ConsequentAtheist said:
What about Josephus?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Who was Lazarus?
- Thread starter Medicine*Woman
- Start date
What about Josephus?
*************ConsequentAtheist said:You know nothing about your source, less about his conclusions, but offer it up as a source of enlightment. Let me suggest that you are a perfect example of what that type of scholarship produces. You seem little more than a gullible little girl sadly driven by your neurotic hatred of Christianity.
M*W: Although you were spewing hatred at me again, you did give me something to think about when you said I was "sadly driven" by my "neurotic hatred of Christianity."
Let's compare that to all the Christians who have a neurotic need to believe in Christianity. I used to be one of them. Maybe it seems I'm taking my "neurotic hatred of Christianity" a little too personally? Yes, I am. They lied to me, too, and when I came to realize the lie had been perpetuated for 2000 years, I greived for my loss as if it had been a close friend who had betrayed me. So, yes, I do take it personally. It was not just something that could "come and go" easily without any imminent emotional trauma. I know the disillusionment I experienced when I found the truth about Christianity. I blamed myself at first for "searching" but not much anymore. I learned the importance of "searching." The truth has continued to reconfirm itself to me. Now that Christianity is the fastest declining religion worldwide, I suppose it's confirming the lies it told to millions of others. Humanity is not that cummulatively stupid. Or are we? Which is better? To continue to believe the lies with our heads stuck in the sand? Or learn the truth and suffer the loss of a "committed relationship?" What you call "neurotic hatred" of Christianity I see as a necessary warning to those who blindly believe in the lies. They're afraid to learn the truth, so they don't research. They're trapped in this lie, and they perpetuate this lie, because they don't want to believe anything but their personal dying demi-god savior of myth.
Yes, I do take it personally, and I feel that I have a responsibility to my fellow humans to free them from this dillusion.
You can spew all the hatred you want at me, but it doesn't hurt me. Your hatred will turn within and destroy you.
Medicine Woman said:*************
M*W: Although you were spewing hatred at me again, you did give me something to think about when you said I was "sadly driven" by my "neurotic hatred of Christianity."
Let's compare that to all the Christians who have a neurotic need to believe in Christianity. I used to be one of them. Maybe it seems I'm taking my "neurotic hatred of Christianity" a little too personally? Yes, I am. They lied to me, too, and when I came to realize the lie had been perpetuated for 2000 years, I greived for my loss as if it had been a close friend who had betrayed me. So, yes, I do take it personally. It was not just something that could "come and go" easily without any imminent emotional trauma. I know the disillusionment I experienced when I found the truth about Christianity. I blamed myself at first for "searching" but not much anymore. I learned the importance of "searching." The truth has continued to reconfirm itself to me. Now that Christianity is the fastest declining religion worldwide, I suppose it's confirming the lies it told to millions of others. Humanity is not that cummulatively stupid. Or are we? Which is better? To continue to believe the lies with our heads stuck in the sand? Or learn the truth and suffer the loss of a "committed relationship?" What you call "neurotic hatred" of Christianity I see as a necessary warning to those who blindly believe in the lies. They're afraid to learn the truth, so they don't research. They're trapped in this lie, and they perpetuate this lie, because they don't want to believe anything but their personal dying demi-god savior of myth.
Yes, I do take it personally, and I feel that I have a responsibility to my fellow humans to free them from this dillusion.
You can spew all the hatred you want at me, but it doesn't hurt me. Your hatred will turn within and destroy you.
Oh no CA, this "neurotic hatred" of yours is surely going to consume you! You had better listen to what MW says, she has your best interests in mind..
:m:
ConsequentAtheist said:What historians say "there is extra-Biblical documentation of Jesus Christ"?
Your former link very nice evidence of an early CE Christian movement. It is not evidence of an historical Jesus.
The latter link is seriously dated and essentially worthless. See Essays on the James Ossuary.
Excuse me for insisting that you answer the question, CA, but you have made the declaration there is no extra-biblical references to Jesus Christ. I am just asking for a further explanation and reason for the statement. (In case you want to know which historians who say there is, just put your search engine to "historical Jesus".)
Thank you in advance.
I was going to start this post by asking Medicine Woman to please conform to the quote tags as it would make reading her replies easier, but I see that she actually did it already. Bravo. Please continue to do so.
Now that that's out of the way. I'll say that it was an interesting article. It's a pity that few here are able to discuss the article and have degenerated into a debate on whether Jesus was real or not. I guess it's sort of on topic, but ignores the original argument. Merely tries to contradict it by saying Jesus was real so the article is fake.
I have a bit of a problem with this statement. I have heard it made by others in the past. The problem with it is son and sun are homonyms in English. I doubt that they were in earlier languages. Maybe I'm wrong on this. I think the relevant language would be Latin. Anyone know latin?
As to the rest of the article, I have no doubts that the original god of humanity was almost certainly the sun. What thing in our world is so obviously powerful, important, and awe-inspiring as the sun? Now, I don't know about the sun hanging out on the horizon for three days (unless someone took a trip to the arctic or antarctic), but I am sure that solar eclipses would have scared the hell out of primitive peoples. Hell, it'd scare the hell out of me if I didn't know what was happening. And then when people began to go blind because they looked at it (a natural enough inclination).
