"You believe in a magical sky daddy and a Jewish Zombie"

[Xru]

The minds of men are simply not able to define whether there is a God or not. A person believes or has decided that he/she cannot (or no longer) believe.

Of course we all think that we are the ones who are right....


Yet It is the mocking and insulting that reduces the sharing of ideas and thoughts regarding this issue to a laughable and nonproductive level.


I find it fascinating to observe that this site with an incredible amount of degreed members cannot lift itself from this...






(oh and Jim... my remarks about mocking and insulting are most certainly not referring to you)

CH . . . you seem to be a sweet and adorable person totally unsuited to be posting on TWeb. I'm not sure why you keep coming back to read all the tripe that goes on around here.

I for one am glad of it as a heavy dose of sweet and adorable is just what TWeb needs.

I too can be sweet and adorable (go ahead laugh it up R06 and all the rest of you rabble), just ask moreta, and Astra. Usually, I'm just slightly cold and aloof . . . some may say "superior egotistical smarty know-it-all), and regrettably sometimes when idiots just go to far I'm downright nasty.

What I've noticed about most who post on TWeb is that they don't come here to discover anything, move forward in understanding or horror's even change their mind about something . . . but to argue in support of a given position while never contemplating changing that position.

I've been pretty consistent in that description of the TWebber above except I've moved from all scientists are spawn of the Evil One to . .. well, some are just misguided and the rest spawn of the Evil One.

You too seem pretty typical as a TWebber having maintained that nice sweet and adorable tone engendering the feeling that you are "an extremely nice and tolerant person" so common of the typical coming of age individual around 1966 -1970, life in Northern California, come from an upper-middle class back ground and are college educated, married with a good relationship with your husband, have well adjusted children who are grown up, and you are probably back in school perusing a masters degree in a social science. Perhaps a degree in fine arts.

I'm not so sure that anything much different would happen here on TWeb if the rabble were silenced, expect it would be a lot less fun;)

Seriously . . . I really try not to be mean unless someone is just irritating me to the end of my patience by being stone stupid, is an ignorant moron and doesn't not it, or is a Troll . . . or if I'm on a thread in NS301 . . . then I'm always are mean as I can be. Seriously. Under those circumstances I agree with the bigger meanies on TWeb that a good thrashing is in order.

Nothing but love and God Bless you, you nice person.

[showmeproof]

Probably because everyone thought it was a joke 'cause no one could be so ignorant/unimaginative as to suggest a literal interpretation. Evidently, you are one of those that are so concrete in their thinking that a statement such as "out of the pot into the fire" "a bird in the hand is better than a a dozen in the bush" and "people in glass houses shouldn't cast stones" put their brain in total brain lock.

Concrete interpretation:

out of the pot into the fire - ouch
a bird in the hand is better than a a dozen in the bush - duh
people in glass houses shouldn't cast stones - they might break the windows

Wrong answers, BTW. Confused?:lol:

While I understand your contemporary theology understands these as mere metaphor, they hearken back to concrete beliefs written in a West Semitic poetical structure. At any rate, the antecedent beliefs should bear on the interpretation of the metaphor. Lacking the background knowledge, as you seem to, one can reinterpret a metaphor to mean anything they wish.

[Xru]

I assume her argument is something like "since many of the OT scholars you read are still Christian, then whatever fatal theories you think they bring to the table must not be as bad as you make them out to be, or else they'd no longer be Christian". Or something like that.

As apposed to lpot has studied the issues and material as thoroughly as she can and has come to the conclusion that God as described in the Bible is much as presented?

He lpot . . . what about this?

[Adrift]

As apposed to lpot has studied the issues and material as thoroughly as she can and has come to the conclusion that God as described in the Bible is much as presented?

I'm not sure I understand this question Xru. Are you asking me if I think that lilpixie has come to her conclusions about God based on her study of the Bible? If so, then yes, I think that she probably has. Why do you ask?

[Xru]

While I understand your contemporary theology understands these as mere metaphor, they hearken back to concrete beliefs written in a West Semitic poetical structure. At any rate, the antecedent beliefs should bear on the interpretation of the metaphor. Lacking the background knowledge, as you seem to, one can reinterpret a metaphor to mean anything they wish.

I don't think you understand much at all of my "contemporary theology" 'cause you haven't asked me. Evidently, you are in the habit of taking certain perceived attributes of someone and classify then in your intellectual classification system, and by some programming mistake in your brain give a host of unverified attributes to that someone. Pretty typical of an over intellectualized personality. By the way do you always talk like you are giving a lecture?

Mostly, you don't know a thing about me except that I give you crap when you are an arrogant, insensitive fool.

Moving on, your characterization of the OT describing God as someone riding around on clouds is clearly misleading. Clearly, IMO, if you have as you said, read and understand the book list you presented you should be able to present a much more discriminating description of what those scholars believe the passages mean . . . and not in as a metaphor. Under what method of analysis do you propose that "magic sky daddy" is the correct and historical understanding. And who did the work. Have any specific passages?

I'd like to read the full works. I don't have much interest in the OT but could get some if the reading was interesting.

Come on yo, show us the money. Give us some citations which support the "concrete beliefs" that show real belief that God was a magical sky daddy."

[Xru]

I'm not sure I understand this question Xru. Are you asking me if I think that lilpixie has come to her conclusions about God based on her study of the Bible? If so, then yes, I think that she probably has. Why do you ask?

I ask because and probably it was my fault that you were accusing lpot of carelessness in her method. Evidently, I was mistaken. My apologies.

[Xru]

Sorry . . . double post.

[Cow Poke]

Sorry . . . double post.

That happens when you hit ENTER too hard :yes:

[Xru]

That happens when you hit ENTER too hard :yes:

:grin:

[Adrift]

I ask because and probably it was my fault that you were accusing lpot of carelessness in her method. Evidently, I was mistaken. My apologies.

No problem. Like I said, lilpixie's comment just got me curious is all. Wasn't accusing anyone of anything.

[lao tzu]

Haha! I can see I will have to step my game up a bit if i want to survive in this particular forum. I should have expected as much. But thank you for the genuine welcome.

I suppose I should have spent 20 seconds and Wiki'd the birth date of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. If you didn't have to I am truly impressed. But then if you want to win on a technicality I didn't say when my hypothetical conversation took place. Would you believe it happened in 2005? At any rate, this exaggeration on my part does not undermine my point, namely that your "made up on purpose" god does not advance your position which was the topic of the OP.

Don't worry about surviving. This isn't a battle unless you need it to be a battle. Mostly, this is just another way to have fun, if you let it be about that.

Eventually, you'll figure out the topic of the OP doesn't play much role in the discussion after the first hundred posts or so. Perhaps you'll learn to be a bit less profligate with your pronouns, too. The OP was troll bait. I've no idea why the mods allowed it, except they've a penchant for permitting any discussion they can't categorically disallow. It's part of the site's guiding philosophy, and one of the many reasons I'm still posting here, nearly a decade later.

I'm familiar with the history of the FSM, not because it touches on any theological issues I find compelling, but because of its origins in the continuing struggle to keep religion — specifically creationism — out of science classes — specifically in Kansas. That has been an interest of mine for decades now, so naturally I was aware of the FSM's entry in 2005. That was its point, and its purpose, as it relates to my position.


Yes. This is a more serious point. But again, since you are determined to win by a technicality, I will point out that I qualified my response to the atheist... that the doubt will always exist, however small. If you truly believe that you know the date of the first historical appearance of the god, which you believe me to be speaking of, with such infallible and permanent accuracy that I can never be proven more or less correct, then you truly do not understand how the investigative arts and sciences work. And so my point stands. Interestingly, your choice of 2200 years betrays your prejudice as much as my own.

In point of fact, I ball-parked my estimate on the order of a century, and was deliberately generous in my dating. We can find references to Yahweh earlier than the eighth century BCE, but not as a leading deity, and certainly not as the principle deity of a monotheistic faith. That had to wait for the emergence of the state of Israel c. 1000 BCE and the official adoption of monotheism no earlier than the eighth century BCE — and likely closer to the sixth century before Yahweh existed in any form recognizable in the Bible.

My doubts about the actual existence of your god as an entity independent of the religious beliefs of its followers are vanishingly small. My doubts about your authority to speak of the "investigative arts and sciences" on the other hand, are orders of magnitude larger. Your comments on prejudice strike me as defensive rather than reasoned.


Geez LT . . . you really know how to strike home and draw blood. That the Christian God IS just one of many God's that come and go IS something I lay awake at night having panic attacks over. How did you know this?

Oh that's right. Taoist . . . you'd know this . .. simple stuff for you, eh Bro. Well done!

No worries, bro. I love you even though you're another whacked out Christian. Hell, I take pride in the fact none of my friends are precisely "normal." So long as your faith doesn't interfere with being kind to children and helpless amphibians, or prevent you from agreeing with me on the necessity of banning Trout, we're all good.


I don't think you understand much at all of my "contemporary theology" 'cause you haven't asked me. Evidently, you are in the habit of taking certain perceived attributes of someone and classify then in your intellectual classification system, and by some programming mistake in your brain give a host of unverified attributes to that someone. Pretty typical of an over intellectualized personality. By the way do you always talk like you are giving a lecture?

Mostly, you don't know a thing about me except that I give you crap when you are an arrogant, insensitive fool.

If you don't yelp, no one will know you've been stung. Jussayin'.


Moving on, your characterization of the OT describing God as someone riding around on clouds is clearly misleading. Clearly, IMO, if you have as you said, read and understand the book list you presented you should be able to present a much more discriminating description of what those scholars believe the passages mean . . . and not in as a metaphor. Under what method of analysis do you propose that "magic sky daddy" is the correct and historical understanding. And who did the work. Have any specific passages?

I'd like to read the full works. I don't have much interest in the OT but could get some if the reading was interesting.

Come on yo, show us the money. Give us some citations which support the "concrete beliefs" that show real belief that God was a magical sky daddy."

Now you've asked for it. My readings on early Israelite history are a small subset of SMP's, and I could go on for pages in answer to your request. But that's tangential to a more important issue. You're misreading SMP and his avocation as badly as you've accused him of misreading you and your faith. Try to imagine for a moment that his purpose is merely to share his interest in ANE religious history and not to attack Christian orthodoxy. It's a theory that's a much better fit with the facts on display.

As ever, Jesse

[showmeproof]

Though I do think the facts present themselves strongly against Christian Orthodoxy.

[Cow Poke]

Though I do think the facts present themselves strongly against Christian Orthodoxy.

Against Orthodoxy? Or orthodoxy?

[showmeproof]

Against Orthodoxy? Or orthodoxy?

OOOooooOOOoooorthodoxy. That should have all the bases covered.

[showmeproof]

I don't think you understand much at all of my "contemporary theology" 'cause you haven't asked me. Evidently, you are in the habit of taking certain perceived attributes of someone and classify then in your intellectual classification system, and by some programming mistake in your brain give a host of unverified attributes to that someone. Pretty typical of an over intellectualized personality. By the way do you always talk like you are giving a lecture?

Mostly, you don't know a thing about me except that I give you crap when you are an arrogant, insensitive fool.

Moving on, your characterization of the OT describing God as someone riding around on clouds is clearly misleading. Clearly, IMO, if you have as you said, read and understand the book list you presented you should be able to present a much more discriminating description of what those scholars believe the passages mean . . . and not in as a metaphor. Under what method of analysis do you propose that "magic sky daddy" is the correct and historical understanding. And who did the work. Have any specific passages?

I'd like to read the full works. I don't have much interest in the OT but could get some if the reading was interesting.

Come on yo, show us the money. Give us some citations which support the "concrete beliefs" that show real belief that God was a magical sky daddy."


You've already been given a list of biblical verses that attest to this utilization.

The best introduction to this information would be Mark S. Smith's The Early History of God. You can get it for about $20 at B&N or amazon. Plus it's just over 200 pages so it is light reading compared to some of the other material. If you find yourself interested, as I did, then you can check his bibliography for clues on where to search next.

[Cow Poke]

OOOooooOOOoooorthodoxy. That should have all the bases covered.

I figured. :smug:

[lilpixieofterror]

All of the above, minus Hess, are most prominently scholars of ANE linguistics, history, and archaeology. Hess is focused more on theology. So one could argue that they are orthodox scholars, in that they adhere to the methodologies of their respective fields. I've been accused by LPOT of using only sources that agree with me (or vice versa). It appears there are Christians, Jews, and Secularists that are on board with what I have presented. Odd that I've been so selective of my sources so as to have included scholars from many walks.

You really have a hard time with getting the point, don't you? You are trying to use this as a shield to support your doubts with when it is clear as day that it is no shield. While it might undue what some people have believed about the Bible, it doesn't seem to undue people's faiths as you seem to want to imply it does or should.

[lilpixieofterror]

The fact that others are Jews, and yet others are Secular is telling as well. I have a well rounded set of sources.

And your point is what? It still doesn't refute the fact that you have not presented a valid reason to drop Christianity or Judaism because of this argument of yours. Now while it may undue some views that people of had of the Bible, it doesn't refute the Christian or Jewish faith because many of them are still Christians and jews, the fact you have ignored this point of mine and instead try to dodge and weave your way around from your assertions is rather telling. Now please explain, in detail, why this knowledge should lead somebody away from the Christian or Jewish faith or why you think this proves that God could not have been involved in this process at all because what is a process, guided by God, suppose to look like and and what is the objective standard to tell the difference with? This is my argument and questions, now stop with the dodge and start answering it.

[Whag]

Now while it may undue some views that people of had of the Bible, it doesn't refute the Christian or Jewish faith because many of them are still Christians and jews.

That's a terribly weak argument. So what? Many millions of people have strong faith in many stories handed down from above. He's not saying it undoes the everyones' faith or should undo everyone's faith. It undid his, and he had sufficient information to go on. He seems to be very well read on the subject,

[Xru]

Now you've asked for it. My readings on early Israelite history are a small subset of SMP's, and I could go on for pages in answer to your request. But that's tangential to a more important issue. You're misreading SMP and his avocation as badly as you've accused him of misreading you and your faith. Try to imagine for a moment that his purpose is merely to share his interest in ANE religious history and not to attack Christian orthodoxy. It's a theory that's a much better fit with the facts on display.

As ever, Jesse

Pages aren't necessary and I'm not asking you to provide the citations but if you feel the calling I would be honored to have the eminent Lao Tzu show me the money!!!!!!!

:yipee:

[Xru]

You've already been given a list of biblical verses that attest to this utilization.

:bomb:

You gave me text not codicological analysis. Geez.

Me thinks there is a gihugic communication gap here!

[Cow Poke]

:bomb:

You gave me text not codicological analysis. Geez.

I sure hope he'll be wearing a rubber glove. And I wouldn't be complaining! :no:

:outtie:

[showmeproof]

You really have a hard time with getting the point, don't you? You are trying to use this as a shield to support your doubts with when it is clear as day that it is no shield. While it might undue what some people have believed about the Bible, it doesn't seem to undue people's faiths as you seem to want to imply it does or should.

For many, nothing can be said or done to change their beliefs. It is not for me to change their beliefs; it is up to them to choose to incorporate information into their theological purview or not. Choosing to ignore the information doesn't make it go away or change.

[Xru]

In other words, because it fits into your world view, it's true! I love that logic. It is really too bad for you that some of your sources, are Christians. It is also too bad for you that things are a little bit more to what is going on then you make it sound like. It is cute how you pretend this all should undermine Christianity. Keep up with the good work, who knows, maybe your dreams will come true!

Lpot . . . I'm starting to think that smp has access to some facts or can shovel out information but on some other level is intellectually challenged in some way.

[Xru]

I sure hope he'll be wearing a rubber glove. And I wouldn't be complaining! :no:

:outtie:

Nice Pardner! Good one:)

[Whag]

For many, nothing can be said or done to change their beliefs. It is not for me to change their beliefs; it is up to them to choose to incorporate information into their theological purview or not. Choosing to ignore the information doesn't make it go away or change.

It seems lilpix is making the extraordinary assertion that because some Catholics remain Christian despite seeing the same data as you, you're obligated to believe Christian beliefs as well? I don't understand her argument. It seems to be none more complicated than that.

[ETA "obligated" instead of "compelled"]

[Xru]

For many, nothing can be said or done to change their beliefs. It is not for me to change their beliefs; it is up to them to choose to incorporate information into their theological purview or not. Choosing to ignore the information doesn't make it go away or change.

Would you please show us something more than a boring list of textual citations that supports whatever it is that you are proposing. Something interesting rather than a dump.

Thanks

[Xru]

Ha got it!

I traced SMP's IP and he's really an old IBM370/60 model mainframe housed in the sub-basement b of the computer science building at the UCLA Berkley campus. See its an AI and not a very smart one at that. Nice work hackers!

[Xru]

It seems lilpix is making the extraordinary assertion that because some Catholics remain Christian despite seeing the same data as you, you're obligated to believe Christian beliefs as well? I don't understand her argument. It seems to be none more complicated than that.

[ETA "obligated" instead of "compelled"]

Seems to me lpot is saying that people can look at information and come to their own conclusion. As simple as that. NO?

[AlphaBravo]

Don't worry about surviving. This isn't a battle unless you need it to be a battle. Mostly, this is just another way to have fun, if you let it be about that.

Eventually, you'll figure out the topic of the OP doesn't play much role in the discussion after the first hundred posts or so. Perhaps you'll learn to be a bit less profligate with your pronouns, too.

Thanks for the civil response and the helpful advice. Profligate pronouns however are sometimes indispensable as can be seen here...


Now you've asked for it. My readings on early Israelite history are a small subset of SMP's, and I could go on for pages in answer to your request. But that's tangential to a more important issue. You're misreading SMP and his avocation as badly as you've accused him of misreading you and your faith. Try to imagine for a moment that his purpose is merely to share his interest in ANE religious history and not to attack Christian orthodoxy. It's a theory that's a much better fit with the facts on display.

:lol:

[lilpixieofterror]

For many, nothing can be said or done to change their beliefs. It is not for me to change their beliefs; it is up to them to choose to incorporate information into their theological purview or not. Choosing to ignore the information doesn't make it go away or change.


And yet SMP, you seem to be somehow implying that it should. Can you explain your words here:


It seems to me that the better answer is that religious cultural evolution occurs over time through the political situations and structure of the eras we are discussing. No need to invoke a god or gods as an explanation to mundane human and cultural affairs. God as an explanation for these scenarios is superfluous.

And yet, many of your sources, are Christians, obviously they believe God is working in the universe or else, why be Christians?

[lilpixieofterror]

It seems lilpix is making the extraordinary assertion that because some Catholics remain Christian despite seeing the same data as you, you're obligated to believe Christian beliefs as well? I don't understand her argument. It seems to be none more complicated than that.

[ETA "obligated" instead of "compelled"]

Nice strawmen. :thumb: No, I am arguing that it doesn't prove what he thinks it proves.

[lilpixieofterror]

Seems to me lpot is saying that people can look at information and come to their own conclusion. As simple as that. NO?

For the most part, yeah that and I find statements like:


It seems to me that the better answer is that religious cultural evolution occurs over time through the political situations and structure of the eras we are discussing. No need to invoke a god or gods as an explanation to mundane human and cultural affairs. God as an explanation for these scenarios is superfluous.

That is woefully inaccurate because one of the hallmarks of Christian beliefs is that God presented himself to humanity, over time, so I seriously doubt that his sources are going as far as he is, in the sense he seems to be implying. I will give SMP credit though, he is good at throwing up smoke and mirrors and not answering what he is asked and diverting to something else. Too bad neither of these two have touched my argument yet.

[showmeproof]

Would you please show us something more than a boring list of textual citations that supports whatever it is that you are proposing. Something interesting rather than a dump.

Thanks

Thats what the information is...a list of biblical and extrabiblical texts. I'm sorry it's not more exciting.

[Xru]

For the most part, yeah that and I find statements like:



That is woefully inaccurate because one of the hallmarks of Christian beliefs is that God presented himself to humanity, over time, so I seriously doubt that his sources are going as far as he is, in the sense he seems to be implying. I will give SMP credit though, he is good at throwing up smoke and mirrors and not answering what he is asked and diverting to something else. Too bad neither of these two have touched my argument yet.

Perhaps Wang is the same IBM 370/60 mainframe that SMP is and your question is out of there algorithm parameters.

At the same time I wonder if he has attempted to read and understand these books, has fallen short, or far short yet can spill out names an and blubs on the authors.

What is so hard about giving citations to show these people support the fact that God is a root primitive concepts of a illiterate, ignorant, and superstitious bunch of primitives.

[Xru]

Thats what the information is...a list of biblical and extrabiblical texts. I'm sorry it's not more exciting.

oh that list . . . any of those have codicology and paleography Biblical analysis. Do you know what it is?

[Xru]

Odd that I've been so selective of my sources so as to have included scholars from many walks.

I suppose its this list that it is you are talking about.

Any chance of you taking this and addapting it to the purpose you are trying to put it . . . giving support to your views the magical sky daddy.

That is some citation from the texts that support your views that these "primitive" people actually conceived of God riding the clouds above.

[Whag]

That is woefully inaccurate because one of the hallmarks of Christian beliefs is that God presented himself to humanity, over time, so I seriously doubt that his sources are going as far as he is, in the sense he seems to be implying..


No, he's saying what he'd read so far about the Canaanite influence on Jewish theology seems to sufficiently support his belief that the Old Testament is not true in the literal historical sense. Just like you've determined from what you read that Christianity is true, he's determined from what he's read that supernatural explanations for the history of the Jews aren't necessary and are, in fact, unbelievable to some.

That's okay, right? He's not obligated to believe that which seems unbelievable to him and which he has obviously thoroughly researched as much as a layman can, correct?

[showmeproof]

For the most part, yeah that and I find statements like:



That is woefully inaccurate because one of the hallmarks of Christian beliefs is that God presented himself to humanity, over time, so I seriously doubt that his sources are going as far as he is, in the sense he seems to be implying. I will give SMP credit though, he is good at throwing up smoke and mirrors and not answering what he is asked and diverting to something else. Too bad neither of these two have touched my argument yet.

Yes, Christianity believes that God revealed himself overtime, but in very specific ways which are documented in Jewish and Christian texts. Both rely upon an original monotheism (staring with Adam, Noah, Abraham, or Moses...depending upon how one would like to argue it) which was corrupted by Canaanite beliefs. The historical and textual evidence shows us otherwise; That they had very Canaanite beliefs to begin with and became monotheistic overtime. In a sense, Judeo/Christian monotheism (although I find it in some ways to be an improvement upon polytheism) is a corruption of Canaanite religion. Complete with Canaanite imagery throughout; beginning to end.

The Baal cycle KTU 1.1-6 focuses on three main story lines
1.Defeat of the enemy Yam (Sea)
2. Building of the divine palace for the divine warrior
3. Defeat of the enemy Mot (Death)

You will find these story lines throughout the bible, but they occur in sequence in Revelation 21: 1-4
"Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea (Yam) was no more. And I saw the holy city, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, "See, the home of God is among mortals. He will dwell with them; they will be his peoples, and God himself will be with them; he will wipe every tear from their eyes. Death (Mot) will be no more, for the first things have passed away." This of course echoes Isaiah 25 continue reading this sequence and you'll get to chapter 27 "On that day the Lord with his cruel and great and strong sword will punish Leviathon the fleeing serpent, Leviathon the twisting serpent, and he will kill the dragon that is in the sea. this is a continuation of the Canaanite mythology rephrased for Yahwism.

[Xru]

No, he's saying what he'd read so far about the Canaanite influence on Jewish theology seems to sufficiently support his belief that the Old Testament is not true in the literal historical sense. Just like you've determined from what you read that Christianity is true, he's determined from what he's read that supernatural explanations for the history of the Jews aren't necessary and are, in fact, unbelievable to some.

That's okay, right? He's not obligated to believe that which seems unbelievable to him and which he has obviously thoroughly researched as much as a layman can, correct?

He might be say that but I've read through the whole bloody list and text and although there seams to be some of the concepts expressed in the OT as originating in earlier times I fail to see anything that might support the bizarre notion he presents that the ancients conceived of God as a big daddy in the sky thing.

The meaning information regarding this presented is miniscule.

I'm going to order some codicology and paleography on the OT and I'll see what's up there.

[showmeproof]

I suppose its this list that it is you are talking about.

Any chance of you taking this and addapting it to the purpose you are trying to put it . . . giving support to your views the magical sky daddy.

That is some citation from the texts that support your views that these "primitive" people actually conceived of God riding the clouds above.

That is not the list I am referring to. I gave biblical scriptures to you (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?150289-quot-You-believe-in-a-magical-sky-daddy-and-a-Jewish-Zombie-quot&p=3380804#post3380804) for quick reference regarding Yahweh being identified as a cloud, riding on a cloud etc. I obviously do not expect everyone to read the whole list of authors that I have read regarding this topic. This would be entirely unnecessary as well as it is spelled out rather vividly in the bible.

[lilpixieofterror]

Yes, Christianity believes that God revealed himself overtime, but in very specific ways which are documented in Jewish and Christian texts. Both rely upon an original monotheism (staring with Adam, Noah, Abraham, or Moses...depending upon how one would like to argue it) which was corrupted by Canaanite beliefs. The historical and textual evidence shows us otherwise; That they had very Canaanite beliefs to begin with and became monotheistic overtime. In a sense, Judeo/Christian monotheism (although I find it in some ways to be an improvement upon polytheism) is a corruption of Canaanite religion. Complete with Canaanite imagery throughout; beginning to end.

And yet SMP... YOU USE CHRISTIANS AND JEWS AS SOURCES! How do they make their beliefs work with that knowledge in mind? I have asked and asked you this question and you sure do a lot of dodging of the question, but I have come up with some reasons and you hand waved them away. For those interested though, here is a few:

1. God revealed himself over time and gradually lead them away from their pagan beliefs to new beliefs.
2. The writers of the Bible used descriptions of pagan gods to describe to give their God greater honor then their pagan gods.
3. A combo of the two.

The point is, you seem to just repeat yourself over and over again, without every really giving any sort of addressing beyond quotes, rants, taunts, etc that don't address the questions. Why can't these answers be accurate or have you stuck God and the Bible, into a little box and act as though the two can't work in ways you think they shouldn't?


The Baal cycle KTU 1.1-6 focuses on three main story lines
1.Defeat of the enemy Yam (Sea)
2. Building of the divine palace for the divine warrior
3. Defeat of the enemy Mot (Death)

Which still doesn't refute anything that was said SMP. Lots of smoke and mirrors, but still no answers from you.


You will find these story lines throughout the bible, but they occur in sequence in Revelation 21: 1-4
"Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea (Yam) was no more. And I saw the holy city, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, "See, the home of God is among mortals. He will dwell with them; they will be his peoples, and God himself will be with them; he will wipe every tear from their eyes. Death (Mot) will be no more, for the first things have passed away." This of course echoes Isaiah 25 continue reading this sequence and you'll get to chapter 27 "On that day the Lord with his cruel and great and strong sword will punish Leviathon the fleeing serpent, Leviathon the twisting serpent, and he will kill the dragon that is in the sea. this is a continuation of the Canaanite mythology rephrased for Yahwism.

You really are an obsessed, one trick pony, with a black/white view of Christianity, God, and the Bible huh? Why couldn't God use Canaanite mythology to build upon from there? Why couldn't God use concepts that they understood and build upon them from there? Why can't the Bible use popular imagery and understandings to paint a picture of God with? I really do doubt that Canaanite mythology and Christian/Jewish concepts are one in the same or as alike as you seem to want to imply they are. In truth SMP, I bet you are overstating your case and trying to stretch it to something far more then it really is because again, the fact many of your sources and Christians and Jews, that haven't deconverted yet, is an indication of that fact.

[lilpixieofterror]

That is not the list I am referring to. I gave biblical scriptures to you (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?150289-quot-You-believe-in-a-magical-sky-daddy-and-a-Jewish-Zombie-quot&p=3380804#post3380804) for quick reference regarding Yahweh being identified as a cloud, riding on a cloud etc. I obviously do not expect everyone to read the whole list of authors that I have read regarding this topic. This would be entirely unnecessary as well as it is spelled out rather vividly in the bible.

Yep, because everybody knows that the Bible can not use popular imagery and descriptions of the time to describe God with. God had to present himself in a totally new way and the Bible had to describe him in a 100% unique way or else, Judaism and by extent, Christianity are both false! :rofl:

It's this black/white, either/or mentality that convinces me that you may have read a bunch of books, but you really didn't seem to ask yourself the question of how these people were able to stay Christians and Jews, despite that. I guess that is what happens when you stick God into a little box and act as though he must act in these narrow ways, to exist?

[Whag]

He might be say that but I've read through the whole bloody list and text and although there seams to be some of the concepts expressed in the OT as originating in earlier times I fail to see anything that might support the bizarre notion he presents that the ancients conceived of God as a big daddy in the sky thing.


The ancients certainly did think of God that way. Whether they conceived it or it is true is currently a vigorous debate. It's a vigorous debate because it's certainly within the realm of possibility that things like global deluges, mosaic plagues, and flying chariots going into the sky were something other than historical fact, and maybe they aren't to be believed as orthodoxy. Remember what he said about orthodoxy.

[Xru]

Yes, Christianity believes that God revealed himself overtime, but in very specific ways which are documented in Jewish and Christian texts. Both rely upon an original monotheism (staring with Adam, Noah, Abraham, or Moses...depending upon how one would like to argue it) which was corrupted by Canaanite beliefs. The historical and textual evidence shows us otherwise; That they had very Canaanite beliefs to begin with and became monotheistic overtime. In a sense, Judeo/Christian monotheism (although I find it in some ways to be an improvement upon polytheism) is a corruption of Canaanite religion. Complete with Canaanite imagery throughout; beginning to end.

