No overwhelming historical proof: Why I doubt Jesus

[Evangelicalhumanist]

1. Before Moses, Noah lived. Noah could have taken the writings of Adam - Genesis 5: 1 - and others with him on the Ark.
Everything perishable would have been destroyed in the Flood except for what Noah took along with him. ( book of the generations )
2. The other nation's Flood accounts have a similar theme of a few survivors from a great flood.
3. Not set up to fall, because Adam was warned in Advance - Genesis 2:17
4. The forbidden tree is mentioned in connection to the knowing of evil. The evil was: death - Genesis 2:17
So, once they stole and ate from God's one-and-only tree they came to know ' death ' ( evil )
If they did Not die, they would still be alive today. They died within that ' day ' of a 1,000-year time frame. Genesis 5:5; Genesis 5:27
5. The consequence of sin was that perfect Eve would No longer be physically perfect and the results of imperfection was painful.
Outside of paradisical Eden the ground was No longer beautiful as in Eden which made it harder for Adam to cultivate.
6. The forbidden tree stood for God's law of the land. How many trees on Earth ? _______ Out of all the trees on Earth only one tree belonged to God. If you have a generous neighbor who had many fruit trees and said you could come over anytime you wanted and have as much fruit as you wanted except for one particular tree, would you consider your neighbor as a bad neighbor or an ungenerous neighbor ?_______
7. By comparing Satan to using a serpent would just mean a lowly position for Satan, and that by saying Satan would ' eat dust ' would mean that he will ' bite the dust ', so to speak he will die - Genesis 3:14. In other words, Jesus will destroy Satan - Hebrews 2:14 B.

Wow! Creative Lit 101, but as exegesis, that's really dreadful. We could start with your first point, for example: what could Noah have taken that Adam had "written?" Where did Adam learn writing? In what language? In a similar way, Noah "could have" taken Moroni's golden tablets and dropped them overboard while the ark was over the United States -- for Joseph Smith to find later. What rationale could we provide for that scenario?

In the same way, your point 4 is a very bad gloss. Genesis 2:17 speaks of eating from the tree of "the knowledge of good and evil," and the consequence of doing so. There is nothing to equate "evil" with "death," just as there is nothing on the opposite side to equate good with life. You just decide what you think you'd like things to mean and voila! that's what they mean.

All your other points are equally free of reasonable grounds for consideration.

 

[CG Didymus]

Wasn't Rahab and her family residents of Jericho ?
Didn't Rahab and her family survive the destruction of Jericho ?

And what is your point? She helped the spies. They spared her. What about the other woman and children? Why would God order them killed? Were they beyond salvation?

 

[CG Didymus]

Didn't the Constitution of the Mosaic Law have hygiene laws to follow ?
Luke was a physician according to Colossians 4:14

Adam and Eve were Not children as they were created as adults. Because of Adam's downfall is why we are imperfect and impulsive.
Yes, life was good in Eden, and the conditions to retain that good life was Not to break God's Law by eating from God's tree.
No, Not an abridged Bible. Yes two (2) trees mentioned the tree of life and the tree of knowledge of good and bad.
Besides those two trees there were other trees on Earth. How many trees are on Earth? Only one tree belonged to God.
Please notice which of the trees mankind will once again see on Earth according to Revelation 22:2

The trees weren't symbolic? If you think it all real, then really why a tree of life and a tree of good and evil? What kind of trees were these? What kind of fruit did they bear? Didn't some of the animals eat some of the fruit? Didn't seeds from the fruit grow new trees of life and of good and evil? Where are they now? Did the tree of life die in the flood? Really now, for me, symbolic makes way more sense.

 

[loverofhumanity]

If no revelation from God taught reincarnation, then you tell me what's Krishna talking about here? Lord Krishna tells Arjuna in the Bhagavad-gita, “As the embodied soul continually passes, in this body, from boyhood to youth to old age, the soul similarly passes into another body at death. The self-realized soul is not bewildered by such a change.” (BG 2.13)