Now, do christians really feel that their religion came from a single source without being influenced in any way by the religions and beliefs that came before? That's a ridiculous idea. Christianity has incorporated pagan myths into itself time and time again. Most of the time, these pagan beliefs were brought in after the Bible had been canonized and therefore the beliefs were not added to the bible, just to the general belief structure. But, I find it highly likely that when the Romans were christianized they incorporated their previous beliefs into the Bible. And since they wrote the Bible, these beliefs would have become part of it.
I seriously doubt that, if Jesus were real, that he would recognize his religion as it has been transformed beyond all recognition of his original tenets. It was a doomsday cult after all, but we're still waiting for doomsday. The original Christians were part of a trend of doomsday cults that hid in the desert waiting the end of days. It's a good thing (or a bad thing depending on your view) that some of the christians weren't so reclusive and spread the faith to Rome. Of course, once this happened the religion was taken from their hands and shaped into something new, a religion that would appeal to decadent Romans rather than world-weary Jews. I would imagine that what remained of the original cult either died out on it's own as the world never ended and people got tired of waiting in the desert or were slaughtered by the Romans for having heretical ideas.
And remember, Egypt in this case is not even worlds removed from Christianity. It has more links than Roman. The early Jews were supposedly held in bondage in Egypt. It is extremely likely that certain Egyptian beliefs were incorporated into their mythos. The real story of the Jews doesn't begin until after Egypt. The first books of the bible are the books of Moses. All that had gone before was just memories of the past seen through the filter of the present.
There is also the possibility that Moses was not Jewish at all. I've read theories here and there that Moses was Egyptian, not merely raised Egyptian (even if a Jew raised Egyptian, well you are how you are raised.) I've heard that Moses is an Egyptian name, not a Jewish one. And the possibility exists that Moses' god was different than the god the Jews ended up with. There is speculation that Moses was killed in the desert by his followers who were tired of wandering and wanted to settle down. Once they found their promised land and settled down to begin writing the stories of the bible, they'd find it distasteful to admit to themselves that Moses was killed and changed it to his not being allowed into the Holy Land because of his pride.
An interesting side note on Moses being left behind. I was watching a documentary the other day on some nomadic tribe. I don't recall their name or even where in the world they live, but they still live the same way their ancestors have for hundreds or thousands of years. Their lives are a lesson in conformity. The highest ideal of the son is to live the life his father lived. Change is bad. But anyway, about Moses. Their is a part of the journey where they have to ford a wide and fast river. Often sheep are lost in this crossing and sometimes tribesmen as well. When a man (or woman I'd guess, they only showed a man on this particular show) grows old and feels that he will not survive the crossing, what do you think happens to him? He's left behind. Just that simple. He doesn't cross the river while his family does. They actually showed an old man who made this choice on this particular round of their eternal migration. I don't know if it was real or just staged to show the principle. But, the guy just sat down by a big rock and waited. One of the dogs stayed behind for companionship. But, damn, that's harsh, man. It's a brutal world. Of course, the Jews at the time were seperated from their nomadic roots because they were sedentary in Egypt. Or were they? It's possible that if they weren't slaves, then perhaps they just wandered through. Picking up a new holy man as they did so.
Anyway, this is turning into a small novel, I fear. So, I'll just make one more quick point. MW's article is about Egypt, but I wonder if Babylon didn't have a greater impact on Jewish beliefs. From my readings of the bible, it seems that the bible was actually written after the return from captivity in Babylon. The events that happened before this time are written in a style that suggests they are remembered to have happened in a particular way. But afterwards, you get the prophets who write of their own lives in terms of the present. The tribes that didn't make it back from Babylon were described as being wicked and punished by god. Coinicidence? The bible (Torah) written at this time was an attempt to bolster the returning people's national consciousness. To give them something to believe in, to follow, the belief of their ancestors. Unfortunately, although I have read certain Babylonian-Jewish similarities, I can't recall any right now. So, I'll leave it at this point and see what happens.
Oh, I did want to mention one more thing.
In the Mask's of God, it is said that in many belief structures, the story of the original death is told something like this. Once no one died and the people were innocent. Then, someone murdered someone else for various reasons (sometimes without even meaning to). The murderer attempts to hide his misdeed by burying the corpse (often just the head, the murder being a decapitation). From this burial a plant grows. The type of plant varies from region to region, but is generally the staple food plant of the area. See the ties to the Garden of Eden? The murder was moved to a time after the garden, but the food plant which brings life and death is plainly the tree of knowledge. It's interesting in the Jewish faith that the plant is seperated into the tree of knowledge and the tree of life (which we never partook of, and which is likely a reference to the Kaballah). This is a trend in Judaism. To take earlier beliefs and reverse them, to show that their faith is different to other faiths. That their faith is THE faith. Anyway, something interesting to think about, I always thought.
Now that that's out of the way. I'll say that it was an interesting article. It's a pity that few here are able to discuss the article and have degenerated into a debate on whether Jesus was real or not. I guess it's sort of on topic, but ignores the original argument. Merely tries to contradict it by saying Jesus was real so the article is fake.