The Baal cycle KTU 1.1-6 focuses on three main story lines
1.Defeat of the enemy Yam (Sea)
2. Building of the divine palace for the divine warrior
3. Defeat of the enemy Mot (Death)

You will find these story lines throughout the bible, but they occur in sequence in Revelation 21: 1-4
"Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea (Yam) was no more. And I saw the holy city, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, "See, the home of God is among mortals. He will dwell with them; they will be his peoples, and God himself will be with them; he will wipe every tear from their eyes. Death (Mot) will be no more, for the first things have passed away." This of course echoes Isaiah 25 continue reading this sequence and you'll get to chapter 27 "On that day the Lord with his cruel and great and strong sword will punish Leviathon the fleeing serpent, Leviathon the twisting serpent, and he will kill the dragon that is in the sea. this is a continuation of the Canaanite mythology rephrased for Yahwism.

Oh now I see . . . you are one of those that consider Christianity to be a corruption of an earlier religion . . . okay psychobable understood. From Genesis to Revelations. You are as nutty as I thought.

[Whag]

Yep, because everybody knows that the Bible can not use popular imagery and descriptions of the time to describe God with. God had to present himself in a totally new way and the Bible had to describe him in a 100% unique way or else, Judaism and by extent, Christianity are both false!

[snip]

It's this black/white, either/or mentality

You view the events described in the OT as "gray"? As not occurring as described?

[lilpixieofterror]

No, he's saying what he'd read so far about the Canaanite influence on Jewish theology seems to sufficiently support his belief that the Old Testament is not true in the literal historical sense.

In the historical sense or in the way people believe it should be interpreted?


Just like you've determined from what you read that Christianity is true, he's determined from what he's read that supernatural explanations for the history of the Jews aren't necessary and are, in fact, unbelievable to some.

So then all we got is two opinions, eh? How do we separate out the two or find what one works better?


That's okay, right? He's not obligated to believe that which seems unbelievable to him and which he has obviously thoroughly researched as much as a layman can, correct?

You are right, he isn't, but he also must present if fairly and balanced too and not act as though his position is default and everybody else has to meet huge burdens of evidence. The fact that there are still Christians and Jewish scholars that present their stuff to him and still are Christians and Jews is a huge indication that it's not a faith destroy, as he wants to present it as being. That is all my issue is and all my issue has always been.

[lilpixieofterror]

You view the events described in the OT as "gray"? As not occurring as described?

Did I say that Whag? Now let's try this again...

How does this information imply what you think it does? I don't think it implies that at all, but more likely implies some of the popular views of the Bible, are flawed.

[AlphaBravo]

Please excuse the double response. I was trying to complete a post without any pronouns :teeth:


In point of fact, I ball-parked my estimate on the order of a century, and was deliberately generous in my dating. We can find references to Yahweh earlier than the eighth century BCE, but not as a leading deity, and certainly not as the principle deity of a monotheistic faith. That had to wait for the emergence of the state of Israel c. 1000 BCE and the official adoption of monotheism no earlier than the eighth century BCE — and likely closer to the sixth century before Yahweh existed in any form recognizable in the Bible.

My doubts about the actual existence of your god as an entity independent of the religious beliefs of its followers are vanishingly small. My doubts about your authority to speak of the "investigative arts and sciences" on the other hand, are orders of magnitude larger. Your comments on prejudice strike me as defensive rather than reasoned.

To move beyond technicalities...

It is not relevant that the sources you speak of do not identify "Yahweh" as a leading deity. I think there are several lines of reasoning here.

First is the fallacy of approaching ancient history as one would approach particle physics. Believing that every fragment has been completely detected. On the contrary it must be that only a small percentage of intellectual product of the ages survives or has been discovered. This is where your "vanishingly small doubts" arise from. This is also where I think you should be more frank about the realities and limitations and uncertainties of the art. You protest too much and that speaks to the prejudice I was speaking of...but too many pronouns.

Second is the expectation that Yahweh, by definition a primal and ubiquitous god, would not be experienced by a different name or no name at all in a culture speaking a different language. In fact I think that a god and the footprints of a god possessing the qualities of Yahweh can be traced back, as I say, to the dawn of recorded history. Here again the doubts are not vanishingly small...and I do not speak of your personal doubts but of the understanding of the population of the world and scholars as a whole which you are not capable of diminishing.

Third, to demand the appearance in writing of the Hebrew name 'Yahweh' as the criteria for his earlier existence in the oral and even written tradition does not really consider the possibilities and complexity of the universe. As I say, an oral tradition being one, a lost or undiscovered written tradition being another, and a superstition against speaking or writing the name of god being a third. All of this is supported by the written evidence that has survived.

Fourth, it is a fallacy to disregard the implications of the quality and maturity of the earliest written accounts of Yahweh. They are fully developed and highly static mythologies, if you will, that demand a much earlier origin. This is as true in archaeology as it is in paleontology. Again, my only point here is to demonstrate that the origin of Yahweh is lost in the ravages of time if you do not believe the written account that has survived.

Finally it is a fallacy to believe that a primal pre-existant god must always be accompanied by the trappings of a mature faith and followers from the dawn of human consciousness. In fact it is not at all probable that a true faith in an actual primal god would arise this way.

[Whag]

In the historical sense or in the way people believe it should be interpreted?

That's not an either/or. Those who acknowledge historicity also use the interpretive framework. Some are just more rigid than others, like RC Sproul (who interestingly helped draft the Chicago Statement. That should give you an idea of how messy this is if you know what the Chicago Statement says).




So then all we got is two opinions, eh? How do we separate out the two or find what one works better?

By researching the topic and informing one's opinion, which SMP seems to have done in spades and still does. A lazier man would make his conclusion and play video games, and yet he remains with nose in book. Give the guy a break.




You are right, he isn't, but he also must present if fairly and balanced too and not act as though his position is default and everybody else has to meet huge burdens of evidence. [B]The fact that there are still Christians and Jewish scholars that present their stuff to him and still are Christians and Jews is a huge indication that it's not a faith destroy.

He never said it was a universal faith destroyer. That's your error. He's said that it had the weight for him to conclude what the OT authors claimed about divine intervention was probably not true. Just like you concluded from what you read that it probably is true. I'm not getting your specific objection other than you simply repeating that obvious strawman.

The strawman:

SMP insists all christians should give up belief because the evidence proves the Jews made up god.

That's not what he's saying. I explained what he's saying a couple times, including here.

[showmeproof]

Now please explain, in detail, why this knowledge should lead somebody away from the Christian or Jewish faith or why you think this proves that God could not have been involved in this process at all because what is a process, guided by God, suppose to look like and and what is the objective standard to tell the difference with? This is my argument and questions, now stop with the dodge and start answering it.

One could presuppose a god guiding any and every process; is that necessary and doesn't that get a bit sloppy?

Fair question. Here you have asked for my opinion and that is what you will get. This information, detailing the roots of Jewish mythology, is but one aspect of a larger framework in how we reconstruct what was and has been. When understanding the past we should bring all information to bear that we have available. Doing this, and being as brief as possible, we find we are on the third planet of one medium sized star in a galaxy with a hundred billion stars floating in a universe with a hundred billion galaxies. We find that life has evolved on this planet, and roughly the order in which it evolved. We find that our Genus Homo shows up on the scene 2.5 million years ago and our species approximately 200,000 years ago. We reconstruct human migrations based upon the changes in the Y-chromosome (because it doesn't go through recombination) and find that we are all from Africa...you, me, and even Xru. We find developing systems of tool making, of agriculture, of writing, of religion...all changing over time. Finally around three thousand years ago we find a nation, Israel, who has a religion with roots in Canaanite mythology. Unbeknownst to most of its modern adherents it retains key Canaanite mythology; from the name and title of its God El Shaddai, El Elyon etc. to the divine bureaucratic structure (cf. Deuteronomy 32:7-9), to the forces of chaos Yam, Nahar, Mot, and Leviathon (Sea, River, Death, and the Twisting Serpent). To tie it back to this thread, Jesus identifies himself as "I am; and you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of the Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.

As an atheist I don't take it for granted that I am correct. I understand that my presupposition of atheism requires that an explanation for religions, especially where they came from, be found in cultural evolution. It was obvious that Christianity came from Judaism. My question then became: 'where did Judaism come from'? I've spent quite a bit of time and resources addressing my former ignorance in this topic and I must say that I've enjoyed the journey.

Key point in this post: This is just one piece to the very, very large puzzle of which I am trying to piece together to get the most accurate view of reality.

[showmeproof]

And yet SMP... YOU USE CHRISTIANS AND JEWS AS SOURCES! How do they make their beliefs work with that knowledge in mind? I have asked and asked you this question and you sure do a lot of dodging of the question, but I have come up with some reasons and you hand waved them away. For those interested though, here is a few:

1. God revealed himself over time and gradually lead them away from their pagan beliefs to new beliefs.
2. The writers of the Bible used descriptions of pagan gods to describe to give their God greater honor then their pagan gods.
3. A combo of the two.

The point is, you seem to just repeat yourself over and over again, without every really giving any sort of addressing beyond quotes, rants, taunts, etc that don't address the questions. Why can't these answers be accurate or have you stuck God and the Bible, into a little box and act as though the two can't work in ways you think they shouldn't?



Which still doesn't refute anything that was said SMP. Lots of smoke and mirrors, but still no answers from you.



You really are an obsessed, one trick pony, with a black/white view of Christianity, God, and the Bible huh? Why couldn't God use Canaanite mythology to build upon from there? Why couldn't God use concepts that they understood and build upon them from there? Why can't the Bible use popular imagery and understandings to paint a picture of God with? I really do doubt that Canaanite mythology and Christian/Jewish concepts are one in the same or as alike as you seem to want to imply they are. In truth SMP, I bet you are overstating your case and trying to stretch it to something far more then it really is because again, the fact many of your sources and Christians and Jews, that haven't deconverted yet, is an indication of that fact.

I cannot answer to how all of the scholars fit this jigsaw puzzle together. The only one that flat out says something regarding this is Mark S. Smith in God in Translation (page 333 and 335 footnote). He expressly says "We modern critical biblical scholars cannot reconcile (much less, harmonize) our own religious and textual histories."

Regarding the bolded (I hope because I'm editing this) above: So you relent. God manifested himself first in Canaanite form? Why is this not a satisfactory explanation? Historically its accurate (minus the admission to the existence of a god). However, theologically it presents a very large problem. Israel's repeated sin is following after 'foreign' gods reverting back to how (according to this line of thinking) He previously revealed himself. Their sin, then, is following how he previously revealed himself. Sarcasm on - Sorry, sir you didn't make yourself clear and you keep changing the story. - Sarcasm off. Secondly, especially regarding Christian theology, they equate Beelzebul (a play on words for zbl b'l or Prince Baal) with Satan. If god revealed himself to the Israelites so closely to the Storm god Baal that they conflated YHWH and Baal (you can read all about it in Hosea if you like) he set himself up to be viewed, albeit much later, as Satan. This could also be fitting considering it is YHWH that stokes the fires of torment in Isaiah 30.

You seem quite agitated about it all. You tell me why this would or wouldn't present a problem.

[Xru]

You are right, he isn't, but he also must present if fairly and balanced too and not act as though his position is default and everybody else has to meet huge burdens of evidence. The fact that there are still Christians and Jewish scholars that present their stuff to him and still are Christians and Jews is a huge indication that it's not a faith destroy, as he wants to present it as being. That is all my issue is and all my issue has always been.

Although it is hard for me to pin it down from the horribly way he writes I think this is the connotation I derive from what he says. Its more of something i smell or sense than something I can really put presciently.

I've not had a great interest in Biblical codicology and paleography but am developing one. The problem of how one translates the Holy Texts given the 2000 or older cultural context I find intriguing. Fortunately, I've just found a mate that is into that sort of thing and I'm looking at NT Biblical codicology and paleography.

I'm not read enough about how one would go about codicalogy and paleopraphy reconstruction or analysis of the OT but I'll be looking into that although OT has no held a great interest of mine.

I do recall in the Lee Stroble books he interviewed a few scholars on this problem and they had answers that seems rather satisfactory although I really can't claim he is not rather biased even though he claims he isn't. The scholars he interviewed clearly discredit SME's position as might be expected stating that, yes there were some similarities in contemporary cultures to the Genesis and early OT world views but that there were clearly utterly unique things about them that clearly separated them in a way that showed it was impossible or convincingly unlikely that they were just some corruption of a related cultures ideas.

We shall see.

[Whag]

Did I say that Whag? Now let's try this again...

How does this information imply what you think it does? I don't think it implies that at all, but more likely implies some of the popular views of the Bible, are flawed.

Right. The Orthodox one is flawed. That's what he's saying.

[Xru]

"We modern critical biblical scholars cannot reconcile (much less, harmonize) our own religious and textual histories."

Out of context it is impossible to evaluate this statement. The fact is that even the book I am reading now which is just trying reconcile the translations of the NT with the cultural context the task is exceedingly difficult. I assume this is what you are stating. If this is not what you mean then I am clueless as to what distinction being drawn between "religious and textual histories."

I find your writing style to be mostly of this incomprehensibly ambiguous exposition that although complex when read, in the end ends up meaning almost nothing. I'm sure whoever wrote the above had more to say about it. Too bad you didn't include it.



You seem quite agitated about it all.

To me lpot seem very precise and the opposite of agitated about it. I suspect it a tactic of your to put people on the defensive . . . and not a very good one. She just seem very focused on the idea that you fail to even entertain the prospect that God could have used any co-existing system of thoughts or imagery to build the story to the Jews.

So you relent. God manifested himself first in Canaanite form?

She did not relent you pestulence . . . not at all. That is your near psychotic misreading of her statement.

Why is this not a satisfactory explanation? Historically its accurate (minus the admission to the existence of a god).

So you say . . . and okay so that's your opinion but I'm not convinced and you in all the writings I've read of yours on the OP you have been convincing of nothing. Show me the money. Show me a series of citations that support your claims, or give me the name of books that I can get that will show that your view hold water. Otherwise shut the hell up.


However, theologically it presents a very large problem. Israel's repeated sin is following after 'foreign' gods reverting back to how (according to this line of thinking) He previously revealed himself. Their sin, then, is following how he previously revealed himself.

That atrocity of composition above is incomprehensible gibberish. " . . . foreign gods reverting back to ho He previously revealed himself." Man are you smoking week while you write this stuff.


Secondly, especially regarding Christian theology, they equate Beelzebul (a play on words for zbl b'l or Prince Baal) with Satan.

Who pray tell is the ". . . . they . . . " you refer to in the above gem. Supposedly, I just should pick any proper noun or anything close and refer it to "they."


If god revealed himself to the Israelites so closely to the Storm god Baal that they conflated YHWH and Baal (you can read all about it in Hosea if you like) he set himself up to be viewed, albeit much later, as Satan.

Okay . . . "If god [sic] revealed himself to the Israelites so closely to the Storm god Ball that they conflated . . . bla bla bla . . . "

So he (an unknow ambiguous pronoun reference AGAIN) set himself up to be viewed, albeit much later, as Satan."

SMP you have the worst composition skills of nearly anyone I have ever met. It's pathetic as I think on some level you really want to communicate . . . something. Unfortunately, you are mostly communicating nothing at all . . . not to me anyway. And it sure is not by my want of trying to understand what the heck you are talking about.

You remind me of another Twebber here, Sunnydragon, a friend of mine who most including me find utterly unintelligible most of the time.

I'm not going to put you on my block list as I don't so much find you offensive as just a total confused textual abomination that is so confusing as to hold no meaning.

Ultimately, everyone here on TWeb will just start ignoring you mostly until you make more sense hopefully sometime in the near future.

[Whag]

SMP you have the worst composition skills of nearly anyone I have ever met. It's pathetic as I think on some level you really want to communicate . . . something. Unfortunately, you are mostly communicating nothing at all . . . not to me anyway.


SMP is trying to say there's good evidence God's and Satan's personas overlap in Jewish theology, and that that's a problem for orthodoxy. I see that interwoveness in places quite easily. What about the parallel accounts in the OT of who caused David to conduct the census? Maybe you can provide the orthodox interpretation of that conflict and see where SMP's research has revealed that to be likely incorrect.

[seanD]

SMP is trying to say there's good evidence God's and Satan's personas overlap in Jewish theology, and that that's a problem for orthodoxy. I see that interwoveness in places quite easily. What about the parallel accounts in the OT of who caused David to conduct the census? Maybe you can provide the orthodox interpretation of that conflict and see where SMP's research has revealed that to be likely incorrect.

I'm not sure where it's a problem in regards to what SMP asserted. Satan was always viewed as the antagonist in both Christian and Jewish theology. They never conflated Satan with God.

[Whag]

I'm not sure where it's a problem in regards to what SMP asserted. Satan was always viewed as the antagonist in both Christian and Jewish theology. They never conflated Satan with God.

So when god causes David to take a census and Satan causes David to take a census, which one is the antagonist?

[Whag]

It's more subtle than outright conflation. That's a straw man.

[seanD]

So when god causes David to take a census and Satan causes David to take a census, which one is the antagonist?

What happened after David took the census? The idea that Satan can influence mankind is nothing unusual to the theology of either Judaism or Christianity. So I don't see what you're getting at unless you're just not aware of either the story or the theology.

[rogue06]

don't believe it. This is just a tactical misdirection. He now will launch a surprise attack from an unexpected area. Expect, com interruptions, diversionary attacks, strong company strength patrols, and especially his favorite move . . . envelopment from the left flank.

My spies hae recently learned that he purchased the German Army Manual for Unit Command in World War II. He will favor the attack over defense although his intelligence assessments might not be complete.
I'm more a double envelopment sorta guy. Think Hannibal and the Battle of Cannae. Utter annihilation -- anything less is unacceptable

[rogue06]

I too can be sweet and adorable sweaty and abominable.
FIFY n/c


(go ahead laugh it up R06 and all the rest of you rabble)
Uh, okay. 7492974930

[Whag]

What happened after David took the census? The idea that Satan can influence mankind is nothing unusual to the theology of either Judaism or Christianity. So I don't see what you're getting at unless you're just not aware of either the story or the theology.

But the text also says god caused the census. What happened after the census? God got angry for having caused David to want to count his troops, so he gave David punishment options. David chose the option to have a death angel kill 70,000 of his troops.

[seanD]

But the text also says god caused the census. What happened after the census? God got angry for having caused David to want to count his troops, so he gave David punishment options. David chose the option to have a death angel kill 70,000 of his troops.

I don't see where either author of 1 Ch and 2 Sam was conveying to their audiences that Satan was God and God was Satan.

[Whag]

I don't see where either author of 1 Ch and 2 Sam was conveying to their audiences that Satan was God and God was Satan.

And again who claimed overt conflation? SMP provides evidence of an overlap of the personas because of the evolution of the influence of Canaanite theology on protojudaic theology . He never said it was as simple as sloppily confusing the two identities. Please don't strawman what he said.

[seanD]

And again who claimed overt conflation? SMP provides evidence of an overlap of the personas because of the evolution of the influence of Canaanite theology on protojudaic theology . He never said it was as simple as sloppily confusing the two identities. Please don't strawman what he said.

The thing is, the idea of two opposing entities was/is not unusual in orthodox belief (which you claimed presented an "orthodox conflict"), so I don't see where it would be a significant issue unless SMP is implying that the two accounts were a conflation of deities. What it looks like to me, is that 1 Chronicles was the original and 2 Sam was a redaction of that because the author didn’t like the fact that David was manipulated by another entity; an entity that was always recognized as an opposing and evil force against Yahweh in Judaism, and was also recognized that way with the author of 1 Chr. So they made it look like it was David who sinned himself. Never the less, neither account looks to me like there was even a hint of confusion with the authors on the matter or how it presents a conflict with orthodox belief.

[Whag]

The thing is, the idea of two opposing entities was/is not unusual in orthodox belief (which you claimed presented an issue), so I don't see where it would be a significant issue unless SMP is implying that the two accounts were a conflation of deities. What it looks like to me, is that 1 Chronicles was the original and 2 Sam was a redaction of that because the author didn’t like the fact that David was manipulated by another entity; an entity that was always recognized as an opposing and evil force against Yahweh in Judaism. So they made it look like it was David who sinned himself. Never the less, neither account looks to me like there was even a hint of confusion with the authors on the matter.

I will let what you said speak for itself, since you concede one author's license to change another author's inspired perspective on the event. I already addressed that it's not as simple as confusing identities.

[seanD]

I will let what you said speak for itself, since you concede one author's license to change another author's inspired perspective on the event. I already addressed that it's not as simple as confusing identities.

And I've already addressed the fact that there is no orthodox conflict.

[showmeproof]

Although it is hard for me to pin it down from the horribly way he writes I think this is the connotation I derive from what he says. Its more of something i smell or sense than something I can really put presciently.

I've not had a great interest in Biblical codicology and paleography but am developing one. The problem of how one translates the Holy Texts given the 2000 or older cultural context I find intriguing. Fortunately, I've just found a mate that is into that sort of thing and I'm looking at NT Biblical codicology and paleography.

I'm not read enough about how one would go about codicalogy and paleopraphy reconstruction or analysis of the OT but I'll be looking into that although OT has no held a great interest of mine.

I do recall in the Lee Stroble books he interviewed a few scholars on this problem and they had answers that seems rather satisfactory although I really can't claim he is not rather biased even though he claims he isn't. The scholars he interviewed clearly discredit SME's position as might be expected stating that, yes there were some similarities in contemporary cultures to the Genesis and early OT world views but that there were clearly utterly unique things about them that clearly separated them in a way that showed it was impossible or convincingly unlikely that they were just some corruption of a related cultures ideas.

We shall see.

I've never said they are exactly alike in all ways. I have repeatedly said, in my other thread, that there is both convergence and divergence. Both religions, Cananite and Judaism, were living theologies and although the latter largely came from the former they did diverge and Judaism is most certainly monotheistic (today). The point is made very succintly by Othmar Keel and Christopher Uehlinger:

"Roots, however, are only roots because of what comes later. In the words of Thomas Mann: "Very deep is the well of the past." By itself, the Jewish religion is a trunk with many branches and it has roots that also reach deeper than itself."

It just so happens that those roots identify El Shaddai as the head of a pantheon. This is the name of the god, according to Exodus 6:2-3 that God revealed himself to the patriarchs. Moses, according to this verse is the first to know god by the name of YHWH.

[lilpixieofterror]

One could presuppose a god guiding any and every process; is that necessary and doesn't that get a bit sloppy?

And is it necessary to assume that God doesn't exist, from the start? Like I asked you before (and it was ignored), how different should a God guided process look from a non-God guided process and should they look different or not?


Fair question. Here you have asked for my opinion and that is what you will get. This information, detailing the roots of Jewish mythology, is but one aspect of a larger framework in how we reconstruct what was and has been. When understanding the past we should bring all information to bear that we have available. Doing this, and being as brief as possible, we find we are on the third planet of one medium sized star in a galaxy with a hundred billion stars floating in a universe with a hundred billion galaxies. We find that life has evolved on this planet, and roughly the order in which it evolved. We find that our Genus Homo shows up on the scene 2.5 million years ago and our species approximately 200,000 years ago. We reconstruct human migrations based upon the changes in the Y-chromosome (because it doesn't go through recombination) and find that we are all from Africa...you, me, and even Xru. We find developing systems of tool making, of agriculture, of writing, of religion...all changing over time. Finally around three thousand years ago we find a nation, Israel, who has a religion with roots in Canaanite mythology. Unbeknownst to most of its modern adherents it retains key Canaanite mythology; from the name and title of its God El Shaddai, El Elyon etc. to the divine bureaucratic structure (cf. Deuteronomy 32:7-9), to the forces of chaos Yam, Nahar, Mot, and Leviathon (Sea, River, Death, and the Twisting Serpent). To tie it back to this thread, Jesus identifies himself as "I am; and you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of the Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.

I'm a Theistic Evolutionist SMP and I find no conflict between the two and I have even debated the issue, in depth and I find no problem beyond our own expectations of God's behavior as being the primary cause of much of this confusion. Simply put, why can't God use common understands of the culture of the time, in order to get his message though? See, you seem to be stuck with the assumption that God came to change the way the ancients thought about the universe, but where does Christian or Jewish faith state such an idea? No where and while there are some people out there that think that he did, I am not among that group nor is the 'orthodox' way. Augustine thought that the universe came to existence in an instant while others took a more literal reading then modern day YEC's take. Some believed that the sky was a dome built out of some sort of material to hold back the waters above us (like iron), but whatever they thought, why does it matter when compared to the message of Christ? I do not believe God's goal was to bring about a scientific revolution, so why should the Bible do that? God's goal was to bring about the message of salvation, so why pretend that it is anything more then that? What does sitting at the right hand symbolize to the ancients? That was the position of power next to the one in charge (we even use this phrase today as, 'right hand man' to describe the second most powerful person in a government or corporate context), so Jesus being seated at the right hand of God means he is in a position of power. Next, what did the clouds symbolize to the ancients? The great above, heavens and earth, so to speak, the kingdom of God was above the clouds and above the dome, to them, so again, God is sitting up in heaven, in a position of glory and power. I do not see the same thing you see here, my friend. Instead I see Jesus using cultural understandings, to bring about his message.



As an atheist I don't take it for granted that I am correct. I understand that my presupposition of atheism requires that an explanation for religions, especially where they came from, be found in cultural evolution. It was obvious that Christianity came from Judaism. My question then became: 'where did Judaism come from'? I've spent quite a bit of time and resources addressing my former ignorance in this topic and I must say that I've enjoyed the journey.


Yet, you seem to be stuck with this idea that God couldn't have presented himself in a manner that the people of the era would understand and bring about the final message of Christ. This is a pretty standard Orthodox belief that I would think you would have known that too. The point is, why couldn't God have worked within the understandings of these ancient people, by presenting himself in a way they would know and understand? To me it makes a load of sense and shows true in human nature. You introduce humans to new views and understandings all at once, they may ignore you and even think you are nuts. However; if you present things in ways they understand and try to fit these ideas into their understandings, they got them. I thought about this a bit and I did come up with an example I'll state below:

Missionary A is on fire for God and decides to go to the jungle to preach to a tribe. He doesn't take the time to understand their ideas and culture and instead thinks 'Bible bashing' works. Do you think they will understand his message? Doubtful, they will most likely reject it and might even do some not very nice things to the man. Next, take missionary B, she is also on fire for God and decides to give missionary work a try after the first one failed. She though, takes the time to learn their language, culture, and their understandings and then takes these and uses the Bible stories and Christian theology to present the message of Christ, in the way these people understand. As a result, her messages gets though.

I did base this a bit on reading different missionary stories, but it makes a valid point in our case. God used their culture and understandings to bring about his message and, over the eras, used it to bring about Christ. Therefore, we should expect to find examples like this in history, if our God really is what he is. That and God's goal was not to bring about a scientific understanding revolution or to bring forth a whole new culture, it was to bring forth the message of salvation, so thus, why shouldn't we expect stuff like this to pop up?


Key point in this post: This is just one piece to the very, very large puzzle of which I am trying to piece together to get the most accurate view of reality.

And I also think you need to drop this idea that God doesn't work within human ideas and understandings. If God needs to present himself, using the name of a pagan God that they worship or at least respect, why not do it and use it as pathway to bring forth the message of salvation? To me it shows a much different tale. It shows me how well God really understands human nature far better then it seems we ourselves do.

[showmeproof]

And again who claimed overt conflation? SMP provides evidence of an overlap of the personas because of the evolution of the influence of Canaanite theology on protojudaic theology . He never said it was as simple as sloppily confusing the two identities. Please don't strawman what he said.

Obviously there is some confusion. I do not think that they conflated YWHW with Satan. I was using LPOT's line of reasoning: namely, "Why couldn't God use Canaanite mythology to build upon from there? Why couldn't God use concepts that they understood and build upon them from there?. If one uses her reasoning and follows it through...then and only then, is YHWH conflated with Satan (who is a latter figure that has no bearing on any of this).

However, in Isaiah 30, YHWH is the zealous recipient of a mlk sacrifice as identified by the description of the rite and the cultic term Topeth. This is a sacrifice condemned in other biblical verses and is said to be completed for Baal, Molech, and even Yahweh (per repeated denials in Jeremiah 7:31, 19:5, and 32:35).
"See the name of the Lord comes from far away, burning with his anger, and in thick rising smoke; his lips are full of indignation, and his tongue is like a devouring fire; his breath is like an overflowing stream that reaches up the neck- to sift the nations with the sieve of destruction, and to place on the jaws of the peoples a bridle that leads them astray. You shall have a song as in the night when a holy festival is kept; and gladness of heart, as when one sets out to the sound of the flute to go to the mountain of the Lord, to the Rock of Israel. And the Lord will cause with his majestic voice to be heard and the descending blow of his arm to be seen, in furious anger and a flame of devourig fire, with a cloudburst and tempest and hailstones. The Assyrian will be terror-stricken at the voice of the Lord, when he strikes with his rod. And every stroke of his staff of punishment that the Lord lays upon him will be to the sound of timbrels and lyres; battling with the brandished arm he will fight with him. For his burning place (TOPETH) has long been prepared; truly it is made ready for the king (mlk=Molech), its pyre made deep and wide, with fire and wood in abundance; the breath of the Lord, like a stream of sulfur, kindels it."