“Many, many births both you and I have passed. I can remember all of them, but you cannot, O subduer of the enemy!” (BG 4.5)
I don't see a problem, because I think it is people, spiritual people, making most of this stuff up. Whether they saw a vision or had a revelation, it was all affected by what their culture already thought was true. They built a religion that suited their way of life. They came up with multiple Gods that controlled and ruled the universe. You said Christians should have joined Islam? As if every religion was an improvement and the next step to humanities spiritual growth. In your picture here then Hindus should have become Abrahamites, who then followed Moses, then they should have become Zoroastrians, who then should have followed the latest prophet Buddha, then the whole world of Buddhists should have become Christians, who then should have joined Islam, then for 19 years should have become followers of the Bab and then finally Baha'u'llah? As if each religion was a progression? They weren't. From the prophets themselves the teachings are different. No interpretation mess ups, the direct quotes from the "manifestation." And seriously, Abraham was a manifestation? What religion did he start? Even with Hinduism, it wasn't started by Krishna. So you're close, but this is not a game of horseshoes.

Why not just say all the religions of the past had some good and some bad. All had corrupt leaders along the way. All had some off the track interpretations. All had questionable writings that might have been altered. But now, you could say, our prophet, wrote his own books. We have direct teachings from God right to the prophet. Here is the truth of what God wants from us. All of you were kinda right, but also kinda of wrong. Let our new teachings show you the way. The way to peace and happiness on Earth. Why not say something like that, instead of trying to make all religions from one God and in some kind of progression. They're not.

The body that the soul passes into after death is a spiritual form in the 'next world' not a physical body in this life. That is where the commentaries and interpretations have erred.

.."in the other world the human reality doth not assume a physical form, rather doth it take on a heavenly form, made up of elements of that heavenly realm. " (Abdu’l-Bahá, Selections from the Writings of Abdu’l-Bahá, p. 194)

On the oneness of the Avatars, Prophets, Teachers, Messiahs it is said
In Ch 4:7-8 of the Bhagavad-Gita:

7 "Whenever and wherever there is a decline in religious practice, O descendant of Bharata, and a predominant rise of irreligion –at that time I descend Myself."

8 "To deliver the pious and to annihilate the miscreants, as well as to reestablish the principles of religion, I Myself appear, millennium after millennium."

We believe that this refers to all the Prophets of God that have appeared on earth from time to time.

In this light all the Prophets are one and the same. Consider the sun. There is only one sun. But as regards the different days we call it the sun of Monday or the Sun of Friday that would be correct also.

But it is still the same one sun regardless of the days we divide it into or the names we give it.

So Krishna incarnated as the name Krishna, then Buddha, then Muhammad and Christ and now Baha'u'llah (Kalki) like He said He would in the Bhagavad-Gita and Srimad Bhagavatam.

As to clarification of truth from man made dogma we get that from the latest appearance of Krishna not any scholar or priest for we err, the Divine does not.

The latest Manifestation of Krishna is Kalki Avatar. We believe that to be Baha'u'llah Who was born into a prominent family, a descendant of Zoroaster and the last Zoroastrian king Yazdegerd III as well as descended from two of Abrahams wives, Sarah and Keturah and a descendent of David through his father Jesse.

As it is stated in the Srimad-Bhagavatam Canto 12 ch 2, Kalki will be born from an 'eminent' line.

"Lord Kalki will appear in the home of the most eminent brāhmaṇa of Śambhala village, the great soul Viṣṇuyaśā." (SB 12:2:18)

Now He has returned as Kalki- Baha'u'llah and clarified the true teachings from the man made ones.

The inner spirit is what is essential not the outward form. If we look with inner sight and spiritual eyes we will see that all these Avatars are but One Reality appearing from age to age in different outward attire to refresh and renew as well as to test the sincerity of those who claim to truly believe.

 

[oldbadger]

Luke was a gospel writer - Luke 19:11-13 - and Jesus is the nobleman in that illustration.
In the parallel account at Mark 13:34 there Mark refers to Jesus as the Son of man ( Jesus was Son of man, Not just son of man )

Luke lost a great deal of credibility with his strangled twisted manipulated reports in his attempts to place a Galilean peasant in David's city, somehow linking his adopted son to King David. The fact that most Galileans were comparitively recent Jews, and that Galilean peasants were not even included in thre Samaria, Idumea, Judea census just makes it more laughable. etc etc......... His 'parable' account of a nobleman visiting a far country is just that, a parable in metaphor.

Mark's report of Jesus's parable refers to some other person than Jesus, of course. But either way, you need to recognise that 1. Jesus didn't know this given name, 2, his name was probably Yeshua BarYosef of similasr, 3, he was a displayed peasant of the second order, a handworker in wood, bone, stone or all of these.