Medicine Woman said:...Jesus, the son (Sun) of God?
I have a bit of a problem with this statement. I have heard it made by others in the past. The problem with it is son and sun are homonyms in English. I doubt that they were in earlier languages. Maybe I'm wrong on this. I think the relevant language would be Latin. Anyone know latin?
As to the rest of the article, I have no doubts that the original god of humanity was almost certainly the sun. What thing in our world is so obviously powerful, important, and awe-inspiring as the sun? Now, I don't know about the sun hanging out on the horizon for three days (unless someone took a trip to the arctic or antarctic), but I am sure that solar eclipses would have scared the hell out of primitive peoples. Hell, it'd scare the hell out of me if I didn't know what was happening. And then when people began to go blind because they looked at it (a natural enough inclination).
Now, do christians really feel that their religion came from a single source without being influenced in any way by the religions and beliefs that came before? That's a ridiculous idea. Christianity has incorporated pagan myths into itself time and time again. Most of the time, these pagan beliefs were brought in after the Bible had been canonized and therefore the beliefs were not added to the bible, just to the general belief structure. But, I find it highly likely that when the Romans were christianized they incorporated their previous beliefs into the Bible. And since they wrote the Bible, these beliefs would have become part of it.
I seriously doubt that, if Jesus were real, that he would recognize his religion as it has been transformed beyond all recognition of his original tenets. It was a doomsday cult after all, but we're still waiting for doomsday. The original Christians were part of a trend of doomsday cults that hid in the desert waiting the end of days. It's a good thing (or a bad thing depending on your view) that some of the christians weren't so reclusive and spread the faith to Rome. Of course, once this happened the religion was taken from their hands and shaped into something new, a religion that would appeal to decadent Romans rather than world-weary Jews. I would imagine that what remained of the original cult either died out on it's own as the world never ended and people got tired of waiting in the desert or were slaughtered by the Romans for having heretical ideas.
And remember, Egypt in this case is not even worlds removed from Christianity. It has more links than Roman. The early Jews were supposedly held in bondage in Egypt. It is extremely likely that certain Egyptian beliefs were incorporated into their mythos. The real story of the Jews doesn't begin until after Egypt. The first books of the bible are the books of Moses. All that had gone before was just memories of the past seen through the filter of the present.
There is also the possibility that Moses was not Jewish at all. I've read theories here and there that Moses was Egyptian, not merely raised Egyptian (even if a Jew raised Egyptian, well you are how you are raised.) I've heard that Moses is an Egyptian name, not a Jewish one. And the possibility exists that Moses' god was different than the god the Jews ended up with. There is speculation that Moses was killed in the desert by his followers who were tired of wandering and wanted to settle down. Once they found their promised land and settled down to begin writing the stories of the bible, they'd find it distasteful to admit to themselves that Moses was killed and changed it to his not being allowed into the Holy Land because of his pride.
An interesting side note on Moses being left behind. I was watching a documentary the other day on some nomadic tribe. I don't recall their name or even where in the world they live, but they still live the same way their ancestors have for hundreds or thousands of years. Their lives are a lesson in conformity. The highest ideal of the son is to live the life his father lived. Change is bad. But anyway, about Moses. Their is a part of the journey where they have to ford a wide and fast river. Often sheep are lost in this crossing and sometimes tribesmen as well. When a man (or woman I'd guess, they only showed a man on this particular show) grows old and feels that he will not survive the crossing, what do you think happens to him? He's left behind. Just that simple. He doesn't cross the river while his family does. They actually showed an old man who made this choice on this particular round of their eternal migration. I don't know if it was real or just staged to show the principle. But, the guy just sat down by a big rock and waited. One of the dogs stayed behind for companionship. But, damn, that's harsh, man. It's a brutal world. Of course, the Jews at the time were seperated from their nomadic roots because they were sedentary in Egypt. Or were they? It's possible that if they weren't slaves, then perhaps they just wandered through. Picking up a new holy man as they did so.
Anyway, this is turning into a small novel, I fear. So, I'll just make one more quick point. MW's article is about Egypt, but I wonder if Babylon didn't have a greater impact on Jewish beliefs. From my readings of the bible, it seems that the bible was actually written after the return from captivity in Babylon. The events that happened before this time are written in a style that suggests they are remembered to have happened in a particular way. But afterwards, you get the prophets who write of their own lives in terms of the present. The tribes that didn't make it back from Babylon were described as being wicked and punished by god. Coinicidence? The bible (Torah) written at this time was an attempt to bolster the returning people's national consciousness. To give them something to believe in, to follow, the belief of their ancestors. Unfortunately, although I have read certain Babylonian-Jewish similarities, I can't recall any right now. So, I'll leave it at this point and see what happens.
Oh, I did want to mention one more thing.
Osiris, being the first living thing to die, subsequently became lord of the dead.