This particular sacrifice is where the firery imagery of Hell comes from. This sacrifice, the mlk sacrifice, was performed in the Valley of the sons of Hinnom or as Jesus identifies Hell- Gehenna. YHWH is the stoker of the fire.

The bolded part here in Isaiah is yet another instance of Yahweh being spoken of in storm imagery. His voice, is thunder, and his rod is lighting. There's two birds with one stone.

[Whag]

And I've already addressed the fact that there is no orthodox conflict.

Good point. I'll concede I put too much emphasis on SMP's claim that these facts about Canaanite/protoJewish theology challenged orthodoxy.

That being said, I find the cognitive tension that the 2 Sam author experienced far more interesting than post-Nicene bishop squabbles. I suspect so does SMP.

[Whag]

Obviously there is some confusion. I do not think that they conflated YWHW with Satan. I was using LPOT's line of reasoning: namely, "Why couldn't God use Canaanite mythology to build upon from there? Why couldn't God use concepts that they understood and build upon them from there?. If one uses her reasoning and follows it through...then and only then, is YHWH conflated with Satan (who is a latter figure that has no bearing on any of this).

However, in Isaiah 30, YHWH is the zealous recipient of a mlk sacrifice as identified by the description of the rite and the cultic term Topeth. This is a sacrifice condemned in other biblical verses and are said to be completed for Baal, Molech, and even Yahweh (per repeated denials in Jeremiah).
"See the name of the Lord comes from far away, burning with his anger, and in thick rising smoke; his lips are full of indignation, and his tongue is like a devouring fire; his breath is like an overflowing stream that reaches up the neck- to sift the nations with the sieve of destruction, and to place on the jaws of the peoples a bridle that leads them astray. You shall have a song as in the night when a holy festival is kept; and gladness of heart, as when one sets out to the sound of the flute to go to the mountain of the Lord, to the Rock of Israel. And the Lord will cause with his majestic voice to be heard and the descending blow of his arm to be seen, in furious anger and a flame of devourig fire, with a cloudburst and tempest and hailstones. The Assyrian will be terror-stricken at the voice of the Lord, when he strikes with his rod. And every stroke of his staff of punishment that the Lord lays upon him will be to the sound of timbrels and lyres; battling wit hthe brandished arm he will fight with him. For his burning place (TOPETH) has long been prepared; truly it is made ready for the king (mlk=Molech), its pyre made deep and wide, with fire and wood in abundance; the breath of the Lord, like a stream of sulfur, kindels it."

This particular sacrifice is where the firery imagery of Hell comes from. This sacrifice, the mlk sacrifice, was performed in the Valley of the sons of Hinnom or as Jesus identifies Hell- Gehenna. YHWH is the stoker of the fire.


At the very least, you're reaching further back into the hell fire myth than orthodox christians tend to do. You'll find most Christian apologetic literature giving short shrift to Hell, usually stopping at Gehenna.

[lilpixieofterror]

I cannot answer to how all of the scholars fit this jigsaw puzzle together. The only one that flat out says something regarding this is Mark S. Smith in God in Translation (page 333 and 335 footnote). He expressly says "We modern critical biblical scholars cannot reconcile (much less, harmonize) our own religious and textual histories."

That's one man's view, among others. Have you heard of the view I presented, before?


Regarding the bolded (I hope because I'm editing this) above: So you relent. God manifested himself first in Canaanite form?


Why not? He used their cultural and social understandings to bring about a new message. I know that the Jewish and Christian faiths are not the Canaanite faith nor the same as the two, are they? If you seriously argue that they are, I have some land on Mars to sell you...


Why is this not a satisfactory explanation? Historically its accurate (minus the admission to the existence of a god). However, theologically it presents a very large problem. Israel's repeated sin is following after 'foreign' gods reverting back to how (according to this line of thinking) He previously revealed himself. Their sin, then, is following how he previously revealed himself. Sarcasm on - Sorry, sir you didn't make yourself clear and you keep changing the story. - Sarcasm off. Secondly, especially regarding Christian theology, they equate Beelzebul (a play on words for zbl b'l or Prince Baal) with Satan. If god revealed himself to the Israelites so closely to the Storm god Baal that they conflated YHWH and Baal (you can read all about it in Hosea if you like) he set himself up to be viewed, albeit much later, as Satan. This could also be fitting considering it is YHWH that stokes the fires of torment in Isaiah 30.

No it isn't theological hand to understand at all, at that time in their history, they moved beyond their pagan understandings to new understandings and thus were reverting back to their old ways they should have left behind long ago. It's not really that hard to figure out, it's sort of like how we expect new borns and babies to go in their diapers, but we expect toddlers and children, to use the potty. Why do we expect that when we once expected lower from them? Because our children have moved on from those childish ways and shouldn't need to be going in their diapers anymore. Likewise, the people of Israel should have been better then their previous ways. What is so hard about that?


You seem quite agitated about it all. You tell me why this would or wouldn't present a problem.

I explained it above, they moved beyond that and God was angry that they were reverting back to a previous state when they should be moving on to new things. Sort of like a parent might get upset about their 4 year old that refuses to get up and go to the potty and instead goes in their pants. Why does the parent get upset? Because their kid should be moving on to new and better things and shouldn't be reverting back to his previous state. It does amaze me that with all your book smarts and all the authors that you quote, you seem to not have ever thought of this simple solution before.

[lilpixieofterror]

At the very least, you're reaching further back into the hell fire myth than orthodox christians tend to do. You'll find most Christian apologetic literature giving short shrift to Hell, usually stopping at Gehenna.

Too bad I do not believe in a literal hell fire and instead believe it is a symbol of something else.

[Whag]

It's not really that hard to figure out, it's sort of like how we expect new borns and babies to go in their diapers, but we expect toddlers and children, to use the potty. Why do we expect that when we once expected lower from them? Because our children have moved on from those childish ways and shouldn't need to be going in their diapers anymore. Likewise, the people of Israel should have been better then their previous ways.

Well that would explain why those "mature" Jews as late as Judges sought to maul the innocent for missing a meeting. It doesn't get more civilized than that.

[lilpixieofterror]

Right. The Orthodox one is flawed. That's what he's saying.

Why? What is so revolutionary about the idea that God presented himself, in ways people understood? Last I checked, that was as Orthodox as one can get and is a common Orthodox understanding. I, in fact even remember doing a thought experiment on this years ago and I even theorized that God presented himself as a pagan God and lead the people to a new understanding, over time. Even at that time, I didn't see this as unorthodox, so why is it unorthodox now?

[lilpixieofterror]

Well that would explain why those "mature" Jews as late as Judges sought to maul the innocent for missing a meeting. It doesn't get more civilized than that.

Yet another pile of burning straw in the evening, got to love it. :lol: Is a toddler more mature then, let's say, a 5 year old? More then likely, the 5 year old is, so sorry, perhaps if you actually had a response, this would make sense. To us adults though, it is the response of a small mind, trying to grasp something he can't understand. The Bible, from beginning to the end is a process where humanity slowly matured to new a better things and also had many falls and flaws, along the way (just as we still do today). While the people of Judges might have been more mature then those of the past, in the sense of their knowledge (which is kind of inaccurate, since the book of Judges makes it pretty clear that God was rather disappointed with their behavior), it doesn't mean they were as mature as people later would become or even that they always acted more mature. Now try responding to my argument instead of posting random idiocy like your post, ok?

[Whag]

While the people of Judges might have been more mature then those of the past, in the sense of their knowledge (which is kind of inaccurate, since the book of Judges makes it pretty clear that God was rather disappointed with their behavior),

You miss my point but I'll be more clear: it doesn't get any more uncivilized than what Judges describes. You say the Jews were better than the Canaanites and hence deserved a more "mature" representation of God, and yet here they are being purely heinous. What measurable good effect did this new representation deliver? And if the effect was so "effective," why is God so angry with them?


it doesn't mean they were as mature as people later would become or even that they always acted more mature. Now try responding to my argument instead of posting random idiocy like your post, ok?

Your argument is that God reveals himself in progressively more mature, loving, and intelligent ways commensurate with the progress of the society as a whole. Yeah, not believable.

[showmeproof]

And is it necessary to assume that God doesn't exist, from the start? Like I asked you before (and it was ignored), how different should a God guided process look from a non-God guided process and should they look different or not?



I'm a Theistic Evolutionist SMP and I find no conflict between the two and I have even debated the issue, in depth and I find no problem beyond our own expectations of God's behavior as being the primary cause of much of this confusion. Simply put, why can't God use common understands of the culture of the time, in order to get his message though? See, you seem to be stuck with the assumption that God came to change the way the ancients thought about the universe, but where does Christian or Jewish faith state such an idea? No where and while there are some people out there that think that he did, I am not among that group nor is the 'orthodox' way. Augustine thought that the universe came to existence in an instant while others took a more literal reading then modern day YEC's take. Some believed that the sky was a dome built out of some sort of material to hold back the waters above us (like iron), but whatever they thought, why does it matter when compared to the message of Christ? I do not believe God's goal was to bring about a scientific revolution, so why should the Bible do that? God's goal was to bring about the message of salvation, so why pretend that it is anything more then that? What does sitting at the right hand symbolize to the ancients? That was the position of power next to the one in charge (we even use this phrase today as, 'right hand man' to describe the second most powerful person in a government or corporate context), so Jesus being seated at the right hand of God means he is in a position of power. Next, what did the clouds symbolize to the ancients? The great above, heavens and earth, so to speak, the kingdom of God was above the clouds and above the dome, to them, so again, God is sitting up in heaven, in a position of glory and power. I do not see the same thing you see here, my friend. Instead I see Jesus using cultural understandings, to bring about his message.




Yet, you seem to be stuck with this idea that God couldn't have presented himself in a manner that the people of the era would understand and bring about the final message of Christ. This is a pretty standard Orthodox belief that I would think you would have known that too. The point is, why couldn't God have worked within the understandings of these ancient people, by presenting himself in a way they would know and understand? To me it makes a load of sense and shows true in human nature. You introduce humans to new views and understandings all at once, they may ignore you and even think you are nuts. However; if you present things in ways they understand and try to fit these ideas into their understandings, they got them. I thought about this a bit and I did come up with an example I'll state below:

Missionary A is on fire for God and decides to go to the jungle to preach to a tribe. He doesn't take the time to understand their ideas and culture and instead thinks 'Bible bashing' works. Do you think they will understand his message? Doubtful, they will most likely reject it and might even do some not very nice things to the man. Next, take missionary B, she is also on fire for God and decides to give missionary work a try after the first one failed. She though, takes the time to learn their language, culture, and their understandings and then takes these and uses the Bible stories and Christian theology to present the message of Christ, in the way these people understand. As a result, her messages gets though.

I did base this a bit on reading different missionary stories, but it makes a valid point in our case. God used their culture and understandings to bring about his message and, over the eras, used it to bring about Christ. Therefore, we should expect to find examples like this in history, if our God really is what he is. That and God's goal was not to bring about a scientific understanding revolution or to bring forth a whole new culture, it was to bring forth the message of salvation, so thus, why shouldn't we expect stuff like this to pop up?



And I also think you need to drop this idea that God doesn't work within human ideas and understandings. If God needs to present himself, using the name of a pagan God that they worship or at least respect, why not do it and use it as pathway to bring forth the message of salvation? To me it shows a much different tale. It shows me how well God really understands human nature far better then it seems we ourselves do.

Quite simply, the message of salvation didn't exist then; it is a Christian construct. The OT texts dealing with salvation speak of Israel being restored as a nation. Daniel 12 speaks of people (Israelites...sorry to break the news to you) rising from the dust. Oddly he says nothing of Jesus or non-Jews.

Ockham's razor makes the presupposition of a god superfluous. Israel is said to have been exiled and ruled over by various groups throughout its history. The Jewish theology states that these were their punishments from God. Sure that could be true. Or, quite simply, the Egyptians, Babylonians, Persians, and Romans were simply stronger nations. History is full of larger forces taking over smaller and weaker forces...no other explanation is necessary. Moab's king Mesha writes about his nation's failure against King Omri of Israel as a consequence of Chemosh being angry with the Moabites. The idea of a god punishing the people of his, to use the biblical term, nahalah (inheritance) is not unique to Israel.

I simply don't see a reason to interject a god, nonetheless the Judeo-Christian god, into an explanation for anything.

[lilpixieofterror]

You miss my point but I'll be more clear: it doesn't get any more uncivilized than what Judges describes.

Which doesn't address my point and is just a strawmen, but I'll make a deal with you, where does the Bible condone all the actions it describes within?


You say the Jews were better than the Canaanites and hence deserved a more "mature" representation of God, and yet here they are being purely heinous. What measurable good effect did this new representation deliver? And if the effect was so "effective," why is God so angry with them?

Why do we get so angry when our children revert back and act far younger then they should be?


Your argument is that God reveals himself in progressively more mature, loving, and intelligent ways commensurate with the progress of the society as a whole. Yeah, not believable.

And your dodging of the argument is noted and dismissed as the rantings of somebody that is far over his little head and incapable of addressing what was said. Poor child, but perhaps you can point out where the Bible condones every acting it describes and why you can't figure out this rather simple thing...

GOD WAS ANGRY BECAUSE THE PEOPLE WERE REVERTING BACK AND SHOULD HAVE KNOWN BETTER!

I know this is very hard for you to absorb, but I do have some crayons sitting around I could try to explain this to you with, if you want.

[Whag]

Oddly he says nothing of Jesus or non-Jews.

The whole concept of gentiles being grafted into salvation--as if there was an actual scenario where God would send an entire race of people to hell for simply being a race--always sounded ludicrous to me.

[showmeproof]

At the very least, you're reaching further back into the hell fire myth than orthodox christians tend to do. You'll find most Christian apologetic literature giving short shrift to Hell, usually stopping at Gehenna.

Trust me, I know you speak the truth. However, the origin of the imagery and the theology of a burning Hell is important. They can short-shrift it all they want; it doesn't go away.

[lilpixieofterror]

Quite simply, the message of salvation didn't exist then; it is a Christian construct. The OT texts dealing with salvation speak of Israel being restored as a nation. Daniel 12 speaks of people (Israelites...sorry to break the news to you) rising from the dust. Oddly he says nothing of Jesus or non-Jews.

Duh it didn't exist then, thus why I pointed out that God introduced it, over time.

BTW you just undermined your own argument, I'll explain more of that in a minute.


Ockham's razor makes the presupposition of a god superfluous.

You do know that Ockham was a theist and used his famous Ockham's Razor to support Christian theism, right? I'll make you a deal though, come up with a reason to assume that God isn't at work because you just undermined your own argument and don't even seem to notice. Where did the message of salvation come from, if it didn't come from humanity?


Israel is said to have been exiled and ruled over by various groups throughout its history. The Jewish theology states that these were their punishments from God. Sure that could be true. Or, quite simply, the Egyptians, Babylonians, Persians, and Romans were simply stronger nations. History is full of larger forces taking over smaller and weaker forces...no other explanation is necessary. Moab's king Mesha writes about his nation's failure against King Omri of Israel as a consequence of Chemosh being angry with the Moabites. The idea of a god punishing the people of his, to use the biblical term, nahalah (inheritance) is not unique to Israel.


Which doesn't prove that God had no hand in it, my friend. Can you produce a reason why God again, can't use human events and understandings, to bring about his message with? Sounds like to me you're just pre assuming your beliefs and then assuming something else. Anyway, perhaps you can explain this, if the message of salvation didn't come from the Jews, where did it come from?


I simply don't see a reason to interject a god, nonetheless the Judeo-Christian god, into an explanation for anything.

And you haven't shown a single reason not to, beyond an assumption, but you did just do that. How did the message of salvation come about, if it didn't come from the Jewish faith?

[showmeproof]

Good point. I'll concede I put too much emphasis on SMP's claim that these facts about Canaanite/protoJewish theology challenged orthodoxy.

That being said, I find the cognitive tension that the 2 Sam author experienced far more interesting than post-Nicene bishop squabbles. I suspect so does SMP.

Quite honestly, I am not aware of this particular 'conflict' which you are speaking of. I will refrain from making a statement regarding this issue.

[Whag]

Trust me, I know you speak the truth. However, the origin of the imagery and the theology of a burning Hell is important. They can short-shrift it all they want; it doesn't go away.

Retro-engineering one's own beliefs can be a painful process.

[showmeproof]

GOD WAS ANGRY BECAUSE THE PEOPLE WERE REVERTING BACK AND SHOULD HAVE KNOWN BETTER!

According to your scenarios you listed, they should not have known better. God revealed himself to them in a different manner and then changed (or revealed) a different plot line. Remember, the Bible didn't exist then.

[lilpixieofterror]

According to your scenarios you listed, they should not have known better. God revealed himself to them in a different manner and then changed (or revealed) a different plot line. Remember, the Bible didn't exist then.

The Bible, as a whole, didn't SMP, but it seems you don't understand my argument, so I will break it down for you...

Newborns - we really don't expect much from them, do we?
Toddlers - we expect them to try to be potty trained, talk, and to start acting more mature, right?
Young children - we expect them to already be potty trained and to act even more mature then toddlers, correct?
Older children - we expect even more out of their behavior yet, again is that correct?
Teens - we expect even more out of them

And the life cycle goes on and on, what is my point in this? The Bible and human history can be divided up into different stages too. By the time of Isaiah, Israel should be more mature then they were at the the time of Genesis, correct and thus shouldn't have reverted back to an earlier state. Sorry, but the Bible, AS A WHOLE didn't exist at the time of Isaiah, but the law still did, the history up to that time still did, their acceptance of a monotheistic God was well established by that time, and many of the prophets existed too. Yet they were reverting back to a time before that, thus God was angry with them when they should be moving on from childhood and becoming teens, just as we get upset with our children when we find them doing the same thing. This isn't rocket science, so what is so difficult about this concept? Israel should have been getting ready to drive a car, but was instead playing with a big wheel. Is that so hard to figure out or do I need to explain this again? Israel had no need for Baal, they had moved beyond that understanding and no longer had a need for it, so they were reverting back to it.

[lao tzu]

Plus it's just over 200 pages so it is light reading compared to ...

*sputter hack spit*

Oh dude!

I've got that book. I saw what you did there.

[Xru]

SMP is trying to say there's good evidence God's and Satan's personas overlap in Jewish theology, and that that's a problem for orthodoxy. I see that interwoveness in places quite easily. What about the parallel accounts in the OT of who caused David to conduct the census? Maybe you can provide the orthodox interpretation of that conflict and see where SMP's research has revealed that to be likely incorrect.

Why don't you have smp email his stuff to you and you can just interpret.

[showmeproof]

The Bible, as a whole, didn't SMP, but it seems you don't understand my argument, so I will break it down for you...

Newborns - we really don't expect much from them, do we?
Toddlers - we expect them to try to be potty trained, talk, and to start acting more mature, right?
Young children - we expect them to already be potty trained and to act even more mature then toddlers, correct?
Older children - we expect even more out of their behavior yet, again is that correct?
Teens - we expect even more out of them

And the life cycle goes on and on, what is my point in this? The Bible and human history can be divided up into different stages too. By the time of Isaiah, Israel should be more mature then they were at the the time of Genesis, correct and thus shouldn't have reverted back to an earlier state. Sorry, but the Bible, AS A WHOLE didn't exist at the time of Isaiah, but the law still did, the history up to that time still did, their acceptance of a monotheistic God was well established by that time, and many of the prophets existed too. Yet they were reverting back to a time before that, thus God was angry with them when they should be moving on from childhood and becoming teens, just as we get upset with our children when we find them doing the same thing. This isn't rocket science, so what is so difficult about this concept? Israel should have been getting ready to drive a car, but was instead playing with a big wheel. Is that so hard to figure out or do I need to explain this again? Israel had no need for Baal, they had moved beyond that understanding and no longer had a need for it, so they were reverting back to it.

This surely isn't orthodox or Orthodox. That's is quite fine though. It's refreshing to see people try to incorporate this in some fashion. You could believe this, just as Muslims could argue to you in turn that Muhammad was the true and final prophet and God revealed himself most fully through him. You've no way to test your hypothesis. Plus it is completely unnecessary as I have already laid out; over and over again.

[Xru]

FIFY n/c


Uh, okay. 7492974930

Laugh it up smart guy . . . your day will come!!!!!!

[Xru]

And is it necessary to assume that God doesn't exist, from the start? Like I asked you before (and it was ignored), how different should a God guided process look from a non-God guided process and should they look different or not?



I'm a Theistic Evolutionist SMP and I find no conflict between the two and I have even debated the issue, in depth and I find no problem beyond our own expectations of God's behavior as being the primary cause of much of this confusion. Simply put, why can't God use common understands of the culture of the time, in order to get his message though? See, you seem to be stuck with the assumption that God came to change the way the ancients thought about the universe, but where does Christian or Jewish faith state such an idea? No where and while there are some people out there that think that he did, I am not among that group nor is the 'orthodox' way. Augustine thought that the universe came to existence in an instant while others took a more literal reading then modern day YEC's take. Some believed that the sky was a dome built out of some sort of material to hold back the waters above us (like iron), but whatever they thought, why does it matter when compared to the message of Christ? I do not believe God's goal was to bring about a scientific revolution, so why should the Bible do that? God's goal was to bring about the message of salvation, so why pretend that it is anything more then that? What does sitting at the right hand symbolize to the ancients? That was the position of power next to the one in charge (we even use this phrase today as, 'right hand man' to describe the second most powerful person in a government or corporate context), so Jesus being seated at the right hand of God means he is in a position of power. Next, what did the clouds symbolize to the ancients? The great above, heavens and earth, so to speak, the kingdom of God was above the clouds and above the dome, to them, so again, God is sitting up in heaven, in a position of glory and power. I do not see the same thing you see here, my friend. Instead I see Jesus using cultural understandings, to bring about his message.




Yet, you seem to be stuck with this idea that God couldn't have presented himself in a manner that the people of the era would understand and bring about the final message of Christ. This is a pretty standard Orthodox belief that I would think you would have known that too. The point is, why couldn't God have worked within the understandings of these ancient people, by presenting himself in a way they would know and understand? To me it makes a load of sense and shows true in human nature. You introduce humans to new views and understandings all at once, they may ignore you and even think you are nuts. However; if you present things in ways they understand and try to fit these ideas into their understandings, they got them. I thought about this a bit and I did come up with an example I'll state below:

Missionary A is on fire for God and decides to go to the jungle to preach to a tribe. He doesn't take the time to understand their ideas and culture and instead thinks 'Bible bashing' works. Do you think they will understand his message? Doubtful, they will most likely reject it and might even do some not very nice things to the man. Next, take missionary B, she is also on fire for God and decides to give missionary work a try after the first one failed. She though, takes the time to learn their language, culture, and their understandings and then takes these and uses the Bible stories and Christian theology to present the message of Christ, in the way these people understand. As a result, her messages gets though.

I did base this a bit on reading different missionary stories, but it makes a valid point in our case. God used their culture and understandings to bring about his message and, over the eras, used it to bring about Christ. Therefore, we should expect to find examples like this in history, if our God really is what he is. That and God's goal was not to bring about a scientific understanding revolution or to bring forth a whole new culture, it was to bring forth the message of salvation, so thus, why shouldn't we expect stuff like this to pop up?



And I also think you need to drop this idea that God doesn't work within human ideas and understandings. If God needs to present himself, using the name of a pagan God that they worship or at least respect, why not do it and use it as pathway to bring forth the message of salvation? To me it shows a much different tale. It shows me how well God really understands human nature far better then it seems we ourselves do.

Now everyone take a moment and contemplate the composition skills of LPOT and smp. LPOT . . . . clear, concise, well punctuated and minimal ambiguity by sloppy use of he, they, them etc., as apposed to smp with sloppy sentence structure, frequent usage of vague and ill defined terms, poor punctuation, thoughts splattered all over the text like spilled tomato past, and that abominable usage of ambiguous and vaguely reference pronouns such as they, he, it, etc.

Reading SMP is like sticking my head into a oil furnace while the prose of LPOT is . . . well, a lot healthier.

[lilpixieofterror]

This surely isn't orthodox or Orthodox.

God introduced himself, to humanity, using their understandings and views isn't Orthodox? :huh: How do you figure that?


That's is quite fine though. It's refreshing to see people try to incorporate this in some fashion. You could believe this, just as Muslims could argue to you in turn that Muhammad was the true and final prophet and God revealed himself most fully through him. You've no way to test your hypothesis.

So we can't measure the message of Islam vs the message of Christianity to what we know to be true and see what we got? Likewise, we can't do the same with Mormons (who also believe that)? All i presented was a way to make it all work together and how to see it making sense. There is other things we can do though to test out religious faiths, in other ways. Such as how they logically flow or how they work within themselves. All this is a way to make everything work together and unless God appears before us and tells us what really happened, there is no way to really test your hypothesis or mine.


Plus it is completely unnecessary as I have already laid out; over and over again.

That is your opinion SMP that is based on your assumptions about God and your world view, but you still haven't answered my big question though, if the message of Salvation isn't found within the Jewish faith or within the Canaanite faith, where did it come from?

[Xru]

You've already been given a list of biblical verses that attest to this utilization.

Ya thanks tons . .. . it really proves your points . .. whatever they are.

Eh . . . I think I'll rely on someone a little more . . . level headed as were to by my books.

[Xru]

That is not the list I am referring to. I gave biblical scriptures to you (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?150289-quot-You-believe-in-a-magical-sky-daddy-and-a-Jewish-Zombie-quot&p=3380804#post3380804) for quick reference regarding Yahweh being identified as a cloud, riding on a cloud etc. I obviously do not expect everyone to read the whole list of authors that I have read regarding this topic. This would be entirely unnecessary as well as it is spelled out rather vividly in the bible.


:bonk:

[Xru]

The ancients certainly did think of God that way.

Got a book to cite from?

[lao tzu]

Please excuse the double response. I was trying to complete a post without any pronouns :teeth:

See, now you're having fun. Good job, mate. Of course it was the profligacy that was the issue. Hmm, and still is, it seems:


To move beyond technicalities...

It is not relevant that the sources you speak of do not identify "Yahweh" as a leading deity. I think there are several lines of reasoning here.

Oh yes it is relevant. It is also relevant that you're clueless regarding my sources. No logical argument can be sound if the premises are incorrect. And you're just blue-skying here, with yet another dose of hyperbolic stretching based on whatever invented facts suit your argument, as if your last foray taught you nothing.

Somebody around here said it'd be a good idea if you stepped up your game. I think he was right.


First is the fallacy of approaching ancient history as one would approach particle physics. Believing that every fragment has been completely detected. On the contrary it must be that only a small percentage of intellectual product of the ages survives or has been discovered. This is where your "vanishingly small doubts" arise from. This is also where I think you should be more frank about the realities and limitations and uncertainties of the art. You protest too much and that speaks to the prejudice I was speaking of...but too many pronouns.

Particle physics? Every fragment has been completely detected? Percentage of the intellectual product? Protest too much? Just stop already. Take a deep breath. Marshal facts. Work from there.

I don't approach ancient history like particle physics, or even like your mischaracterization of particle physics that assumes particle physicists have a complete record of every particle. I don't believe every fragment has been completely detected. I'm a good enough statistician to know you don't measure accuracy by percentage sampled (you measure it by sample size, with standard deviation inversely proportional to the square root).

Rather than my being more frank, you should be less, well, willing to state someone else's interests, positions, and justifications before troubling to ask them. There are places for monologues on the net. They're called blogs. The only one protesting in this little dialogue is you, and it's notable that what you're protesting is that I'm cheating by sticking with the facts.


Second is the expectation that Yahweh, by definition a primal and ubiquitous god, would not be experienced by a different name or no name at all in a culture speaking a different language. In fact I think that a god and the footprints of a god possessing the qualities of Yahweh can be traced back, as I say, to the dawn of recorded history. Here again the doubts are not vanishingly small...and I do not speak of your personal doubts but of the understanding of the population of the world and scholars as a whole which you are not capable of diminishing.

You can define any god you're willing to make up yourself, but you don't get to define Yahweh. That's somebody else's god, one that made its first appearance thousands of years before you were born, even as it was also thousands of years following the dawn of recorded history. We know its attributes from records left in ancient texts including your Bible, from archaeological sources including domiciles and temples, iconography and coinage.

The first gods that appear were not primal, and anything but ubiquitous. They were first animistic, and later tutelary. In short, you don't know what you're talking about, and are inventing facts to suit your argument, instead of creating an argument based on the facts you've studied or discovered. You don't get to make up scholars who support your position, either. There are no, none, zilch, nada, zinga, scholars of ANE history who claim the existence of such a god at the dawn of recorded history. You made that up. And like a lot of folks who make up facts to suit, you were wrong. Egregiously wrong, hilariously wrong, unremittingly and recklessly wrong.

You're in a hole, here, alphabits. Stop digging.


Third, to demand the appearance in writing of the Hebrew name 'Yahweh' as the criteria for his earlier existence in the oral and even written tradition does not really consider the possibilities and complexity of the universe. As I say, an oral tradition being one, a lost or undiscovered written tradition being another, and a superstition against speaking or writing the name of god being a third. All of this is supported by the written evidence that has survived.

K-riminey! Dude, you're an embarrassment. Do you really think the first references to Yahweh were in Hebrew? Or weren't expressed in cognates? Even in Hebrew, are the references to "Yahweh"? Would you recognize a theophoric name if it snuck up on you and took a bite out of your overgrown preconceptions? Elijah! Or if you need it spelled out using the originals of the Tetragrammaton:

Yehoshua, Yehoram, Yehoyakim, Yehoshafat, Yehonathan, Yehudah, Yeshayahu, Yirmiyahu, Eliyahu, Nethanyahu, Matityahu, Yoab, Yoram, Yoyakim, Yoel, Yonathan, Nethanyah, Hiskiyah, Yeshayah, Gedalyah, Aviyah, Avraham, Sarah, Eliyahu, Eliyah, ...