But........... Jesus may have visited a far off land, before or after his mission. He may have travelled with Joseph of Arimathea to Looe Islans, Cornwall! Possible!

 

[sunray]

Are you saying God wanted Adam to sin ? _____

I'm saying everthing is going according to God's plan. He's making us think!
He created man a long time ago and knew man's ever move in advance. He has left us with free will however He/She can speak to us and influence us in many different ways to keep us on track to develop not only His plans but our plans where necessary. Because our plans are his plans too, and they are all open to the 'Holy Evolutionary Living Process', (HELP is always there!)
He/ She made us perfect for our tasks, like actors and actresses on the stage, so your 'not understanding' is all part of His plan. So enjoy your life going round in circles, quoting this verse and that one, until you see the point of it. If God wants you to understand, if it's important to His/Her plans, then you will understand.
Try Ps 2.2 if St Paul (8-13) is too much to read!

 

[sunray]

What is your definition of one's spirit ?

When I talk about one's spirit, in this case I'm talking about one's 'blood body or astral body', which can live for many thousands of years after the death of the phisical body, it must at some time however reincarnate. Jesus spoke of this 'You must be born again of the spirit and water etc...'
However this is different to the Spirit or Spark of life that comes directly from God.
For those who develop there life according to God's plan (the elected ones) other spiritual bodies can be created, Mental Bodies, Emotional bodies, etc..

 

[sunray]

For the truth about mythology a reference would be C.G.Jung who has researched the subject, research is needed if you are to come to an educated opinion. Dismissing things by instinct can be useful, but better to have some research behind you too! As for superstitious the same applies!

 

[sunray]

More likely just superstitious stories and mythology.

As wrote in my last message without mentioning your quote: here's your quote which belongs to my last message!

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Didn't the Constitution of the Mosaic Law have hygiene laws to follow ?
Luke was a physician according to Colossians 4:14

You don't have to be a doctor for that. It was for religious purity concerns, not medical reasons.

Besides, what I was asking was whether Judaism at the time had an actual medical profession instead of faith healers.

Adam and Eve were Not children as they were created as adults.

Where's the proof? From a psychological standpoint, they written with no more intelligence than an average 7-9 year old.
From the wiki on Erickson's Developmental Theory:

Competence: industry vs. inferiority (latency, school age, 5–12 years)[edit]

• Existential Question: Can I Make it in the World of People and Things?

The aim to bring a productive situation to completion gradually supersedes the whims and wishes of play. The fundamentals of technology are developed. The failure to master trust, autonomy, and industrious skills may cause the child to doubt his or her future, leading to shame, guilt, and the experience of defeat and inferiority.[8]

"Children at this age are becoming more aware of themselves as individuals." They work hard at "being responsible, being good and doing it right." They are now more reasonable to share and cooperate. Allen and Marotz (2003)[9] also list some perceptual cognitive developmental traits specific for this age group. Children grasp the concepts ofspace and time in more logical, practical ways. They gain a better understanding of cause and effect, and of calendar time. At this stage, children are eager to learn and accomplish more complex skills: reading, writing, telling time. They also get to form moral values, recognize cultural and individual differences and are able to manage most of their personal needs and grooming with minimal assistance.[9] At this stage, children might express their independence by talking back and being disobedient and rebellious.

Erikson viewed the elementary school years as critical for the development of self-confidence. Ideally, elementary school provides many opportunities to achieve the recognition of teachers, parents and peers by producing things- drawing pictures, solving addition problems, writing sentences, and so on. If children are encouraged to make and do things and are then praised for their accomplishments, they begin to demonstrate industry by being diligent, persevering at tasks until completed, and putting work before pleasure. If children are instead ridiculed or punished for their efforts or if they find they are incapable of meeting their teachers' and parents' expectations, they develop feelings of inferiorityabout their capabilities.[2]

At this age, children start recognizing their special talents and continue to discover interests as their education improves. They may begin to choose to do more activities to pursue that interest, such as joining a sport if they know they have athletic ability, or joining the band if they are good at music. If not allowed to discover their own talents in their own time, they will develop a sense of lack of motivation, low self-esteem, and lethargy. They may become "couch potatoes" if they are not allowed to develop interests.

