BIBLE
- Started
- Last post
- 302 Responses
- ********0
I think this would be a good time to link in Zoroastrianism. And how the tribe of Abraham (which may have or may have not existed) isn't scholarly accepted as the same one as in the bible
"Zoroastrianism combines elements of monotheism and dualism. Many modern scholars believe that Zoroastrianism had a large influence on Judaism, Mithraism, Manichaeism, Christianity. There is evidence that Cyrus the Great, himself a Zoroastrian, helped foster Judaism and other monotheistic religions as a way of spreading his ideas.
Zoroastrianism is considered by some to be the earliest monotheistic view to have evolved among mankind, though it is not fully so, as the chief god Ahura Mazda is not the sole creator. It has been theorized that Judaism was influenced by Zoroastrianism as well as by Greek philosophy before arriving at its modern monotheistic view of God. Earlier Judaism is assumed to have claimed only that Yahweh was a tribal deity who was the patron of the descendants of Abraham, or that there were many gods but that theirs was the most powerful. This view is not compatible with the modern self-understanding of the Abrahamic religions - Judaism, Christianity, Islam - which traditionally insist that exclusive monotheism is the original religion of all mankind, all other gods being viewed as idols and creatures which wrongly came to be worshipped as deities.
Several professors of archeology claim that many stories in the Old Testament, including important chronicles about Moses, Solomon, and others, were actually made up for the first time by scribes hired by King Josiah (7th century BCE) in order to rationalize monotheistic belief in Yahweh. Evidently, the neighboring countries that kept many written records, such as Egypt, Persia, etc., have no writings about the stories of the Bible or its main characters before 650 BCE. Such claims are detailed in Who Were the Early Israelites? by William G. Dever, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids, MI (2003). Another such book is The Bible Unearthed by Neil A. Silberman and colleagues, Simon and Schuster, New York (2001)."There's two books in there that might be worth reading
- discipler0
kuz, timing couldn't be worse... I have to run. I'm happy to discuss this further, later. You need to determine which topic you would like to discuss. Zoroastrianism and the Mesopatamian city of UR, though not mutually exclusive, are really two seperate discussions altogether... if they are to be treated correctly and thoroughly. Anyway, I can email you later.
- out
- ********0
well you've had an ass whooping in this discussion.
And they're not two seperate topics, because Zoroastrianism, by all academic accounts, massively influence Jewish monotheism - heaven/hell, good/bad, god/devil etc.
And that discussion proves that Abraham was not the monotheistic figure that the Bible claims. And that the Jewish faith as we know it happened much later.
Just what i've been reading in various encyclopedias today
But obviously all three encyclopedias are wrong (Brittanica/Encarta/Wikipedia) and you and youre fellow christians are right.
laterz chump
- mrdobolina0
Kuz, can't you see that his faith is the only proof he needs?
- jakeyj0
whoa you guys are too smart!
- ********0
ha, yeah dobs
Smart? I ain't smart. I just got frustrated with him throwing all this crap at me, that none of us would know, and acting like he had all the answers.
Did a bit of research in various encyclopedias. Find out his "facts" are more contentious than he makes them out to be.
- jakeyj0
yeah religious folk tend to do that sometimes....
- Mimio0
Discipler basically claims he was converted by the overwhelming factual evidence of the bible. Which really means he's superstitious and can look past the blairing inconsistencies and obtuse nature of the bible.
- ********0
Yes well i think like many people he was looking for answers to his life. Nothing wrong with that. Just his vitriolic, patronising, preaching, fundamentalism that you have to draw the line on. It's bad for humanity all this anti-enlightenment rhetoric.
- mrdobolina0
fonzie says exactamundo
- jakeyj0
Just his vitriolic, patronising, preaching, fundamentalism that you have to draw the line on. It's bad for humanity all this anti-enlightenment rhetoric.
Kuz
(Apr 7 05, 07:51)whoa you guys are too smart!
jakeyj
(Apr 7 05, 07:45)
- TryAgain0
maximos respectos to discipler for his keystrokes!
- Mimio0
I think you mean his copying and pasting.
- T-B-O-A0
Anything said about Jesus is a lie. He is not the son of God. In my book, it's not a sacrifice to die when your father is god and it's already known you'll be back after a couple of days. Add to this that the religion holds his name and he's been adored by millions for centuries now. How is this suffering, where is the sacrifice?
The real son of god is Judas. His sacrifice was to be known as a traitor, weak, a man of no greatness, not to be trusted by the people that he is making this sacrifice for. For ever. Unless he comes back?
Now that's a story (religion) I would believe in.
And that's my two (or 30) pence.
- ********0
I think you mean his copying and pasting.
Mimio
(Apr 7 05, 08:01)
================
haha. yepa
- version30
what happened to the other bible thread?
- Mimio0
It was swallowed by the mouth of YHVH.
- version30
wouldnt that be YHWH?
- Mimio0
Or even JHVH, all three are acceptable approximations.
- _smk0
Hey Kuz - check your mail mate :)