Yeah, yeah, so I used Elijah twice. Okay, three times if you include the previous paragraph. Sue me.


Fourth, it is a fallacy to disregard the implications of the quality and maturity of the earliest written accounts of Yahweh. They are fully developed and highly static mythologies, if you will, that demand a much earlier origin. This is as true in archaeology as it is in paleontology. Again, my only point here is to demonstrate that the origin of Yahweh is lost in the ravages of time if you do not believe the written account that has survived.

Fallacy. Uh huh.

74948

The earliest writings of Yahweh were not fully developed, not static, and quite obviously entirely unknown to you and everyone else you've had a chance to practice that line upon. Assuming of course, that you're not just reusing an argument that's been shot down elsewhere in a new venue. Read the Ba'al Cycle, or if that's too much trouble, spend another 20 seconds with google and see if that helps.


Finally it is a fallacy to believe that a primal pre-existant god must always be accompanied by the trappings of a mature faith and followers from the dawn of human consciousness. In fact it is not at all probable that a true faith in an actual primal god would arise this way.

Make up your mind. Was it fully developed or immature? Looking past the blatant contradiction with your earlier argument, yes, I agree. The conceptions of your god evolved from earlier conceptions, many of which began as oral traditions, making your god indistinguishable from any of the others I've studied.

Are you sure you wouldn't be more comfortable in a more exclusively Christian forum? We've got them here, too. Look around.

As ever, Jesse

[Jaecp]

I don't approach ancient history like particle physics, or even like your mischaracterization of particle physics that assumes particle physicists have a complete record of every particle. I don't believe every fragment has been completely detected. I'm a good enough statistician to know you don't measure accuracy by percentage sampled (you measure it by sample size, with standard deviation inversely proportional to the square root).

Which is great, because then you say stuff like", dude, your mom so fat she has a z score greater than 4."

[showmeproof]

*sputter hack spit*

Oh dude!

I've got that book. I saw what you did there.

I know, but it's the truth. For all of those who would be interested in The Early History of God by Mark S. Smith: This is not really an easy book. However, it is the best introduction, it is affordable, and it is easier than some of the others to grapple with.

[showmeproof]

God introduced himself, to humanity, using their understandings and views isn't Orthodox? :huh: How do you figure that?



So we can't measure the message of Islam vs the message of Christianity to what we know to be true and see what we got? Likewise, we can't do the same with Mormons (who also believe that)? All i presented was a way to make it all work together and how to see it making sense. There is other things we can do though to test out religious faiths, in other ways. Such as how they logically flow or how they work within themselves. All this is a way to make everything work together and unless God appears before us and tells us what really happened, there is no way to really test your hypothesis or mine.



That is your opinion SMP that is based on your assumptions about God and your world view, but you still haven't answered my big question though, if the message of Salvation isn't found within the Jewish faith or within the Canaanite faith, where did it come from?

It was taken and reworked from the Jewish literature regarding the restoration of Israel.

[lao tzu]

I know, but it's the truth. For all of those who would be interested in The Early History of God by Mark S. Smith: This is not really an easy book. However, it is the best introduction, it is affordable, and it is easier than some of the others to grapple with.

(And half of every page is devoted to footnotes.)

[Jaecp]

So its like a choose your own adventure book,

Everyone loves those, right?

[showmeproof]

Ya thanks tons . .. . it really proves your points . .. whatever they are.

Eh . . . I think I'll rely on someone a little more . . . level headed as were to by my books.

You're right they do prove my point. Yahweh was manifest as a storm cloud on Mount Sinai and throughout his tenure at the tabernacle. The skydaddy theme is very relevant, though not an all encompassing view of Yahweh. The point was to show that the argument doesn't come out of nowhere...it is taken from your own holy book.

[showmeproof]

Got a book to cite from?

Because you've been so prolific in providing sources for what you spout?

[showmeproof]

(And half of every page is devoted to footnotes.)


You should see Ziony Zevit's, The Religions of Ancient Israel: A Synthesis of Parallactic Approaches. There are pages that have two or three lines of contiguous text and then the next fifty lines are laced with intricate footnotes in 6 point font.

I'm the kind that reads the footnotes as well...which ticks me off when the sentence isn't completed on the same page as the footnotes. You have to continue on to the next page in order to complete his thought process and then go back to learn all the caveats.

[showmeproof]

:bonk:

This has got to be the third time you've quoted that post without addressing the scriptures.

[AlphaBravo]

Oh yes it is relevant. It is also relevant that you're clueless regarding my sources. No logical argument can be sound if the premises are incorrect. And you're just blue-skying here, with yet another dose of hyperbolic stretching based on whatever invented facts suit your argument, as if your last foray taught you nothing.

Somebody around here said it'd be a good idea if you stepped up your game. I think he was right.

I have given you five reasons why it is not relevant. How bout something other than contradiction.

[showmeproof]

Too bad I do not believe in a literal hell fire and instead believe it is a symbol of something else.

That is not too bad at all. You should be applauded for not accepting that vile teaching. Just be careful on what you say it is a symbol for, because you've taken it out of its original context. When one participates in this practice it is a process of redefinition; don't get me wrong, this is often necessary and beneficial, but it should be noticed for what it is.

[Xru]

This has got to be the third time you've quoted that post without addressing the scriptures.

Go take a long walk on a very busy freeway . .. please. Or just spontaneously combust would be just great too.

[seanD]

Good point. I'll concede I put too much emphasis on SMP's claim that these facts about Canaanite/protoJewish theology challenged orthodoxy.

That being said, I find the cognitive tension that the 2 Sam author experienced far more interesting than post-Nicene bishop squabbles. I suspect so does SMP.

If we're correct about an intentional redaction, then it actually works more in favor of the religious adherent. If we assume the scribes were inventing and embellishing as they went along (or even with the oral traditions), then it would have been just as easy to change the entire scenario, or perhaps just say that David's generals did the census instead. The change was a minor one -- all he did was change the theological focus of supernatural element that influenced David to sin. Technically he wasn't being untruthful, from a theological point of view, being that Satan wasn't a sovereign entity. This tells me the traditions were under restraints and that certain changes simply were not allowed outside of those restraints, in spite of the "cognitive tension" between the two.

[Xru]

See, now you're having fun. Good job, mate. Of course it was the profligacy that was the issue. Hmm, and still is, it seems:



Oh yes it is relevant. It is also relevant that you're clueless regarding my sources. No logical argument can be sound if the premises are incorrect. And you're just blue-skying here, with yet another dose of hyperbolic stretching based on whatever invented facts suit your argument, as if your last foray taught you nothing.

Somebody around here said it'd be a good idea if you stepped up your game. I think he was right.



Particle physics? Every fragment has been completely detected? Percentage of the intellectual product? Protest too much? Just stop already. Take a deep breath. Marshal facts. Work from there.

I don't approach ancient history like particle physics, or even like your mischaracterization of particle physics that assumes particle physicists have a complete record of every particle. I don't believe every fragment has been completely detected. I'm a good enough statistician to know you don't measure accuracy by percentage sampled (you measure it by sample size, with standard deviation inversely proportional to the square root).

Rather than my being more frank, you should be less, well, willing to state someone else's interests, positions, and justifications before troubling to ask them. There are places for monologues on the net. They're called blogs. The only one protesting in this little dialogue is you, and it's notable that what you're protesting is that I'm cheating by sticking with the facts.



You can define any god you're willing to make up yourself, but you don't get to define Yahweh. That's somebody else's god, one that made its first appearance thousands of years before you were born, even as it was also thousands of years following the dawn of recorded history. We know its attributes from records left in ancient texts including your Bible, from archaeological sources including domiciles and temples, iconography and coinage.

The first gods that appear were not primal, and anything but ubiquitous. They were first animistic, and later tutelary. In short, you don't know what you're talking about, and are inventing facts to suit your argument, instead of creating an argument based on the facts you've studied or discovered. You don't get to make up scholars who support your position, either. There are no, none, zilch, nada, zinga, scholars of ANE history who claim the existence of such a god at the dawn of recorded history. You made that up. And like a lot of folks who make up facts to suit, you were wrong. Egregiously wrong, hilariously wrong, unremittingly and recklessly wrong.

You're in a hole, here, alphabits. Stop digging.



K-riminey! Dude, you're an embarrassment. Do you really think the first references to Yahweh were in Hebrew? Or weren't expressed in cognates? Even in Hebrew, are the references to "Yahweh"? Would you recognize a theophoric name if it snuck up on you and took a bite out of your overgrown preconceptions? Elijah! Or if you need it spelled out using the originals of the Tetragrammaton:

Yehoshua, Yehoram, Yehoyakim, Yehoshafat, Yehonathan, Yehudah, Yeshayahu, Yirmiyahu, Eliyahu, Nethanyahu, Matityahu, Yoab, Yoram, Yoyakim, Yoel, Yonathan, Nethanyah, Hiskiyah, Yeshayah, Gedalyah, Aviyah, Avraham, Sarah, Eliyahu, Eliyah, ...

Yeah, yeah, so I used Elijah twice. Okay, three times if you include the previous paragraph. Sue me.



Fallacy. Uh huh.

74948

The earliest writings of Yahweh were not fully developed, not static, and quite obviously entirely unknown to you and everyone else you've had a chance to practice that line upon. Assuming of course, that you're not just reusing an argument that's been shot down elsewhere in a new venue. Read the Ba'al Cycle, or if that's too much trouble, spend another 20 seconds with google and see if that helps.



Make up your mind. Was it fully developed or immature? Looking past the blatant contradiction with your earlier argument, yes, I agree. The conceptions of your god evolved from earlier conceptions, many of which began as oral traditions, making your god indistinguishable from any of the others I've studied.

Are you sure you wouldn't be more comfortable in a more exclusively Christian forum? We've got them here, too. Look around.

As ever, Jesse

See . . . this is the kind of stuff ya get when ya read something written by aguy with super powers (refer to my previous posts about his exposure to 1,1010,011 rems of radiation). LT won't tell you about what super powers he morphed 'cause its classified Secret buy the Navy . . . . but he has then!

[rogue06]

His super power is non existence

[lao tzu]

You should see Ziony Zevit's, The Religions of Ancient Israel: A Synthesis of Parallactic Approaches. There are pages that have two or three lines of contiguous text and then the next fifty lines are laced with intricate footnotes in 6 point font.

I'm the kind that reads the footnotes as well...which ticks me off when the sentence isn't completed on the same page as the footnotes. You have to continue on to the next page in order to complete his thought process and then go back to learn all the caveats.

That's the one you were recommending to me earlier, isn't it? Smith does that too in EHG, which is why I recommend OBM instead. The footnotes are still there, but they're tucked neatly into the back of the book, letting you read through once for an overview and then dive into anything you really want to consider.

[lao tzu]

I have given you five reasons why it is not relevant. How bout something other than contradiction.

All of which were answered by pointing out they were both baseless and in direct contradiction to well known facts, the last of which was even in direct contradiction to its predecessor. You didn't provide reasons. You served up a tossed word salad, liberally sprinkled with your new favorite word to add seasoning.

*sigh

Back when I was a teenager, I was inordinately fascinated by a series of books put out by Carlos Castenada. They were actually a kind of spiritualistic pop-psy, but couched in the drug culture and fascination with native American civilizations current at the time. (Think Wounded Knee meets Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas accompanied by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi.) They're still quite readable once you understand the caveats. Castenada's spiritual guide, written up as Don Juan, a Yaqui with supernatural powers, would clue in Castenada with a pearl of wisdom, some of which were quite good.

One of his recommendations was an adjuration to seek out a "worthy opponent." I suggest you start out by facing down your ignorance of early ANE history. When you've defeated that demon, come back and see me, and we'll work on some of your other demons. It would help immensely if you stopped needing a particular history of religious beliefs and practices that included a monotheistic god — needing it so badly you're willing to point at nothing at all and assume what you can't find is what you need to have. That's not what happened.

From the dawn of recorded history, people wrote about their religious beliefs. And they left temples and artifacts to show how they put their beliefs into practice, elaborately decorated with the religious motifs they found important. Those beliefs are embedded into their treaties, their law codes, their steles, their coinage, and even into the pocket altars to personal deities in their homes.

As ever, Jesse

[Xru]

All of which were answered by pointing out they were both baseless and in direct contradiction to well known facts, the last of which was even in direct contradiction to its predecessor. You didn't provide reasons. You served up a tossed word salad, liberally sprinkled with your new favorite word to add seasoning.

*sigh

Back when I was a teenager, I was inordinately fascinated by a series of books put out by Carlos Castenada. They were actually a kind of spiritualistic pop-psy, but couched in the drug culture and fascination with native American civilizations current at the time. (Think Wounded Knee meets Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas accompanied by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi.) They're still quite readable once you understand the caveats. Castenada's spiritual guide, written up as Don Juan, a Yaqui with supernatural powers, would clue in Castenada with a pearl of wisdom, some of which were quite good.

One of his recommendations was an adjuration to seek out a "worthy opponent." I suggest you start out by facing down your ignorance of early ANE history. When you've defeated that demon, come back and see me, and we'll work on some of your other demons. It would help immensely if you stopped needing a particular history of religious beliefs and practices that included a monotheistic god — needing it so badly you're willing to point at nothing at all and assume what you can't find is what you need to have. That's not what happened.

From the dawn of recorded history, people wrote about their religious beliefs. And they left temples and artifacts to show how they put their beliefs into practice, elaborately decorated with the religious motifs they found important. Those beliefs are embedded into their treaties, their law codes, their steles, their coinage, and even into the pocket altars to personal deities in their homes.

As ever, Jesse

this is the Master speaking so take heed!

[Xru]

His super power is non existence

Of course this is what he wants us to believe!

[lilpixieofterror]

It was taken and reworked from the Jewish literature regarding the restoration of Israel.

And your evidence for that is what?

[lilpixieofterror]

That is not too bad at all. You should be applauded for not accepting that vile teaching. Just be careful on what you say it is a symbol for, because you've taken it out of its original context. When one participates in this practice it is a process of redefinition; don't get me wrong, this is often necessary and beneficial, but it should be noticed for what it is.

Considering that I believe that God uses metaphors and cultural understandings of the time to bring about new understandings, I don't think that is accurate at all.

[showmeproof]

Considering that I believe that God uses metaphors and cultural understandings of the time to bring about new understandings, I don't think that is accurate at all.

That's funny, I've missed the metaphors of genetics, galaxies, bacteria, viruses, rock-n-roll, democracy...you know, all the stuff that would make sense now.

[showmeproof]

And your evidence for that is what?

The book of Isaiah, of Hosea, of Jeremiah, of Ezekiel, of Joel, of Daniel. You know all the prophetic works of the OT. Read their writings. Their concern is for the restoration of Israel.

[AlphaBravo]

One of his recommendations was an adjuration to seek out a "worthy opponent."

I believe this too. And you may be that person. But you are beginning to show yourself a bit of a troll. Well read, and with a photographic memory, but a troll nevertheless.


All of which were answered by pointing out they were both baseless and in direct contradiction to well known facts,

I will submit to the judgement of the forum. Looking at your post #348 I see 70% bluster and 20% ad hominem and 10% unsupported assertions. If you are so high above us how about setting the example and putting some of your cards on the table?

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?150289-quot-You-believe-in-a-magical-sky-daddy-and-a-Jewish-Zombie-quot&p=3382780#post3382780

[Whag]

If we're correct about an intentional redaction, then it actually works more in favor of the religious adherent. If we assume the scribes were inventing and embellishing as they went along (or even with the oral traditions), then it would have been just as easy to change the entire scenario, or perhaps just say that David's generals did the census instead.

Where’s the drama in the generals taking the census? The fact is we don’t precisely know why scribes changed things or cultures made up miracles. All we can know is that they did, and that’s important information in formulating one’s views on certain religious traditions.


The change was a minor one -- all he did was change the theological focus of supernatural element that influenced David to sin.

All he did was change the theological focus of supernatural element? I wonder if there had been a problem if the scribe didn't mention any influence but David's black heart. Would there have been a problem, inspirationally speaking, if the scribe redacted an external cause?


Technically he wasn't being untruthful, from a theological point of view, being that Satan wasn't a sovereign entity.

That doesn’t make sense to me. Truthfulness aside, saying it’s minor while also saying Satan wasn’t a sovereign entity is a non sequitur. In Judaism, God *is* a sovereign entity, so what are you saying here?


This tells me the traditions were under restraints and that certain changes simply were not allowed outside of those restraints, in spite of the "cognitive tension" between the two.

Big difference between finite fallen angel and eternal creator of all. Now we’re getting into early jewish perspectives of the story of the universe, so it's getting interesting. Ultimately, we’ll start seeing an obliteration of traditional orthodox views of Satan to views as they start to look closer, anthropologically speaking, to Canaanite/protojewish conceptions of reality.

[seanD]

Where’s the drama in the generals taking the census? The fact is we don’t precisely know why scribes changed things or cultures made up miracles. All we can know is that they did, and that’s important information in formulating one’s views on certain religious traditions.

All he did was change the theological focus of supernatural element? I wonder if there had been a problem if the scribe didn't mention any influence but David's black heart. Would there have been a problem, inspirationally speaking, if the scribe redacted an external cause?

Since you scattered my post and addressed everything out of context, I'm not going to respond to your whole post.

You do realize that the scribes were Jewish, no? I hope you do. We can't read the mind of an ancient scribe but we can use common sense. David was a religious icon in Judaism. Your logic that it "wasn't dramatic enough" without David being the provoker of God's wrath in the story is as absurd as assuming conservatives would have made up a scandal about Reagan because they just liked the drama. It would make sense if we assume anti-Semites wrote the story and wanted the Jews, their history and their religious icons to look bad, but this wasn't the case. Even if we assume they redacted the story, there were restraints on how they could embellish it. They could have easily changed the scenario so David didn't look so bad or used another person (a throwaway character) to take the blame for the sin against God and the punishment enacted on Israel instead of their religious icon David.

[lilpixieofterror]

That's funny, I've missed the metaphors of genetics, galaxies, bacteria, viruses, rock-n-roll, democracy...you know, all the stuff that would make sense now.

And that stuff has what to do with the message of salvation? I've already explained this one, perhaps you should go back and re-read it?

[robrecht]

I like the idea of a 'throw-away' character. Sort of like a 'red-shirt character' on Star Trek.

[lilpixieofterror]

The book of Isaiah, of Hosea, of Jeremiah, of Ezekiel, of Joel, of Daniel. You know all the prophetic works of the OT. Read their writings. Their concern is for the restoration of Israel.

Too bad that isn't what God had in mind eh? I'm sorry SMP, but the pages of the Gospels and the Jewish faith made it clear that they believed that the Messiah would free them from their oppressors and you'll find the disciples going with this assumption (such as asking him who would be seated on his right or Peter cutting off the ear of a person that came to arrest Jesus). The question is, why did they buy a crucified man as that savior and where did the Christian message of salvation come from? The culture or the understandings don't seem to support the development you are speaking of, so where did it come from?

[Whag]

You do realize that the scribes were Jewish, no? I hope you do. We can't read the mind of an ancient scribe but we can use common sense. David was a religious icon in Judaism. Your logic that it "wasn't dramatic enough" without David being the provoker of God's wrath in the story is as absurd as assuming conservatives would have made up a scandal about Reagan because they just liked the drama.

I think you'll find that's exactly what happens in the case of Jesus sweating blood. Dramatic flair isn't a foreign concept to the Jews or any culture for that matter. Oral tradition naturally accumulates these dramatic embellishments. Sometimes they're added later for nefarious reasons.


It would make sense if we assume anti-Semites wrote the story and wanted the Jews, their history and their religious icons to look bad, but this wasn't the case. Even if we assume they redacted the story, there were restraints on how they could embellish it.

But apparently not enough restraint to keep a scribe from attributing God's influence to Satan's. Would it have been just as accurate to say neither God nor Satan caused David to count his men? What proof did they have of external influence?



They could have easily changed the scenario so David didn't look so bad or used another person (a throwaway character) to take the blame for the sin against God and the punishment enacted on Israel instead of their religious icon David.

Did God give the jews permission to venerate an icon?

[showmeproof]

Too bad that isn't what God had in mind eh? I'm sorry SMP, but the pages of the Gospels and the Jewish faith made it clear that they believed that the Messiah would free them from their oppressors and you'll find the disciples going with this assumption (such as asking him who would be seated on his right or Peter cutting off the ear of a person that came to arrest Jesus). The question is, why did they buy a crucified man as that savior and where did the Christian message of salvation come from? The culture or the understandings don't seem to support the development you are speaking of, so where did it come from?

It was taken from the OT prophets. The NT writers changed the restoration from Israel to the individual through the sacrifice of Jesus. They took an already eschtalogical restoration and tweaked it. The people were always told to repent of their sins. They were always freed from that sin through atonement and expiation sacrifices. The sacrifice of Jesus, according to the NT writers, is so pure of a sacrifice that it is good indefinitely. You will recall that Jews don't practice sacrifice since about 70 A.D. when their Temple was destroyed. The NT writers found a way to make their lack of this ability to make theological sense.

People adapt old thoughts, and make new thoughts all the time. I've read plenty of fantasy books that are novel in their own way, but with undercurrents of older material. Are you suggesting that creative ways of adopting old material and thinking up new is through the revelation of God?

Here's the challenge. List the stories and verses that are most integral to salvation and resurrection. I'll show you where it was taken from in the OT and how it was tweaked.

[seanD]

I think you'll find that's exactly what happens in the case of Jesus sweating blood. Dramatic flair isn't a foreign concept to the Jews or any culture for that matter. Oral tradition naturally accumulates these dramatic embellishments. Sometimes they're added later for nefarious reasons.

So you're comparing the drama of Jesus sweating blood to David sinning against God that brought God's wrath on Israel?

[showmeproof]

And that stuff has what to do with the message of salvation? I've already explained this one, perhaps you should go back and re-read it?

You said god keeps revealing himself to people overtime in ways that make sense culturally to the people. Surely, if this is the case, an update is sorely needed. Leaving the message couched in a couple thousand year old cultural setting is a bit lazy.

[Cerebrum123]

What if for the whole Satan or God influencing David thing ,you just go with God allowing Satan to do it? After all God is ultimately in control of even the things that Satan does ,take Job for instance. Anyway that's just my thought on this matter. If I'm way off on this one ,maybe someone can correct me.

[robrecht]

You said god keeps revealing himself to people overtime in ways that make sense culturally to the people. Surely, if this is the case, an update is sorely needed. Leaving the message couched in a couple thousand year old cultural setting is a bit lazy.We're doing the best we can, what with so many reforms and councils and popes and theologians and exegetes working round the clock and all.

[lao tzu]

I believe this too. And you may be that person. But you are beginning to show yourself a bit of a troll. Well read, and with a photographic memory, but a troll nevertheless.

Now I took your earlier comments about my skills as simple politeness, if a bit extravagant, but let's put an end to this now, okay? I'm not well read; I don't have a photographic memory; and baiting trolls is easily distinguishable from trolling itself, or should be. Until you're up to speed on the subjects you're commenting on, you're a troll. I'm confident you can fix that, and I've been encouraging you to do so. Allow me a continuance.

I've read a couple of books by Mark Smith — The Early History of God (http://www.amazon.com/Early-History-God-Biblical-Resource/dp/080283972X) and The Origins of Biblical Monotheism (http://www.amazon.com/Origins-Biblical-Monotheism-Polytheistic-Background/dp/0195167686). The first is a compendious survey of the literature Smith assembled under a Fulbright. Go with the second to wet your feet first. You can pick both of them up in the Kindle editions for under $40, total, and be as well read as I am on early Israelite religion inside a month if you apply yourself. Don't believe SMP on this; he's an advocate for his hobby and is sugar-coating to encourage folks to join him in his studies. In actuality, they're slogging reads. My memory is merely adequate, with a marked increase in retention when the subject is something I enjoy learning, like math, or early Mesopotamian history, whence I've developed a good knowledge of the religious currents extending up to the time of the putative Moses.

Here's a sampling from OBM, from Part III, The Origins of Monotheism in the Bible, which begins with chapter 7: "El, Yahweh, and the Original God of IsraEL and the Exodus." The chapter follows the history of the cult of El from the bronze age to its inclusion as a theophoric (god-bearing) inclusion in the name of the state. The following is from section 3: "El in Iron Age Aram and Transjordan":


Although van der Toorn denies that cult was devoted to El in the first millennium, he notes the appearance of El in the papyrus Amherst 63, and he concludes that "El and Baal-Shamayin were at least known to the colonists of Syrene." [here Smith directs to footnote 34 which can be found in the appendices; he doesn't interrupt the narrative] The context of El in papyrus Amherst 63 is a prayer, which implies a cult, and the parallel of the prayer with Psalm 22 suggests a cult that is near or perhaps even in Israel. Therefore, this text might constitute not only a literary attestation to El but a cultic one. Finally, Cross and Tigay have noted that the divine element 'l dominates the theophoric elements in the Edomite onomasticon, which suggests El's cult; W. E. Aufrecht has noted the same feature in the Ammonite onomasticon. [35] Although state cults of the first-millennium Levant had patron deities other than El, this siutation did not issue in the immediate loss of El's cult. After all, Baal was the dynastic god of Ugarit, but this fact did not result in the loss of El's cult at Ugarit. The evidence for El's cult in the first millennium is ambiguous, as van der Toom observes, but this difficulty of evidence hardly settles the issue. Indeed, the apparent evidence for El in epigraphic South Arabian texts [36] might also warrant caution against dismissing first-millennium Levantine evidence for the cult of El.


What SMP has done is follow these footnotes back to the cited literature, collecting an impressive amount of information about early Israelite religion and its near antecedents. My interests are in the far antecedents of these antecedents, principally the period of the Empire of Sumer and Akkad, which ended with the fall of the third dynasty of Ur — yes, that Ur, the biblical birthplace of Abraham. But where SMP is interested, for example, in how the cult of El in Ugarit survived its journey into ancient Israel, I'm instead interested, for example, in the remnant traces of the cult of Dumuzi in Ugarit. The time period he focuses on begins where mine ends, with some overlap of course. The cult of Dumuzi, for instance, survived in the region even into biblical times, and is found in Ezekiel's description of the idol at the north gate of the temple in Jerusalem, while Ezekiel was with King Jehoiachin amongst the early exiles into Babylonian captivity leading up to the sacking of Jerusalem a decade later in 587 BCE. The Babylonian month Tammuz is named after Dumuzi, which points to the origin of his cult in Israel. (Pertinent to the thread itself, Ezekiel describes his god as riding on a chariot drawn by Cherubim , figuratively, a "sky daddy.")

Dumuzi, the consort of the Sumerian goddess Inanna — who was later known as Ishtar, and still later as Astarte — is one of the actual gods from the dawn of history you're speaking about so blithely. He is animistic, like Inanna, a deification of the fertility of the fields, as Inanna is a deification of the fertility of women. There are hundreds of these gods and goddesses; and as the first cities grew, they became enshrined as tutelary deities. Like Yahweh of Jerusalem, their principal dwelling was within their appointed city, though their influence spread as far as the city's rulers were able to subjugate the surrounding region. As writing developed, we find records of the shifting ascendancy of particular cities, nations, and empires. These tides of influence are always related as favor curried or withheld by virtue of observation or neglect of the proper cultic practices of their gods. This practice continued into biblical times, quite apparently.

You see, there's a rich literature surrounding these early religions, encompassing the examination of hundreds of thousands of written, cultic, and iconic artifacts attesting each other across opposing political borders. The reliability is not as you imagine, weak and ambiguous. We're not guessing here; we're following the preponderance of an immense body of evidence. So when you came blundering in making patently false statements about these early deities, you attracted notice leading to correction.

Now, on another note of apparent confusion, I am not your opponent, worthy or otherwise, and I did not intend you to perceive an offer. No more did I intend to "win", with or without resort to "technicalities." I merely observed where you had strayed from well-known or otherwise easily ascertained facts. You earned brownie points by coming back with an admission that you had at least checked the time of origin of the FSM, but immediately went on to repeat the same mistake — speaking without knowing what you were talking about, and in lieu of bringing in what's actually known, proceeding to create, out of whole cloth, a narrative that suited your personal religious beliefs. These beliefs in a primal monotheism are hardly fundamental to orthodox Christianity (here I am implicitly disagreeing in part with SMP) and so, naturally, I don't see this discussion as any kind of battle.


I will submit to the judgement of the forum. Looking at your post #348 I see 70% bluster and 20% ad hominem and 10% unsupported assertions. If you are so high above us how about setting the example and putting some of your cards on the table?

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?150289-quot-You-believe-in-a-magical-sky-daddy-and-a-Jewish-Zombie-quot&p=3382780#post3382780

You can read the judgment of the forum in the stars scattered in my postbit. Yes, you peanut gallery pedants, the same stars I opposed so adamantly when the rep system was reinstated. Notice how I use it to stifle a less popular member, and remember my love of irony.

As ever, Jesse

[lao tzu]

:eh: For anyone who read the above post...




I've got what you need and at reasonable prices

74776

Double-dose me. Plurals written with apostrophes will be the death of this forum.

[Whag]

So you're comparing the drama of Jesus sweating blood to David sinning against God that brought God's wrath on Israel?

They both come from the furnace of human imagination, yes?

[Chrawnus]

They both come from the furnace of human imagination, yes?

