is what Dr Baden said, Canaanites moved out and formed small villages.

The source material for Genesis is older by far. Dever and Baden both understand this fact, what is this supposed to demonstrate?

The point is, the "striking similarities" come from the later version. This again, undermines this assumed direction of influence.

And now, here you are speculating, maybe it was this, maybe it was that. Totally fine with me, but, you can't critisize me for it.

It's in the video.

I'm quite sure it's not. But I'll go make sure tomorrow.

What you described is syncretism. Yahweh is a typical Near Eastern Strom deity. Syncretism. Moses birth, syncretic. Messianic saviors, end of the world, everyone resurrects, Persian.

You really don't know what syncretism is, do you?
Again, foreign ideas need to be added and incorporated. For example, if I believe in reincarnation, and the hindu believe in reincarnation, that's not syncretic.

If I have a storm god, and so do the norse, that's not syncretic.

Also, messianic saviours are still nowhere to be found in the Hebrew bible. And "everyone ressurects" isn't there either. See. This is what I'm talking about. If you actually knew the Hebrew bible, you would be able to ID these false claims.

I'll look into the Boyce claims tomorrow. If they're saying "cosmic saviour" and "ressurection for all", that's it. That scolar can be dismissed as ignorant on the subject matter they are writing about. it doesn't matter how many degrees they have. Not everyone ressurects in the Hebrew bible.

You are not qualified to weigh in on ancient archeology.

This is preaching, Joel. Posting a video, then saying it can't be discussed is preaching. No different than any other preacher who posts their truth and then refuses to debate it.
Yes, I am absolutely qualified to go through the video and comment on what is said. You can't refute what I'm saying. I understand.

A mock temple was found with a God/Goddess inside. I don't care if it's called "folk religion" the point is the Bible is not an accurate picture of what was happening.

Joel, where was that mock temple found????

It was GREECE.

Maybe" near the temple??? Wow. Dever, the actual qualified expert feels the evidence says the majority worshipped a female deity. The lecture gives an overview. He's going by his 30+ years in the field and knowledge of other finds. So now internet forum guy is going to write to William Dever and suggest some corrections. Uh huh.

There isn't evidence for the conclusion the majority worshipped a female deity. There is a location with a pillar, no Yahweh. Then he goes far and wide and away to find exmaples of any female goddess he can. and none of them resemble the common figurines found everywhere. And there's no evidence that these figurines were worshipped. There's no evidence they are paired with Yahweh.

Again, how many times did Dever admit there was not concensus? 5 - 10 times.

And look at this picture? Is this a crescent moon? Answer please, yes or no?

 

[dybmh]

You are not remotely qualified to be interpreting archaeological finds from religions you literally know nothing about. Dever says he sees goddess symbols his opinion is qualified.
The goddesses are consorts because they are sometimes found alongside a male deity.

Again, preaching.

He sees things that aren't there. The cresent moon, isn't there. That is obvious.

And female goddesses next to a male god can be protectors, not wives. There was not a single example of these goddesses paired up in the video. They are independent warrior types. That's in the paper I posted about lion goddesses.

This video alone presents excellent evidence that what Dever is saying is correct. A cursory, amateur reading of photos is completely meaningless.

He says himself that the people say the inscriptions are forgeries.

Anyone can see the evidence of that in the pictures. It's obvious.

And the only evidence brought in the video is that female goddesses are popular and diverse. But Dever sees them all the same. And even ou have admitted, you don't care about their names, or their features. They're all the same to you too.

You have already demonstrated you will just resort to dishonesty and call scholars "delusional" or simply deny a consensus demonstrated in textbook after textbook.
Not only is your opinion amateur here it's disqualified by your rules. Once someone is dishonest they are out.

It's not dishonest to call it delusional if that's what it is.

"They're so different they must be borrowing" said emphatically repeatedly is delusional.

I'll go look at that video again, but I don't remember the textbook quotes really advancing much of the argument.

I skipped material because it wasn't finds related to Ashera.

BINGO! So you really don't have any idea about the counter examples that refute the conclusions you're making.

Wow you have a lot of archaeological opinions about photos, do you have a PhD and field experience?
An actual archaeologist seems to think these finds demonstrate a goddess was part of early Israelite religion. One who understands what to look for and saw the actual finds.
Good for you, writing off intertexuality and now archaeology with that confirmation bias.

You can't refute any of my arguments. So, there's the adhom. The sign of a weakness.

Ashera or some goddess was part of Israelite beliefs, unlike what the Bible claims.

Wrong, Joel. everyone knows that the bible confirms worship of the female deity. What's missing is this whole Yahweh having a wife. And there's really very little evidence of that. As I've said from the beginning, and confirmed by the Dever video.

 

[dybmh]

As Mary Boyce wrote:
Doctrines

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,

OK, Just to be clear, this has a lot of things listed which are not in the Hebrwe bible. But, regarding the ressurection at the end of days, it doesn't say "all" will be ressurected. It does say "cosmic saviour", though. And that does not describe the jewish Moshiach, the future king of prophecy.

 

[dybmh]

Was Genesis "Stolen" from Pagan

OK, here we have another example. The sources in the video make a claim. For someone like me, someone who knows the Hebrew bible pretty well. I objected.

Let's look at each of these verses.

Psalms 74:12-13

ואלהים מלכי מקדם פעל ישועות בקרב הארץ׃
For God is my King of old, working salvation in the midst of the earth.

אתה פוררת בעזך ים שברת ראשי תנינים על־המים׃
You parted the sea by your strength; you broke the heads of the crocodiles in the waters.​

There's the word Taninim. And God is not inheritting its name. So that's false.

Job 3:8

יקבהו אררי־יום העתידים ערר לויתן׃
Let those who curse the day curse it, who are ready to rouse up Leviathan.

Here's the word leviathan. God is not inheritting anything here. This one is false, too.​

Job 26:12-13

בכחו רגע הים ובתובנתו מחץ רהב׃
He stirs up the sea with his power, and by his understanding he struck Rahab.

