Shocked To Find Out Yahweh Was Originally A Canaanite God Who Had A Wife, Asherah

[SeekingAllTruth]

Christianity didn't copy from Judaism because the modern concepts of Christianity and Judaism didn't exist back then. Christianity is a gentile expression of the New Covenant and the early Christians believed in Jesus alongside Jewish traditions.

The Jews were expecting a Messiah. Early Christianity claimed that Jesus was the Messiah prophesied in the OT. Christianity copied the Messiah concept from the Jews and then made Jesus the dying/rising of their religion. Simple as that.

 

[Skywalker]

The Jews were expecting a Messiah. Early Christianity claimed that Jesus was the Messiah prophesied in the OT. Christianity copied the Messiah concept from the Jews and then made Jesus the dying/rising of their religion. Simple as that.

The existence of Jewish Christians shows that the historical distinction of Christians and Jews didn't exist at the time people started believing in Jesus.

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

The existence of Jewish Christians shows that the historical distinction of Christians and Jews didn't exist at the time people started believing in Jesus.

The Jews were expecting a Messiah. Early Christianity claimed that Jesus was the Messiah prophesied in the OT. Christianity copied the Messiah concept from the Jews and then made Jesus the dying/rising of their religion. Simple as that.

 

[Skywalker]

The Jews were expecting a Messiah. Early Christianity claimed that Jesus was the Messiah prophesied in the OT. Christianity copied the Messiah concept from the Jews and then made Jesus the dying/rising of their religion. Simple as that.

The belief that the Christians copied from the Jews is based off of the historical, cultural, religious distinction that exists because of the split between Christianity and Judaism.

 

[Skywalker]

The Jews were expecting a Messiah. Early Christianity claimed that Jesus was the Messiah prophesied in the OT. Christianity copied the Messiah concept from the Jews and then made Jesus the dying/rising of their religion. Simple as that.

The Jews rejected Jesus because he didnt fit their expectation of the Messiah as a political figure. The rabbis always viewed Isaiah 53 as a messianic prophecy and changed their interpretations after Christ.

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

The Jews rejected Jesus because he didnt fit their expectation of the Messiah as a political figure. The rabbis always viewed Isaiah 53 as a messianic prophecy and changed their interpretations after Christ.

The Jews knew that in Isaiah 53 the "suffering servant" is Israel.

Despite strong objections from conservative Christian apologists, the prevailing rabbinic interpretation of Isaiah 53 ascribes the “servant” to the nation of Israel who silently endured unimaginable suffering at the hands of its gentile oppressors.

Who is God's Suffering Servant? The Rabbinic Interpretation of Isaiah 53 | Outreach Judaism

Christians for their own political gains transferred the verses to describe Jesus. But Only Luke quotes a small portion of Isaiah: he was numbered with the transgressors. that's all.

 

[Skywalker]

The Jews knew that in Isaiah 53 the "suffering servant" is Israel.

Despite strong objections from conservative Christian apologists, the prevailing rabbinic interpretation of Isaiah 53 ascribes the “servant” to the nation of Israel who silently endured unimaginable suffering at the hands of its gentile oppressors.

Who is God's Suffering Servant? The Rabbinic Interpretation of Isaiah 53 | Outreach Judaism

Christians for their own political gains transferred the verses to describe Jesus. But Only Luke quotes a small portion of Isaiah: he was numbered with the transgressors. that's all.

The Jews interpreted the prophecies based on their expectations of the Messiah delivering them from the Romans. What they desired and what the scriptures talk about are different. The Astonishing Servant of Jehovah

They had no need of a savior. They had no need of a sacrifice for sin. Nobody in a works system needs a savior. They needed a sympathizer. They welcomed a sympathizer. They wanted a King who was sympathetic to their plight and thus would come out of sympathy and compassion and give them what they actually deserved. That was the view of ancient Judaism. That was the view of New Testament Judaism. That was the view of post-New Testament Judaism. That is the view of modern Judaism.

Judaism would never define itself in the terms of Isaiah 1, sick from head to toe. They don’t need a savior. You see, if you don’t understand the doctrine of depravity, and you don’t understand that you are unable to save yourself by anything you do, then you don’t need a savior to save you. You achieve salvation. And any system that has any achievement that saves, has no place for a vicarious, substitutionary atonement. After the Lord Jesus came, and the church was born, the church clearly interpreted Isaiah 53…all the New Testament writers, as I said, did, the church began to preach to the Jews that Jesus is the fulfillment of Isaiah 53.

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

The Jews interpreted the prophecies based on their expectations of the Messiah delivering them from the Romans. What they desired and what the scriptures talk about are different. The Astonishing Servant of Jehovah

Eh, you know--it's a debate that can never be won. Interesting conversation.

 

[Skywalker]

Eh, you know--it's a debate that can never be won. Interesting conversation.