Not really. You should look up hematidrosis, or hematohidrosis on google. :shrug:

[rogue06]

That's funny, I've missed the metaphors of genetics, galaxies, bacteria, viruses, rock-n-roll, democracy...you know, all the stuff that would make sense now.
What makes you think that the intention of the Bible is to convey a science lesson?

[Xru]

Now I took your earlier comments about my skills as simple politeness, if a bit extravagant, but let's put an end to this now, okay? I'm not well read; I don't have a photographic memory; and baiting trolls is easily distinguishable from trolling itself, or should be. Until you're up to speed on the subjects you're commenting on, you're a troll. I'm confident you can fix that, and I've been encouraging you to do so. Allow me a continuance.

I've read a couple of books by Mark Smith — The Early History of God (http://www.amazon.com/Early-History-God-Biblical-Resource/dp/080283972X) and The Origins of Biblical Monotheism (http://www.amazon.com/Origins-Biblical-Monotheism-Polytheistic-Background/dp/0195167686). The first is a compendious survey of the literature Smith assembled under a Fulbright. Go with the second to wet your feet first. You can pick both of them up in the Kindle editions for under $40, total, and be as well read as I am on early Israelite religion inside a month if you apply yourself. Don't believe SMP on this; he's an advocate for his hobby and is sugar-coating to encourage folks to join him in his studies. In actuality, they're slogging reads. My memory is merely adequate, with a marked increase in retention when the subject is something I enjoy learning, like math, or early Mesopotamian history, whence I've developed a good knowledge of the religious currents extending up to the time of the putative Moses.

Here's a sampling from OBM, from Part III, The Origins of Monotheism in the Bible, which begins with chapter 7: "El, Yahweh, and the Original God of IsraEL and the Exodus." The chapter follows the history of the cult of El from the bronze age to its inclusion as a theophoric (god-bearing) inclusion in the name of the state. The following is from section 3: "El in Iron Age Aram and Transjordan":


Although van der Toorn denies that cult was devoted to El in the first millennium, he notes the appearance of El in the papyrus Amherst 63, and he concludes that "El and Baal-Shamayin were at least known to the colonists of Syrene." [here Smith directs to footnote 34 which can be found in the appendices; he doesn't interrupt the narrative] The context of El in papyrus Amherst 63 is a prayer, which implies a cult, and the parallel of the prayer with Psalm 22 suggests a cult that is near or perhaps even in Israel. Therefore, this text might constitute not only a literary attestation to El but a cultic one. Finally, Cross and Tigay have noted that the divine element 'l dominates the theophoric elements in the Edomite onomasticon, which suggests El's cult; W. E. Aufrecht has noted the same feature in the Ammonite onomasticon. [35] Although state cults of the first-millennium Levant had patron deities other than El, this siutation did not issue in the immediate loss of El's cult. After all, Baal was the dynastic god of Ugarit, but this fact did not result in the loss of El's cult at Ugarit. The evidence for El's cult in the first millennium is ambiguous, as van der Toom observes, but this difficulty of evidence hardly settles the issue. Indeed, the apparent evidence for El in epigraphic South Arabian texts [36] might also warrant caution against dismissing first-millennium Levantine evidence for the cult of El.


What SMP has done is follow these footnotes back to the cited literature, collecting an impressive amount of information about early Israelite religion and its near antecedents. My interests are in the far antecedents of these antecedents, principally the period of the Empire of Sumer and Akkad, which ended with the fall of the third dynasty of Ur — yes, that Ur, the biblical birthplace of Abraham. But where SMP is interested, for example, in how the cult of El in Ugarit survived its journey into ancient Israel, I'm instead interested, for example, in the remnant traces of the cult of Dumuzi in Ugarit. The time period he focuses on begins where mine ends, with some overlap of course. The cult of Dumuzi, for instance, survived in the region even into biblical times, and is found in Ezekiel's description of the idol at the north gate of the temple in Jerusalem, while Ezekiel was with King Jehoiachin amongst the early exiles into Babylonian captivity leading up to the sacking of Jerusalem a decade later in 587 BCE. The Babylonian month Tammuz is named after Dumuzi, which points to the origin of his cult in Israel. (Pertinent to the thread itself, Ezekiel describes his god as riding on a chariot drawn by Cherubim , figuratively, a "sky daddy.")

Dumuzi, the consort of the Sumerian goddess Inanna — who was later known as Ishtar, and still later as Astarte — is one of the actual gods from the dawn of history you're speaking about so blithely. He is animistic, like Inanna, a deification of the fertility of the fields, as Inanna is a deification of the fertility of women. There are hundreds of these gods and goddesses; and as the first cities grew, they became enshrined as tutelary deities. Like Yahweh of Jerusalem, their principal dwelling was within their appointed city, though their influence spread as far as the city's rulers were able to subjugate the surrounding region. As writing developed, we find records of the shifting ascendancy of particular cities, nations, and empires. These tides of influence are always related as favor curried or withheld by virtue of observation or neglect of the proper cultic practices of their gods. This practice continued into biblical times, quite apparently.

You see, there's a rich literature surrounding these early religions, encompassing the examination of hundreds of thousands of written, cultic, and iconic artifacts attesting each other across opposing political borders. The reliability is not as you imagine, weak and ambiguous. We're not guessing here; we're following the preponderance of an immense body of evidence. So when you came blundering in making patently false statements about these early deities, you attracted notice leading to correction.

Now, on another note of apparent confusion, I am not your opponent, worthy or otherwise, and I did not intend you to perceive an offer. No more did I intend to "win", with or without resort to "technicalities." I merely observed where you had strayed from well-known or otherwise easily ascertained facts. You earned brownie points by coming back with an admission that you had at least checked the time of origin of the FSM, but immediately went on to repeat the same mistake — speaking without knowing what you were talking about, and in lieu of bringing in what's actually known, proceeding to create, out of whole cloth, a narrative that suited your personal religious beliefs. These beliefs in a primal monotheism are hardly fundamental to orthodox Christianity (here I am implicitly disagreeing in part with SMP) and so, naturally, I don't see this discussion as any kind of battle.



You can read the judgment of the forum in the stars scattered in my postbit. Yes, you peanut gallery pedants, the same stars I opposed so adamantly when the rep system was reinstated. Notice how I use it to stifle a less popular member, and remember my love of irony.

As ever, Jesse

Well done LT . . . I figured when AB called you a Troll he'd crossed the line and wondered how you'd react;)

[Whag]

Not really. You should look up hematidrosis, or hematohidrosis on google. :shrug:

That part was added to the bible later and so there's a big clue it likely didn't happen.

[Whag]

You said god keeps revealing himself to people overtime in ways that make sense culturally to the people. Surely, if this is the case, an update is sorely needed. Leaving the message couched in a couple thousand year old cultural setting is a bit lazy.

Human sacrifice is modern enough, you ingrate!

[Chrawnus]

That part was added to the bible later and so there's a big clue it likely didn't happen.

Not necessarily, if it persisted as an oral tradition alongside the gospel of Luke and was added later by some scribe who knew of the tradition. :shrug:

[Whag]

Not necessarily, if it persisted as an oral tradition alongside the gospel of Luke and was added later by some scribe who knew of the tradition. :shrug:

A better explanation is that it was added later to quash a heresy. How inspired.

Besides, many billions have faced certain death and a good majority of them without this elevated condition. It actually makes Jesus sound more scared than the average person would be, which really wouldn't make sense since existential fear didn't even factor into his experience. He knew his father loved him and all would be well.

[Chrawnus]

A better explanation is that it was added later to quash a heresy. How inspired.

Which heresy?



Besides, many billions have faced certain death and a good majority of them without this elevated condition. It actually makes Jesus sound more scared than the average person would be, which really wouldn't make sense since existential fear didn't even factor into his experience. He knew his father loved him and all would be well.

There are certain elements in the text regarding the prayer in Gethsemane that hints that Jesus believed that what was going to happen to him on the cross would be him having to drink what is in the OT named the cup of God's wrath, which symbolised the punishment of God upon Jerusalem and pagan nations. (Isa 51:17, Isa 51:22, Jes 25:15). If that's true then Jesus wasn't simply worried about his imminent death, but about the impending punishment of his Father upon him.

[Whag]

Which heresy?

It's much more likely that this verse was later added to confirm Jesus was actually corporeal. Many problems with this passage besides its uninspired inclusion. Why would he experience such an unusual glitch in his autonomic nervous system? Was this a common malady when people went to the cross? Data please.

Besides, he knew he was God and that his Father loved him. He had zero existential angst, so it's hard to believe he agitated himself so much that he started sweating blood.



There are certain elements in the text regarding the prayer in Gethsemane that hints that Jesus believed that what was going to happen to him on the cross would be him having to drink what is in the OT named the cup of God's wrath, which symbolised the punishment of God upon Jerusalem and pagan nations. (Isa 51:17, Isa 51:22, Jes 25:15). If that's true then Jesus wasn't simply worried about his imminent death, but about the impending punishment of his Father upon him.

The punishment consisted solely of that which is described. What extra punishment are you talking about that God poured out on him besides being tortured to death?

[Chrawnus]

It's much more likely that this verse was later added to confirm Jesus was actually corporeal. Many problems with this passage besides its uninspired inclusion. Why would he experience such an unusual glitch in his autonomic nervous system? Was this a common malady when people went to the cross? Data please.

Besides, he knew he was God and that his Father loved him. He had zero existential angst, so it's hard to believe he agitated himself so much that he started sweating blood.

If the inclusion of Jesus sweating blood was to confirm that Jesus was corporeal, then it was an completely unnecessary inclusion, in light of passages like this:


Luk 24:36 While they were telling these things, He Himself stood in their midst and *said to them, "Peace be to you."
Luk 24:37 But they were startled and frightened and thought that they were seeing a spirit.
Luk 24:38 And He said to them, "Why are you troubled, and why do doubts arise in your hearts?
Luk 24:39 "See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have."
Luk 24:40 And when He had said this, He showed them His hands and His feet.
Luk 24:41 While they still could not believe it because of their joy and amazement, He said to them, "Have you anything here to eat?"
Luk 24:42 They gave Him a piece of a broiled fish;
Luk 24:43 and He took it and ate it before them.

And for what reason exactly are you bringing up "existential angst"?




The punishment consisted solely of that which is described. What extra punishment are you talking about that God poured out on him besides being tortured to death?

I'm talking about Jesus talking about drinking the cup the Father would give him, and later praying, if possible, that he would not have to drink said cup. He also mentions in Mark 14:34 that his "soul is deeply grieved, to the point of death" something that is also recorded in Mat 26:38. This coupled with the fact that Jesus is God suggests that he knew exactly what was going to happen to him, and that it was horrible enough for him that even if he was God it was enough for him to be grieved to the point of death. That it doesn't explicitly mention more than the torture and crucifixion doesn't mean that there aren't hints in the text that tells us that Jesus experienced an agony far greater than what simply anticipating his crucifixion would entail.

[Whag]

If the inclusion of Jesus sweating blood was to confirm that Jesus was corporeal, then it was an completely unnecessary inclusion, in light of passages like this:

Luke 24:36-43 NASB
Luk 24:36 While they were telling these things, He Himself stood in their midst and *said to them, "Peace be to you."
Luk 24:37 But they were startled and frightened and thought that they were seeing a spirit.
All the more reason to emphasize his corporeality.
Luk 24:38 And He said to them, "Why are you troubled, and why do doubts arise in your hearts?
Luk 24:39 "See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have."
Luk 24:40 And when He had said this, He showed them His hands and His feet.
Luk 24:41 While they still could not believe it because of their joy and amazement, He said to them, "Have you anything here to eat?"
Luk 24:42 They gave Him a piece of a broiled fish;
Luk 24:43 and He took it and ate it before them.

Why is it so hard to believe that a scribe added a pre-crucifixion reference to corporeality to go with the post-resurrection reference to corporeality? It would not have been overkill. Besides, who was there to witness Jesus sweating blood? Can you imagine Jesus fishing for sympathy by detailing to the disciple how bloody sweat poured from his skin? I can’t.



And for what reason exactly are you bringing up "existential angst"?

Scroll up. I explained that twice.


I'm talking about Jesus talking about drinking the cup the Father would give him, and later praying, if possible, that he would not have to drink said cup.

That doesn’t answer the question I asked. You said, “If that's true then Jesus wasn't simply worried about his imminent death, but about the impending punishment of his Father upon him.”

Again, what extra punishment are you talking about that God poured out on him besides being tortured to death? You’re not being clear.


He also mentions in Mark 14:34 that his "soul is deeply grieved, to the point of death" something that is also recorded in Mat 26:38. This coupled with the fact that Jesus is God suggests that he knew exactly what was going to happen to him, and that it was horrible enough for him that even if he was God it was enough for him to be grieved to the point of death.

Conversely, if he knew he was God, he also knew the pain was temporal relative to the larger reality of his eternal role. I doubt he sweat blood if the other condemned weren't. They had the Unknown to be afraid about. Like you said, he knew all.


That it doesn't explicitly mention more than the torture and crucifixion doesn't mean that there aren't hints in the text that tells us that Jesus experienced an agony far greater than what simply anticipating his crucifixion would entail.

But you haven’t made it clear. You mentioned a cup and Jesus not wanting to drink from it. That doesn’t tell me God tortured Jesus excessively beyond the requirements of being whipped and hanged for a prolonged period of time, which the cup exactly represented.

Idiot confirmed.

[Whag]

What if for the whole Satan or God influencing David thing ,you just go with God allowing Satan to do it? After all God is ultimately in control of even the things that Satan does ,take Job for instance. Anyway that's just my thought on this matter. If I'm way off on this one ,maybe someone can correct me.

Job didnt happen. Does that affect your interpretation of these particular passages?

[Cerebrum123]

Job didnt happen. Does that affect your interpretation of these particular passages?

I'd at least like a reference rather than a bare assertion. Beside's what exactly makes it so that the situation described in Job immediately has to be thrown out just because "it didn't happen". Even if Job is fiction like you claim ,that doesn't mean it doesn't have any explanatory power in this situation.

[showmeproof]

What if for the whole Satan or God influencing David thing ,you just go with God allowing Satan to do it? After all God is ultimately in control of even the things that Satan does ,take Job for instance. Anyway that's just my thought on this matter. If I'm way off on this one ,maybe someone can correct me.

Satan- the 'devil' is not in the book of Job.

ha satan- the adversary is and he is included as one of the sons of god that participates in the divine council. The adversary can be any member of the divine council who brings charges to be heard by the head of the council.

What I find interesting is straight out statements, one regarding Saul comes to mind, where YHWH sends a lying spirit into the individual in order to make the person do something horrible. Who's sin is that?

[showmeproof]

We're doing the best we can, what with so many reforms and councils and popes and theologians and exegetes working round the clock and all.

Last I checked all that has done is create denominations, divisions, and schisms within the church and nothing is added, or more importantly taken away, from the canon.

[showmeproof]

Now I took your earlier comments about my skills as simple politeness, if a bit extravagant, but let's put an end to this now, okay? I'm not well read; I don't have a photographic memory; and baiting trolls is easily distinguishable from trolling itself, or should be. Until you're up to speed on the subjects you're commenting on, you're a troll. I'm confident you can fix that, and I've been encouraging you to do so. Allow me a continuance.

I've read a couple of books by Mark Smith — The Early History of God (http://www.amazon.com/Early-History-God-Biblical-Resource/dp/080283972X) and The Origins of Biblical Monotheism (http://www.amazon.com/Origins-Biblical-Monotheism-Polytheistic-Background/dp/0195167686). The first is a compendious survey of the literature Smith assembled under a Fulbright. Go with the second to wet your feet first. You can pick both of them up in the Kindle editions for under $40, total, and be as well read as I am on early Israelite religion inside a month if you apply yourself. Don't believe SMP on this; he's an advocate for his hobby and is sugar-coating to encourage folks to join him in his studies. In actuality, they're slogging reads. My memory is merely adequate, with a marked increase in retention when the subject is something I enjoy learning, like math, or early Mesopotamian history, whence I've developed a good knowledge of the religious currents extending up to the time of the putative Moses.

Here's a sampling from OBM, from Part III, The Origins of Monotheism in the Bible, which begins with chapter 7: "El, Yahweh, and the Original God of IsraEL and the Exodus." The chapter follows the history of the cult of El from the bronze age to its inclusion as a theophoric (god-bearing) inclusion in the name of the state. The following is from section 3: "El in Iron Age Aram and Transjordan":


Although van der Toorn denies that cult was devoted to El in the first millennium, he notes the appearance of El in the papyrus Amherst 63, and he concludes that "El and Baal-Shamayin were at least known to the colonists of Syrene." [here Smith directs to footnote 34 which can be found in the appendices; he doesn't interrupt the narrative] The context of El in papyrus Amherst 63 is a prayer, which implies a cult, and the parallel of the prayer with Psalm 22 suggests a cult that is near or perhaps even in Israel. Therefore, this text might constitute not only a literary attestation to El but a cultic one. Finally, Cross and Tigay have noted that the divine element 'l dominates the theophoric elements in the Edomite onomasticon, which suggests El's cult; W. E. Aufrecht has noted the same feature in the Ammonite onomasticon. [35] Although state cults of the first-millennium Levant had patron deities other than El, this siutation did not issue in the immediate loss of El's cult. After all, Baal was the dynastic god of Ugarit, but this fact did not result in the loss of El's cult at Ugarit. The evidence for El's cult in the first millennium is ambiguous, as van der Toom observes, but this difficulty of evidence hardly settles the issue. Indeed, the apparent evidence for El in epigraphic South Arabian texts [36] might also warrant caution against dismissing first-millennium Levantine evidence for the cult of El.


What SMP has done is follow these footnotes back to the cited literature, collecting an impressive amount of information about early Israelite religion and its near antecedents. My interests are in the far antecedents of these antecedents, principally the period of the Empire of Sumer and Akkad, which ended with the fall of the third dynasty of Ur — yes, that Ur, the biblical birthplace of Abraham. But where SMP is interested, for example, in how the cult of El in Ugarit survived its journey into ancient Israel, I'm instead interested, for example, in the remnant traces of the cult of Dumuzi in Ugarit. The time period he focuses on begins where mine ends, with some overlap of course. The cult of Dumuzi, for instance, survived in the region even into biblical times, and is found in Ezekiel's description of the idol at the north gate of the temple in Jerusalem, while Ezekiel was with King Jehoiachin amongst the early exiles into Babylonian captivity leading up to the sacking of Jerusalem a decade later in 587 BCE. The Babylonian month Tammuz is named after Dumuzi, which points to the origin of his cult in Israel. (Pertinent to the thread itself, Ezekiel describes his god as riding on a chariot drawn by Cherubim , figuratively, a "sky daddy.")

Dumuzi, the consort of the Sumerian goddess Inanna — who was later known as Ishtar, and still later as Astarte — is one of the actual gods from the dawn of history you're speaking about so blithely. He is animistic, like Inanna, a deification of the fertility of the fields, as Inanna is a deification of the fertility of women. There are hundreds of these gods and goddesses; and as the first cities grew, they became enshrined as tutelary deities. Like Yahweh of Jerusalem, their principal dwelling was within their appointed city, though their influence spread as far as the city's rulers were able to subjugate the surrounding region. As writing developed, we find records of the shifting ascendancy of particular cities, nations, and empires. These tides of influence are always related as favor curried or withheld by virtue of observation or neglect of the proper cultic practices of their gods. This practice continued into biblical times, quite apparently.

You see, there's a rich literature surrounding these early religions, encompassing the examination of hundreds of thousands of written, cultic, and iconic artifacts attesting each other across opposing political borders. The reliability is not as you imagine, weak and ambiguous. We're not guessing here; we're following the preponderance of an immense body of evidence. So when you came blundering in making patently false statements about these early deities, you attracted notice leading to correction.

Now, on another note of apparent confusion, I am not your opponent, worthy or otherwise, and I did not intend you to perceive an offer. No more did I intend to "win", with or without resort to "technicalities." I merely observed where you had strayed from well-known or otherwise easily ascertained facts. You earned brownie points by coming back with an admission that you had at least checked the time of origin of the FSM, but immediately went on to repeat the same mistake — speaking without knowing what you were talking about, and in lieu of bringing in what's actually known, proceeding to create, out of whole cloth, a narrative that suited your personal religious beliefs. These beliefs in a primal monotheism are hardly fundamental to orthodox Christianity (here I am implicitly disagreeing in part with SMP) and so, naturally, I don't see this discussion as any kind of battle.



You can read the judgment of the forum in the stars scattered in my postbit. Yes, you peanut gallery pedants, the same stars I opposed so adamantly when the rep system was reinstated. Notice how I use it to stifle a less popular member, and remember my love of irony.

As ever, Jesse

Jesse,

I am very interested in moving further back in time tracing El back to An, Baal to Hadad etc., which means taking my studies to Mari, and then even further back to Ur and Akkad. Where's a good place to start regarding the Mesopotamian religions? Pritchard? Van Mieroop (sp?)? Someone else?

[AlphaBravo]

I've read a couple of books by Mark Smith — The Early History of God and The Origins of Biblical Monotheism. The first is a compendious survey of the literature Smith assembled under a Fulbright. Go with the second to wet your feet first. You can pick both of them up in the Kindle editions for under $40, total, and be as well read as I am on early Israelite religion inside a month if you apply yourself. Don't believe SMP on this; he's an advocate for his hobby and is sugar-coating to encourage folks to join him in his studies. In actuality, they're slogging reads. My memory is merely adequate, with a marked increase in retention when the subject is something I enjoy learning, like math, or early Mesopotamian history, whence I've developed a good knowledge of the religious currents extending up to the time of the putative Moses.

Here's a sampling from OBM, from Part III, The Origins of Monotheism in the Bible, which begins with chapter 7: "El, Yahweh, and the Original God of IsraEL and the Exodus." The chapter follows the history of the cult of El from the bronze age to its inclusion as a theophoric (god-bearing) inclusion in the name of the state. The following is from section 3: "El in Iron Age Aram and Transjordan":

Although van der Toorn denies that cult was devoted to El in the first millennium, he notes the appearance of El in the papyrus Amherst 63, and he concludes that "El and Baal-Shamayin were at least known to the colonists of Syrene." [here Smith directs to footnote 34 which can be found in the appendices; he doesn't interrupt the narrative] The context of El in papyrus Amherst 63 is a prayer, which implies a cult, and the parallel of the prayer with Psalm 22 suggests a cult that is near or perhaps even in Israel. Therefore, this text might constitute not only a literary attestation to El but a cultic one. Finally, Cross and Tigay have noted that the divine element 'l dominates the theophoric elements in the Edomite onomasticon, which suggests El's cult; W. E. Aufrecht has noted the same feature in the Ammonite onomasticon. [35] Although state cults of the first-millennium Levant had patron deities other than El, this siutation did not issue in the immediate loss of El's cult. After all, Baal was the dynastic god of Ugarit, but this fact did not result in the loss of El's cult at Ugarit. The evidence for El's cult in the first millennium is ambiguous, as van der Toom observes, but this difficulty of evidence hardly settles the issue. Indeed, the apparent evidence for El in epigraphic South Arabian texts [36] might also warrant caution against dismissing first-millennium Levantine evidence for the cult of El.

What SMP has done is follow these footnotes back to the cited literature, collecting an impressive amount of information about early Israelite religion and its near antecedents. My interests are in the far antecedents of these antecedents, principally the period of the Empire of Sumer and Akkad, which ended with the fall of the third dynasty of Ur — yes, that Ur, the biblical birthplace of Abraham. But where SMP is interested, for example, in how the cult of El in Ugarit survived its journey into ancient Israel, I'm instead interested, for example, in the remnant traces of the cult of Dumuzi in Ugarit. The time period he focuses on begins where mine ends, with some overlap of course. The cult of Dumuzi, for instance, survived in the region even into biblical times, and is found in Ezekiel's description of the idol at the north gate of the temple in Jerusalem, while Ezekiel was with King Jehoiachin amongst the early exiles into Babylonian captivity leading up to the sacking of Jerusalem a decade later in 587 BCE. The Babylonian month Tammuz is named after Dumuzi, which points to the origin of his cult in Israel. (Pertinent to the thread itself, Ezekiel describes his god as riding on a chariot drawn by Cherubim , figuratively, a "sky daddy.")

Dumuzi, the consort of the Sumerian goddess Inanna — who was later known as Ishtar, and still later as Astarte — is one of the actual gods from the dawn of history you're speaking about so blithely. He is animistic, like Inanna, a deification of the fertility of the fields, as Inanna is a deification of the fertility of women. There are hundreds of these gods and goddesses; and as the first cities grew, they became enshrined as tutelary deities. Like Yahweh of Jerusalem, their principal dwelling was within their appointed city, though their influence spread as far as the city's rulers were able to subjugate the surrounding region. As writing developed, we find records of the shifting ascendancy of particular cities, nations, and empires. These tides of influence are always related as favor curried or withheld by virtue of observation or neglect of the proper cultic practices of their gods. This practice continued into biblical times, quite apparently.

Thank you.
I take back the troll...mostly.
:teeth:

[showmeproof]

What makes you think that the intention of the Bible is to convey a science lesson?

That wasn't my point. LPOT keeps querying, 'why can't god have revealed himself first through Canaanite religion' and then so on and so on until we get to what she believes. Her point is that god reveals himself overtime to people in a way that is culturally relevant to them; elsewise, how would they understand his revelation? If that is the case, then why on earth would god have stopped a couple thousand years ago?

[seanD]

Satan- the 'devil' is not in the book of Job.

ha satan- the adversary is and he is included as one of the sons of god that participates in the divine council. The adversary can be any member of the divine council who brings charges to be heard by the head of the council.


These two sentences contradict. What makes you think the Satan of Job is not the Satan of 1 Chronicles, not the Satan of Genesis, not the Satan of the NT, wasn't viewed as the same adversary throughout scripture?

[showmeproof]

These two sentences contradict. What makes you think the Satan of Job is not the Satan of 1 Chronicles, not the Satan of Genesis, not the Satan of the NT, wasn't viewed as the same adversary throughout scripture?

ha satan is the title of a role/function within the divine council.

Without the verses you are suggesting in 1 Chronicles, Genesis, or the NT I cannot make targeted statements. The Christian concept of Satan is most closely associated with the polemics against Baal found in the OT.

[lilpixieofterror]

It was taken from the OT prophets. The NT writers changed the restoration from Israel to the individual through the sacrifice of Jesus. They took an already eschtalogical restoration and tweaked it. The people were always told to repent of their sins. They were always freed from that sin through atonement and expiation sacrifices. The sacrifice of Jesus, according to the NT writers, is so pure of a sacrifice that it is good indefinitely. You will recall that Jews don't practice sacrifice since about 70 A.D. when their Temple was destroyed. The NT writers found a way to make their lack of this ability to make theological sense.

Sorry SMP, but this doesn't explain why they brought one crucified. It doesn't explain why they had a sudden shift from a savior that would physically free them from the Jews to one that was 'spiritual'. It also doesn't explain why they choose to make up this lie of there's and then die for it. :lol: You know for being as smart as you are, you really don't think your theories though very well.


People adapt old thoughts, and make new thoughts all the time. I've read plenty of fantasy books that are novel in their own way, but with undercurrents of older material. Are you suggesting that creative ways of adopting old material and thinking up new is through the revelation of God?

People also don't go out and get themselves killed for their fantasy book, do they? Do you think HG Wells would have died proclaiming that his book, "The Time Machine" actually happened? You basically want me to believe that the disciples made up this story and then got themselves killed in very painful ways, in the process. Yep, that sure is logical, eh?


Here's the challenge. List the stories and verses that are most integral to salvation and resurrection. I'll show you where it was taken from in the OT and how it was tweaked.

Sure you will because you'll most likely throw together some crap and claim it is a new thing. Quite funny, I'm sorry SMP, but I can really picture this conversation how it appeared 2,00 years ago:

Peter: "Hey guys, since Jesus died a shameful death on the cross, how about we got and steal his body and claim he rose again? Sure, we will be tortured and beaten for this lie of ours, by why not? We're stupid ancient people that love to make up stories all the time, so how about it guys!"

:rofl: I'm sure that would have worked over well. Sorry SMP, it STILL doesn't explain why they brought one crucified and decided to make up a lie and die for it. It also doesn't explain how nobody produced evidence to challenge their lies with.

[lilpixieofterror]

You said god keeps revealing himself to people overtime in ways that make sense culturally to the people. Surely, if this is the case, an update is sorely needed. Leaving the message couched in a couple thousand year old cultural setting is a bit lazy.

Like what? Care to name a few examples?

[seanD]

ha satan is the title of a role/function within the divine council.

Without the verses you are suggesting in 1 Chronicles, Genesis, or the NT I cannot make targeted statements. The Christian concept of Satan is most closely associated with the polemics against Baal found in the OT.

Then now I really don't understand how you can emphatically claim: "Satan- the 'devil' is not in the book of Job." What makes you think they were not considered the same adversary in other places on a theological level? And you know exactly what verses I'm referring to.

[showmeproof]

Sorry SMP, but this doesn't explain why they brought one crucified. It doesn't explain why they had a sudden shift from a savior that would physically free them from the Jews to one that was 'spiritual'. It also doesn't explain why they choose to make up this lie of there's and then die for it. :lol: You know for being as smart as you are, you really don't think your theories though very well.


People also don't go out and get themselves killed for their fantasy book, do they? Do you think HG Wells would have died proclaiming that his book, "The Time Machine" actually happened? You basically want me to believe that the disciples made up this story and then got themselves killed in very painful ways, in the process. Yep, that sure is logical, eh?