From the wiki on Piaget's Developmental Theory:

Concrete operational stage[edit]
The concrete operational stage is the third stage of Piaget's theory of cognitive development. This stage, which follows the preoperational stage, occurs between the ages of 7 and 11 (preadolescence) years,[38] and is characterized by the appropriate use of logic. During this stage, a child's thought processes become more mature and "adult like". They start solving problems in a more logical fashion. Abstract, hypothetical thinking is not yet developed in the child, and children can only solve problems that apply to concrete events or objects. At this stage, the children undergo a transition where the child learns rules such as conservation.[39] Piaget determined that children are able to incorporateInductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning involves drawing inferences from observations in order to make a generalization. In contrast, children struggle with deductive reasoning, which involves using a generalized principle in order to try to predict the outcome of an event. Children in this stage commonly experience difficulties with figuring out logic in their heads. For example, a child will understand that "A is more than B" and "B is more than C". However, when asked "is A more than C?", the child might not be able to logically figure the question out in his or her head.

Two other important processes in the concrete operational stage are logic and the elimination of egocentrism.

Egocentrism is the inability to consider or understand a perspective other than one's own. It is the phase where the thought and morality of the child is completely self focused.[40]During this stage, the child acquires the ability to view things from another individual's perspective, even if they think that perspective is incorrect. For instance, show a child a comic in which Jane puts a doll under a box, leaves the room, and then Melissa moves the doll to a drawer, and Jane comes back. A child in the concrete operations stage will say that Jane will still think it's under the box even though the child knows it is in the drawer. (See also False-belief task.)

Children in this stage can, however, only solve problems that apply to actual (concrete) objects or events, and not abstract concepts or hypothetical tasks. Understanding and knowing how to use full common sense has not yet been completely adapted.

Here's my problem with the "they were adults" theory (because their ages are not stated until they die): You have a male whose job it is to identify animals (the reason trading card games and such things are popular with kids like Pokemon Go even is due to the fascination with categorization and identification). No one really identifies the female's job all that much except to have sex with the male (I'd get tested first, since God only figured out he needed a human sex partner after looking for a mate amongst the rest of the animals ... ewwwww). When tempted, the female's first thought is how yummy it looks. There is no real mature intellectual discussion with the serpent regarding the ethics of eating the magic fruit. It's more like, "Yum! And superpowers? Cool!" After eating they act like brats who just got caught looking at daddy's "magazines", blaming everyone but themselves and trying to distract from what they did by whining about how they're naked, which no one ever said was an issue. I'm just not seeing the adulthood part, except obviously they need to hit at least puberty (unless all this stupid "perfect genes" crap includes being able to have babies WHILE babies) in order to reproduce at all, with 10 being average for puberty, though a kind of pre-puberty (adrenarche) can start as early as SIX.

Besides those two trees there were other trees on Earth. How many trees are on Earth? Only one tree belonged to God.

They both were made by God. How do you figure?

And really, they ALL were made by God, so it makes even LESS sense.

Didn't Rahab and her family survive the destruction of Jericho ?

She helped the spies. Had the spies not went to go visit a hooker, she and her family'd be dead too.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

May I?

How about....... Your denial of God exists in your mind, just like every other atheist's denial, because it is your (and their) mindset. I already know that. See? a no-score draw.

I didn't follow over 100 posts; but, this one stuck out like a sore thumb.

The believer makes a claim: God exists

The believer says god exist because: it's spiritually uplifting (all your senses are heightened), he guides you (you feel a mental need for someone to help you.), he loves you (it's natural to project our wants and needs into a noun a person/place/think in order to interact with it.) The Bible and whatever book you follow confirms it (even though they too are no different than you) so basically you are using your own testimony to confirm what is in your mind that is true.)

As a result:

A atheist (some-no generalizations here) sees this and he concludes all of this above is a mental need to understand and connect with the unknown. It's a psychological need to adapt to life and life's circumstances. There is nothing wrong with that need.

An atheist denial is: He does not see life the way you and many believers do. He rejects it because that is not his reality to adopt to the unknown and make an authority where there is none. Instead, he rejects the claim (remember claim and belief-not fact and evidence) to live in the manner that makes sense to him. There is nothing wrong with that need.