In the Mask's of God, it is said that in many belief structures, the story of the original death is told something like this. Once no one died and the people were innocent. Then, someone murdered someone else for various reasons (sometimes without even meaning to). The murderer attempts to hide his misdeed by burying the corpse (often just the head, the murder being a decapitation). From this burial a plant grows. The type of plant varies from region to region, but is generally the staple food plant of the area. See the ties to the Garden of Eden? The murder was moved to a time after the garden, but the food plant which brings life and death is plainly the tree of knowledge. It's interesting in the Jewish faith that the plant is seperated into the tree of knowledge and the tree of life (which we never partook of, and which is likely a reference to the Kaballah). This is a trend in Judaism. To take earlier beliefs and reverse them, to show that their faith is different to other faiths. That their faith is THE faith. Anyway, something interesting to think about, I always thought.
What about Josephus?
Hasn't Josephus pretty much been shown to be a liar... oops exagerator, a propagandist to the highest degree? Unless I'm getting my references mixed, didn't Josephus tell the story of (blankin on the name, that fortress where supposedly all the jews holed up and killed themselves rather than submit to the Romans.) Archeological evidence is telling a quite different story as to what really happened. At least as regards to how many Jews were holed up there. And doesn't a lot of Josephus' histories begin with I wasn't there but...?
This argues he was mostly accurate: http://www.centuryone.com/josephus.html
So does this one, although it's an admittedly Christian website: http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_01_01_01_JOS.html
Basic bio, courtesty of the Church: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08522a.htm
Another, from a secular source: http://religion.rutgers.edu/iho/josephus.html
As these sites all mention in varying degress, he was unreliable in at least one important sense ... despite the Jewish-Roman conflict of his time, he was a favorite of several Roman emperors.
So does this one, although it's an admittedly Christian website: http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_01_01_01_JOS.html
Basic bio, courtesty of the Church: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08522a.htm
Another, from a secular source: http://religion.rutgers.edu/iho/josephus.html
As these sites all mention in varying degress, he was unreliable in at least one important sense ... despite the Jewish-Roman conflict of his time, he was a favorite of several Roman emperors.
Last edited:
Thus he probably never visited Masada or set foot on its summit, so he cannot himself have measured its walls.
Masada, that's it. I hate it when I forget something so basic.
I just thought that I'd go on a tangent and promote some poetry (don't hit me). There's a poem by Sylvia Plath called Lady Lazarus and it's really good (except the last 2 words, imho).
ConsequentAtheist
Registered Senior Member
The Testimonium Flavianum is widely recognized as a Christian interpolation.StarOfEight said:What about Josephus?
From your reference:StarOfEight said:This argues he was mostly accurate: http://www.centuryone.com/josephus.html
Was Josephus always correct? Certainly not. His inaccuracies range from vagueness to blatant exaggeration. Shaye Cohen accuses him of "inveterate sloppiness". The index to Cohen's book goes so far as actually to include entries for "exaggeration", "inconsistency and sloppiness" and "corrupt transmission of names and numbers". Indeed, even if it is accepted that copyists were responsible for not a few of his mistakes (some of which have been hinted at already), it still cannot be denied that he was by nature somewhat negligent. The list of scholars who have deprecated his errors is long but suffice it to mention here the accusations of tow eminent archaeologists alone, since archaeology is the central theme of the present discussion. Albright remarks on "how inaccurate Josephus generally was in details . . ." Vincent goes even further. "Il serait superflu", he maintains, "d'accentuer de nouveau la futilite de toute evaluation fondee sur les chiffres de Josephe." However, a remark on the previous page, to the effect that a particular item of information is an "excellente approsimation", reflects the reaction typical of scholars investigating Josephus' data.
For a well-balanced discussion, see Testimonium Flavianum
ConsequentAtheist
Registered Senior Member
That is a lie, and a stupid one at that. What I said was:SVRP said:Excuse me for insisting that you answer the question, CA, but you have made the declaration there is no extra-biblical references to Jesus Christ.
Instead of presuming to make demands on me, take some time to learn the difference between "references" and "evidence".What historians say "there is extra-Biblical documentation of Jesus Christ"?
Your former link very nice evidence of an early CE Christian movement. It is not evidence of an historical Jesus.
I'm so pleased that you can use a search engine. Now give me a specific example of extra-biblical evidence and I'll be more than happy to address it.SVRP said:I am just asking for a further explanation and reason for the statement. (In case you want to know which historians who say there is, just put your search engine to "historical Jesus".)
ConsequentAtheist said:There is no extra-Biblical documentation of Jesus Christ.
On the contrary, CA, I was referring to the above response, whether you had implied it to be a reference or evidence. Again, please explain it in more detail. Thank you.
http://www.paracletesystems.co.uk/inj/inj005manmyth.htm
Last edited:
ConsequentAtheist
Registered Senior Member
Who among your laundry list of hopeful candidates, do you believe offers evidence of an historical Jesus, and what is that evidence?
Why don't you choose one and explain?ConsequentAtheist said:Who among your laundry list of hopeful candidates, do you believe offers evidence of an historical Jesus, and what is that evidence?
http://www.carlislecofc.org/extrabiblical.htm
(P.S. The argument is whether Jesus Christ is mentioned in an extra-biblical source, not whether he is a man or myth. Look at your statement again.)
invert_nexus said:I was going to start this post by asking Medicine Woman to please conform to the quote tags as it would make reading her replies easier, but I see that she actually did it already. Bravo. Please continue to do so.