Sure you will because you'll most likely throw together some crap and claim it is a new thing. Quite funny, I'm sorry SMP, but I can really picture this conversation how it appeared 2,00 years ago:

Peter: "Hey guys, since Jesus died a shameful death on the cross, how about we got and steal his body and claim he rose again? Sure, we will be tortured and beaten for this lie of ours, by why not? We're stupid ancient people that love to make up stories all the time, so how about it guys!"

:rofl: I'm sure that would have worked over well. Sorry SMP, it STILL doesn't explain why they brought one crucified and decided to make up a lie and die for it. It also doesn't explain how nobody produced evidence to challenge their lies with.

A Jewish messiah wouldn't be crucified, he'd be king over the nation; thus his disciples confusion and the Jew's persistence in remaining Jews. That's why Jesus is the Christian Messiah; his kingdom is not of this world. As you are no doubt aware, Jesus' death and resurrection grants you forgiveness of sin (according to Christian doctrine); Jesus was an atonement sacrifice to end all atonement sacrifices.

Talk about a strawman: 'They wouldn't lie and die for it'. I never said they didn't believe in what they wrote or taught. People die everyday for things that they believe in. The veracity of the belief doesn't factor into the equation.

[showmeproof]

Then now I really don't understand how you can emphatically claim: "Satan- the 'devil' is not in the book of Job." What makes you think they were not considered the same adversary in other places on a theological level? And you know exactly what verses I'm referring to.

There are many verses, so I am not sure of which you are referring to. Put them forth and I'll address them in their context.

On a theological level an adversary (the role) is not inherently evil. Whereas the Christian concept of Satan is; more precisely the Christian concept of Satan is an amaglam of Baal, Mot, Yam, and Molech. The evil character Satan, a later invention, is read backwards into the OT.

[lilpixieofterror]

A Jewish messiah wouldn't be crucified, he'd be king over the nation; thus his disciples confusion and the Jew's persistence in remaining Jews. That's why Jesus is the Christian Messiah; his kingdom is not of this world. As you are no doubt aware, Jesus' death and resurrection grants you forgiveness of sin (according to Christian doctrine); Jesus was an atonement sacrifice to end all atonement sacrifices.

You're correct there, but that isn't what I asked, is it? Why do Christians believe this and where did this idea come from? Was it made up? Why would somebody make it up only to get themselves killed? This isn't a Christian invention either, but pretty strongly backed by Roman, Jewish, and Christian sources. The point is, in order for your argument to work, you seem to have to assume somebody made it all up and others ran with it.


Talk about a strawman: 'They wouldn't lie and die for it'. I never said they didn't believe in what they wrote or taught. People die everyday for things that they believe in. The veracity of the belief doesn't factor into the equation.

That is illogical SMP and goes against logic and reason. If they really thought the saw the risen Jesus, but didn't. How were they fooled? Point is, somebody had to lie somewhere and make something up somewhere. Do you have any evidence to back up such a conclusion or not?

[seanD]

There are many verses, so I am not sure of which you are referring to. Put them forth and I'll address them in their context.

On a theological level an adversary (the role) is not inherently evil. Whereas the Christian concept of Satan is; more precisely the Christian concept of Satan is an amaglam of Baal, Mot, Yam, and Molech. The evil character Satan, a later invention, is read backwards into the OT.

You're playing dumb. We talked about the 1 Chronicles passage in this same thread just recently and everyone knows the adversary of the serpent in Genesis. The fact you're strangely playing dumb is telling to me. I don't see how you can read these events within its context and honestly not come away from the fact that this was an evil character in theological Judaism.

[showmeproof]

Like what? Care to name a few examples?

I think that would be the role of a believer and the 'revelation' of God.

[showmeproof]

You're playing dumb. We talked about the 1 Chronicles passage in this same thread just recently and everyone knows the adversary of the serpent in Genesis. The fact you're strangely playing dumb is telling to me. I don't see how you can read these events within its context and honestly not come away from the fact that this was an evil character in theological Judaism.

Yes serpent. Satan is not mentioned; you read Satan when the text says serpent. This is a retrojection of a later character upon an earlier one. Sorry, but I have not been following the 1 Chronicles posts. Which chapter and verse?

If you recall, In Job it is only by YHWH's permission and command that anything is done to Job or his family.

[lilpixieofterror]

I think that would be the role of a believer and the 'revelation' of God.

That is as vague as one can get. What specifically?

[showmeproof]

satan is used in nine contexts in the Hebrew Bible. Five occurrences refer to humans and the remaining four refer to divine beings.

Numbers 22:22-35
the angel of YHWH identifies himself as a satan (adversary) to Balaam.

In Job, satan is preceded by a definite article (the) identifying it as a role and not as a proper name.

In Zechariah 3, satan is at the right hand of the angel (messenger) of YHWH with Joshuah before YHWH. The Accuser is rebuked and Joshua is chosen as high priest.

1 Chronicles 21:1 parallels the story of 2 Samuel 24. The earlier text has the anger of YHWH, the later has satan which can be argued to be a proper name or a satan.

[showmeproof]

That is as vague as one can get. What specifically?

You tell me. It was your argument; I'll paraphrase- "god reveals himself overtime in a culturally appropriate manner which is conducive to understanding." You tell me how this line of thought has continued past two thousand years ago. There are plenty of books out about god. Would you call any of them authoritative...perhaps worthy of inclusion into the bible?

[seanD]

Yes serpent. Satan is not mentioned; you read Satan when the text says serpent. This is a retrojection of a later character upon an earlier one. Sorry, but I have not been following the 1 Chronicles posts. Which chapter and verse?

If you recall, In Job it is only by YHWH's permission and command that anything is done to Job or his family.

It seems you're hung up on the different names and characterizations and think it's a damaging revelation to religion or some profound discovery you've made. As you obviously know, God identified himself using many titles that represented his many ways and actions of the moment. It doesn't mean he was different deities; it just means his ways are so incomprehensible, the Jews couldn't nail him down to just one representation. Jesus has multifaceted titles in Judeo-Christianity -- he's the Christ, the Son of David, the Son of Man, the Logos, the slain Lamb, The Lord of Glory, etc. Satan also had many titles -- the Devil, the Dragon, the Angel of Light, the Roaring Lion, etc. Nothing here supports your belief that they didn't consider the adversary the same entity in their theology with multiple characteristics and identifications.

[lilpixieofterror]

You tell me. It was your argument; I'll paraphrase- "god reveals himself overtime in a culturally appropriate manner which is conducive to understanding." You tell me how this line of thought has continued past two thousand years ago. There are plenty of books out about god. Would you call any of them authoritative...perhaps worthy of inclusion into the bible?

And you seem to ignore the rest of my words SMP. I know I mentioned that it was for bringing about the message of Salvation. Do you always ignore what other people say and only pick and choose parts of their words you want to hear?

[lao tzu]

Jesse,

I am very interested in moving further back in time tracing El back to An, Baal to Hadad etc., which means taking my studies to Mari, and then even further back to Ur and Akkad. Where's a good place to start regarding the Mesopotamian religions? Pritchard? Van Mieroop (sp?)? Someone else?

I don't know anyone who focuses on their religions. Instead, the focus is on their overall culture, with religion relegated to a supporting role, and in this, Samuel Noah Kramer is without equal. He was the pre-eminent Sumerologist of the past century, personally responsible for a larger body of transcription, translation and exposition than any other scholar in the field. He died at 93 in 1990. If I were to recommend one book to get you started, it would be his The Sumerians: Their History, Culture, and Character (http://www.amazon.com/The-Sumerians-History-Culture-Character/dp/0226452387/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1332652797&sr=8-2), originally published in 1963. You'll find sufficient references in this work to expand your studies, along with interesting insights into the history of Sumerology itself. A quick search, and I find it's available as a google book preview (http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=IuxIdug8DBUC&oi=fnd&pg=PA3&dq=sumerian+history&ots=wCJ0k_sinx&sig=6tQNnu651mNr5355Nj_f4TGD8Cw#v=onepage&q=sumerian%20history&f=false). As you'll note, this is for the popular press. If you're interested in the fine details, there's no escaping the need to comb the journals. A working knowledge of French and German is essential.

This is a much slower moving field, with the bulk of \the original material excavated between the mid 19th and mid 20th centuries, typically in fragmentary clay tablets or tablets partially eroded (though fortunately often multiply attested), meaning a great deal still awaits reconstruction and translation. There are a many parallels with biblical motifs, but you should not hope to be able to follow El or any cognate back to Sumer, and certainly not in the detail available from sources such as the Baal Cycle or the letters from Mari. Keep in mind that writing was still in its infancy during this period while scribal education was still being formalized, a process that extended over a period of centuries.

As ever, Jesse

[Chrawnus]

Why is it so hard to believe that a scribe added a pre-crucifixion reference to corporeality to go with the post-resurrection reference to corporeality? It would not have been overkill. Besides, who was there to witness Jesus sweating blood? Can you imagine Jesus fishing for sympathy by detailing to the disciple how bloody sweat poured from his skin? I can’t.

It's not hard to believe, but if the intention of the scribe was to give support for the corporeality of Jesus he could have done lots better than a story about Jesus sweating blood. And the post-resurrection reference to corporeality isn't the only thing. There's the story about Joseph and Mary going up to Jerusalem to have him circumcised too, which could hardly have been possible unless he was corporeal. There's also the story in Luk 4 about how Jesus got hungry while he was being tempted by the devil in the desert. There's also Luke 7:38 which records a woman wetting his feet with her tears and anointing them with perfume. Or Luke 18:15 where children are being brought to Jesus so he can touch them. Or Luke 22 where he the eats the Passover with his disciples. Or how about the very fact that Luke reports that Jesus was beaten, scourged and crucified, which is hardly possible if you're non-corporeal.

If a scribe wanted to give support for Jesus' corporeality (disregarding the fact that it would have been completely meaningless given the fact that his corporeality is multiply attested elsewhere in Luke's gospel) he could have done much better than a story about Jesus sweating blood. And if one reads Luke 22:44 one sees that it has nothing to do with Jesus corporeality, and everything to do with him being in such an agony that he started to sweat blood. I.e it was the anguish and distress that Jesus was in in the garden of Gethsemane that the scribe likely wanted to put across, not his corporeality.

And the ones witnessing Jesus sweating blood would have been the disciples that followed him to the garden of Gethsemane. True, they did sleep while he was praying, but they could hardly have missed the drops of blood on his body when he woke them up to rebuke them for sleeping while he was praying in anguish.



Scroll up. I explained that twice.

Existential angst isn't necessary to explain why one would be in such a stressed state that one would start sweating blood. So your talk about it is nothing but a rabbit trail.




That doesn’t answer the question I asked. You said, “If that's true then Jesus wasn't simply worried about his imminent death, but about the impending punishment of his Father upon him.”

Again, what extra punishment are you talking about that God poured out on him besides being tortured to death? You’re not being clear.

I'm not being clear because the gospels themselves arent clear, they're just hinting at the fact that there was something more.




Conversely, if he knew he was God, he also knew the pain was temporal relative to the larger reality of his eternal role. I doubt he sweat blood if the other condemned weren't. They had the Unknown to be afraid about. Like you said, he knew all.

And that changes what exactly? The fact that you know that you'll be coming out of a torture chamber alive doesn't change the anguish you feel when you're being dragged into it, does it?




But you haven’t made it clear. You mentioned a cup and Jesus not wanting to drink from it. That doesn’t tell me God tortured Jesus excessively beyond the requirements of being whipped and hanged for a prolonged period of time, which the cup exactly represented.

As I said, I didn't make it clear because the gospels themselves doesn't make it clear, they just hint at it. And it doesn't necessarily have to do anything with God torturing Jesus "excessively beyond the requirements of being whipped and hanged for a prolonged period of time" (which you can't possibly know was what the "cup exactly represented.")

[robrecht]

Last I checked all that has done is create denominations, divisions, and schisms within the church and nothing is added, or more importantly taken away, from the canon.
Well, the Protestant reformation did remove sections from the canon and marginalized other parts. But, you're right, it is not likely that anything else will ever be removed or added unless something extraordinary were to be discovered. I wasn't speaking of the canon of scripture; sorry if I missed the context of your remarks. Some reforms, eg, the Protestant reformation, result in new denominations and national churches, and the practice of division has continued, but other reforms have successfully operated within a church and continue to do so. Aside from reforms, however, do not underestimate the work of theologians and exegetes. There are some very good ones out there.

Thanks, Robrecht

[Xru]

A better explanation is that it was added later to quash a heresy. How inspired.

The sweating blood by Christ . . . (this is the issue right). Its comments and refusing to read with open heart that suggest to me that some, perhaps you Whag, are so wedded to your position that nothing at all would be successful in nudging you from it.

I don't really blame you or others. It is extremely hard to step away from a position once taken. This is so notorious a psychological phenomenon that we studied and talked about this when I studied counseling couples. Once a position is taken it solidifies and seems to take a life of its own and become self-protective as well. I am not immune to this either so I understand this.

[Xru]

Besides, many billions have faced certain death and a good majority of them without this elevated condition. It actually makes Jesus sound more scared than the average person would be, which really wouldn't make sense since existential fear didn't even factor into his experience. He knew his father loved him and all would be well.

Of course he was scared. Jesus was subject to human emotions like all the rest of us. You don't recall Jesus praying to God to have the burden taken from him? My take is that he was probably crapping bricks while waiting in the garden to be arrested.

Also, I don't know that the intensity of fear itself would be related to the tendency to bleed through the skin.

"Existential" fear? ah . .. fear of being Crucified I really doubt would be classified as an existential fear by many, or even a few. You seem to think that Jesus would not have fear when confronted with hours spent on the Cross. Why? What possible justification do you have for that.

[Xru]

It's much more likely that this verse was later added to confirm Jesus was actually corporeal. Many problems with this passage besides its uninspired inclusion. Why would he experience such an unusual glitch in his autonomic nervous system? Was this a common malady when people went to the cross? Data please.

Besides, he knew he was God and that his Father loved him. He had zero existential angst, so it's hard to believe he agitated himself so much that he started sweating blood.




The punishment consisted solely of that which is described. What extra punishment are you talking about that God poured out on him besides being tortured to death?

I'll say it for myself and others. Whag you are starting to impress me as an arrogant, ignorant idiot.

[Xru]

Thank you.
I take back the troll...mostly.

I'll assume this is the apology needed that is couched in humor . . . although why the humor is needed I don't know.

[Xru]

That wasn't my point. LPOT keeps querying, 'why can't god have revealed himself first through Canaanite religion' and then so on and so on until we get to what she believes. Her point is that god reveals himself overtime to people in a way that is culturally relevant to them; elsewise, how would they understand his revelation? If that is the case, then why on earth would god have stopped a couple thousand years ago?

With your boundless wisdom equal to that of God you are the only one qualified to answer this one.

[Xru]

Sorry SMP, but this doesn't explain why they brought one crucified. It doesn't explain why they had a sudden shift from a savior that would physically free them from the Jews to one that was 'spiritual'. It also doesn't explain why they choose to make up this lie of there's and then die for it. :lol: You know for being as smart as you are, you really don't think your theories though very well.


People also don't go out and get themselves killed for their fantasy book, do they? Do you think HG Wells would have died proclaiming that his book, "The Time Machine" actually happened? You basically want me to believe that the disciples made up this story and then got themselves killed in very painful ways, in the process. Yep, that sure is logical, eh?



Sure you will because you'll most likely throw together some crap and claim it is a new thing. Quite funny, I'm sorry SMP, but I can really picture this conversation how it appeared 2,00 years ago:

Peter: "Hey guys, since Jesus died a shameful death on the cross, how about we got and steal his body and claim he rose again? Sure, we will be tortured and beaten for this lie of ours, by why not? We're stupid ancient people that love to make up stories all the time, so how about it guys!"

:rofl: I'm sure that would have worked over well. Sorry SMP, it STILL doesn't explain why they brought one crucified and decided to make up a lie and die for it. It also doesn't explain how nobody produced evidence to challenge their lies with.

:highfive:

[Xru]

And you seem to ignore the rest of my words SMP. I know I mentioned that it was for bringing about the message of Salvation. Do you always ignore what other people say and only pick and choose parts of their words you want to hear

Uh . . . . let me guess.

[Xru]

Xru, Lord of the Frigid Highlands, now proclaim that Whang, sorry Whag, and smp are simpletons in intellectual clothing here only for intellectual masturbation!

Xru has spoken!

[Chrawnus]

Xru, Lord of the Frigid Highlands, now proclaim that Whang, sorry Whag, and smp are simpletons in intellectual clothing here only for intellectual masturbation!

Xru has spoken!

:rofl:

[Xru]

:rofl:

Thank you! Thank you for the accolades!

[Whag]

It's not hard to believe, but if the intention of the scribe was to give support for the corporeality of Jesus he could have done lots better than a story about Jesus sweating blood. And the post-resurrection reference to corporeality isn't the only thing. There's the story about Joseph and Mary going up to Jerusalem to have him circumcised too, which could hardly have been possible unless he was corporeal. There's also the story in Luk 4 about how Jesus got hungry while he was being tempted by the devil in the desert. There's also Luke 7:38 which records a woman wetting his feet with her tears and anointing them with perfume. Or Luke 18:15 where children are being brought to Jesus so he can touch them. Or Luke 22 where he the eats the Passover with his disciples. Or how about the very fact that Luke reports that Jesus was beaten, scourged and crucified, which is hardly possible if you're non-corporeal.

And yet some Christians still held that Jesus’ body was an illusion. Isn’t it crazy how that can happen? How you can show them text that you think settles it, but the crazy belief still proliferates? Docetism was a real belief. All you’re saying is that Docetists shouldn’t have existed because text was clear Jesus was flesh. Yet they existed, and apparently in such influential number as to get the orthodox church’s attention. They surely did want to emphasize corporeality wherever possible to counter Gnostic heresies infecting their group. I find this very plausible. I find your conclusion less plausible. I would agree with you that intensity of suffering was more the focus of this particular passage. That was more important than corporeality.


If a scribe wanted to give support for Jesus' corporeality (disregarding the fact that it would have been completely meaningless given the fact that his corporeality is multiply attested elsewhere in Luke's gospel) he could have done much better than a story about Jesus sweating blood. And if one reads Luke 22:44 one sees that it has nothing to do with Jesus corporeality, and everything to do with him being in such an agony that he started to sweat blood. I.e it was the anguish and distress that Jesus was in in the garden of Gethsemane that the scribe likely wanted to put across, not his corporeality.

I'll concede that. I should have been more detailed about the human experience of suffering needing to be emphasized more than corporeality. Maybe the scribes wanted to add to the suffering servant theme. It's possible they included it to make the anguish more dramatic. Many heresies deemphasized Jesus’ anguish.


And the ones witnessing Jesus sweating blood would have been the disciples that followed him to the garden of Gethsemane. True, they did sleep while he was praying, but they could hardly have missed the drops of blood on his body when he woke them up to rebuke them for sleeping while he was praying in anguish.

Surely, it would have been very apparent. How could the other disciples have missed Jesus coming back from prayer with blood all over him? It’s a very good question. I think there’s a good answer: it didn’t really happen and was added later to reinforce some kind of theological point. Christian morality allowed for these kinds of inventions.


Existential angst isn't necessary to explain why one would be in such a stressed state that one would start sweating blood. So your talk about it is nothing but a rabbit trail.

Granted. I’ll concede that Jesus’ knowledge that he’ll be okay in a matter of hours doesn’t preclude him from sweating blood over it.


I'm not being clear because the gospels themselves aren’t clear, they're just hinting at the fact that there was something more.

It just seems like overkill to go beyond that which his incarnation demanded.


As I said, I didn't make it clear because the gospels themselves doesn't make it clear, they just hint at it. And it doesn't necessarily have to do anything with God torturing Jesus "excessively beyond the requirements of being whipped and hanged for a prolonged period of time" (which you can't possibly know was what the "cup exactly represented.")

The gospels hint that more atoning work is necessary besides being tortured to death?

[Xru]

And yet some Christians still held that Jesus’ body was an illusion. Isn’t it crazy how that can happen? How you can show them text that you think settles it, but the crazy belief still proliferates? Docetism was a real belief. All you’re saying is that Docetists shouldn’t have existed because text was clear Jesus was flesh. Yet they existed, and apparently in such influential number as to get the orthodox church’s attention. They surely did want to emphasize corporeality wherever possible to counter Gnostic heresies infecting their group. I find this very plausible. I find your conclusion less plausible. I would agree with you that intensity of suffering was more the focus of this particular passage. That was more important than corporeality.



I'll concede that. I should have been more detailed about the human experience of suffering needing to be emphasized more than corporeality. Maybe the scribes wanted to add to the suffering servant theme. It's possible they included it to make the anguish more dramatic. Many heresies deemphasized Jesus’ anguish.



Surely, it would have been very apparent. How could the other disciples have missed Jesus coming back from prayer with blood all over him? It’s a very good question. I think there’s a good answer: it didn’t really happen and was added later to reinforce some kind of theological point. Christian morality allowed for these kinds of inventions.



Granted. I’ll concede that Jesus’ knowledge that he’ll be okay in a matter of hours doesn’t preclude him from sweating blood over it.



It just seems like overkill to go beyond that which his incarnation demanded.



The gospels hint that more atoning work is necessary besides being tortured to death?

Brothers and Sister in our Beloved Jesus Christ . . . there comes a time when I just don't want to listen anymore. What do others do to overcome this if anything?

[Whag]

Brothers and Sister in our Beloved Jesus Christ . . . there comes a time when I just don't want to listen anymore. What do others do to overcome this if anything?

Pray! =)

[showmeproof]

It seems you're hung up on the different names and characterizations and think it's a damaging revelation to religion or some profound discovery you've made. As you obviously know, God identified himself using many titles that represented his many ways and actions of the moment. It doesn't mean he was different deities; it just means his ways are so incomprehensible, the Jews couldn't nail him down to just one representation. Jesus has multifaceted titles in Judeo-Christianity -- he's the Christ, the Son of David, the Son of Man, the Logos, the slain Lamb, The Lord of Glory, etc. Satan also had many titles -- the Devil, the Dragon, the Angel of Light, the Roaring Lion, etc. Nothing here supports your belief that they didn't consider the adversary the same entity in their theology with multiple characteristics and identifications.

This isn't a case of not being able to see the forest for the trees. When looking at all of this information I understand Christian theology is not what I am presenting, nor is it Jewish. I am well aware that both are monotheistic in their current forms (and for the majority of their histories). However, instead of retrojecting thousands of years of theological interpretation backwards, I think it is interesting and important to put the religions in context of the time period of their adolescence. The question to be asked is what did this mean back then. When you go far enough back Judaism didn't exist and when it did come on the scene it was hardly discernible from its ANE cultural counterparts.

My last post last night was sloppy. Let me deal with the Satan issue a bit more thoroughly. There are 27 occurrences of satan in the OT. Ten do not use the definitive article 'the'. Let's look at these occurrences:
Numbers 22:22, 32
God's anger was kindled because he was going, and the angel of the Lord took his stand in the road as his adversary...The angel of the Lord said to him, "Why have you struck your donkey these three times? I have come out as an adversary, because your way is perverse before me.

Here the angel of the Lord is the satan (adversary)

1 Samuel 29:4
Regarding David and his contingent of Hebrews "Send the man [David] back, so that he may return to the place that you have assigned him; he shall not go down with us to battle, or else he may become an adversary to us in the battle."

Here David is a potential satan to the Philistines. (adversary).

2 Samuel 19:22
But David said, "What have I to do with you, you sons of Zeruiah, that you should today become and adversary to me?

Here the sons of Zeruiah are satan (adversary).

1 Kings 5:4
But now the Lord my God has given me rest on every side; there is neither adversary nor misfortune.

Here satan (adversary) would be any human enemy that would engage in warfare (per verse 3)

1 Kings 11:14,23,25
"Then the Lord raised up an adversary against Solomon, Hadad the Edomite....Then the Lord raised up another adversary against Solomon, Rezon son of Eliada...He [Rezon] was an adversary of Israel all the days of Solomon."

Here satan (adversary) is Hadad the Edomite and Rezon son of Eliada.

1 Chronicles 21:1
Satan stood up against Israel, and incited David to count the people of Israel

This verse is a parallel of 2 Samuel 24 which has, "The anger of the Lord" the context of the census is given in verse 9 "Joab reported to the king the number of those who had been recorded; in Israel there were eight hundred thousand soldiers able to draw the sword, and those of Judah five hundren thousand.

Here David was trying to see how many soldiers he could gather. This would be the same context of the presence of an adversary like in 1 Kings 5 and 11. This is a plausible reason why the Chronicler changed the Anger of the Lord to Satan (adversary). In all of Israel's historiography war is brought against Israel when YHWH is angry with them. Furthermore, David's sin was counting his soldiers and not trusting in YHWH's strength.

Psalm 109:6 They say, "Appoint a wicked man against him; let an accuser stand on his right

Here satan (accuser) is a prosecutorial role as outlined by verse 7, "When he is tried, let him be found guilty." Here satan[/] is used in the same sense as in Job, but refers to a human rather than a divine being.

Then Job has 14 occurences of [I]ha satan.

At no point in the OT is satan God's archenemy, but rather refers to a subservient role within the divine council (Job) or to human adversaries. Satan in the OT is not used the same as it is in the NT.

What about the so called biographies of Satan?

Isaiah 14 How you are fallen from heaven, O Day Star, son of Dawn!.... In Luke 10 Satan is identified as the one falling in Isaiah 14. Where does Isaiah 14 come from? It is adapted from the Baal Cycle. After Baal is killed by Mot (Death) Ashtar (Athtar) is selected to be king:

Thereupon Ashtar the Terrible
Goes into the heights of Saphon
That He may sit on the throne of Aliyan Baal.
His feet do not reach the footstool,
Nor does His head reach it's top.
And Ashtar the Terrible says:

"I cannot rule in the heights of Saphon!"

Ashtar the Terrible goes down,
Goes down from the throne of Aliyan Baal,
That He may rule over all the grand earth.

What about Ezekiel 28? This is also alluding to Canaanite mythology similar to Isaiah 14. It also even names a character from another cycle; Danel. Once again we'll return to the Baal Cycle to see how Baal "corrupted [his] wisdom for the sake of [his] splendor" and we'll see that his house was made of gold and adorned with lapiz lazuli:

Of ceders His house is to be built,
Of bricks is His palace to be erected.
He goes to Lebabon and it's trees,
To Syria and the choicest of it's cedars.
Lo, Lebanon and it's trees,
Syria and it's cedars.

Fire is set on the house,
Flame on the palace.
Behold a day and a second,
The fire eats into the house,
The flame into the palace.
A fifth, a sixth day,
The fire eats into the house,
The flame in the midst of the palace.

Behold, on the seventh day,
The fire departs from the house,
The flame from the palace.
Silver turns from blocks,
Gold is turned from bricks.

Aliyan Baal rejoices.
"My house have I built of silver.
My palace of gold have I made."

His house, Baal prepairs.
Hadad prepares the housewarming of His palace.
He slaughters great and small cattle
He fells oxen and ram-fatlings.

Yearling calves,
Little lambs and kids.
He called His brothers into His house.
His kinsmen into the midst of His palace.
He called the Seventy sons of Asherah.

He caused the sheep Gods to drink wine.
He caused the ewe Goddesses to drink wine.
He cause the bull Gods to drink wine.
He caused the cow Goddesses to drink wine.
He caused the throne Gods to drink wine.
He caused the chair Goddesses to drink wine.
He caused the jar Gods to drink wine.
He caused the jug Goddesses to drink wine.

Until the Gods had eaten and drunk,
And the sucklings quaffed
With a keen knife
A slice of fatling.
They drink wine from a goblet,
From a cup of gold, the blood of vines.


At least in these last two instances in Isaiah and Ezekiel we find the kernel that became Satan as you know him; his biography is largely based off of the Baal Cycle.

[seanD]

This isn't a case of not being able to see the forest for the trees. When looking at all of this information I understand Christian theology is not what I am presenting, nor is it Jewish. I am well aware that both are monotheistic in their current forms (and for the majority of their histories). However, instead of retrojecting thousands of years of theological interpretation backwards, I think it is interesting and important to put the religions in context of the time period of their adolescence. The question to be asked is what did this mean back then. When you go far enough back Judaism didn't exist and when it did come on the scene it was hardly discernible from its ANE cultural counterparts.

My last post last night was sloppy. Let me deal with the Satan issue a bit more thoroughly. There are 27 occurrences of satan in the OT. Ten do not use the definitive article 'the'. Let's look at these occurrences:
Numbers 22:22, 32
God's anger was kindled because he was going, and the angel of the Lord took his stand in the road as his adversary...The angel of the Lord said to him, "Why have you struck your donkey these three times? I have come out as an adversary, because your way is perverse before me.

Here the angel of the Lord is the satan (adversary)

1 Samuel 29:4
Regarding David and his contingent of Hebrews "Send the man [David] back, so that he may return to the place that you have assigned him; he shall not go down with us to battle, or else he may become an adversary to us in the battle."

Here David is a potential satan to the Philistines. (adversary).

2 Samuel 19:22
But David said, "What have I to do with you, you sons of Zeruiah, that you should today become and adversary to me?

Here the sons of Zeruiah are satan (adversary).

1 Kings 5:4
But now the Lord my God has given me rest on every side; there is neither adversary nor misfortune.

Here satan (adversary) would be any human enemy that would engage in warfare (per verse 3)

1 Kings 11:14,23,25
"Then the Lord raised up an adversary against Solomon, Hadad the Edomite....Then the Lord raised up another adversary against Solomon, Rezon son of Eliada...He [Rezon] was an adversary of Israel all the days of Solomon."