Both of you are living the way you see reality. It is psychological. Everything we interpret and perceive comes from our minds. Our spirituality is not an exception to the rule no matter how close you are to god-god will always be a project of your wants/needs/desires that you don't have yourself, admire, and find idol of. Try and find an trait of god that doesn't mirror that of the human psyche.

Conclusion: The believer is in denial and for a good reason. He/she doesn't want to or can't see his belief as part of his psyche. There is nothing wrong with that. The issue comes when someone points this out to the believer and he gets defensive. Why? Everything you experience comes from your mind and brain. Try experiencing love without thinking of thoughts about love or having your brain creating signals that you define as love. Try feeling hate without brain sending signals to your nerves and muscles that you translate as results of anger.

Many atheist see this and they are not in denial. That is probably many reasons why we are atheist because we can see this pattern. It's not wrong that believers can't see the pattern. It just boggles my mind when you get defensive over a medical fact and make it personal.

What's up with that?

Fair enough. Let's do it. Out you go and (on a dark clear night) look at all those stats and Galaxies. What is the reason for their existence? Since you don't have any more clues than anyone else, let's call 'the reason' 'GOD'?

Where is god imprinted in the stars and galaxies?

You already have a presumption that god created the universe. Atheists do not have that. Some of us don't have that "we need to find a reason behind our existence." Why would you think anyone else but believers should see reason/god behind the universe? Why put everyone in one same boat? Not everyone sees the same as you. I don't see god in the stars. I see the Spirits. What does that mean to you and an someone who doesn't believe in spirits. Probably nothing. But that doesn't mean they don't exist. It just means that that is not your and that atheist's reality. Why say they are wrong? Why would I say they are ignorant to knowing what I know? That's egotism.

 

[oldbadger]

You already have a presumption that god created the universe.

No.... I don't. I'm a Deist!
That was a presumption of yours, true?

Atheists do not have that. Some of us don't have that "we need to find a reason behind our existence.

Yeah..... some of you. But what about Deists?

" Why would you think anyone else but believers should see reason/god behind the universe? Why put everyone in one same boat?

I don't, but I do have a few assumptions about, for instance, extreme atheists; that doesn't mean all atheists.

Not everyone sees the same as you. I don't see god in the stars. I see the Spirits. What does that mean to you and an someone who doesn't believe in spirits. Probably nothing. But that doesn't mean they don't exist. It just means that that is not your and that atheist's reality. Why say they are wrong? Why would I say they are ignorant to knowing what I know? That's egotism.

I never said anything about Spirits!

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Interesting reply.

No.... I don't. I'm a Deist!
That was a presumption of yours, true?

Wait. Deist don't believe god created the universe? I thought (from past deistic posts) that god created everything but he isn't personal. Unless that's how you interpret deism as your belief? Because I also was told that deism is more flexible than other theistic worldviews.

Yeah..... some of you. But what about Deists?

What about deist? I was referring to some atheist don't have that "need to find a reason behind our existence." How does your belief in god (however defined) equate to needing a reason behind our existence. Also, why would some atheists (I'll say non-believers as in your post) non-believers wonder about the reason as you do (as in your former post)? The way you phrased it, it sounded like it should be "common sense" that we should be thinking of a reason behind our existence?

Deism has nothing to do with this need.

I don't, but I do have a few assumptions about, for instance, extreme atheists; that doesn't mean all atheists.

Okay. but " Why would you think anyone else but believers should see reason/god behind the universe? Why put everyone in one same boat?"

Anyone else-could be anyone and any amount of non-believers. Someone who isn't a believer.

I never said anything about Spirits!

I did. It's an example.

I don't put words in people's mouths. That's an assumption.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

@oldbadger

Kinda make my points shorter for you.

How about....... Your denial of God exists in your mind, just like every other atheist's denial, because it is your (and their) mindset. I already know that. See? a no-score draw.

Why would someone's denial of god exist in the mind just as every other atheist's denial? (You didn't say some, you just said atheist).​

From the couple of post I read, it seemed you were counter acting someone else's post that said believe in god was in the mind. By this comment above, it seems like belief in god is a default and atheists are denying it. How did you come to that conclusion?​

Fair enough. Let's do it. Out you go and (on a dark clear night) look at all those stats and Galaxies. What is the reason for their existence? Since you don't have any more clues than anyone else, let's call 'the reason' 'GOD'?

How does the stars and galaxies show god?

Why do we need to question the reason for our existence? (not saying you said this. I'm blunt)

Why call this reason god?

