Sheshbazzar

You will have to decide for yourself how you interpret whatever it is of Scripture that you may choose to read.

You do not have the vaguest idea of what The Name, or 'El' signifies to me, or why.

outhouse

El was the father deity in the Israelite family of deities from 1200 BC to after 622 BC, Yahweh the son, later took on all Els attributes and wife Asherah, and then redacted in the bible after 622 so that Elohim refers to Yahweh now instead of El. [allthough Elohim is a trcky term to deal with]


FWIW If I was ever going to be spiritual I would make El my Elohim as written, before Yahweh as I would go with the oldest deity. but even then I think I would prefer a nameless creation.

Sheshbazzar

Whatever.

outhouse

sorry

its just funny how you discount jesus legend, but then pray to another in what I see as a creation/compilation of deities.

the only reason I commented is because your deity is my favorite


but im with you that jesus wasnt divine in any sense over anybody else living in the first century.

Sheshbazzar

You don't understand. You seem to be laboring under the mistaken impression that I 'follow' or believe in a Deity (Elohim) named יהוה YHWH (or 'Yahweh')

The name 'jesus' represents something entirely different to me than what it does to you.

And if you are aware of my position, you will know that I do not accept that there ever was -any- such person 'living in the first century', not even one stripped of all mythological attributes.
These mythical NT stories were composed as a part of a continuing agenda and a long range purpose corresponding to the earlier writings. One which will only emerge and become apparent to all in the as yet to come future.
I accept, endorse, and believe in the significance of the name יהושע


You read the Bible's 'Old' and 'New' Testements as being some form of literal history. I don't.
And although I agree with you as to the cultural origins and the development of the Torah, my views as to what purposes the stories were written for, and what as yet to you, is that incomprehensible material they serve as containers for, presently lies beyond your ken.

An overabundance of scepticisim, the 'I refuse to believe' attitude effectivly blinds you to see certain things that are 'hidden' in plain sight.
You read them, but do not even begin to comprehend their significance in your pell-mell rush to discredit the presented mythological 'history'.


Every fool will esteem himself wise, but a wise man will consider his foolishness.

PhilosopherJay

Hi Steve,

Yes, I agree with Ehrman that it is pretty astounding the number of independent sources we have for the life of Jesus. With all these independent sources, the only things we can be sure of is that he came from Nazareth, he had a brother named James, and he was crucified during the reign of Pontius Pilate.

I believe we have an equal number of independent sources for the life of Superman. There were two comic books (action comics, 1938, Superman, 1939), a daily comic strip and a Sunday comic strip (1939), a radio show (1940), a series of 17 animated cartoons (1941-1943), a movie serial (1948), a movie, "Superman Versus the Mole Men"(1951), and a television series (1952). That makes nine independent sources for the life of Superman from the time he first appeared. Ehrman only gives seven independent sources for his Jesus.

I won't even begin to talk about the other evidence, the numerous newspaper and magazine articles and toys and other items with his picture on it.


Kellog's Pep Whole Wheat Breakfast Cereal Button With Superman as a spokesperson.


This is Superman attending the trial of Joseph Stalin and Adolph Hitler. These were definitely historical personages of the 1930's and 1940's. This proves that Superman was involved in the political discussions of the time.

A lot of Superman's life has been turned into a legend and obviously we can't believe everything written about him. However, there are some facts that nobody disputes: He was raised in Smallville, he was adopted by the Kents, and he got his first job as a newspaper reporter in the city of Metropolis. Only later did the high Supermanology appear and stories of him coming from the Planet Krypton and tales about him flying covered the historical core reality beneath.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

aa5874

The massive flaw with Ehrman is that he completely ignores that the same independent sources claimed Jesus was the Son of a Holy Ghost and was raised from the dead.

The very identity of Jesus from the same independent sources is secure. Jesus was a Mythological character once Ehrman acknowledges that the stories of Jesus are from independent sources.

Ehrman's independent sources never admit Jesus had a human father.

Again, Ehrman's biography of his Jesus from his independent sources is actually incomplete and false.

If one wanted to write the "biograhy" of Superman based on what is actually written in comic books, and seen in cartoons and the movies then it would absolutely misleading and illogical to claim that "we can be certain that Superman was just a ordinary person called Clark Kent who lived in Kansas".

If the comic books, cartoons and movies are independent sources then we can be certain that Superman was non-historical.

If the Gospels, the Pauline writings, Acts of the Apostles, the Non-Pauline letters, Revelation, and Non Canonised writings are considered indepedent sources then we can be certain that Jesus was Non-historical.

The stories of Jesus as found in existing manuscripts are extremely important because they actually tell us what people of antiquity believed.

The claim by Ehrman that in antiquity Jesus was human is a gross mis-representation of his so-called independent sources.

outhouse

but I have no bias at all. I would love for the jesus legends to be fiction.

I just dont see it in the big picture.




your right that the bible OT and NT are not history books, but it would be foolish to think history cannot be pulled from any of their pages. despite the theology and mythology, it does give us a glimpse into the past upon critical examination only!

aa5874

What??? This is most fascinating. You actually believe the Bible is history.

This is the worse than bad. What a load of BS. You are an inventor of you own history.

This is exactly what HJers are doing. They use KNOWN ADMITTED fiction for history.

Your position is completely unacceptable in or out a court.

People are jailed for using known admitted sources of perjury in a court.

You are just a Myth Fable historian.

Your No Tax Jesus was derived from fiction.

Sheshbazzar

I am sure that you are more intelligent and better read than to believe that the 'OT' provides an actual and credible history of the development of the nation of Israel.
Or the NT an actual and credible history of the development of the religion of 'Christianity'.

Certainly some information from human history was incorporated into these old religious mythology writings, but it is often placed anachronistically and revised and adapted to conform to the then current religious mythologies, politics, and agendas.

The יהושע בן־יהוה ('Yahoshua ben-Yahweh' > 'Jesus' son of God') of NT fame is just as mythological, and as entirely lacking in any historical substance as the יהושע בן־נון ('Yahoshua ben-Nun' > 'Joshua the son of Nun') of the Book of Exodus.

Every ancient people had their creation and peculiar religious mythologies, and cultural hero's, and continually incorporated those mythologies and their hero's into their evolving national history and self-identity.

The NT's 'Transfiguration' was not the first, nor the only occasion in Jewish religious development that an ancient mythological 'Enoch', 'Moses', 'Elijah' or 'Joshua' cult figure gets revived or brought down from heaven to assist the cause in times of trouble.
It is a serious mistake to think that these recurrent tales of the return of ancient cult figures, in stories crafted to give hope, and to succor people in troubled times, in this case a rebirth of a 'Joshua the Deliverer', can be employed to reconstruct any actual history.

'Jesus of Nazareth' and his Disciples' is nothing more than an earlier version of a 'Robin Hood' and his Merry Men'.


ששבצר העברי
Sheshbazzar The Hebrew.


.