*************
M*W: I'm not sure I know how to use the "quote tags." Please explain. Thanks.
M*W: I'm not sure I know how to use the "quote tags." Please explain. Thanks.
And I was so sure you had it. I did notice in another post that you quoted more than you intended. So, I'll explain. Everything you intend to be in quotes must end with a [/quote] and must start with a
. It's just that simple. To use the posted by, start with thewhoever said:
invert_nexus: I'll say that it was an interesting article. It's a pity that few here are able to discuss the article and have degenerated into a debate on whether Jesus was real or not. I guess it's sort of on topic, but ignores the original argument. Merely tries to contradict it by saying Jesus was real so the article is fake.
The problem with it is son and sun are homonyms in English. I doubt that they were in earlier languages. Maybe I'm wrong on this. I think the relevant language would be Latin. Anyone know latin?
*************
M*W: Good point. The sun is "helios" in Greek, and I believe "Sol" in Latin. In Hebrew, I believe it is "el, "eli," or even "Heli," (Joseph's father--does that make Joseph "son of the Sun?). What is the translation of the "Morningstar?" (Supposedly Venus?)
*************
invert_nexus: As to the rest of the article, I have no doubts that the original god of humanity was almost certainly the sun. What thing in our world is so obviously powerful, important, and awe-inspiring as the sun? Now, I don't know about the sun hanging out on the horizon for three days (unless someone took a trip to the arctic or antarctic), but I am sure that solar eclipses would have scared the hell out of primitive peoples. Hell, it'd scare the hell out of me if I didn't know what was happening. And then when people began to go blind because they looked at it (a natural enough inclination).
*************
M*W: Question (before I forget)? If Moses never made it to the Promised Land (because he died), when the hell did he write the Pentateuch/Torah? Seems like he would have had to have writen Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy way back in Egypt somewhere and NOT in the Promised Land. Were these texts Hebrew or Egyptian? I know the ancient Hebrews were a nomadic tribe called the "hibiru" or "abiru". Perhaps they spoke a form of Hebrew just like Aramaic is a form of Hebrew.
Anyhoo, here's an excerpt from Jesus, Last of the Pharaohs: The Truth Behind the Mask Revealed, by Ralph Ellis, second edition 1999, Dorset, England.
"Aaron proclaimed himself pharaoh of all Egypt, and changed his name from Amenhotep to Akhenaton (Aaron) to signify his irrevocable break from the old regime."
"A new era had dawned in Egypt, the Amarna age, which was to be different in all respects from the old regime. This revolution was the result of Aaron's commitment to the sacred study of the workings of the cosmos, the power behind the sun."
"The people needed to understand that it was not the physical form of the god that was important, but the cosmos itself and the mathematical functions that ordered its motions that were to be venerated."
"These "gods" of Egypt were messengers from other worlds, not the gods themselves. The sun and cosmos were the real power behind all life in the Universe and thei 'energy' was largely invisible."
"Aaron gave the order: there were to be no graven images to divert his people's attention from the real divine worship, that of the Aton, the workings of the cosmos. All the old gods were banned. The people were to praise Aaron himself for his wisdom and understanding of the cosmos and praise the divine movement of the Sun in its orbit because it was the physical representation of the mechanics of the cosmos. If you could understand the movement of the Sun, as he did, you would understand the greatness of the Universe. Thus, the temples were aligned with the rising and setting of the Sun and were opened up to the sky, so that the "Sun God" could be worshiped when it reached its highest point in the sky each day. That is why the deity had no pphysical form at Amarna, for the workings of the cosmos have no form. That was why the theology of Moses and Aaron became monotheistic, for there was only one cosmos and only one set of laws which it obeys. These laws are strange, silent, invisible forces that are more powerful than anything that can be imagined."
*************
invert_nexus: Now, do christians really feel that their religion came from a single source without being influenced in any way by the religions and beliefs that came before? That's a ridiculous idea. Christianity has incorporated pagan myths into itself time and time again. Most of the time, these pagan beliefs were brought in after the Bible had been canonized and therefore the beliefs were not added to the bible, just to the general belief structure. But, I find it highly likely that when the Romans were christianized they incorporated their previous beliefs into the Bible. And since they wrote the Bible, these beliefs would have become part of it.
I seriously doubt that, if Jesus were real, that he would recognize his religion as it has been transformed beyond all recognition of his original tenets. It was a doomsday cult after all, but we're still waiting for doomsday. The original Christians were part of a trend of doomsday cults that hid in the desert waiting the end of days. It's a good thing (or a bad thing depending on your view) that some of the christians weren't so reclusive and spread the faith to Rome. Of course, once this happened the religion was taken from their hands and shaped into something new, a religion that would appeal to decadent Romans rather than world-weary Jews. I would imagine that what remained of the original cult either died out on it's own as the world never ended and people got tired of waiting in the desert or were slaughtered by the Romans for having heretical ideas.
And remember, Egypt in this case is not even worlds removed from Christianity. It has more links than Roman. The early Jews were supposedly held in bondage in Egypt. It is extremely likely that certain Egyptian beliefs were incorporated into their mythos. The real story of the Jews doesn't begin until after Egypt. The first books of the bible are the books of Moses. All that had gone before was just memories of the past seen through the filter of the present.