Where is the logic or connection between the two-reason and god?

If it's common sense, why are people who believe in other gods, spirits (my words), et cetera don't believe in the god you believe in (however defined)?

It's not in the atheist reality to believe in god just as it's not in your reality to believe in the Spirits and not in my reality to believe in Zues. How is that wrong? What's the conflict between someone else's reality and yours; and, why not accept both as true regardless of your disagreements?

 

[URAVIP2ME]

You don't have to be a doctor for that. It was for religious purity concerns, not medical reasons.
Besides, what I was asking was whether Judaism at the time had an actual medical profession instead of faith healers.
Where's the proof? From a psychological standpoint, they written with no more intelligence than an average 7-9 year old.
From the wiki on Erickson's Developmental Theory:
From the wiki on Piaget's Developmental Theory:
Here's my problem with the "they were adults" theory (because their ages are not stated until they die): You have a male whose job it is to identify animals (the reason trading card games and such things are popular with kids like Pokemon Go even is due to the fascination with categorization and identification). No one really identifies the female's job all that much except to have sex with the male (I'd get tested first, since God only figured out he needed a human sex partner after looking for a mate amongst the rest of the animals ... ewwwww). When tempted, the female's first thought is how yummy it looks. There is no real mature intellectual discussion with the serpent regarding the ethics of eating the magic fruit. It's more like, "Yum! And superpowers? Cool!" After eating they act like brats who just got caught looking at daddy's "magazines", blaming everyone but themselves and trying to distract from what they did by whining about how they're naked, which no one ever said was an issue. I'm just not seeing the adulthood part, except obviously they need to hit at least puberty (unless all this stupid "perfect genes" crap includes being able to have babies WHILE babies) in order to reproduce at all, with 10 being average for puberty, though a kind of pre-puberty (adrenarche) can start as early as SIX.
They both were made by God. How do you figure?
And really, they ALL were made by God, so it makes even LESS sense.
She helped the spies. Had the spies not went to go visit a hooker, she and her family'd be dead too.

No one is addressed as a physician in the old Hebrew Scriptures, but does that mean they lacked in medical treatments ?
The laws on cleanness - Leviticus 11 to Leviticus 15:33 - dealt with both ceremonial and hygienic matters.
The laws or statutes regarded food regulation, disease, quarantine besides treatment of dead bodies, which men of medicine did Not appreciate until thousands of years later. The prohibited animals protected or safegarded them against trichinosis, typhoid, and paratyphoid from certain fish, and from being infected from dead animals. So, those matters were a healthy and hygienic protection in that it protected them from harmful organisms and kept them physically and spiritually clean and healthy. The priests were Not faith healers.

Satan is the father of the lie - John 8:44. What superpowers what magic fruit. That was all lies by Satan.
God plainly taught 'you eat, you die' - Genesis 2:17
Eve was tricked that she would Not die - 1 Timothy 2:14. The 'good' was life, the 'bad' was death.
Adam and Eve were married adults - Genesis 2:24. They were Not created as babies or children.
Female job -> Genesis 2:18. Also the 31st chapter of Proverbs talks of the female's job. As a mother - Isaiah 66:13

How it is figured 'as made by God' is Adam formed from the dust of the ground, and Eve refined being from Adam's rib.

Yes, Rahab helped the spies - James 2:24-26. She helped protect them (Not entertain them) at the risk of loosing her own life.
So, Rahab was ' declared righteous ' by her acting upon her knowledge - Joshua 2:9-10, and saved her family too - Joshua 2:12-14

What Adam lost, mankind will see the return of the Genesis ' tree of life ' for earth's nations - Revelation 22:2

 

[URAVIP2ME]

I'm saying everthing is going according to God's plan. He's making us think!
Try Ps 2.2 if St Paul (8-13) is too much to read!