What about the religious, cultural, and historical division between Christianity and Judaism exist until the division of Christianity and Judaism? Jewish Christian - Wikipedia

The inclusion of non-Jews led to a growing split between Jewish Christians (i.e. the Jewish followers of Jesus) and non-Jewish Christians. From the latter, Nicene Christianity eventually arose, while mainstream Judaism developed into Rabbinic Judaism. Jewish Christians drifted apart from mainstream Judaism, eventually becoming a minority strand which had mostly disappeared by the fifth century. Jewish–Christian gospels have been lost except for fragments, so there is considerable uncertainty as to the scriptures used by this group.

The split of Christianity and Judaism took place during the first centuries CE.[1][2]While the First Jewish–Roman War and the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE were main events, the separation was a long-term process, in which the boundaries were not clear-cut.[1][2]

 

[1213]

...Where does any scientist assume anything? They do not. Where did scientists ever assume that the rate of erosion was constant? They never made that error. That is now how we know that there was no flood.

You said previously: “What that is evidence of is slow growth and erosion of mountains over millions of years. There is evidence for that”. We have not observed erosion all the time, so it is assumption that it has gone as the “scientists” say.

 

[1213]

...How does the Bible explain skeletons of early men that have been carbon-dated to 100,000 years ago?

I should first believe that is correct data. I don’t have any scientific reason to believe it.

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

I should first believe that is correct data. I don’t have any scientific reason to believe it.

Colored Pigments and Complex Tools Suggest Humans Were Trading 100,000 Years Earlier Than Previously Believed

Colored Pigments and Complex Tools Suggest Humans Were Trading 100,000 Years Earlier Than Previously Believed | Science | Smithsonian Magazine

Our analysis, published in Nature, shows that the earliest population of modern humans (Homo sapiens sapiens) arose 200,000 years ago in an area that covers parts of modern-day Botswana, Namibia and Zimbabwe.

Scientists now have evidence the evolutionary birthplace of human kind was in northern Botswana

Ancient human species made ‘last stand’ 100,000 years ago on Indonesian island

Ancient human species made ‘last stand’ 100,000 years ago on Indonesian island

Anyone who refuses to acknowledges what science has proven beyond any reasonable doubt with millions of skeletons and artifacts is simply being disingenuous--that or they get a kick out of being outrageous.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Colored Pigments and Complex Tools Suggest Humans Were Trading 100,000 Years Earlier Than Previously Believed

Colored Pigments and Complex Tools Suggest Humans Were Trading 100,000 Years Earlier Than Previously Believed | Science | Smithsonian Magazine

Our analysis, published in Nature, shows that the earliest population of modern humans (Homo sapiens sapiens) arose 200,000 years ago in an area that covers parts of modern-day Botswana, Namibia and Zimbabwe.

Scientists now have evidence the evolutionary birthplace of human kind was in northern Botswana

Ancient human species made ‘last stand’ 100,000 years ago on Indonesian island

Ancient human species made ‘last stand’ 100,000 years ago on Indonesian island

Anyone who refuses to acknowledges what science has proven beyond any reasonable doubt with millions of skeletons and artifacts is simply being disingenuous--that or they get a kick out of being outrageous.

I like the last article the most. It tells you:

The researchers applied five types of radiometric dating, including a new method that provides both minimum and maximum dates, to those animal fossils and the sediments around them. The team concluded that the bones were buried between 117,000 and 108,000 years ago, the researchers report today in Nature

And there is a link to the Nature article in my quote.

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

I like the last article the most. It tells you:

The researchers applied five types of radiometric dating, including a new method that provides both minimum and maximum dates, to those animal fossils and the sediments around them. The team concluded that the bones were buried between 117,000 and 108,000 years ago, the researchers report today in Nature

And there is a link to the Nature article in my quote.

I'm completely baffled at how modern day Christians stubbornly insist that because ignorant-of-science Jewish scholars in 500 BC wrote that the earth is only 6000 years old that today's Christians take it as gospel truth against all the science that has been gathered (including bones and fossils reliably dated) that refutes the 6000 year fiasco. It only reinforces the proof that religion is an opiate that can sometimes be so addictive it's impossible to break the habit.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

There is nothing wrong with my technique. It only underscored your ignorance of the Bible, as you just did so here. And you continued to do so here. I can see that you have either not read or not understood the two nativity tales. Some background facts for you. King Herod of Judea died in about 4 BCE, some used to date his date at 1 BCE, but that was mainly due to a verse in the Bible and does not seem to be well accepted by historians since "Because the Bible Tells Me So" is not thought to be valid reasoning.

Herod the Great - Wikipedia

The date of the Census of Quirinius is well known. And since Judea was a tribute paying kingdom during King Herod's term there would have been no census as long as he was alive. The Romans did not do a census of Judea until after his sons failed and they took over the territory:

Quirinius - Wikipedia

And the reason for Luke having a ten year pregnancy, it could have been a bit less, is that Mary was already betrothed to marry Joseph when she first ran across the mother of John the Baptist. That was according to Luke in the days of Herod. You can find that in Luke 1. But he does not have Jesus born until 6 CE in Bethlehem as a result of the Census of Qurinius. Romans kept track of their Censuses. The history of Quirinius is well known, and that Judea not being subject to a census until Rome had to take over is well understood too. Apologists try to weasel out a bunch of "what ifs" but they do not work when compared to history.