ברוחו שמים שפרה חללה ידו נחש בריח׃
By his wind he has made the heavens fair; his hand slew the fleeing serpent.
​

Here's the fleeing serpent. God isn't inheritting its name. This one is false, too.

Job 41:1

הן־תחלתו נכזבה הגם אל־מראיו יטל׃
Behold, the hope of him is in vain; shall not one be cast down even at the sight of him?
​

I don't even know what they're talking about here. There's no serpent, not death, no taninim. This one is more than false, it's complete rubbish. Someone really really doesn't know what they're talking about.

Isaiah 25:8

בלע המות לנצח ומחה אדני יהוה דמעה מעל כל־פנים וחרפת עמו יסיר מעל כל־הארץ כי יהוה דבר׃
He will destroy death for ever; and the Lord God will wipe away tears from off all faces; and the insult of his people shall he take away from off all the earth; for the Lord has spoken it.
​

There's death. Where is God inheritting its name? It's not there again. This is false, too.

Isaiah 27:1

ביום ההוא יפקד יהוה בחרבו הקשה והגדולה והחזקה על לויתן נחש ברח ועל לויתן נחש עקלתון והרג את־התנין אשר בים׃
On that day the Lord with his hard, great and strong sword shall punish Leviathan the flying serpent, Leviathan that crooked serpent; and he shall slay the crocodile that is in the sea.
​

And here's the example they brought which is *supposed* to show intertexutality. But now they're claiming God is inheritting its name. But its not here at all. This one is false too.

Looking at these verses, I can say again, someone is in fantasy land if they think these verses are God inheritting any of these names or titles. Yes, it's Dr. Bowen again, this time on a script.

So that's 6 false conclusions. Bam right in a row. Joel, why didn't you check any of this? Oh yeah, because they're scholars and they said it, so it must be true. Again and again when it comes to the Hebrew bible, these scholars you're using don't seem to know what they're talking about.

What about the claim that "bashan" is a snake in Hebrew? That's false too.

So that's 7 false statements. Why do you trust these people?

At the end of the video, Dr. Kipp Davis claims after watching it, the viewer should see obvious and diverse examples of intertexuality. Ummmm not in the Hebrew bible. Only one example was given and it's w-e-a-k. Weak.

------------------------------------------------

Let's look at the name leviathan. Compared to the Ugaritic "LTN". Per wikipedia, the name is not only "Litan". It could be Lotan, Litan, or even Litanu.

Lotan - Wikipedia

Yet again! I have been proven correct. The vowels are missing from the ugaritic names. Matching them up to the names in the Hebrew bible requires assumtions. Here, the closest match is a guess. It's got 33% odds of being correct. That same method applies to all the canaanite connections which are name-based.

17:24 - 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”

17:55 God in Translation, Smith

“…the Bibles authors fashioned whatever they may have inherited of the Mesopotamian literary tradition on their own terms”

18:19 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.”

OK, here we have quotes from the texbooks. Making a few claims. Do they advance the argument? I mean, if there were good examples brought to support it, maybe.

19:30 Subtle Citation, Allusion, and Translation in the Hebrew Bible, Zevit

Methods for identifying intersexuality and understanding borrowing

The point here is important. If a person actually watches the video and understands what is being said. Intertexutality is MORE than similarities. That's why the argument, "These are just similarites" is a valid criticism. There needs to be more than a similar name or a similar concept to show a direction of influence.

19:55 examples of intersexuality

yes, from movies. And those examples are obvious. The example. Note, 1 example, that was brought from the Hebrew bible doesn't come close to any of those other examples.

 

[dybmh]

John Hamer of Toronto , Historian, Pastor

24:13 Note: epic of gilgamesh "Fragments of which exist as early as 2100bce".

Uh-huh. Fragments. I wonder what's the date of the version that's being used to see all of these striking similarities? But of course, you don't tell us that. You just repeat the earliest possible date of these *fragments* to make your case.

24:30-32:00 the epic of gilgamesh is retold, there are no striking differences mentioned at all. Probably because this is the older version.

Epic of Gilamesh 2900 BCE, Sumerian and Mesopotamian empire.

Oh dear, talk about misrepresentation, I mean, wow.

The version of epic of gilgamesh with all the "striking similarities" is written when?

Epic of Gilgamesh - Wikipedia.

It's tablet 11 of the "standard babylonian version" dated 1300-1000bce. That's 1000 years off Joel.

 

[101G]

Attention all viewers.
let's get the basic down as God the Ordinal First.

#1. Jesus, God, the Father, the Ordinal First "MADE ALL THINGS".
but Jesus, God, the Son, the Ordinal Last did not "MAKE THING",

many have said God the Father went through the Son to create "ALL THINGS". but Isaiah 44:24 states it was the "LORD", the Father who MADE ALL THINGS, and he was "ALONE", and "BY HIMSELF". so, he, the Ordinal First didn't go through anyone.

also, Jesus the son said that the Ordinal First made all things.

101G

 

[dybmh]

39:24 Isaiah 27:1 and Baal Cycle Tablet V comparison

As was demonstrated in post#567, the source you brought is beyond deceptive in the characterization of 6 sections of text from Hebrew bible. They claim that Yahweh "inherits" the names of death, leviathan, and the taninim, and that is 100% false.

When a source is shown to be lying, it makes sense to dig deeper into the other claims they're making. If they lied about one thing, they might be lying about other things too.

This isn't apologetics or fundementalism. This is a proper and thorough investigation. What they're saying doesn't make sense, they were caught lying, digging deeper is justified.

What's incredibly ironic is, the name of the video is "... duplicitous scholarship ...", and yet, the video itself is lying about both the Hebrew bible and the Baal cycle exaggerating the strength of their argument.

Ironic, it claims to be pointing out someone else's duplicitous scholarship, yet, it has no problem being duplicitous itself.

Here's the example they bring for intertexuality in Isaiah 27:1

Look pretty similar right? But, they're being dishonest with the translation of the Baal Cycle. The words "monster of the sea", placed conveniently at the end, are not actually in the Baal Cycle. They added that exaggerating the strength of this example.