Yes, everything is 'going according to God's purpose' for the humble people to inherit the earth - Matthew 5:5; Revelation 22:2
ALL are given the option of 2 Peter 3:9 to 'repent' so as Not to 'perish' (be destroyed) - Isaiah 11:3-4; Revelation 19:14-16
By the international spreading news about God's kingdom being proclaimed world wide, God is making us think.- Matthew 24:14
'Think' as to who we would like as Sovereign over us ?
Psalms 2 is in connection to earth's rulers who turn against God - Psalms 104:35
It is clear such wicked ones will Not relinquish their authority to Christ's authority peacefully, hence the need for God to step in to eliminate all evil on earth. ( Including the evil of enemy death - 1 Corinthians 15:25; Isaiah 25:8 )

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Wow! Creative Lit 101, but as exegesis, that's really dreadful. We could start with your first point, for example: what could Noah have taken that Adam had "written?" Where did Adam learn writing? In what language? In a similar way, Noah "could have" taken Moroni's golden tablets and dropped them overboard while the ark was over the United States -- for Joseph Smith to find later. What rationale could we provide for that scenario?
In the same way, your point 4 is a very bad gloss. Genesis 2:17 speaks of eating from the tree of "the knowledge of good and evil," and the consequence of doing so. There is nothing to equate "evil" with "death," just as there is nothing on the opposite side to equate good with life. You just decide what you think you'd like things to mean and voila! that's what they mean.
All your other points are equally free of reasonable grounds for consideration.

I am merely posting what the Bible is teaching:
Adam lived over 900 years ( dying within that 1,000-year day time frame )
Since the people of Israel spoke Hebrew, then Adam's language would have been Hebrew.
I had an English teacher that when asked what is a comprehensive language she replied: Hebrew.
Adam was created as an adult man formed from the dust of the ground - Genesis 3:19
Since Adam was physical sound and healthy then couldn't Adam learn to write ?

Noah was part of the Hebrew line of descent. There is No biblical record of Noah having Moron i's tablets to drop anywhere.

Sure life was good in paradisical Eden. There were good conditions, good food, good health, etc. including the opportunity to live forever on Earth in good healthy conditions forever on Earth. There are people who label death as a friend, but what healthy person wants to pick the day they want to die ? If death is Not an evil, then people should be happy about death.
What the Bible really teaches about death is that death is an 'enemy' and Not a friend.- 1 Corinthians 15:26

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I am merely posting what the Bible is teaching:

Inaccurate -- you are merely posting what YOU PERSONALLY THINK the Bible is teaching. We shall discover, I think, that you are not really very close to understanding that.

Adam lived over 900 years ( dying within that 1,000-year day time frame )

This, of course, is pure nonsense. Humans of the time were usually dead by the time they were 40. And the "1,000-year day time frame" is nothing more than somebody's attempt to reconcile the impossibility of biblical creation with the observed earth and the geological record.

Since the people of Israel spoke Hebrew, then Adam's language would have been Hebrew.

Now, were you not aware that Adam was not in Israel? The Garden of Eden was located (as the description in Genesis should tell you) nowhere near Israel. And in fact, Israel did not exist until after the (supposed) Exodus from Egypt, when the Jews conquered Canaan.

By the way, it should be an interesting observation for you that Hebrew is a linquistic offshoot of the Canaanite language. Surprise, surprise! The Jews didn't even conquer the Canaanites, they WERE THE CANAANITES!

I had an English teacher that when asked what is a comprehensive language she replied: Hebrew.

And how did she know that? My assumption is that -- being a Christian -- she merely assumed it. And the question itself is absurd. What on earth can it mean to call anything a "comprehensive language?" That it can say anything and everything? Can you think of a language that cannot? Your English teacher might have done well to remember that English has more words in it (non-technical, to boot) than any other language on earth or in the history of the world. And she thinks Hebrew was "comprehensive" and English is not?

Adam was created as an adult man formed from the dust of the ground - Genesis 3:19

Myth

Since Adam was physical sound and healthy then couldn't Adam learn to write ?

What does being physically sound and healthy have to do with writing. Bring up any child today, be it as physically sound and healthy as you'd like, and if you never introduced it to written language it would never, ever have the vaguest concept of what you're talking about.

Magical thinking is not an actual description of actual history, I'm sorry to have to tell you.

Noah was part of the Hebrew line of descent.

Noah is modelled on Utnapushtim, the flood survivor in the Sumerian story of Gilgamesh. Utnapushtim is mythological, and so is Noah. And since there were no "Hebrews" at all way back then, it is somewhat unlikely that he is part of the "Hebrew line of descent. Religion, it often seems to me, is a very potent barrier to actual learning.

There is No biblical record of Noah having Moron i's tablets to drop anywhere.

