ralfellis

But i have just shown you a United Monarchy from the 10th century BC, a monarchy that has the same names, courtiers, attributes and ancestors as the biblical United Monarchy. So why are you looking at a later era for King David, when all the evidence is there in front of you?

And this is evidence that is based upon impeccable historical evidence - for in this case, we not only have texts, but also the tomb, sarcophagus and mummy of King David.


.

Sheshbazzar

A 'borrowed' Royal national 'history' is certainly not beyond the bounds of possibility.

It is not as though the early Hebrew story tellers/Tanaka writers were above any 'borrowing' from the ancient cultures preceding and surrounding them.
Of course such tales first underwent Hebrew-izing modifications and adaptations before being declared as being the express words of Yahweh.

aa5874

Your statement is in error.

There are PRIMARY sources for events and people at around the Start of the Jesus cult of Christians.

The Jesus cult of Christians STARTED sometime in the 2nd century

We have recovered dated 2nd century writings of the Jesus story and copies of writings from early Christian writers like Aristides, Justin Martyr, Minucius Felix, Melitus, and copies of 2nd century Non-Apologetic writers like Lucian of Samosata and Celsus in True Discourse in the writings of Origen.

.

ralfellis

I am not even sure that this is 'borrowing'.

The Israelites came out of Egypt on the Exodus - the very same Exodus that we know today as the Hyksos Shepherd King Exodus. Thus these people were originally (Hyksos) Egyptians.

This is why Jews are circumcised, wore earrings, and have curly sidelocks of hair - which were all Egyptian customs. In which case, this is actually a case of the Jews deliberately 'forgetting' rather than 'borrowing' their history.


Like the 'Jesus was a pauper-carpenter' sob story, it is much easier to play the victim card, if you want to forge a patriotic society (look at Islam today, for a good example of this).

It was much easier for the rabbis to say 'we were persecuted by the Evil Egyptians', rather than say 'we were powerful Egyptian kings who lost the entire kingdom due to our incompetence and mismanagement'. The latter (more truthful) history simply does not work, in respect of successful nation building or religious cohesion.

.


Thus the Hyksos Shepherd Kings became Poor Biblical Shepherds. Yet the truth is still there, if you look closely and critically. Abraham, for instance, had 318 army officers and an army of 'unlimited manpower'. If these officers were centurions, then Abraham's army was 32,000 strong.

What 'poor shepherd' has a 32,000 strong army?!? The Hyksos Shepherd Kings, of course.....


.

spin

You've got to be kidding. You've got to be fucking kidding. Name twiddling in English is so unconvincing one earns a ra-a-a-aspberry. If it can be stretched and distorted into looking vaguely similar it must be a match, while forgetting about bits and pieces. How silly can one get? Think for example of Ramses: the name is made of Ra +mss and this supposedly yields the Hebrew Ram (resh-mem, nothing to indicate the "a"), if we leave off the "ss". With this sort of logic (Harold) Ramis would make a better candidate than Ram. How did Si-Amun become Salmon when Si-Amun is easily rendered in Hebrew? Where did the lamed come from? My god this is crass ignorant rubbish.

ralfellis

.


If it were one transliteration, I would agree with you. But it is not, it is the entire ancestry, in the same order. Oh, and the daughter, army commander and the architect too. Oh, and the same king and the kinds primary attributes. Oh, and the same capital city.


Oh, and the same wife - the Queen of Sheba. The Sheba title, if you have not guessed, comes from this same pharaoh's common title, Pa-Seba-Kahiennuit. And this tells you something you did not know, something that the Torah has done its best to cover up - the paternity of the Queen of Sheba.


Crass ignorant rubbish?? Perhaps the 21st dynasty read the Torah, and decided to emulate it.


.

Chili

You haven't heard nothing yet. Wait till he starts explaining talking snakes away, and wrote a whole book on it. In English, of course he would. He is an Englishman himself, and for which there must be a market there.

aa5874

We already know that Billions of people believe Jesus existed WITHOUT a shred of evidence

Your Belief is just a shortened version of the NICENE Creed.

But, what is most alarming is that you have admitted the NT is NOT trustworthy but used it conveniently for your BELIEF of HJ without external corroboration.

It is completely unacceptable at this level to admit your sources for your belief cannot be trusted.

semiopen

It would be remarkable if the OP had figured all this out himself and had no place better to post it than here.

The Israelites were Egyptian pharaohs

The link gives various sources of this theory and further reading.

It's probably good that the OP is an atheist, because not giving sources probably keeps you out of heaven.

Chili

Your problem will be to deny Adam, or what we call Adam as our human condition, wherein we are ratinal agents and so became the rational animal man.

So there is no denying that we have what they called an Adamic nature wherein we are rational as a 'condition' that tells something about us, like red hair maybe, except that we use it to know what is good and bad and can remember also what is good and what is bad, to which now our sense perception is 'wired' to belong.

Now then if our humanity is conditional to us why should Jesus as the second Adam be a material man, and you demand evidence to prove him true?

So here I suggest that the Second Adam is where the first Adam has done a 180 degree turn that is known as metanoia in Greek where now our volition is reversed and we go back to Eden on our own.

The problem here is that this is a non-rational zombie-like event to which then the name Jesus is attached, who so is not a material man to prove you both right and wrong.

Then if you read Matthew and Mark and compare that with Luke and John it must make sense what I just wrote, because the first two go back to Galilee again where the fire is at to purify the mind, where so Pure Reason without emotion is sought to bring heaven down to earth for them to see, which here now means without the curse as human down below, and no longer 'like-god' but as both God and Lord God ourself as we see in Luke and John.

Consider for a moment that under hypnosis pain can no longer be, as for example where those 'zappees' crash face-first unto the ground and never feel a thing, it must be true that pain is an illusion, just as time, and pleasure, and in short all what our sense perception is about as well, to finally our whole temporal existence is an illusion to prove here that just as the First Adam was an illusion so will the Second Adam be as well.