There is also the possibility that Moses was not Jewish at all. I've read theories here and there that Moses was Egyptian, not merely raised Egyptian (even if a Jew raised Egyptian, well you are how you are raised.) I've heard that Moses is an Egyptian name, not a Jewish one. And the possibility exists that Moses' god was different than the god the Jews ended up with. There is speculation that Moses was killed in the desert by his followers who were tired of wandering and wanted to settle down. Once they found their promised land and settled down to begin writing the stories of the bible, they'd find it distasteful to admit to themselves that Moses was killed and changed it to his not being allowed into the Holy Land because of his pride.
*************
M*W: So, if Moses was already dead, who wrote the Torah in the Promised Land?
*************
invert_nexus: An interesting side note on Moses being left behind. I was watching a documentary the other day on some nomadic tribe. I don't recall their name or even where in the world they live, but they still live the same way their ancestors have for hundreds or thousands of years. Their lives are a lesson in conformity. The highest ideal of the son is to live the life his father lived. Change is bad. But anyway, about Moses. Their is a part of the journey where they have to ford a wide and fast river. Often sheep are lost in this crossing and sometimes tribesmen as well. When a man (or woman I'd guess, they only showed a man on this particular show) grows old and feels that he will not survive the crossing, what do you think happens to him? He's left behind. Just that simple. He doesn't cross the river while his family does. They actually showed an old man who made this choice on this particular round of their eternal migration. I don't know if it was real or just staged to show the principle. But, the guy just sat down by a big rock and waited. One of the dogs stayed behind for companionship. But, damn, that's harsh, man. It's a brutal world. Of course, the Jews at the time were seperated from their nomadic roots because they were sedentary in Egypt. Or were they? It's possible that if they weren't slaves, then perhaps they just wandered through. Picking up a new holy man as they did so.
Anyway, this is turning into a small novel, I fear. So, I'll just make one more quick point. MW's article is about Egypt, but I wonder if Babylon didn't have a greater impact on Jewish beliefs. From my readings of the bible, it seems that the bible was actually written after the return from captivity in Babylon. The events that happened before this time are written in a style that suggests they are remembered to have happened in a particular way. But afterwards, you get the prophets who write of their own lives in terms of the present. The tribes that didn't make it back from Babylon were described as being wicked and punished by god. Coinicidence? The bible (Torah) written at this time was an attempt to bolster the returning people's national consciousness. To give them something to believe in, to follow, the belief of their ancestors. Unfortunately, although I have read certain Babylonian-Jewish similarities, I can't recall any right now. So, I'll leave it at this point and see what happens.
*************
M*W: The Sumerians may have had an influence on the Torah (i.e. the floods of Noah AND Gilgamesh).
*************
Oh, I did want to mention one more thing. In the Mask's of God, it is said that in many belief structures, the story of the original death is told something like this. Once no one died and the people were innocent. Then, someone murdered someone else for various reasons (sometimes without even meaning to). The murderer attempts to hide his misdeed by burying the corpse (often just the head, the murder being a decapitation). From this burial a plant grows. The type of plant varies from region to region, but is generally the staple food plant of the area. See the ties to the Garden of Eden? The murder was moved to a time after the garden, but the food plant which brings life and death is plainly the tree of knowledge. It's interesting in the Jewish faith that the plant is seperated into the tree of knowledge and the tree of life (which we never partook of, and which is likely a reference to the Kaballah). This is a trend in Judaism. To take earlier beliefs and reverse them, to show that their faith is different to other faiths. That their faith is THE faith. Anyway, something interesting to think about, I always thought.
*************
M*W: invert_nexus: Thank you for posting your research. Earlier recorded history influenced the writing of the Torah. The story of the GoE happened much later that most people believe.
The problem with it is son and sun are homonyms in English. I doubt that they were in earlier languages. Maybe I'm wrong on this. I think the relevant language would be Latin. Anyone know latin?
*************
M*W: Good point. The sun is "helios" in Greek, and I believe "Sol" in Latin. In Hebrew, I believe it is "el, "eli," or even "Heli," (Joseph's father--does that make Joseph "son of the Sun?). What is the translation of the "Morningstar?" (Supposedly Venus?)
*************
invert_nexus: As to the rest of the article, I have no doubts that the original god of humanity was almost certainly the sun. What thing in our world is so obviously powerful, important, and awe-inspiring as the sun? Now, I don't know about the sun hanging out on the horizon for three days (unless someone took a trip to the arctic or antarctic), but I am sure that solar eclipses would have scared the hell out of primitive peoples. Hell, it'd scare the hell out of me if I didn't know what was happening. And then when people began to go blind because they looked at it (a natural enough inclination).
*************
M*W: Question (before I forget)? If Moses never made it to the Promised Land (because he died), when the hell did he write the Pentateuch/Torah? Seems like he would have had to have writen Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy way back in Egypt somewhere and NOT in the Promised Land. Were these texts Hebrew or Egyptian? I know the ancient Hebrews were a nomadic tribe called the "hibiru" or "abiru". Perhaps they spoke a form of Hebrew just like Aramaic is a form of Hebrew.