Here's what the actual Baal Cycle says: ( source )

The end of the second line is not "seven headed monster of the sea". That's an exaggerated translation. The ugarite word "Slyt" is translated here is a proper name. The story has 2 serpents in it.

This reason for this translation is given here: ( source ). The seven headed serpent is a seperate and individual apart from Lotan in a different story.

So, the comparisson to Isaiah 27:1 is not what they depicted in the video. "of the monster of the sea" is not there at all.

But, it gets better. Is "slyt" even a sea serpent? Here's another tranlsation: ( source )

This source says that translation of "slyt" is unknown. They don't see it as a proper name, but it's clear from the context that it's not a sea monster. It's shooting flames. The god of the sea is identified as "Naharu" not "Ltn". And the serpent who shoots flames is mentioned along with a calf, a female dog, and a daughter. None of those indicate a sea context.

This is further confirmed by looking at the entire passage in question which is mistranslated as "monster of the sea".

There is nothing here that indicates "Ltn" is a sea monster. The only mention is a dolphin, waaaaaay at the end, which is mentioned next to a sheep. Where does "monster of the sea" come from? The video is *borrowing from Isaiah*! It's not the other way around. In order to make their point that Isaiah borrows from the Baal Cycle, they take the Baal Cycle and borrow from Isaiah.

This is duplicitous scholarship. Just as it says in the title. But the duplicity is in the content of the video itself.

 

[rational experiences]

Humans say when I look at the living monkey no human body or human health or human consciousness exists.

I'm not a Monkey. Living in a healthy human the monkey itself is healthy too.

I'm bio life mutual.
I'm bio life mutual but equal to human woman.

I used the word mutual to advise my brother who believes first position one is nothing that he's life's destroyer.

As healthy.monkey is life law mutual to healthy humans.

As a man like father he's a creator only by human sex.

In science he's our destroyer.

Pretty basic.

As men using an old science of man compiled science study. Said it taught him new Jesus technology that he rebuilt.

Life on earth. Destroyed. Snap frozen.

After ice man says biology small re emerged.

Hence there is no scientific thesis.

Pretty basic science terms said exact.

Scientist who wants gods power a secret society haven't stopped their research I want god.

Everyone is told. Same human destroyer mentality as before.

The human complaint. Whenever he theories about what he wants. Families murder is always involved.

Warned. How he gets why he wants...an end.

As a reactive maths position first does not go on for 00000000000000000000000000000000 infinity as no end.

However the greedy man whose men tal ity we are warned about thinks about it from position one non stop.

Gods own he says the totality of my reasoning. I want access to channel it. So a hole opened above is theoried. His thesis holes nothingness.

And he wants it.

Pretty basic the type of human thinker who destroys life on earth.

As the topic was human and nature's Life sacrificed on earth because of the men of science.

It wasn't books about anything but man's science named summations gods powers.

So using one book he references the other man's science books claiming it's about gods not man's science thesis.

No says the scientist it's not science.

Why brother human?

Answer is only on the earth talking stories about any type of change do I say its science. Yet I have to exist first a human. Reactions are on earth.

Scientific thesis of human men.

Did you come from nothing baby man thinker making all claims?

Thinks. I'm a man. I'm. Sexual being man. I'm not sex though. I'm man.

I don't own O ova ovary of my human mother.

Memory I don't think I own a trace to myself as I think. Theist man theist first. I thought I came from nothing. As the bio life thinker.

Whose body mind presence is his conscious belief first. Warning exact.

I lied to myself first.

Mr destroyer the topic is the scientist.

 

[joelr]

He sounded delusional in the video. The claim was "The differences show they were borrowing". And he was emphatically gesturing, raising his voice, and repeating himself. This notion that diamterically opposing themes and imagery is evidence of copying is insane. Two culures meet, and one says the gods are evil, the other one says, that's interesting ours is opposite. That's not borrowing, that's two cultures meeting with two different god concepts.

No he sounded perfectly ratiuonal and he agrees with the consensus. They were debunking an amateur apologist video saying the same as you and explaining why a cursory reading like that misses the point entirely.

You take one example, find it unacceptable and deem the whole thing wrong. That is such obvious bias, but it doesn't matter, I already knew that. As I said you are not going to admit I was right, your motives are clear so I'm uninterested.

No, what I pointed out was you claimed all of your sources are peer-reviewed PHDs. But They're not. When you told me to go find peer-reviewed material, I pointed out that you weren't providing peer-reviewed material.
Except, none of the evidence shows Yahweh is worshipped with a female deity. Watch the Dever video. 50+ minutes of examples of femle goddesses not a single one of them paired with a male god. Not one. The temples don't have these elements. The homes don't have Yahweh at all. The family shrines only have 1 deity represented. The only evidence that's left is the very very weak evidence from 2 inscriptions, both appear to have been forgeries where the second deity ( or whatever it is ) was added after the fact by a different person than the one who was supplicating to Yahweh. And the iconography on the pottery for one of these inscriptions isn't yahweh, dever says its an egyptian god named Bes. The supposed "asherah" doesn't match a single one of the female goddesses, the best Dever can do is compare it to an egyptian throne, but even that doesn't match.

Dever has dozens of peer-reviewed papers. Female Goddess, name isn't important. Evidence suggests this. Leading biblical archaeologist feels the evidence easily supports this.

But now you are admitting that yes, there was monotheism. But it wasn't popular and didn't describe the common practices.

What do you mean "admitting"? What is the evidence for early monotheism?

And, so, we agree. Judaism has always been the minority position. I've said that multiple times already. It's not that it never existed before 600bce. It simply wasn't popular. Why would a group of people "return" to their roots after being freed from exile and "returning" to their homeland? Well, that's obvious.

Devers position was Judaism was what was written in 600BCE by temple religious leaders who re-imagined what Judaism should have looked like.
As he says the Temples do not reflect Judaism, they have art, often depictions of Gods and even female Gods.