Here satan (adversary) is Hadad the Edomite and Rezon son of Eliada.

1 Chronicles 21:1
Satan stood up against Israel, and incited David to count the people of Israel

This verse is a parallel of 2 Samuel 24 which has, "The anger of the Lord" the context of the census is given in verse 9 "Joab reported to the king the number of those who had been recorded; in Israel there were eight hundred thousand soldiers able to draw the sword, and those of Judah five hundren thousand.

Here David was trying to see how many soldiers he could gather. This would be the same context of the presence of an adversary like in 1 Kings 5 and 11. This is a plausible reason why the Chronicler changed the Anger of the Lord to Satan (adversary). In all of Israel's historiography war is brought against Israel when YHWH is angry with them. Furthermore, David's sin was counting his soldiers and not trusting in YHWH's strength.

Psalm 109:6 They say, "Appoint a wicked man against him; let an accuser stand on his right

Here satan (accuser) is a prosecutorial role as outlined by verse 7, "When he is tried, let him be found guilty." Here satan[/] is used in the same sense as in Job, but refers to a human rather than a divine being.

Then Job has 14 occurences of [I]ha satan.

At no point in the OT is satan God's archenemy, but rather refers to a subservient role within the divine council (Job) or to human adversaries. Satan in the OT is not used the same as it is in the NT.

What about the so called biographies of Satan?

Isaiah 14 How you are fallen from heaven, O Day Star, son of Dawn!.... In Luke 10 Satan is identified as the one falling in Isaiah 14. Where does Isaiah 14 come from? It is adapted from the Baal Cycle. After Baal is killed by Mot (Death) Ashtar (Athtar) is selected to be king:


What about Ezekiel 28? This is also alluding to Canaanite mythology similar to Isaiah 14. It also even names a character from another cycle; Danel. Once again we'll return to the Baal Cycle to see how Baal "corrupted [his] wisdom for the sake of [his] splendor" and we'll see that his house was made of gold and adorned with lapiz lazuli:



At least in these last two instances in Isaiah and Ezekiel we find the kernel that became Satan as you know him; his biography is largely based off of the Baal Cycle.

I still don't see how this is really earth shattering, though I'll admit I didn't know the nuances of satan used with an indefinite article. But Satan never was portrayed as an adversary to God; but adversary to man and he was always under the authority of the head honcho, even in Job. From both Judaism and Christian theology we see him basically as a pawn to do God's bidding, typically to test God's subjects. As far as Baal; I don't find it difficult to believe the Jews that were faithful considered Baal Satan and Satan Baal; as it's not unusual religious adherents would view opposing religions that way. In Revelation 13:4, the Dragon (Satan) is worshiped by the world as a god.

[lilpixieofterror]

Brothers and Sister in our Beloved Jesus Christ . . . there comes a time when I just don't want to listen anymore. What do others do to overcome this if anything?

Dust off your shoes and walk away or remember that the goal of a public debate isn't to convince the when you are debating.

[Chrawnus]

And yet some Christians still held that Jesus’ body was an illusion. Isn’t it crazy how that can happen? How you can show them text that you think settles it, but the crazy belief still proliferates? Docetism was a real belief. All you’re saying is that Docetists shouldn’t have existed because text was clear Jesus was flesh. Yet they existed, and apparently in such influential number as to get the orthodox church’s attention. They surely did want to emphasize corporeality wherever possible to counter Gnostic heresies infecting their group. I find this very plausible. I find your conclusion less plausible. I would agree with you that intensity of suffering was more the focus of this particular passage. That was more important than corporeality.

But your explanation that the verse was added to support Jesus' corporeality simply explains nothing since his corporeality is already attested multiply as I showed in my earlier post. If the docetists were able to explain away all the other passages that clearly show Jesus corporeality far better than the interpolation they would have been able to explain away the passage where Jesus sweats blood just as easily (in their minds atleast). So it on top of being unnecessary it would also have been ineffective if the reason was to show the corporeality of Jesus, atleast from the standpoint of the docetists, who would already have explained away all the other passages, and would have had no problems with explaining away yet another passage.



I'll concede that. I should have been more detailed about the human experience of suffering needing to be emphasized more than corporeality. Maybe the scribes wanted to add to the suffering servant theme. It's possible they included it to make the anguish more dramatic. Many heresies deemphasized Jesus’ anguish.

Yes, if the scribes had any reason at all for including the passage (other than it being reliable tradition) it would likely have been to stress the anguish of Jesus rather than his corporeality. The notion that it was to combat the view that Jesus didn't have a corporeal body doesn't explain enough.




Surely, it would have been very apparent. How could the other disciples have missed Jesus coming back from prayer with blood all over him? It’s a very good question. I think there’s a good answer: it didn’t really happen and was added later to reinforce some kind of theological point. Christian morality allowed for these kinds of inventions.

By the other disciples, do you mean the rest of the twelve other than Peter, John and James? Because Matthew and Mark tell us that these were the only disciples that followed Jesus with him to where he prayed, the other disciples just waited somewhere in the garden:


Mat 26:36 Then Jesus *came with them to a place called Gethsemane, and *said to His disciples, "Sit here while I go over there and pray."
Mat 26:37 And He took with Him Peter and the two sons of Zebedee, and began to be grieved and distressed.


Mar 14:32 They *came to a place named Gethsemane; and He *said to His disciples, "Sit here until I have prayed."
Mar 14:33 And He *took with Him Peter and James and John, and began to be very distressed and troubled.

And Luke while not reporting that Jesus took Peter, James and John with him, still recounts that he "withdrew from them about a stone throw" in order to pray. But Matthew gives us a hint that the disciples Luke are talking about are Peter, John and James.


Mat 26:40 And He came to the disciples and found them sleeping, and said to Peter, "So, you men could not keep watch with Me for one hour?
Mat 26:41 "Keep watching and praying that you may not enter into temptation; the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak."



Luk 22:39 And He came out and proceeded as was His custom to the Mount of Olives; and the disciples also followed Him.
Luk 22:40 When He arrived at the place, He said to them, "Pray that you may not enter into temptation."
Luk 22:41 And He withdrew from them about a stone's throw, and He knelt down and began to pray,


And later, we read from all the synoptic Gospels that after Jesus was done praying and he barely finished speaking to the trio of disciples with him when Judas showed up accompanied by a crowd with weapons:


Mat 26:45 Then He came to the disciples and [!] said to them, " Are you still sleeping and resting? Behold, the hour is at hand and the Son of Man is being betrayed into the hands of sinners.
Mat 26:46 "Get up, let us be going; behold, the one who betrays Me is at hand!"
Mat 26:47 While He was still speaking, behold, Judas, one of the twelve, came up accompanied by a large crowd with swords and clubs, who came from the chief priests and elders of the people.



Luk 22:45 When He rose from prayer, He came to the disciples and found them sleeping from sorrow,
Luk 22:46 and said to them, "Why are you sleeping? Get up and pray that you may not enter into temptation."
Luk 22:47 While He was still speaking, behold, a crowd came, and the one called Judas, one of the twelve, was preceding them; and he approached Jesus to kiss Him.



Mar 14:41 And He came the third time, and said to them, " Are you still sleeping and resting? It is enough; the hour has come; behold, the Son of Man is being betrayed into the hands of sinners.
Mar 14:42 "Get up, let us be going; behold, the one who betrays Me is at hand!"
Mar 14:43 Immediately while He was still speaking, Judas, one of the twelve, came up accompanied by a crowd with swords and clubs, who were from the chief priests and the scribes and the elders.

So, here's roughly what happens if I've understood the text(s) correctly: Jesus goes with 11 of his disciples to the Mount of Olives and goes to the garden of Gethsemane. There he leaves 8 of the disciples and only takes Peter, John and James with him and goes somewhere else to pray. If the interpolation in Luke is from a reliable tradition he sweats blood during one of the three times he prays. After he's ready praying he goes back to Peter, John and James (not the rest of the disciples) and as soon as he's ready speaking to them Judas shows up with a crowd in his tow. Now, theoretically one could assume that the 8 disciples would try and get to Jesus, but I have the feeling that they would rather try and save their own skin (which is what the text indicates is the case, since the disciples flee from the scene) instead of risking getting caught by the crowd by getting closer. So there's no guarantee that anyone else of the disciples except Peter, John and James would have noticed that Jesus had been sweating blood. Possibly the young man clothed in a linen sheet mentioned in Marks gospel who followed Jesus after they had apprehended him, but that's all.

Also, the way you describe it ("blood all over him") it seems that you think that he would have been practically covered in blood? What's your justification for thinking that?




Granted. I’ll concede that Jesus’ knowledge that he’ll be okay in a matter of hours doesn’t preclude him from sweating blood over it.

Glad that we got that out of the way.



It just seems like overkill to go beyond that which his incarnation demanded.

What exactly is it that you think his incarnation demanded?



The gospels hint that more atoning work is necessary besides being tortured to death?

The gospels hint that whatever was to occur to Jesus it was enough for him to be "grieved to the point of death" and if the addition in Luke's gospel is reliable it was also enough for him to be under so extreme stress that he literally started to sweat blood. Now since Jesus is God and therefore would have known in detail exactly what he would have to go through I guess it would have been enough for him to be stressed to the point of sweating blood, so then again I don't think my little theory about Jesus suffering something more on the cross really was necessary to explain why he would have been in a state where sweating blood would have been more likely, since he probably would have been in such a state even without the additional suffering.

[AlphaBravo]

Thank you for the specifics from your sources. I will also elaborate on your post #348.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?150289-quot-You-believe-in-a-magical-sky-daddy-and-a-Jewish-Zombie-quot&p=3382780#post3382780


See, now you're having fun. Good job, mate. Of course it was the profligacy that was the issue. Hmm, and still is, it seems:

I have already thanked you for pointing it out and am now at least conscious of it. As I showed in post #280, you are as prone as any. I don't know why you go on about it.


Oh yes it is relevant. It is also relevant that you're clueless regarding my sources. No logical argument can be sound if the premises are incorrect. And you're just blue-skying here, with yet another dose of hyperbolic stretching based on whatever invented facts suit your argument, as if your last foray taught you nothing.

Somebody around here said it'd be a good idea if you stepped up your game. I think he was right.

This is all bluster and "profligate pronouns". But no more about that.


Particle physics? Every fragment has been completely detected? Percentage of the intellectual product? Protest too much? Just stop already. Take a deep breath. Marshal facts. Work from there.

I don't approach ancient history like particle physics, or even like your mischaracterization of particle physics that assumes particle physicists have a complete record of every particle. I don't believe every fragment has been completely detected. I'm a good enough statistician to know you don't measure accuracy by percentage sampled (you measure it by sample size, with standard deviation inversely proportional to the square root).

Rather than my being more frank, you should be less, well, willing to state someone else's interests, positions, and justifications before troubling to ask them. There are places for monologues on the net. They're called blogs. The only one protesting in this little dialogue is you, and it's notable that what you're protesting is that I'm cheating by sticking with the facts.

Mostly bluster and misdirection here. Please address the point rather than falling back on technicalities again. My hyperbole regarding the way particle detectors work doesn't change the comparison. Regarding my use of the word "percentage" you protest too much. I would suggest that you follow your own advice regarding the statement of another's "interests, positions, and justifications" as this seems to be your second or third favorite tactic.


You can define any god you're willing to make up yourself, but you don't get to define Yahweh. That's somebody else's god, one that made its first appearance thousands of years before you were born, even as it was also thousands of years following the dawn of recorded history. We know its attributes from records left in ancient texts including your Bible, from archaeological sources including domiciles and temples, iconography and coinage.

The first gods that appear were not primal, and anything but ubiquitous. They were first animistic, and later tutelary. In short, you don't know what you're talking about, and are inventing facts to suit your argument, instead of creating an argument based on the facts you've studied or discovered. You don't get to make up scholars who support your position, either. There are no, none, zilch, nada, zinga, scholars of ANE history who claim the existence of such a god at the dawn of recorded history. You made that up. And like a lot of folks who make up facts to suit, you were wrong. Egregiously wrong, hilariously wrong, unremittingly and recklessly wrong.

You're in a hole, here, alphabits. Stop digging.

Yahweh in Abrahamic times, as recounted by Moses, is a primal and ubiquitous god. It was not my intent to define him. It was also not my intent to focus on the precursors and derivatives of the name "Yahweh" or "El" per se. That is your hangup.

Nor is it my intent to invent scholars and historical evidence where there is none. On the contrary, according to the Mosaic account one would expect that there would be very little evidence, since the thread of those who were said by Moses to know the primal and ubiquitous god was so thin, and the beginning of a pantheon of gods was said to be so early. I find it interesting that while Moses was apparently inventing or repeating whoppers like a worldwide flood and people living to be 1000 years old and the tower of babel, that he didn't also invent an ancient worldwide cult of monotheistic Yahweh worshipers. Then you would have a point.


K-riminey! Dude, you're an embarrassment. Do you really think the first references to Yahweh were in Hebrew? Or weren't expressed in cognates? Even in Hebrew, are the references to "Yahweh"? Would you recognize a theophoric name if it snuck up on you and took a bite out of your overgrown preconceptions? Elijah! Or if you need it spelled out using the originals of the Tetragrammaton:

Yehoshua, Yehoram, Yehoyakim, Yehoshafat, Yehonathan, Yehudah, Yeshayahu, Yirmiyahu, Eliyahu, Nethanyahu, Matityahu, Yoab, Yoram, Yoyakim, Yoel, Yonathan, Nethanyah, Hiskiyah, Yeshayah, Gedalyah, Aviyah, Avraham, Sarah, Eliyahu, Eliyah, ...

Yeah, yeah, so I used Elijah twice. Okay, three times if you include the previous paragraph. Sue me.

Again you fall back on technicalities and bluster and avoid my point. I acknowledge that you have the advantage of me in the etymology of Yahweh. Regarding the number of times you mention Elijah you can relax. I am not interested in technicalities, only your point.


Fallacy. Uh huh.

The earliest writings of Yahweh were not fully developed, not static, and quite obviously entirely unknown to you and everyone else you've had a chance to practice that line upon. Assuming of course, that you're not just reusing an argument that's been shot down elsewhere in a new venue. Read the Ba'al Cycle, or if that's too much trouble, spend another 20 seconds with google and see if that helps.

Again you seem to be ahead of me regarding the etymology or precursors of the name or word Yahweh and the context of its earliest uses. I will endeavor to catch up. I am referring to the Mosaic account. I will say that if the precursors appear in such a dissimilar context then it begs the question as to whether the instances you mention have any relation other than the use of the word, since even in the Mosaic account it is apparent that the word Yahweh is as much a statement of being in Hebrew or some earlier language as it is a proper name.


Make up your mind. Was it fully developed or immature? Looking past the blatant contradiction with your earlier argument, yes, I agree. The conceptions of your god evolved from earlier conceptions, many of which began as oral traditions, making your god indistinguishable from any of the others I've studied.

There is no contradiction. The earliest historical accounts of a god having the qualities of the Mosaic Yahweh are fully developed. However, there is no reason to expect that the earlier "origins" of this god must be similarly accompanied with the trappings of religion that are likely to leave archaeological remains.


Are you sure you wouldn't be more comfortable in a more exclusively Christian forum? We've got them here, too. Look around.

The method you are using is to work backwards in time looking for the earliest traces of yahweh, or whatever, until the trail goes cold. This method cannot solve all historical or even scientific problems. And it will never succeed in disproving god.

It is perfectly acceptable in science to start at an unsupported beginning and to work forward in time until you begin to encounter the earliest relatable facts and see if a consistent theory can be worked out. Cosmologists do this all the time and we don't relegate them to the halls of religion and religious forums.

Peace.

[moreta]

...

Granted. I’ll concede that Jesus’ knowledge that he’ll be okay in a matter of hours doesn’t preclude him from sweating blood over it.

It just seems like overkill to go beyond that which his incarnation demanded.

The gospels hint that more atoning work is necessary besides being tortured to death?

I've always understood that it wasn't just the physical torture that He was anticipating, but being cut off from the Godhead as well.
(Mt. 27:46, Mk 15:34)

Besides, I've never thought that the crucifixion was the only thing needed for the atonement. In the same way that He "was made flesh, and dwelt among us" (Jn 1:14), "was in all points tempted like as we are" (Heb 4:15), part of the atonement was that He suffer the punishment of our sins, separation from God (even if only for a time).

[Whag]

Chrawnus, this entire post is for you. I didn't have time on my lunch break to add all the ID tags.


But your explanation that the verse was added to support Jesus' corporeality simply explains nothing since his corporeality is already attested multiply as I showed in my earlier post. If the docetists were able to explain away all the other passages that clearly show Jesus corporeality far better than the interpolation they would have been able to explain away the passage where Jesus sweats blood just as easily (in their minds atleast). So it on top of being unnecessary it would also have been ineffective if the reason was to show the corporeality of Jesus, atleast from the standpoint of the docetists, who would already have explained away all the other passages, and would have had no problems with explaining away yet another passage.
Yes, if the scribes had any reason at all for including the passage (other than it being reliable tradition) it would likely have been to stress the anguish of Jesus rather than his corporeality. The notion that it was to combat the view that Jesus didn't have a corporeal body doesn't explain enough.

I agree I put too much emphasis on the con carne part. It was about the suffering experience, which is related to corporeality.


By the other disciples, do you mean the rest of the twelve other than Peter, John and James? Because Matthew and Mark tell us that these were the only disciples that followed Jesus with him to where he prayed, the other disciples just waited somewhere in the garden:

I mean all of the disciples in the garden. Jesus was covered in blood and the disciples saw him afterward, so this should have made enough of an impression to not be an isolated piece of information that would evolve through oral tradition and then just so happen to reach the ears of a scribe. They would have assumed Jesus was involved in a fracas and asked about it. If you saw a friend covered in blood and wrote an account of that duration of time in which it occurred, leaving that fact out would be odd—as would failing to inquire about what happened(!).


And Luke while not reporting that Jesus took Peter, James and John with him, still recounts that he "withdrew from them about a stone throw" in order to pray. But Matthew gives us a hint that the disciples Luke are talking about are Peter, John and James.

Ok. A stone’s throw distance would not make blood disappear, though. Was he in a flop sweat or just covered with a misty dew? The text seems to indicate flop sweat. Soldiers going into war don’t merely have the vapors. Jesus seems to be experiencing an anguish beyond that. We don’t have records of soldiers, aware of their role as arrow fodder, bleeding sweat, which would indicate Jesus is experiencing something truly unique in the range of human suffering.


So, here's roughly what happens if I've understood the text(s) correctly: Jesus goes with 11 of his disciples to the Mount of Olives and goes to the garden of Gethsemane. There he leaves 8 of the disciples and only takes Peter, John and James with him and goes somewhere else to pray. If the interpolation in Luke is from a reliable tradition he sweats blood during one of the three times he prays. After he's ready praying he goes back to Peter, John and James (not the rest of the disciples) and as soon as he's ready speaking to them Judas shows up with a crowd in his tow. Now, theoretically one could assume that the 8 disciples would try and get to Jesus, but I have the feeling that they would rather try and save their own skin (which is what the text indicates is the case, since the disciples flee from the scene) instead of risking getting caught by the crowd by getting closer. So there's no guarantee that anyone else of the disciples except Peter, John and James would have noticed that Jesus had been sweating blood. Possibly the young man clothed in a linen sheet mentioned in Marks gospel who followed Jesus after they had apprehended him, but that's all.

Okay, it sounds plausible to you, but it doesn’t sound plausible to me. Even if only Peter, James, and John saw the image of a blood-covered Jesus, it would make a huge impression because of how unique the condition was and how scary looked. Ever seen someone drenched in blood? This isn’t something you forget.


Also, the way you describe it ("blood all over him") it seems that you think that he would have been practically covered in blood? What's your justification for thinking that?

The bible says great drops of blood. You said he was terrified beyond imagining.


Glad that we got that out of the way.


Me 2! It feels good, don't it?



What exactly is it that you think his incarnation demanded?

Living a sinless life and getting tortured and executed, I thought.


The gospels hint that whatever was to occur to Jesus it was enough for him to be "grieved to the point of death" and if the addition in Luke's gospel is reliable it was also enough for him to be under so extreme stress that he literally started to sweat blood.

I honestly did not know the father had further punishment in store for his beloved son. In all frankness, I found that incomprehensible and disturbing, so I’m glad you’ve conceded that was an unnecessary stretch.
Now since Jesus is God and therefore would have known in detail exactly what he would have to go through I guess it would have been enough for him to be stressed to the point of sweating blood, so then again

Whenever I see a claim like this: “Jesus is God and therefore would have known in detail…” I'm impressed by how presumptuous it is. Why have you said this when you surely know theologians say Jesus’ knowledge was, in fact, quite limited, for instance to explain such passages like Jesus being tempted by kingdoms--something which surely his Godly knowledge would have told him was ridiculous! Personally, just so you know where I'm coming from in general (not as a dig or anything), this is one of the failures of apologetics. There seems to be a picking and choosing going on here in terms applying limits to God's knowledge. And when you consider what's being talked about (a concept beyond our ability to know or imagine), it doesn't feel right to play fast and loose with concepts like that. Not that YOU'RE being fast and loose, but I'm just saying that high presumption is something I'm instinctively wary of (of which I'm wary?).

Good talk good times.

[Xru]

I agree I put too much emphasis on the con carne part. It was about the suffering experience, which is related to corporeality.

Whag gets bonus points for actually agreeing to . .. . well, see above. The rare occurrence on TWeb should be celebrated every time it happens.

In addition, I will refrain from calling Whag a motor-head for 24 hours!!!!!!!

And he gets a reputation boost!

[Whag]

Whag gets bonus points for actually agreeing to . .. . well, see above. The rare occurrence on TWeb should be celebrated every time it happens.

In addition, I will refrain from calling Whag a motor-head for 24 hours!!!!!!!

And he gets a reputation boost!

See how impulsive you are? Yesterday you wanted to shake dust off your feet.

[showmeproof]

I still don't see how this is really earth shattering, though I'll admit I didn't know the nuances of satan used with an indefinite article. But Satan never was portrayed as an adversary to God; but adversary to man and he was always under the authority of the head honcho, even in Job. From both Judaism and Christian theology we see him basically as a pawn to do God's bidding, typically to test God's subjects. As far as Baal; I don't find it difficult to believe the Jews that were faithful considered Baal Satan and Satan Baal; as it's not unusual religious adherents would view opposing religions that way. In Revelation 13:4, the Dragon (Satan) is worshiped by the world as a god.

Either way you slice it, Satan is not used in the same manner in the OT as it is in the NT.

[Chrawnus]

Chrawnus, this entire post is for you. I didn't have time on my lunch break to add all the ID tags.

That's ok.



I agree I put too much emphasis on the con carne part. It was about the suffering experience, which is related to corporeality.

Ok, so are we both now both agreeing that if a later scribe added the passage for theological reasons (as opposed to him thinking that it came from a reliable tradition) it was primarily to get the point of Jesus' anguish across, and if it had any thing to do with Jesus corporeality it was only a secondary matter? Or do you still think the reason the passage was added was because of the question of Jesus' corporeality?




I mean all of the disciples in the garden. Jesus was covered in blood and the disciples saw him afterward, so this should have made enough of an impression to not be an isolated piece of information that would evolve through oral tradition and then just so happen to reach the ears of a scribe. They would have assumed Jesus was involved in a fracas and asked about it. If you saw a friend covered in blood and wrote an account of that duration of time in which it occurred, leaving that fact out would be odd—as would failing to inquire about what happened(!).

Well, to me, after reading the Gethsemane passage in all the synoptic Gospels and comparing them it doesn't seem like all the disciples (save Peter, John and James) got particularly close to Jesus.
You're saying that he would have to be "covered in blood". I don't see how this necessarily would be the case. I'm not saying he wouldn't have been, I just don't see the justification for drawing that conclusion from the text. :shrug:



Ok. A stone’s throw distance would not make blood disappear, though. Was he in a flop sweat or just covered with a misty dew? The text seems to indicate flop sweat. Soldiers going into war don’t merely have the vapors. Jesus seems to be experiencing an anguish beyond that. We don’t have records of soldiers, aware of their role as arrow fodder, bleeding sweat, which would indicate Jesus is experiencing something truly unique in the range of human suffering.

Well, the text indicates that the disciples fell asleep while Jesus was praying, so it would have been pretty hard for them to see anything until he came and woke them up. :shrug:

About him being in a "flop sweat" or "coverever with a misty dew". I don't really know. You say that the text seems to indicate flop sweat, and you could be correct. But even if that's correct it doesn't mean that he would be "covered" in blood. The way hematohidrosis apparently works (if someone knows differently correct me) is that under extreme enough pressure blood vessels around the sweat glands can rupture allowing blood to seep into the glands, and later comes out as droplets of blood mixed with sweat. Now even if your assessment that the text indicates that Jesus was sweating profusely is correct (and it could well be) it still doesn't mean he would have been "covered in blood" unless blood vessels all over his body ruptured and this doesn't seem to be the case with hematohidrosis. Just take this article (http://www.idoj.in/article.asp?issn=2229-5178;year=2010;volume=1;issue=1;spage=30;epage=32;aulast=Patel) reporting a case of a 13-year old boy sweating blood from localized parts of his body. (Check the link for pictures). Now I don't know if this common in most people suffering from hematohidrosis, but if it is it would suggest that even when sweating profusely one wouldn't necessarily sweat blood from all over the body, but most likely only from certain parts of the skin, where the pressure was high enough for the blood vessels to rupture. I'm no expert though, so I could be wrong. :shrug:



Okay, it sounds plausible to you, but it doesn’t sound plausible to me. Even if only Peter, James, and John saw the image of a blood-covered Jesus, it would make a huge impression because of how unique the condition was and how scary looked. Ever seen someone drenched in blood? This isn’t something you forget.

He wouldn't necessarily have been drenched in blood, even if sweating profusely. See the above. And regarding the plausibility of what I wrote, why don't you point out where you think I was wrong?



The bible says great drops of blood. You said he was terrified beyond imagining.

Well, some translations omit "great". I don't know koine greek so I don't know which translation is the most accurate one. Either way it doesn't necessarily (or even probably) indicate that he would have been covered in blood.



Me 2! It feels good, don't it?

:shrug:





Living a sinless life and getting tortured and executed, I thought.

Well that was certainly a part of it. And if what Moreta wrote is correct it would also have involved being cut of from fellowship with his Father for a time. I won't necessarily be pushing that point though, even if I think there might be something to it.



Whenever I see a claim like this: “Jesus is God and therefore would have known in detail…” I'm impressed by how presumptuous it is. Why have you said this when you surely know theologians say Jesus’ knowledge was, in fact, quite limited, for instance to explain such passages like Jesus being tempted by kingdoms--something which surely his Godly knowledge would have told him was ridiculous! Personally, just so you know where I'm coming from in general (not as a dig or anything), this is one of the failures of apologetics. There seems to be a picking and choosing going on here in terms applying limits to God's knowledge. And when you consider what's being talked about (a concept beyond our ability to know or imagine), it doesn't feel right to play fast and loose with concepts like that. Not that YOU'RE being fast and loose, but I'm just saying that high presumption is something I'm instinctively wary of (of which I'm wary?).

Well, I don't belive Jesus was tempted by Satans offer to give him all the kingdoms of the world at all. On the contrary I think the reason Jesus rejected the offer was precisely because his "Godly knowledge would have told him [it] was ridiculous". The text shows that the Devil tempted (or atleast tried to) Jesus, but I don't see any indications that he felt tempted even for a second to take Satan up on the offer. So I do not necessarily agree with people who limit Jesus knowledge everytime they perceive a problem they think needs to be explained, unless the text itself indicates a limit in Jesus knowledge (for example when he himself says that even the Son doesn't know of the day of his return in Matthew 24:36)



Good talk good times.

Agreed.

[Chrawnus]

I just had a quick laugh when I noticed that I mistakenly wrote "coverever" instead of "covered" in my post above. :lol:

Too late to correct it now though. :sigh:

[Xru]

See how impulsive you are? Yesterday you wanted to shake dust off your feet.

It is in the nature of a Barbarian Highlander . . . . shug!

Beside, I never said I was gonna stop giving you crap;)

[Xru]

That's ok.



Ok, so are we both now both agreeing that if a later scribe added the passage for theological reasons (as opposed to him thinking that it came from a reliable tradition) it was primarily to get the point of Jesus' anguish across, and if it had any thing to do with Jesus corporeality it was only a secondary matter? Or do you still think the reason the passage was added was because of the question of Jesus' corporeality?




Well, to me, after reading the Gethsemane passage in all the synoptic Gospels and comparing them it doesn't seem like all the disciples (save Peter, John and James) got particularly close to Jesus.
You're saying that he would have to be "covered in blood". I don't see how this necessarily would be the case. I'm not saying he wouldn't have been, I just don't see the justification for drawing that conclusion from the text. :shrug:



Well, the text indicates that the disciples fell asleep while Jesus was praying, so it would have been pretty hard for them to see anything until he came and woke them up. :shrug:

About him being in a "flop sweat" or "coverever with a misty dew". I don't really know. You say that the text seems to indicate flop sweat, and you could be correct. But even if that's correct it doesn't mean that he would be "covered" in blood. The way hematohidrosis apparently works (if someone knows differently correct me) is that under extreme enough pressure blood vessels around the sweat glands can rupture allowing blood to seep into the glands, and later comes out as droplets of blood mixed with sweat. Now even if your assessment that the text indicates that Jesus was sweating profusely is correct (and it could well be) it still doesn't mean he would have been "covered in blood" unless blood vessels all over his body ruptured and this doesn't seem to be the case with hematohidrosis. Just take this article (http://www.idoj.in/article.asp?issn=2229-5178;year=2010;volume=1;issue=1;spage=30;epage=32;aulast=Patel) reporting a case of a 13-year old boy sweating blood from localized parts of his body. (Check the link for pictures). Now I don't know if this common in most people suffering from hematohidrosis, but if it is it would suggest that even when sweating profusely one wouldn't necessarily sweat blood from all over the body, but most likely only from certain parts of the skin, where the pressure was high enough for the blood vessels to rupture. I'm no expert though, so I could be wrong. :shrug:




He wouldn't necessarily have been drenched in blood, even if sweating profusely. See the above. And regarding the plausibility of what I wrote, why don't you point out where you think I was wrong?