Anyhoo, here's an excerpt from Jesus, Last of the Pharaohs: The Truth Behind the Mask Revealed, by Ralph Ellis, second edition 1999, Dorset, England.
"Aaron proclaimed himself pharaoh of all Egypt, and changed his name from Amenhotep to Akhenaton (Aaron) to signify his irrevocable break from the old regime."
"A new era had dawned in Egypt, the Amarna age, which was to be different in all respects from the old regime. This revolution was the result of Aaron's commitment to the sacred study of the workings of the cosmos, the power behind the sun."
"The people needed to understand that it was not the physical form of the god that was important, but the cosmos itself and the mathematical functions that ordered its motions that were to be venerated."
"These "gods" of Egypt were messengers from other worlds, not the gods themselves. The sun and cosmos were the real power behind all life in the Universe and thei 'energy' was largely invisible."
"Aaron gave the order: there were to be no graven images to divert his people's attention from the real divine worship, that of the Aton, the workings of the cosmos. All the old gods were banned. The people were to praise Aaron himself for his wisdom and understanding of the cosmos and praise the divine movement of the Sun in its orbit because it was the physical representation of the mechanics of the cosmos. If you could understand the movement of the Sun, as he did, you would understand the greatness of the Universe. Thus, the temples were aligned with the rising and setting of the Sun and were opened up to the sky, so that the "Sun God" could be worshiped when it reached its highest point in the sky each day. That is why the deity had no pphysical form at Amarna, for the workings of the cosmos have no form. That was why the theology of Moses and Aaron became monotheistic, for there was only one cosmos and only one set of laws which it obeys. These laws are strange, silent, invisible forces that are more powerful than anything that can be imagined."
*************
invert_nexus: Now, do christians really feel that their religion came from a single source without being influenced in any way by the religions and beliefs that came before? That's a ridiculous idea. Christianity has incorporated pagan myths into itself time and time again. Most of the time, these pagan beliefs were brought in after the Bible had been canonized and therefore the beliefs were not added to the bible, just to the general belief structure. But, I find it highly likely that when the Romans were christianized they incorporated their previous beliefs into the Bible. And since they wrote the Bible, these beliefs would have become part of it.
I seriously doubt that, if Jesus were real, that he would recognize his religion as it has been transformed beyond all recognition of his original tenets. It was a doomsday cult after all, but we're still waiting for doomsday. The original Christians were part of a trend of doomsday cults that hid in the desert waiting the end of days. It's a good thing (or a bad thing depending on your view) that some of the christians weren't so reclusive and spread the faith to Rome. Of course, once this happened the religion was taken from their hands and shaped into something new, a religion that would appeal to decadent Romans rather than world-weary Jews. I would imagine that what remained of the original cult either died out on it's own as the world never ended and people got tired of waiting in the desert or were slaughtered by the Romans for having heretical ideas.
And remember, Egypt in this case is not even worlds removed from Christianity. It has more links than Roman. The early Jews were supposedly held in bondage in Egypt. It is extremely likely that certain Egyptian beliefs were incorporated into their mythos. The real story of the Jews doesn't begin until after Egypt. The first books of the bible are the books of Moses. All that had gone before was just memories of the past seen through the filter of the present.
There is also the possibility that Moses was not Jewish at all. I've read theories here and there that Moses was Egyptian, not merely raised Egyptian (even if a Jew raised Egyptian, well you are how you are raised.) I've heard that Moses is an Egyptian name, not a Jewish one. And the possibility exists that Moses' god was different than the god the Jews ended up with. There is speculation that Moses was killed in the desert by his followers who were tired of wandering and wanted to settle down. Once they found their promised land and settled down to begin writing the stories of the bible, they'd find it distasteful to admit to themselves that Moses was killed and changed it to his not being allowed into the Holy Land because of his pride.
*************
M*W: So, if Moses was already dead, who wrote the Torah in the Promised Land?
*************
invert_nexus: An interesting side note on Moses being left behind. I was watching a documentary the other day on some nomadic tribe. I don't recall their name or even where in the world they live, but they still live the same way their ancestors have for hundreds or thousands of years. Their lives are a lesson in conformity. The highest ideal of the son is to live the life his father lived. Change is bad. But anyway, about Moses. Their is a part of the journey where they have to ford a wide and fast river. Often sheep are lost in this crossing and sometimes tribesmen as well. When a man (or woman I'd guess, they only showed a man on this particular show) grows old and feels that he will not survive the crossing, what do you think happens to him? He's left behind. Just that simple. He doesn't cross the river while his family does. They actually showed an old man who made this choice on this particular round of their eternal migration. I don't know if it was real or just staged to show the principle. But, the guy just sat down by a big rock and waited. One of the dogs stayed behind for companionship. But, damn, that's harsh, man. It's a brutal world. Of course, the Jews at the time were seperated from their nomadic roots because they were sedentary in Egypt. Or were they? It's possible that if they weren't slaves, then perhaps they just wandered through. Picking up a new holy man as they did so.