These are instituitions, they don't just poof magically into existence. They take people to support them, to operate them, to bring offerings to them. These are evidence of monotheistic institutions.

The temples do not suggest monotheism. Since they did encounter it during the Persian period, and they had an influence, and scripture says Yahweh only focus is needed at this time, it sounds like it started in the Persian period.

No, I question it. I examine it when it doesn't make sense.

No, I believe you don't want to change your beliefs and reject it. This is the reason for double standards, weird criticism about scholars being "delusional", thinking a cursory reading of a few examples is enough to say a consensus is wrong.
The last video even said an amateur looking at parallels cannot understand the intertextuality and literary word done to understand the borrowings.

And Dr. Baden disagreed and said there is evidence of semetic people arriving in egypt, enslaved in egypt, and leaving egypt headed for Canaan. Please see the attached 50 page reseach paper which brings the archeological evidence in magnificent detail.

Pictures of the heirogliphics are there. Translations and sources of the egyptian inscriptions are there. A Joseph type figure is identified. There's eve reference to a potential Moses figure named Irsu. Goshen is identified, the location of the slave labor camps are identified, where the slaves were doing the construction is identified. Reasons to believe that these slaves are part of the pre-Israelite people are there. It describes how the conclusion is made that slaves routinely escaped and headed to canaan. It also backs up my observation that Mediggo was an early Israelite city. Whom does the inscription claimed lived there? The tribe of Asher. Before the settlements, before the supposed fictive kinship. There's archeological evidence of the tribe of Asher. And like I said, the timing all syncs up. [/QUOTE]

It also brings the counter arguments, when a claim is weak it explains why, when a claim is strong it explains why. If there's debate it brings both sides. Eveything is footnoted. It's a great paper. And now you have a complete and detailed answer to why Dr. Baden said, there were were slaves and an exodus just not the way the bible describes, and there's evidence of these slaves leaving and heading for egypt.

Also, there's Sania 115. It's new, discovered in 2012, and reported in 2016. This is evidence of Israelites in Egypt as far back as 1800bce.

Expert claims inscriptions from Egyptian exodus proves Hebrew is world’s oldest alphabet

https://m.jpost.com/israel-news/exp...roves-hebrew-is-worlds-oldest-alphabet-474718

no conspiracy theories please.
DANIEL K. EISENBUD
Daniel K. Eisenbud is a reporter and columnist for The Jerusalem Post. He is a multiple award-winning editor from Hearst Magazines and Dow Jones, former New York City Government spokesperson under mayor Rudolph Giuliani, and former police and criminal courts daily newspaper reporter.
He holds a BS in Communication and History from Boston University, and an MA in Journalism from New York University.

Daniel is an American-Israeli and resides in Jerusalem.

Yet another apologist who is eager to believe conspiracy theories that make his religion the oldest in the world. HE probably thinks Noahs Ark is a historical tale and language diversity started at the Tower of Babel.
Remember Meagen, just the lowly wife of a PhD OT expert, but still not qualified. Or the psychologist who hobbied in Persian influence on Judaism and was shut down hard.
Well this is infuriatingly poor. Once again, your standards work for you when they work. But they don't have to apply to you. Demonstrating this is not an honest exchange at all. As I have been pointing out.
This just takes it to another level.

There's quite a bit of good evidence that Israelites were in egypt too. Drought conditions sent some of them to egypt, they were enslaved, left, and returned to their kin in canaan.

Quite a bit....LOL

They are not sure. If I entered this as evidence you would be all over it. They also seem to regard scripture as history and it is not.

"portrays a caravan of Canaanites arriving as immigrants. "
"So, while we should resist the temptation to identify the ʿApiru busy at work in P.Leiden 348 with the Hebrews/Israelites"

"As such, P.Anastasi VI may reflect the period when the ethnogenesis of Israel was in progress, not quite finalized, and hence the Egyptian scribe referred to the people as Shasu of Edom."

"quite possibly the Shasu of Edom mentioned in P.Anastasi VI are not Edomites per se, for there is a good possibility that they were early Israelites or at least a closely related group of people."


"we conclude that early Israelites most likely were in Egypt during the late Ramesside period."

Either way, if some early proto-Israelites came down and went back what is the point?

Exodus as a story, is a myth. All of the variations.

 

[joelr]

The point is, the israelites weren't simply "canaanites". That's not what the evidence is showing. And what I've been doing is, watching the videos in their entirety, and pointing out all the qualifications that are made and how the black and white statements you've been making are not what's described in your sources.

Well now that is delusional if anything is. Dever said it and Baden said it. Your last archaeology paper said they came down from Canaan so they were also Canaanites.

Also, when your sources are simply ignorant of the Hebrew bible I point that out too.

You seem to think they are but you haven't pointed anything out. Just apojetics which deny scholarship. Not interested in conspiracy theories.

Israel was a "people" pre 1200bce. How long does it take to become a people, at least 100 years. That means 1300bce is a moderate estimate on the Israelite people.

Baden said after the collapse in 1200 they formed small tribes and slowly were unified through exterior pressure. 1-200 years this may have taken. You don't go back in time from external pressure.

 

[joelr]

Yes, you're definitely repeating. I already countered this. 1) The prophets aren't telling history, they are about rebuke. Not finding anything about noah's flood there is kind of like not finding elephants at the bottom of the ocean. One wouldn't expect to find elephants at the bottom of the ocean, one also wouldn't expect to find the prophets talking about noah's flood. In Dune, one wouldn't expect the fremen to be talking about Caladan. Does that mean the beginning of the story in Dune is fake, or copied. This is a *duh*.

You haven't countered anything? Ever. Noah in Genesis was taken from the Epic of Gilamesh.
See historical consensus. No world flood ever happened, see modern geology.

Also, the flood is mentioned in Psalms 29. I said this already. You haven't refuted any of this.

So the scholar who says "the prophets didn't mention the flood" is ignoring or ignorant of Psalms 29.

who cares? Timestamp it and link the video, I would need to see what context he's talking about.