Well, some translations omit "great". I don't know koine greek so I don't know which translation is the most accurate one. Either way it doesn't necessarily (or even probably) indicate that he would have been covered in blood.



:shrug:





Well that was certainly a part of it. And if what Moreta wrote is correct it would also have involved being cut of from fellowship with his Father for a time. I won't necessarily be pushing that point though, even if I think there might be something to it.



Well, I don't belive Jesus was tempted by Satans offer to give him all the kingdoms of the world at all. On the contrary I think the reason Jesus rejected the offer was precisely because his "Godly knowledge would have told him [it] was ridiculous". The text shows that the Devil tempted (or atleast tried to) Jesus, but I don't see any indications that he felt tempted even for a second to take Satan up on the offer. So I do not necessarily agree with people who limit Jesus knowledge everytime they perceive a problem they think needs to be explained, unless the text itself indicates a limit in Jesus knowledge (for example when he himself says that even the Son doesn't know of the day of his return in Matthew 24:36)



Agreed.

Honestly, I don't recall this sweating blood thing even after reading the BT many times.


"44And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground." KJV

Seems to me that its implied that whatever sweat was visible on Jesus it was mixed or was of blood although this does not seem certain. Neither is it certain exactly how covered Jesus was in blood. I don't know if this sweating blood ever encompasses ALL of body, and all areas of sweat. It also was night . . . was there any light at all, or light enough to see this with a great deal of certainty.

Luke does make observations that others don't because he was a physician so it is not surprising that he is the only one to write of it, although I do find it somewhat surprising that there is no mention of this anywhere by others as it does seem rather remarkable.


I've recently read that the KJV is the more accurate of the modern translations so I'd go with that one and "great drops of blood."

I don't understand the point of a later scribe adding the part about sweating blood as the corporeal nature of Jesus is soon put to rest when he is Crucified. As to the nature of his suffering, in Mathew 14:34 it is written 34 “My soul is overwhelmed with sorrow to the point of death." I'm don't think there can be any stronger a statement as to the extent of is anguish.

[Whag]

Honestly, I don't recall this sweating blood thing even after reading the BT many times.


"44And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground." KJV

Seems to me that its implied that whatever sweat was visible on Jesus it was mixed or was of blood although this does not seem certain. Neither is it certain exactly how covered Jesus was in blood. I don't know if this sweating blood ever encompasses ALL of body, and all areas of sweat. It also was night . . . was there any light at all, or light enough to see this with a great deal of certainty.

Luke does make observations that others don't because he was a physician so it is not surprising that he is the only one to write of it, although I do find it somewhat surprising that there is no mention of this anywhere by others as it does seem rather remarkable.


I've recently read that the KJV is the more accurate of the modern translations so I'd go with that one and "great drops of blood."

I don't understand the point of a later scribe adding the part about sweating blood as the corporeal nature of Jesus is soon put to rest when he is Crucified. As to the nature of his suffering, in Mathew 14:34 it is written 34 “My soul is overwhelmed with sorrow to the point of death." I'm don't think there can be any stronger a statement as to the extent of is anguish.

With this and Chrawnus' last response, I think we've sufficiently demonstrated there's *some* warrant for suspecting this incident maybe didn't happen . It's too fine a point to argue anymore, but was enjoyable while it lasted. I agree with Chrawnus there's some overkill in its assertion that Jesus suffered intensely, since other passages indicate that, though overemphasis is a common feature of ancient literature even in the Bible. It's hard to read the minds of these people who lived in such a frightening alien world of religion and oppression, so I try not to conclude too much.

I rather start a new thread on my tangent about Jesus' limited knowledge and Chrawnus' belief that Jesus rejected kingdoms because it was a ridiculous offer. That brings up all kinds of interesting questions about Satan's intellectual capacity.

[Xru]

With this and Chrawnus' last response, I think we've sufficiently demonstrated there's *some* warrant for suspecting this incident maybe didn't happen .

Just for the record:

I'd say that we would all agree that there is less attesting in the four books of the Bible about this, although I'd defer to Chrawnus as to what he believes is sufficiently demonstrated. I'd NOT agree with your statement above as its written.

There are other issues here, as the inerrant nature of the Bible, which are subtle, and which are widely misunderstood . . . ie, what inerrant means with regards to the Bible, and textual translation of the NT that I for one am not knowledgeable about to intelligently discuss.

So no . . . I'll not agree your statement above reflects my view at all.

[Xru]

I agree with Chrawnus there's some overkill in its assertion that Jesus suffered intensely, since other passages indicate that, though overemphasis is a common feature of ancient literature even in the Bible.

I'm afraid I don't agree with this either as in:
Mark 14:34 “My soul is exceeding sorrowful unto death:”

This is not something that one who is not in the most severe distress would say assuming the translation is correct and given that we can agree that Jesus is not inclined to hyperbole.

I have not heard anyone before this accuse the Bible of consistently overstating in the texts, so I cannot judge nor give this merit.

I agree that we cannot read the minds of the people speaking in the Bible and so must rely on the proper translation as to the original intent and especially do not assume or read in anything that is not readily apparent which BTW it seems you are trying to do.

The two things that seem certain are that 1) Luke attests to Jesus having some degree of bleeding through the skin, 2) Jesus is exceedingly distressed, as distressed as anyone could be facing certain knowledge of his death within hours and as horrible a death as could be imagined at that, as demonstrated by Mark 14:34 and Jesus' asking that "this cup be taken from his mouth."

[showmeproof]

I'm afraid I don't agree with this either as in:
Mark 14:34 “My soul is exceeding sorrowful unto death:”

This is not something that one who is not in the most severe distress would say assuming the translation is correct and given that we can agree that Jesus is not inclined to hyperbole.

I have not heard anyone before this accuse the Bible of consistently overstating in the texts, so I cannot judge nor give this merit.

I agree that we cannot read the minds of the people speaking in the Bible and so must rely on the proper translation as to the original intent and especially do not assume or read in anything that is not readily apparent which BTW it seems you are trying to do.

The two things that seem certain are that 1) Luke attests to Jesus having some degree of bleeding through the skin, 2) Jesus is exceedingly distressed, as distressed as anyone could be facing certain knowledge of his death within hours and as horrible a death as could be imagined at that, as demonstrated by Mark 14:34 and Jesus' asking that "this cup be taken from his mouth."

Regarding your #2 point: If Jesus was god (your presumption) he knew of his forthcoming triumph over death. It is stretching credulity to assert that Jesus could have been," as distressed as anyone could be facing certain knowledge of his death."

[Xru]

Regarding your #2 point: If Jesus was god (your presumption) he knew of his forthcoming triumph over death. It is stretching credulity to assert that Jesus could have been," as distressed as anyone could be facing certain knowledge of his death."

At least for me, death has no threat, not even when I was an atheist. The threat is in the passage, which if you understand the dynamics of death by Crucifixion, is horrible indeed.

You assume, without justification which does not surprise me as you are "as dumb as a sack of doorknobs" as the phrase maker Tiggy once quipped, that you know of what reaction Jesus may or may not have under the situation.

That YOU would not be scared crapless when confronted with a Crucifixion is assumed in your statement. Not only would you be sweating blood, crying like a baby, but my guess is you'd be wetting yourself, and crapping your pants you little retarded want-a-be intellectual.

That's God with a capital G idiot.

Jeez I'd put you on ignore but watching you make a fool out of yourself is just too much fun.

BTW, have you ever faced death you little infinitesimal dweeb. You ever have a gun put to your head, knife held to your neck . . . just wondering. Well?

If I were you I'd reserve judgement and ask those who have faced death what its like . . . retard.

[seanD]

Either way you slice it, Satan is not used in the same manner in the OT as it is in the NT.

The problem is that you still haven't shown where Jews considered these identities different entities in their theology. And though it is true that the character of Satan isn't as direct a threat on a personal level, it would make sense to me, on a theological level, that these issues were vague and not really concise until the one came and added clarity to these issues..

[fm93]

It should be pointed out that the text Wisdom of Solomon, which was written several centuries before the New Testament, says in 2:24 that "by the envy of the devil, death entered the world." Death, of course, was said in Genesis to have come through the serpent. So the belief in an evil Satan preceded the composition of the New Testament.

[seanD]

It should be pointed out that the text Wisdom of Solomon, which was written several centuries before the New Testament, says in 2:24 that "by the envy of the devil, death entered the world." Death, of course, was said in Genesis to have come through the serpent. So the belief in an evil Satan preceded the composition of the New Testament.

Cool reference. I wasn't even aware of that.

[moreta]

There's a lot of interesting stuff in the Apocrypha, even if the Protestant side of things doesn't consider it canon.

[showmeproof]

It should be pointed out that the text Wisdom of Solomon, which was written several centuries before the New Testament, says in 2:24 that "by the envy of the devil, death entered the world." Death, of course, was said in Genesis to have come through the serpent. So the belief in an evil Satan preceded the composition of the New Testament.

After having made the statement, "Satan is not used the same in the OT as in the NT," I have been going back through the statements regarding satan in the NT.
Satan in the Apocrypha/Deuterocanonical books
• Wisdom 2:24
“but through the devil’s envy death entered the world, and those who belong to his company experience it.
• Sirach 21:27
“When an ungodly person curses an adversary, he curses himself”

SATAN IN THE NEW TESTAMENT
• Matthew 4:10, 12:26, 16:23
• Mark 1:13, 3:23,26, 4:15, 8:33
• Luke 4:8, 10:18, 11:18, 13:16, 22:3, 31
• John 13:27
• Acts 5:3, 26:16, Romans 16:20
• 1 Corinthians 5:5, 7:5
• 2 Corinthians 2:11, 11:14, 12:7
• 1 Thessalonians 2:18
• 2 Thessalonians 2:9
• 1 Timonty 1:20, 5:15
• Revelations 2:9,13,24, 3:9, 12:9, 20:2,7

Devil 62 times, Devils 54 times in the NT

Baal , -hamon, -hanan, -perazim, -peor, -meon, -shalisha, tamar, -zebub, -zaphon and Baals 0 times in the NT
Beelzebul/bub 7 times in the NT:
• Matthew 10:25, 12:24,27
• Mark 3:22
• Luke 11:15, 18, 19

I have much more cross referencing to do, but regarding the gospels one could argue that satan is used the same manner as the OT. I retract for these verses. I'll have more to say on the morrow, but I think the Satan that gets imbeded in the mind is the anachronistic and mismatched pitchfork wielding guy in a lake of fire (some of which is biblical and some of which is popular cultural representations). There is always an effort involved in separating the two, much as it is an effort to read the gospels in isolation (one often attempts a harmonization of the four). So far in the list above I've only been back through satan in the gospels. I'll follow satan in the literature through the NT and then again searching for the aforementioned aliases. I'm interested in seeing where the divide occurs. I came across the Wisdom verse (not of Solomon [pseudographic], but of 1st century AD), earlier this evening and the sources say that this cross references Genesis 3 in the envy. Certainly it appears that Satan as the source of evil is on the scene 1rst century AD as attested in this verse.

Overall, goodpoint. However, I think you make an oversimplification in connecting the serpent and Satan earlier than this 1rst century AD verse in Wisdom. Do you have arguments that would make this link earlier? I realize this is the connection, but I'm interested in when it was initially made.

[showmeproof]

There's a lot of interesting stuff in the Apocrypha, even if the Protestant side of things doesn't consider it canon.

At the least it helps illucidate the variety of beliefs that were around at the time.

[showmeproof]

At least for me, death has no threat, not even when I was an atheist. The threat is in the passage, which if you understand the dynamics of death by Crucifixion, is horrible indeed.

You assume, without justification which does not surprise me as you are "as dumb as a sack of doorknobs" as the phrase maker Tiggy once quipped, that you know of what reaction Jesus may or may not have under the situation.

That YOU would not be scared crapless when confronted with a Crucifixion is assumed in your statement. Not only would you be sweating blood, crying like a baby, but my guess is you'd be wetting yourself, and crapping your pants you little retarded want-a-be intellectual.

That's God with a capital G idiot.

Jeez I'd put you on ignore but watching you make a fool out of yourself is just too much fun.

BTW, have you ever faced death you little infinitesimal dweeb. You ever have a gun put to your head, knife held to your neck . . . just wondering. Well?

If I were you I'd reserve judgement and ask those who have faced death what its like . . . retard.

I am not god (why is a capital necessary? Hebrew surely didn't have capital letters....and I surely don't respect your god). Indeed, I would have been scared crapless. So would you have. You may be confident, but you do not 'know' as did Jesus (allowing your presumption). If you are god; you fear nothing.

[showmeproof]

The problem is that you still haven't shown where Jews considered these identities different entities in their theology. And though it is true that the character of Satan isn't as direct a threat on a personal level, it would make sense to me, on a theological level, that these issues were vague and not really concise until the one came and added clarity to these issues..

As per my earlier post, I am going back through all of that. There is a divide, and my hunch (I've not gotten through all the material with this intention yet) is that it occurs mainly in Revelation where the imagery of Baal, Mot, Yam, Leviathan and the like are brought forth. Growing up, I had the imagery of Isaiah 30 for satan...when it is YHWH who is attributed this (for reasons we'll see later).

[Whag]

At least for me, death has no threat, not even when I was an atheist. The threat is in the passage, which if you understand the dynamics of death by Crucifixion, is horrible indeed..

Poppycock. The same guy who invents the eternal torture chamber doesn't really have warrant to freak out about some temporal lashings and some suffocation.

[Xru]

Poppycock. The same guy who invents the eternal torture chamber doesn't really have warrant to freak out about some temporal lashings and some suffocation.

Hopper-head strikes again! Can anyone get anymore stupid. Where is Tiggy when we need a good insult . . . Yo Tiggy!

[Whag]

Hopper-head strikes again! Can anyone get anymore stupid. Where is Tiggy when we need a good insult . . . Yo Tiggy!

The problem arises when Christians overemphasize Jesus' fear of his demise and torture to convey a humanity we can relate to. He wasn't just worried. He was worried to the point of bleeding through his skin. He wasn't just sorrowful. He was sorrowful to the point of death. These, of course, are understandable emotions in most contexts. In the context of the same person inventing a punitive system that involves burning people alive forever, it sounds positively absurd. I would advise apologists and evangelists to not put too much emphasis on Jesus' freaking out over imminent temporal pain.

[Adrift]

Honestly, I don't recall this sweating blood thing even after reading the BT many times.


"44And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground." KJV

Seems to me that its implied that whatever sweat was visible on Jesus it was mixed or was of blood although this does not seem certain. Neither is it certain exactly how covered Jesus was in blood. I don't know if this sweating blood ever encompasses ALL of body, and all areas of sweat. It also was night . . . was there any light at all, or light enough to see this with a great deal of certainty.

Luke does make observations that others don't because he was a physician so it is not surprising that he is the only one to write of it, although I do find it somewhat surprising that there is no mention of this anywhere by others as it does seem rather remarkable.


I've recently read that the KJV is the more accurate of the modern translations so I'd go with that one and "great drops of blood."

I don't understand the point of a later scribe adding the part about sweating blood as the corporeal nature of Jesus is soon put to rest when he is Crucified. As to the nature of his suffering, in Mathew 14:34 it is written 34 “My soul is overwhelmed with sorrow to the point of death." I'm don't think there can be any stronger a statement as to the extent of is anguish.

I don't know anyone outside of maybe King James Onlyists who say that the KJV is the more accurate of modern translations. Its not bad for a translation created in the 16th century, but I think there are probably better translations today.

Anyways, that said, some early manuscripts do not contain Luke 22:43 and 44. If the verses are not interpolations then it seems to me it refers, not to fear of physical torment and death on Jesus' part (though, like you, I doubt the momentariness of that matters much), but to the fact that Jesus, the sinless incarnate person of the trinity, was to take onto himself the sins of the world, and in so doing the abandonment of the Father. The nature of his circumstances was, to understate it, unique. I think also tied into the Christian's understanding of these passages is that Jesus had apparently limited his omniscience in the incarnation, so I think that, though he obviously had an idea of what to expect, perhaps some of it was even a mystery to him...? I don't know, but anyways, I think the important thing to remember is that Jesus experienced something far beyond pain and death.

[Whag]

Edit to correct copy paste error..


I don't know anyone outside of maybe King James Onlyists who say that the KJV is the more accurate of modern translations. Its not bad for a translation created in the 16th century, but I think there are probably better translations today.

Anyways, that said, some early manuscripts do not contain Luke 22:43 and 44. If the verses are not interpolations then it seems to me it refers, not to fear of physical torment and death on Jesus' part (though, like you, I doubt the momentariness of that matters much), but to the fact that Jesus, the sinless incarnate person of the trinity, was to take onto himself the sins of the world, and in so doing the abandonment of the Father. The nature of his circumstances was, to understate it, unique. I think also tied into the Christian's understanding of these passages is that Jesus had apparently limited his omniscience in the incarnation, so I think that, though he obviously had an idea of what to expect, perhaps some of it was even a mystery to him...? I don't know, but anyways, I think the important thing to remember is that Jesus experienced something far beyond pain and death.

Something far beyond pain and death but not really hell as he endeavored to describe it. And I agree there'd have to be some form of self-imposed ignorance since Jesus with full knowledge would have known that the Father wasn't angry with him and that it'd all be over in an less than an eyeblink on the cosmological scale.

[Xru]

I don't know anyone outside of maybe King James Onlyists who say that the KJV is the more accurate of modern translations. Its not bad for a translation created in the 16th century, but I think there are probably better translations today.

Anyways, that said, some early manuscripts do not contain Luke 22:43 and 44. If the verses are not interpolations then it seems to me it refers, not to fear of physical torment and death on Jesus' part (though, like you, I doubt the momentariness of that matters much), but to the fact that Jesus, the sinless incarnate person of the trinity, was to take onto himself the sins of the world, and in so doing the abandonment of the Father. The nature of his circumstances was, to understate it, unique. I think also tied into the Christian's understanding of these passages is that Jesus had apparently limited his omniscience in the incarnation, so I think that, though he obviously had an idea of what to expect, perhaps some of it was even a mystery to him...? I don't know, but anyways, I think the important thing to remember is that Jesus experienced something far beyond pain and death.

Agreed. I didn't know Luke 22:43 and 44 is not contained in some earlier manuscripts.

[Xru]

Something far beyond pain and death but not really hell as he endeavored to express it. And I agree there'd have to be some form of self-ignorance, since Jesus with full knowledge would have known that the Father wasn't angry with him and that it'd all be over in an eyeblink. I'm just expressive how some skeptics evaluate these theological interpretations of Jesus' experience.



Something far beyond pain and death but not really hell as he endeavored to describe it. And I agree there'd have to be some form of self-imposed ignorance since Jesus with full knowledge would have known that the Father wasn't angry with him and that it'd all be over in an less than an eyeblink on the cosmological scale.

So you are presenting the "skeptics" view of this but not your own necessarily. Okay then. Fair enough.

For the life of me I can't understand how "skeptics" can move themselves to put themselves in the shoes of Jesus, or saddles, and somehow divine how He must have felt about being Crucified.

Honestly, even if you did "know" you'd be in a better place after death, what level of anxiety and fear would you have at the prospect of being Crucified?

[Whag]

Agreed. I didn't know Luke 22:43 and 44 is not contained in some earlier manuscripts.

Lol. The point of this entire discussion.

[Adrift]

Something far beyond pain and death but not really hell as he endeavored to describe it.

I don't understand this sentence.


And I agree there'd have to be some form of self-imposed ignorance since Jesus with full knowledge would have known that the Father wasn't angry with him and that it'd all be over in an less than an eyeblink on the cosmological scale.

I don't think I understand this one either. The abandonment had nothing to do with anger.

[Adrift]

Agreed. I didn't know Luke 22:43 and 44 is not contained in some earlier manuscripts.

Yeah, but that's not proof it wasn't in the original. Just something to keep in mind is all.

[Whag]

So you are presenting the "skeptics" view of this but not your own necessarily. Okay then. Fair enough.

For the life of me I can't understand how "skeptics" can move themselves to put themselves in the shoes of Jesus, or saddles, and somehow divine how He must have felt about being Crucified.

Honestly, even if you did "know" you'd be in a better place after death, what level of anxiety and fear would you have at the prospect of being Crucified?

That's an absurd question. It's like asking how tempted would God be to bow before Satan to acquire earthly kingdoms. One one level the church tries desperately to humanize Jesus and makes his feelings relateable to ours. On the other hand, he invented a punitive system that the civilized world regards as beyond sadistic.

[Xru]

Yeah, but that's not proof it wasn't in the original. Just something to keep in mind is all.

That's Whang's contention or what he'd like to imply in my opinion. Anyway, how many early texts had those lines missing. I don't know. Do you. Could just be transcription errors that were later corrected.

[Xru]

The problem arises when Christians overemphasize Jesus' fear of his demise and torture to convey a humanity we can relate to. He wasn't just worried. He was worried to the point of bleeding through his skin. He wasn't just sorrowful. He was sorrowful to the point of death. These, of course, are understandable emotions in most contexts. In the context of the same person inventing a punitive system that involves burning people alive forever, it sounds positively absurd. I would advise apologists and evangelists to not put too much emphasis on Jesus' freaking out over imminent temporal pain.

I wouldn't at any rate, not withstanding your "friendly" advice as you are no friend of mine or Christendom.

[Whag]

I wouldn't at any rate, not withstanding your "friendly" advice as you are no friend of mine or Christendom.

You won't be my friend?

[Adrift]

That's Whang's contention or what he'd like to imply in my opinion. Anyway, how many early texts had those lines missing. I don't know. Do you.

According to the United Bible Societies Greek New Testament 3rd edition it's missing in the following manuscripts: p75, א*, A, B, T, 1071


Could just be transcription errors that were later corrected.

Possibly, yes. I also forgot to make a point I was considering about Jesus' abandonment on the cross... though his torture and death was temporal, I wonder about the timeless ramifications of an eternal being taking on sin, experiencing the shame of the cross, and the abandonment of the Father. Jesus obviously had his honor and glory restored by the Father, but I wonder how this plays out behind the scenes outside the temporal. After all, scripture tells us that Christ's sacrifice is for all time, for the past, present, and future, and was not fixed for that one place and time, but I don't know... I'm sure Christian philosophers have come to varying conclusions on this.

[Whag]

I don't understand this sentence.

You spoke of Jesus experiencing an anguish that eclipsed known pain and death experiences. I simply observed that Jesus' description of fiery eternal torment sounds worse than the temporal suffering of abandonment which Jesus know could not be permanent.




I don't think I understand this one either. The abandonment had nothing to do with anger.

Then I fail to understand what's so bad about that temporal abandonment. You speculate that Jesus lost some power or position for eternity, but I don't see that, nor do I see how that's any more terrible than cooking unbelievers endlessly.

[Adrift]

You spoke of Jesus experiencing an anguish that eclipsed known pain and death experiences. I simply observed that Jesus' description of fiery eternal torment sounds worse than the temporal suffering of abandonment which Jesus know could not be permanent.

Then I fail to understand what's so bad about that temporal abandonment. You speculate that Jesus lost some power or position for eternity, but I don't see that, nor do I see how that's any more terrible than cooking unbelievers endlessly.

I see. Well, we're all entitled to our opinions, some more informed than others.
I'd discuss it more with you if I thought you were sincere, but as you stated in the Resurrection Contradictions thread "I’m not seriously interested in receiving answers to NT difficulties", and that's just as apparent here as it is there. You're the sort of person who's more interested in asking questions than getting answers, and I'm finding I have less and less patience for those types of people.

[robrecht]

According to the United Bible Societies Greek New Testament 3rd edition it's missing in the following manuscripts: p75, א*, A, B, T, 1071
Note also that these verses are only included within double brackets, which indicates "early insertions in the textual tradition", and this decision to enclose within brackets is given a C level of confidence.

Bruce Metzger in his Textual Commentary, speaking on behalf of the eitorial committee (also Kurt Aland, Matthew Black, [later Cardinal] Carlo Martini, Allen Wikgren) explains their reasoning:

"The absence of these verses in such ancient and widely diversified witnesses as [see above +] p69vid W syr.a cop.sa.bo arm.mss geo Marcion Clement Origin al, as well as their being marked with asterisks or obeli (signifying spuriousness) in other witnesses ... and their transferral to Matthew's gospel (after 26.39) by family 13 and several lectionaries ... strongly suggests that they are no part of the original text of Luke. Their presence in many manusripts, some ancient, as well as their citation by Justin, Irenaeus, etc, ..., is proof of the antiquity of the account. On grounds of transcriptional probability it is less likely that the verses were deleted in several different areas of the church by those who felt that the account of Jesus overwhelmed with human weakness was inconpatible with his sharing the divine omnipotence of the Father, than that they would be added from an early source, than that they were added from an early source, oral or written, of extra-canonical traitions concerning the life and passion of Jesus. Nevertheless, while acknowledging that the passage is a later addition to the text, in view of its evident antiquity and its importance in the textual tradition, a majority of the Committee decided to retain the words in the text but to enclose them within double square brackets."

[showmeproof]

I don't know anyone who focuses on their religions. Instead, the focus is on their overall culture, with religion relegated to a supporting role, and in this, Samuel Noah Kramer is without equal. He was the pre-eminent Sumerologist of the past century, personally responsible for a larger body of transcription, translation and exposition than any other scholar in the field. He died at 93 in 1990. If I were to recommend one book to get you started, it would be his The Sumerians: Their History, Culture, and Character (http://www.amazon.com/The-Sumerians-History-Culture-Character/dp/0226452387/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1332652797&sr=8-2), originally published in 1963. You'll find sufficient references in this work to expand your studies, along with interesting insights into the history of Sumerology itself. A quick search, and I find it's available as a google book preview (http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=IuxIdug8DBUC&oi=fnd&pg=PA3&dq=sumerian+history&ots=wCJ0k_sinx&sig=6tQNnu651mNr5355Nj_f4TGD8Cw#v=onepage&q=sumerian%20history&f=false). As you'll note, this is for the popular press. If you're interested in the fine details, there's no escaping the need to comb the journals. A working knowledge of French and German is essential.

This is a much slower moving field, with the bulk of \the original material excavated between the mid 19th and mid 20th centuries, typically in fragmentary clay tablets or tablets partially eroded (though fortunately often multiply attested), meaning a great deal still awaits reconstruction and translation. There are a many parallels with biblical motifs, but you should not hope to be able to follow El or any cognate back to Sumer, and certainly not in the detail available from sources such as the Baal Cycle or the letters from Mari. Keep in mind that writing was still in its infancy during this period while scribal education was still being formalized, a process that extended over a period of centuries.

As ever, Jesse

Just to clarify, I am not looking to follow El or cognates back to Babylon, but I am interested in following the roles and structures of the ANE myth repertoire back. For instance, and directly pertaining to this discussion, I just acquired The Old Enemy: Satan and the Combat Myth by Neil Forsyth which details the various adaptations of the combat theme from Sumer through Babylon, Ugarit and the Bible. Fabulous book (currently about 200 pages in). I'd rate this as an essential right after The Origins of Biblical Monotheism by Mark S. Smith.

[showmeproof]

Though this thread is dead, I have come across a very succinct description of Yawheh as the typical ANE storm god in an essay from F.W. Dobbs-Allsopp on page 36 of David and Zion: Biblical Studies in Honor of J.J. Roberts.

"That is, as a typical ancient Near Eastern storm god, the literary depiction of Yahweh's theophany customarily involves the dark clouds associated with thunderstorms (Exod 3:22; 13:21-22; 14:14; 19:9; 40:38; Lev 9:15,16; 14:14; Deut 1:33; 4:11; 5:4,5,22;1 Kgs 8:10, 11; Isa 4:5; Ps 78:14; 105:39). And as a warrior deity, Yahweh is frequently imagined as wrapped in clouds (2 Sam 22:12, 13; Ps 97:2; Lam 3:44) or riding upon them through the skies (2 Sam 22:11; Isa 19:1; Ps 68:5, 33; 104:3) or as otherwise associated with them (Judges 5:4). Indeed, the stunning vision that opens the book of Ezekiel portrays Yahweh's war chariot (which is en route to do battle against Jerusalem) as enshrouded with "a great storm cloud." Fittingly, then, Joel (2:2) and Zephaniah (1:15) refer to the Day of Yahweh as "a day of densest cloud (cf. Ezekiel 30:2), and Ezekiel (30:18) envisions it as a time when "the city shall be covered by a cloud." Thus, the image of Yahweh "beclouding" Jerusalem [in Lam 2] is especially well suited to the context. Not only are the clouds the harbinger of impending doom, but also they are the visible manifestation of the Divine Warrior's menacing presence."

The bible is the source for the storm imagery which in mocking has been equated to 'sky daddy' per the OP.