Matthew also has Jesus born in the days of Herod, but he at least did not contradict himself as badly as Luke did.

Once again you state things as if fact when they are not. Where are your verses? Luke doesn't say anything about a 10 year pregnancy. There are gaps in recorded history during that time period where they don't know for sure what the dates should be.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Once again you state things as if fact when they are not. Where are your verses? Luke doesn't say anything about a 10 year pregnancy. There are gaps in recorded history during that time period where they don't know for sure what the dates should be.

I referred to the verses. Have you not read the Bible? The time of Herod's death is known. Some Christians try to push it to 1 BCE but even that does not help much. A seven year pregnancy is not much better than a 10 year one. The time of the Census of Quirinius is very well known. Luke specifically referred to that census. Do you need the verse? There would have been no census before that time since Judea used to be a subject state that retained its own leader and paid tribute instead of taxes. It was not until the sons of Herod failed and the Romans took over that taxation had to be done and a census was required for that. Do you want the specific verses? Read Luke 1, you have to get the timing from context. Herod was still alive when Mary was betrothed to Joseph, that was also the time that she was told that God was going to knock her up. She did not give birth until the time of the Census of Quirinius ten years later.

 

[1213]

...Anyone who refuses to acknowledges what science has proven beyond any reasonable doubt ...

That “reasonable doubt” is quite funny. It is difficult to imagine something more biased. But, sorry, there is really no scientific proof for the given time. Bolding text doesn’t make it more convincing.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That “reasonable doubt” is quite funny. It is difficult to imagine something more biased. But, sorry, there is really no scientific proof for the given time. Bolding text doesn’t make it more convincing.

What do you mean by "scientific proof"? Now if you are claiming that there is no scientific evidence you would be wrong. There is scientific evidence for the time given. There is no doubt about that.

Perhaps you should learn the basics of science. It does not take long. You will not repeat this sort of error once you do.

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

What do you mean by "scientific proof"? Now if you are claiming that there is no scientific evidence you would be wrong. There is scientific evidence for the time given. There is no doubt about that.

Perhaps you should learn the basics of science. It does not take long. You will not repeat this sort of error once you do.

It's textbook denial--refusal to face facts when the facts don't align with your beliefs. Christians suffer horribly from this malady.

 

[Skywalker]

I referred to the verses. Have you not read the Bible? The time of Herod's death is known. Some Christians try to push it to 1 BCE but even that does not help much. A seven year pregnancy is not much better than a 10 year one. The time of the Census of Quirinius is very well known. Luke specifically referred to that census. Do you need the verse? There would have been no census before that time since Judea used to be a subject state that retained its own leader and paid tribute instead of taxes. It was not until the sons of Herod failed and the Romans took over that taxation had to be done and a census was required for that. Do you want the specific verses? Read Luke 1, you have to get the timing from context. Herod was still alive when Mary was betrothed to Joseph, that was also the time that she was told that God was going to knock her up. She did not give birth until the time of the Census of Quirinius ten years later.

There was another census that wasn't the census of Quirinius. Does the Roman Census Prove Luke is Wrong About Jesus' Birth?

More than One Census
Although on its face we seem to have a difficulty here, there are several pieces that we must consider before jumping to the conclusion that Luke and Josephus were speaking about the same event. Indeed, it seems that Caesar Augustus was the type of leader who ordered many censuses in his day. Records exist to show that Roman-controlled Egypt had begun a census as early as 10 B.C. and it was repeated every 14 years. And Augustus himself notes in his Res Gestae (The Deeds of Augustus) that he ordered three wide-spread censuses of Roman citizens, one in 28B.C., one in 8 B.C. and one in 14 A.D.2 In between there are several other censuses that happened locally across Rome. Luke's account corroborates the idea of multiple censuses for Judea when he writes "This was the first census taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria." Certainly, the word "first" implies that more than one census happened.

On another occasion, an enrollment of all the people of the empire happened to swear an oath of allegiance to Caesar. In Chapter 34 of Res Gestae Augustus also notes, "When I administered my thirteenth consulate (2 B.C.E.), the senate and Equestrian order and Roman people all called me father of the country, and voted that the same be inscribed in the vestibule of my temple".3 Josephus also mentions a time "When all good people gave assurance of their good will to Caesar".4 These types of tributes would also require an enrollment of individuals from across the empire. Orosius, a fifth century Christian, links this registration with the birth of Jesus saying that "all of the peoples of the great nations were to take an oath".5

Taking all of this together, we have at least three censuses in the area of Judea - one in 8 B.C., one starting around 2 B.C. and one in 6 A.D. The only point that is really in question, then, is whether Luke was mistaken in ascribing this census to the time when Quirinius was in the role of Syrian Governor. Since Quirinius wasn't governor of the Syrian province until after Archelaus was deposed, critics claim Luke misidentified the census as the smaller one, which happened some 8-10 years after Herod died. Either Luke is wrong on his dating of Jesus' birth or Matthew made up the story of Herod the Great and the killing of the infants. Is this an accurate objection?