Great! We also now agree that montheism wasn't something borrowed in 600bce, there was evidence of it as a minority position long before that. We also agree that the name of the goddess on the inscriptions is ambiguous. I notice you've started calling it "asherah/astarte", that's progress. We also agree that God vs. the Devil isn't in the Hebrew bible, that's been dropped off your list of things borrowed. We're getting there. And, how many times did Dever in the video admit that his conclusions about asherah are not a concensus? 5 times, 10 times. Really "asherah" has lost all it's meaning to Dever. It's just a generic name for any female deity, from anywhere.

The Egyptians had a supreme deity, Zeus was a supreme deity, it was around. All of these points are meaningless.
Genesis is sourced from Mesopotamian myths.
A female deity was worshipped. Dever considers this common practice and considers scripture to be a version made up as ideal.

I don't care which Persian theology made it into the NT and which entered the OT. Point is the Persians had a large impact on Judaism.
This is true.

This nonsense about hanging on a goddess name is ridiculous, as if I need Ashera to be Yahwehs wife. My entire point from the go was very simple and not hard to understand. I'lll go back and source the original words if I have to.

Well, the name doesn't matter to you. The point is, the Hebrew bible isn't borrowing "asherah" from the canaanites. One of my points from the very begininng was, the canaanite connection is very weak if we examine the details. And here were having examined the details, and it turns out I was right. All that can be claimed is a female deity had a presence in the border areas, not in the temple. And the figurines are a mystery, they don't really match any of the deities that have been described. Dever likes the idea of a divine feminine. Lot's of people do. I do too. But that doesn't make the Asherah or the asherim in the Hebrew bible canaanite. Not even close. It's all a big assumtption that's been repeated.

Talk about redundant??? Already covered this. Yeah, thanks for the amateur assessment of Dever, too bad you disagree, I guess I''ll call him up and tell him the bad news. Random internet forum poster says he's wrong.
His 40 years of field work and degress can kiss off because you have some facts to lay down.
Maybe he can stop his books from further printing?

Not interested.
As I said, over and over, I'm interested in what is true.

But, they're not. There has been no evidence what so ever of a yahweh worshipped in the homes. And there has been no evidence what so ever of the figurines being worshipped in the israelite homes. The only thing that was brought was a naos from where??? Greece!

Dever shows a male deity was in some of these temples. He does assume it was Yahweh. No other male deities were worshipped.

The borrowing, so far, has not been established. The intertexuality, is extremely weak. We can look at the one example brought ( which was Isaiah 27:1 ) if you want. Basically the name is similar, the concept is similar, but the wording doesn't show intertextuality, not in the same way as the example given. Also the israelites may have mesopotamian roots. there is archeological evidence of this in Mediggo.

Ok, we are done. I demonstrated my point. With 4 (at least ) PhD and 5-6 college text stating thesame.

You don't lose well but I am familiar with this style of butthurt.

 

[joelr]

Notice how several of the previous items on the "borrow" list have dropped off. That's how I know I'm winning the debate. Also, previously it was a cosmic saviour, now it's messianic ideas. Take a look at deuteronomy 28, the blessings. That's the messianic era, long before the late chapters of Isaiah. You know who else talked about the end of days? Jacob. Waaaaay back in Genesis. So these ideas didn't just show up in Isaiah.

No, the debate is over, I told you last time. But your level of denial is so high that I cannot even correct these new mistakes, you are a giant waste of time.

 

[joelr]

Persian influence

You haven't refuted one single thing? You seem to think you did (I doubt that also)
And yet, there is no "messiah" in the text of Isaiah. There is a future king.[/QUOTE]

But end times becomes a thing with everyone resurrecting. It's known for it's start in Persian thought.
You can do denial all you want and hide form what is true. I do not care.
Here we have information about what books and that your religion does indeed have a messiah expected. Thankyou Persians.
The Satan thing is in Jewish pseudepigrapha of the time, not scripture. The influence is true.

Your denial of solid academic consensus, despite the last video explaining that laymen cannot take a cursory reading and make an uneducated determination, or they will be wrong. Which you did. And proclaimed you are correct. The untimate shoot yourself in the foot.
Judaism is syncretic. Case closed.


Apocalypticism is the religious belief that the end of the world is imminent, even within one's own lifetime.[] Arising initially in Zoroastrianism, apocalypticism was developed more fully in Judaic, Christian, and Islamic eschatological speculation.[1][4][5][6][7]

As a genre, apocalyptic literature details the authors' visions of the end times/end of the age as revealed by an angel or other heavenly messenger.[2] The apocalyptic literature of Judaism and Christianity embraces a considerable period, from the centuries following the Babylonian exile down to the close of the Middle Ages.[3]

Apocalyptic elements can be detected in the prophetic books of Joel and Zechariah, while Isaiah chapters 24–27 and 33 present well-developed apocalypses. The second half of the Book of Daniel (chs. 7-12) offers a fully matured and classic example of this genre of literature.[3]

The only thing for certain that was predicted was the return of the Jews to their land, which occurred when Cyrus the Persian conquered Babylon in circa 539 BC. Thus, the fulfillment of the Messianic kingdom remained in the future for the Jews.

Since the apocalyptic genre developed during the Persian period, this dualism may have developed under the influence of Persian thought.

In 1 Chron. 21:1 (a book with heavy Persian influences), the Hebrew word satan appears for the first time as a proper name without an article. Before the exile, Satan was not a separate entity per se, but a divine function performed by the Yahweh's subordinate deities (sons of God) or by Yahweh himself. For example, in Num. 22:22 Yahweh, in the guise of mal'ak Yahweh, is “a satan” for Balaam and his ***. The editorial switch from God inciting David to take a census in 2 Sam 24:1, and a separate evil entity with the name “Satan” doing the same deed in 1 Chron. 21:1 is the strongest evidence that there was a radical transformation in Jewish theology. Something must have caused this change, and religious syncretism with Persia is the probable cause. G. Von Rad calls it a “correction due to religious scruples” and further states that “this correction would hardly have been carried out in this way if the concept of Satan had not undergone a rather decisive transformation.”9

The theory of religious influence from Persia is based not only on the generation spent in exile but the 400 years following in which the resurrected nation of Israel lived under strong Persian dominion and influence. The chronicler made his crucial correction to 2 Sam. 24:1 about 400 B.C.E. Persian influence increases in the later Hebrew works like Daniel and especially the intertestamental books. Therefore Satan as a separate evil force in direct opposition to God most likely came from the explicit Zoroastrian belief in such an entity. This concept is not consistent with pre-exilic beliefs.