There is no biblical record of an absolutely immense amount of human and earth history -- in fact, no biblical record of the very vast majority of human and earth history. I presume, therefore, that the vast majority of human and earth history has not, in fact, happened? Would you care to elaborate on all of the history we now think is true but according to that reasoning was not? Sheesh!

Sure life was good in paradisical Eden. There were good conditions, good food, good health, etc. including the opportunity to live forever on Earth in good healthy conditions forever on Earth. There are people who label death as a friend, but what healthy person wants to pick the day they want to die ? If death is Not an evil, then people should be happy about death.
What the Bible really teaches about death is that death is an 'enemy' and Not a friend.- 1 Corinthians 15:26

Meaningless prattle. I don't want to burn myself, but burns happen. I don't want to die, but death happens. I don't want my kids to die, but kids die. Death is neither friend nor enemy, it is simply part of our existence.

 

[whirlingmerc]

It appeared from the stir around 33AD that the Roman government made grave robbery a capital offense.
Additionally there is a cover story in the Jewish literare about a gardener named Judas 'who moved the body' and his disciples 'got confused' and Jesus did miracles 'by some magic;
Something big motived such things
Very big.

And eyewitnesses who were around for decades
1 John 1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we looked upon and have touched with our hands, concerning the word of life—2 the life was made manifest, and we have seen it, and testify to it and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was made manifest to us— 3 that which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ. 4 And we are writing these things so that our[a] joy may be complete.

 

[CG Didymus]

The body that the soul passes into after death is a spiritual form in the 'next world' not a physical body in this life. That is where the commentaries and interpretations have erred.

.."in the other world the human reality doth not assume a physical form, rather doth it take on a heavenly form, made up of elements of that heavenly realm. " (Abdu’l-Bahá, Selections from the Writings of Abdu’l-Bahá, p. 194)

On the oneness of the Avatars, Prophets, Teachers, Messiahs it is said
In Ch 4:7-8 of the Bhagavad-Gita:

7 "Whenever and wherever there is a decline in religious practice, O descendant of Bharata, and a predominant rise of irreligion –at that time I descend Myself."

8 "To deliver the pious and to annihilate the miscreants, as well as to reestablish the principles of religion, I Myself appear, millennium after millennium."

We believe that this refers to all the Prophets of God that have appeared on earth from time to time.

In this light all the Prophets are one and the same. Consider the sun. There is only one sun. But as regards the different days we call it the sun of Monday or the Sun of Friday that would be correct also.

But it is still the same one sun regardless of the days we divide it into or the names we give it.

So Krishna incarnated as the name Krishna, then Buddha, then Muhammad and Christ and now Baha'u'llah (Kalki) like He said He would in the Bhagavad-Gita and Srimad Bhagavatam.

As to clarification of truth from man made dogma we get that from the latest appearance of Krishna not any scholar or priest for we err, the Divine does not.

The latest Manifestation of Krishna is Kalki Avatar. We believe that to be Baha'u'llah Who was born into a prominent family, a descendant of Zoroaster and the last Zoroastrian king Yazdegerd III as well as descended from two of Abrahams wives, Sarah and Keturah and a descendent of David through his father Jesse.

As it is stated in the Srimad-Bhagavatam Canto 12 ch 2, Kalki will be born from an 'eminent' line.

"Lord Kalki will appear in the home of the most eminent brāhmaṇa of Śambhala village, the great soul Viṣṇuyaśā." (SB 12:2:18)

Now He has returned as Kalki- Baha'u'llah and clarified the true teachings from the man made ones.

The inner spirit is what is essential not the outward form. If we look with inner sight and spiritual eyes we will see that all these Avatars are but One Reality appearing from age to age in different outward attire to refresh and renew as well as to test the sincerity of those who claim to truly believe.

Here's another Gita quote: "As a person puts on new garments, giving up old ones, the soul similarly accepts new material bodies, giving up the old and useless ones."(Bg 2.22) But let me focus on something else. If people misinterpreted the "manifestation" and changed what the religion taught, then that religion is wrong. So if the people changed what Krishna said then is Hinduism wrong? And likewise, if Jesus wasn't virgin born and didn't rise physically from the dead, then is what most Christians teach about Jesus wrong? If so, then is Christianity teaching falsehoods about Jesus? Oh, and a few other Christian teachings... the devil/satan and hell, is that true or is that also a misinterpretation of things Jesus said?