Anyway, this is turning into a small novel, I fear. So, I'll just make one more quick point. MW's article is about Egypt, but I wonder if Babylon didn't have a greater impact on Jewish beliefs. From my readings of the bible, it seems that the bible was actually written after the return from captivity in Babylon. The events that happened before this time are written in a style that suggests they are remembered to have happened in a particular way. But afterwards, you get the prophets who write of their own lives in terms of the present. The tribes that didn't make it back from Babylon were described as being wicked and punished by god. Coinicidence? The bible (Torah) written at this time was an attempt to bolster the returning people's national consciousness. To give them something to believe in, to follow, the belief of their ancestors. Unfortunately, although I have read certain Babylonian-Jewish similarities, I can't recall any right now. So, I'll leave it at this point and see what happens.
*************
M*W: The Sumerians may have had an influence on the Torah (i.e. the floods of Noah AND Gilgamesh).
*************
Oh, I did want to mention one more thing. In the Mask's of God, it is said that in many belief structures, the story of the original death is told something like this. Once no one died and the people were innocent. Then, someone murdered someone else for various reasons (sometimes without even meaning to). The murderer attempts to hide his misdeed by burying the corpse (often just the head, the murder being a decapitation). From this burial a plant grows. The type of plant varies from region to region, but is generally the staple food plant of the area. See the ties to the Garden of Eden? The murder was moved to a time after the garden, but the food plant which brings life and death is plainly the tree of knowledge. It's interesting in the Jewish faith that the plant is seperated into the tree of knowledge and the tree of life (which we never partook of, and which is likely a reference to the Kaballah). This is a trend in Judaism. To take earlier beliefs and reverse them, to show that their faith is different to other faiths. That their faith is THE faith. Anyway, something interesting to think about, I always thought.
*************
M*W: invert_nexus: Thank you for posting your research. Earlier recorded history influenced the writing of the Torah. The story of the GoE happened much later that most people believe.
M*W: Question (before I forget)? If Moses never made it to the Promised Land (because he died), when the hell did he write the Pentateuch/Torah? Seems like he would have had to have writen Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy way back in Egypt somewhere and NOT in the Promised Land.
Personally, I don't believe that Moses wrote the books of Moses. If anything, it was an oral tradition until much later. There is a point in either chronicles or kings where the book of the law is discovered in the temple. It had been forgotten and not followed for quite some time prior to this. This indicates to me that it was at this time that the books were written. Personally, I still feel that the entirety of the bible was written after the return from Babylon. The pentateuch might have come earlier though.
"Aaron proclaimed himself pharaoh of all Egypt, and changed his name from Amenhotep to Akhenaton (Aaron) to signify his irrevocable break from the old regime."
Is this Aaron Moses' brother? Are you saying that he was Akhenaton? Akhenaten was killed wasn't he? His successor was Tutankhamen who restored the dynasty to it's old religion. These are different times than the Exodus, aren't they?
M*W: So, if Moses was already dead, who wrote the Torah in the Promised Land?
This is highly speculative. One can break down the pentateuch by writing styles and come up with at least two seperate accounts that have been welded together. Take the flood story, which is the most blatant of these. In the flood story, Noah is commanded to take 2 of each animal and then 7 clean animals and 2 unclean. Obviously two separate accounts. Of course, they might have been seperate accounts that Moses himself welded together, but I personally doubt it.
I just found the passage where the book of the law is found. 2 kings 22. It was in Josiah's reign with Hilkiah as the high priest. This would be a very likely time of the authorship of the pentateuch.
M*W: The Sumerians may have had an influence on the Torah (i.e. the floods of Noah AND Gilgamesh).
This is what leads me to believe the late authorship of the bible being after the exile. The flood story is in the original books of moses. If the Babylon story exists in this book, then the influence must have come before it's authorship.
Also, the nature of the narrative changes after the return from Babylon. It becomes present tense rather than past tense.
M*W: invert_nexus: Thank you for posting your research. Earlier recorded history influenced the writing of the Torah. The story of the GoE happened much later that most people believe.
No problem, I just wish I had the books to reference. I checked them out at the library and it's been too long since I've read them. If you haven't read them, I'd recommend you do so. Very good. The author is Joseph Campbell. I have heard that it is best to take it with a grain of salt, but I do that anyway. I have also heard that much of what he wrote was said by Jung, by I don't know about that, I've never read Jung.
ConsequentAtheist
Registered Senior Member
If you read "documentation" and mistakenly inferred 'reference of no probative value', then your laundry list is, indeed, relevant and I stand corrected.SVRP said:http://www.carlislecofc.org/extrabiblical.htm
(P.S. The argument is whether Jesus Christ is mentioned in an extra-biblical source, not whether he is a man or myth. Look at your statement again.)
ConsequentAtheist
Registered Senior Member
Questions don't get much more inane than this, folks. M*W, do your truly believe that 'Moses' wrote the Torah?Medicine Woman said:Question (before I forget)? If Moses never made it to the Promised Land (because he died), when the hell did he write the Pentateuch/Torah?
Akhenaten means "He Who is of Service to Aten”. Please show me any evidence demonstrating a philological link between 'Akhenaten' and 'Aaron'.Medicine Woman said:"Aaron proclaimed himself pharaoh of all Egypt, and changed his name from Amenhotep to Akhenaton (Aaron) to signify his irrevocable break from the old regime."