There is no question that the concept of a separate evil principle was fully developed in the Zoroastrian Gathas (ca. 1,000 B.C.E.). The principal demon, called Druj (the Lie), is mentioned 66 times in the Gathas. But the priestly Jews would also have been exposed to the full Avestan scripture in which Angra Mainyu is mentioned repeatedly. His most prominent symbol is the serpent, so along with the idea of the “Lie,” we have the prototype for the serpent/tempter, in the priestly writers' garden of Genesis.10 There is no evidence that the Jews in exile brought with them any idea of Satan as a separate evil principle.

In Zoroastrianism the supreme God, Ahura Mazda, gives all humans free-will so that they may choose between good and evil. As we have seen, the religion of Zoroaster may have been the first to discover ethical individualism. The first Hebrew prophet to speak unequivocally in terms of individual moral responsibility was Ezekiel, a prophet of the Babylonian exile. Up until that time Hebrew ethics had been guided by the idea of the corporate personality – that, e.g., the sins of the fathers are visited upon the sons (Ex. 20:1-2)

 

[joelr]

Persian influence part 2

Proto-apocalyptic[edit]

• Isaiah 24–27; 33; 34–35
• Jeremiah 33:14–26
• Ezekiel 38–39
• Joel 3:9–17
• Zechariah 12–14

Apocalyptic[edit]

• Daniel 7–12

In Abrahamic religions, the Messianic Age is the future period of time on Earth in which the messiah will reign and bring universal peace and brotherhood, without any evil. Many believe that there will be such an age; some refer to it as the consummate "kingdom of God" or the "world to come". Jews believe that such a figure is yet to come, while Christians and Muslims believe that this figure will be Jesus.
Messianic Age

According to Jewish tradition, the Messianic Era will be one of global peace and harmony; an era free of strife and hardship, conducive to the furtherment of the knowledge of the Creator. The theme of the Messiah ushering in an era of global peace is encapsulated in two of the most famous scriptural passages from the Book of Isaiah:

According to the Talmud,[2] the Midrash,[3] and the Kabbalistic work, the Zohar,[4] the Messiah must arrive before the year 6000 from the time of creation. In Orthodox Jewish belief, the Hebrew calendar dates to the time of creation, making this correspond to the year 2240 on the Gregorian calendar.


Boyce is sourcing the JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA -

Boyce, Mary (2001). Zoroastrians : their religious beliefs and practices.
There exist many similarities between Zoroastrianism and Abrahamic religions as pointed about already by The Jewish Encyclopedia (1906).[96] While some scholars consider that key concepts of Zoroastrian dualism (good and evil; divine twins Ahura Mazda "God" and Angra Mainyu "Satan"), image of the deity, eschatology, resurrection and final judgment, messianism, revelation of Zoroaster on a mountain with Moses on Mount Sinai, three sons of Fereydun with three sons of Noah, heaven and hell, angelology and demonology, cosmology of six days or periods of creation, free will among others influenced Abrahamic religions, …”

Some scholars reject this but are mainly theologians who will not accept their religion isn’t the true word of their God.

No historical scholar doubts the Persian origin, Boyce, the leading scholar on Zoroastrianism believes it influenced all major religions.

The fact that all messianic and apocalyptic references happen during the Persian occupation strongly suggest an influence.

Each modern sect of Judaism has its own interpretation of Satan's identity. Conservative Judaism generally rejects the Talmudic interpretation of Satan as a metaphor for the yetzer hara, and regard him as a literal agent of God

During the Second Temple Period, when Jews were living in the Achaemenid Empire, Judaism was heavily influenced by Zoroastrianism, the religion of the Achaemenids.[34][8][35] Jewish conceptions of Satan were impacted by Angra Mainyu,[8][36] the Zoroastrian god of evil, darkness, and ignorance.[8]
The idea of Satan as an opponent of God and a purely evil figure seems to have taken root in Jewish pseudepigrapha during the Second Temple Period,[38] particularly in the apocalypses.[39] The Book of Enoch, which the Dead Sea Scrolls have revealed to have been nearly as popular as the Torah,

Grier was sourcing -
R. C. Zaehner is probably the world's foremost Zoroastrian scholar and he gives the best summary of Zoroastrian influences on Judaism in The Comparison of Religions (Boston: Beacon Press, 1959), pp. 134-53.




Zoroastrian influences on late Judaism was pervasive, profound, and continues with us today.1 The traditional claim that the Jews learned monotheism from the Zoroastrians during the Babylonian captivity can be disputed by the fact that by that time Zoroaster's strict monotheism had been compromised by polytheistic practices. The famous inscriptions of Darius, although mentioning the supreme God Ahura Mazda on almost every line, nonetheless refer twice to “other gods which are.”2

It was not so much monotheism that the exilic Jews learned from the Persians as it was universalism, the belief that one God rules universally and will save not only the Jews but all those who turn to God. This universalism does not appear explicitly until Second Isaiah, which by all scholarly accounts except some fundamentalists, was written during and after the Babylonian exile. The Babylonian captivity was a great blow to many Jews, because they were taken out of Yahweh's divine jurisdiction. Early Hebrews believed that their prayers could not be answered in a foreign land. The sophisticated angelology of late books like Daniel has its source in Zoroastrianism.3 The angels of the early Hebrew books were disguises of Yahweh or one of his subordinate deities. The idea of separate angels appears only after contact with Zoroastrianism.

The central ideas of heaven and a fiery hell appear to come directly from the Israelite contact with Iranian religion. Pre-exilic books are explicit in their notions the afterlife: there is none to speak of. The early Hebrew concept is that all of us are made from the dust and all of us return to the dust. There is a shadowy existence in Sheol, but the beings there are so insignificant that Yahweh does not know them. The evangelical writer John Pelt reminds us that “the inhabitants of Sheol are never called souls (nephesh).”4

 

[joelr]

LOL. Yeshua, citing the NT, King Messiah... which site, did you get this from?

Nevermind, nevermind, you copied and pasted it.

Bless your heart, you've been duped by a Messianic Judiasm site. You do know they're a Christian denomination?

Oh, so now you are suddenly back to respecting people with authority and experience? Flip-flop.



A messiah is in Judaism, it came from Persia.
What are the criteria that Judaism has established about the messiah?

And this is what Boyce does too, right? Don't they cite Paul as evidence the "messiah" is borrowed?

Uh, no? Why would you say that? As usual you don't provide sources or evidence.

 

[joelr]

No, just 1 scholar sounded delusional. Did you notice he was reading from a script on the other video where he was featured?

Did you notice they were doing a shared video where each person had a part to read?

Scholars get dismissed when they misrepresent or demonstrate ignorance of the topic they are writting about.

So do amateurs. You have long since been dismissed. You are still attempting to enter "delusional" as an argument. Ridiculous on so many levels.

And Dever has said there is no concensus. Francesca said these topics are fraught with dispute and disagreement. Dr. Baden said we don't have a complete picture and these things can be misinterpretted.

I didn't say Ashera was the consensus I said there is good evidence. Dever agrees and is an expert.

Again, you misuse Badens words. He didn't say it's complex in terms of the Biblical stories are in any way correct. The point I'm demonstrating.
Somehow twisting meaning and nitpicking to you is making a point. It hasn't worked at all, ever.

The Bible is not accurate. Genesis and other stories are sourced from older myths, not revelations from Yahweh.
PErsian influence is clear.
Your denial of consensus, even after quoting about 7 text books is desperation. Don't care, I've made my point.

And yes, repeat posting the same videos, repeat quoting the same conclusions without engaging with the rebuttal, is spamming.

Another fallacy you like to use. No, I cannot rise to the level of explanation of Baden or Bowen. Or Kipp.
However they are clear that the consensus is that the Israelites used Mesopotamian myths to write their own.

It turns out, there isn't a concensus opinion on a lot of what you're saying.

Anyway, he intertexuality they brought was pretty weak. Did you look at it at all? The example they brought from the eluma elish was virtually word for word except for the swap out of blood for feathers. In Isaiah, almost every word was different except for 3. And, they made a boo-boo on the hebrew saying that a bashan is a serpent. Ummmm, no it isn't. So, there's a similar name, not identical. There's a word for fleeing, and there's a word for coiled. None of those are consecutive. It's another Noah - Nu'u similarity. Same basic name, same basic concept, somehow it's borrowing? Nah, that's pretty weak.

And see this is how it goes, back to the non-point of taking 1-2 examples of intertexuality and using your amateur apologetics knowledge to dismiss it.
Please continue living in your make believe fantasy world.
In the same video an apologist does the same and they explain he is wrong and doesn't understand what is going on.
Bowen advises reading that book to begin to understand the process.
OR you could just make up what you really want to be true and then claim that is true. Wow apologetics is great.
Then pretend like you did something amazing.
Of course other amateurs, nope, they cannot have an opinion.

But it's great how that doesn't apply to you!

You haven't been able to refute a single one of my arguments. Its all just "it's true because they say it's true".

You haven't made an argument.
Bowen is delusional?
The consensus stated in 6 textbooks is wrong?
The Jewish influence of the Persians didn't happen? Jews are waiting for a messiah, end times, ..

https://www.chabad.org/library/arti...sh/Does-Judaism-Believe-in-the-Apocalypse.htm

"So in answer to your question, if you’re referring to the original meaning, then yes, Judaism definitely believes in the apocalypse—as in the coming of Moshiach and the resurrection of the dead."
"

The prophets Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Amos, Joel and Hosea all refer to the messianic era. (For full references, the reader is referred to the book Moshiach by Rabbi Dr. J.I. Schochet.) It is interesting to note that the wall of the United Nations Building in New York is inscribed with the quote from Isaiah (11:6), “And the wolf shall lie with the lamb.” Furthermore, it is clear from the prophets, when studied in their original Hebrew, that Moshiach is a Jewish concept, and his coming will entail a return to Torah law, firmly ruling out any “other” messianic belief.

What sort of leader will Moshiach be?
Moshiach will be a man who possesses extraordinary qualities. He will be proficient in both the written and oral Torah traditions. He will incessantly campaign for Torah observance among Jews, and observance of the seven universal Noahide laws by non-Jews. He will be scrupulously observant, and encourage the highest standards from others. He will defend religious principles and repair breaches in their observance. Above all, Moshiach will be heralded as a true Jewish king, a person who leads the way in the service of G‑d, totally humble yet enormously inspiring."



Revelations


but Zoroaster taught that the blessed must wait for this culmination till Frashegird and the 'future body' (Pahlavi 'tan i pasen'), when the earth will give up the bones of the dead (Y 30.7). This general resurrection will be followed by the Last Judgment, which will divide all the righteous from the wicked, both those who have lived until that time and those who have been judged already. Then Airyaman, Yazata of friendship and healing, together with Atar, Fire, will melt all the metal in the mountains, and this will flow in a glowing river over the earth. All mankind must pass through this river, and, as it is said in a Pahlavi text, 'for him who is righteous it will seem like warm milk, and for him who is wicked, it will seem as if he is walking in the • flesh through molten metal' (GBd XXXIV. r 8-r 9). In this great apocalyptic vision Zoroaster perhaps fused, unconsciously, tales of volcanic eruptions and streams of burning lava with his own experience of Iranian ordeals by molten metal; and according to his stern original teaching, strict justice will prevail then, as at each individual j udgment on earth by a fiery ordeal. So at this last ordeal of all the wicked will suffer a second death, and will perish off the face of the earth. The Daevas and legions of darkness will already have been annihilated in a last great battle with the Yazatas; and the river of metal will flow down into hell, slaying Angra Mainyu and burning up the last vestige of wickedness in the universe.

Ahura Mazda and the six Amesha Spentas will then solemnize a lt, spiritual yasna, offering up the last sacrifice (after which death wW be no more), and making a preparation of the mystical 'white haoma', which will confer immortality on the resurrected bodies of all the blessed, who will partake of it. Thereafter men will beome like the Immortals themselves, of one thought, word and deed, unaging, free from sickness, without corruption, forever joyful in the kingdom of God upon earth. For it is in this familiar and beloved world, restored to its original perfection, that, according to Zoroaster, eternity will be passed in bliss, and not in a remote insubstantial Paradise. So the time of Separation is a renewal of the time of Creation, except that no return is prophesied to the original uniqueness of living things. Mountain and valley will give place once more to level plain; but whereas in the beginning there was one plant, one animal, one man, the rich variety and number that have since issued from these will remain forever. Similarly the many divinities who were brought into being by Ahura Mazda will continue to have their separate existences. There is no prophecy of their re-absorption into the Godhead. As a Pahlavi text puts it, after Frashegird 'Ohrmaid and the Amahraspands and all Yazads and men will be together. .. ; every place will resemble a garden in spring, in which

there are all kinds of trees and flowers ... and it will be entirely the creation of Ohrrnazd' (Pahl.Riv.Dd. XLVIII, 99, lOO, l07).




Virgin born



An important theological development during the dark ages of 'the faith concerned the growth of beliefs about the Saoshyant or coming Saviour. Passages in the Gathas suggest that Zoroaster was filled with a sense that the end of the world was imminent, and that Ahura Mazda had entrusted him with revealed truth in order to rouse mankind for their vital part in the final struggle. Yet he must have realized that he would not himself live to see Frasho-kereti; and he seems to have taught that after him there would come 'the man who is better than a good man' (Y 43.3), the Saoshyant. The literal meaning of Saoshyant is 'one who will bring benefit' ; and it is he who will lead humanity in the last battle against evil. Zoroaster's followers, holding ardently to this expectation, came to believe that the Saoshyant will be born of the prophet's own seed, miraculously preserved in the depths of a lake (identified as Lake K;tsaoya). When the end of time approaches, it is said, a virgin will bathe in this lake and become with child by the prophet; and she will in due course bear a son, named Astvat-ereta, 'He who embodies righteousness' (after Zoroaster's own words: 'May righteousness be embodied' Y 43. r6). Despite his miraculous conception, the coming World Saviour will thus be a man, born of human parents, and so there is no betrayal, in this development of belief in the Saoshyant, of Zoroaster's own teachings about the part which mankind has to play in the great cosmic struggle. The Saoshyant is thought of as being accompanied, like kings and heroes, by Khvarenah, and it is in Yasht r 9 that the extant Avesta has most to tell of him. Khvarenah, it is said there (vv. 89, 92, 93), 'will accompany the victorious Saoshyant ... so that he may restore 9 existence .... When Astvat-ereta comes out from the Lake K;tsaoya, messenger of Mazda Ahura ... then he will drive the Drug out from the world of Asha.' This glorious moment was longed for by the faithful, and the hope of it was to be their strength and comfort in times of adversity.

 

[joelr]

You really don't know what syncretism is, do you?
Again, foreign ideas need to be added and incorporated. For example, if I believe in reincarnation, and the hindu believe in reincarnation, that's not syncretic.

Yes, Judaism is syncretic by adopting Mesopotamian, Egyuptian and Persian theology to meet it's own needs.

Also, messianic saviours are still nowhere to be found in the Hebrew bible. And "everyone ressurects" isn't there either. See. This is what I'm talking about. If you actually knew the Hebrew bible, you would be able to ID these false claims.

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/281644/jewish/Jewish-Resurrection-of-the-Dead.htm

This is preaching, Joel. Posting a video, then saying it can't be discussed is preaching. No different than any other preacher who posts their truth and then refuses to debate it.
Yes, I am absolutely qualified to go through the video and comment on what is said. You can't refute what I'm saying. I understand.

See this is so dishonest. You claim other non-PhDs cannot comment, yet you want to say a consensus is wrong based on an uneducated assessment of 2 examples. When I simply demonstrate a consensus you find ways to call it spamming.
Then you call yourself qualified yet these conclusions came from years of study. I have no interest in debating an amateur on 2 examples when in the video the 2 PhDs actually say you cannot use a superficial comparison to make a judgment. You are not debating to find truth but to save face. That is your sole motive.
I am not interested. You have lost. The consensus is not going to change on Mesopotamian influence. You are not qualiified to say what figurines are related to a goddess, yet Dever is more than qualified.

So now this is your new weapon. Muddy the waters based on amateur interpretations of what you think palm trees lok like on artifacts you are not even an amateur in.
This is a complete work.

My points have been demonstrated.

There isn't evidence for the conclusion the majority worshipped a female deity. There is a location with a pillar, no Yahweh. Then he goes far and wide and away to find exmaples of any female goddess he can. and none of them resemble the common figurines found everywhere. And there's no evidence that these figurines were worshipped. There's no evidence they are paired with Yahweh.

Again, how many times did Dever admit there was not concensus? 5 - 10 times.

And look at this picture? Is this a crescent moon? Answer please, yes or no?

View attachment 71220

Dever, who is qualified, feels there is beyond enough evidence that polytheism was a large part of Judaism.
I am convinced. If you are not, write to him and tell him you feel it isn't a palm tree.
Your massive bias and I mean massive has already been exposed so I have no doubt you are not searching for truth but to save face and use denial.
As I said, I'm done.