Mythology with real places & people

Both of which were recorded long after Jesus was dead and thus any prophecy would be vaticinium ex eventu, that is recorded as prophecy after the events of the already took place.The only prophecy which Jesus made of contemporary events that could take place after he died and that could possibly be written down by eye-witnesses before the events took place would be the fall of Jerusalem as shown in Mark 13:1-2: #1 The earliest manuscripts of the NT gospel widely accepted by NT scholars is the Rylands Papyrus (P52) which dates are still being debated from shortly before 100 CE at the earliest (but after the destruction of Jerusalem) to 150 CE. Most scholars accept the date of approx 116-138 CE as shown here:
Rylands Library Papyrus P52Another manuscript, the Dead Sea Scroll fragment 7Q5, is thought by a few ultra-conservative Biblical scholars to be even an earlier NT manuscript than the Ryland's Library Papyrus P52. The 7Q5 bit of manuscript no larger than your thumb found at Qumran contains 1 full Greek word 'kai' meaning the word 'and' and two portions of Greek words (6 undisputed letters in all) which vaguely match a passage in Mark 6:52-53. However it is not conclusive at all and too most Biblical scholars and experts find that it is highly unlikely to be a copy of the Gospel of Mark at all. You can read the counterarguments for 7Q5 being the earliest manuscript of the NT here: 7Q5: The Earliest NT Papyrus? by Dr. Daniel Wallace professor of New Testament Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary and recognized authority on Koine Greek grammar and New Testament textual criticism among New Testament scholars.and 7Q5Dr. Wallace states: Here is an image of the 7Q5 fragment Additionally even if 7Q5 actually predated the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE it does not contain this portion of Jesus' supposed prophecy which makes this a mute point.#2 Even if 7Q5 was a insignificant fraction of a Gospel manuscript which possibly predated the fall of Jerusalem; predicting the fall of Jerusalem is not unique to the sayings of Jesus of Nazareth. In fact the supposed writings of the prophet Micah states the following: Jerusalem and it's temple have been one of the most highly contested areas in the world for millennia and Jerusalem had been sacked, sieged, captured, destroyed and rebuilt numerous times before the events of Jesus' life supposedly took place (as described here, Jerusalem)a. Plunder of temple and city of Jerusalem by Egyptian pharaoh Shoshenq I. (c. 925 BCE)
b. Partial overthrow of Jerusalem by Jehoash, King of Israel. (c. 790 BCE)
c. Attack by Aram and northern Israel. (734 BCE)
d. Siege of Jerusalem by Sennacherib, fighting a revolt against the Neo-Assyrian Empire. (701 BCE)
e. Siege and surrender of Jerusalem to Nebuchadnezzar II, who crushed a rebellion in the Kingdom of Judah and resulted in deportation of King Jehoiachin to Babylon.(597 BCE)
f. Siege of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar II, who fought pharaoh Apries's attempt to invade Judah. It ended in the destruction of the city and First Temple, and the exile of prominent citizens to Babylon. (587-586 BCE)
g. Probable sack of Jerusalem by the Persians. (350 BCE)
h. Destruction of Jerusalem by Ptolemy Soter, a general who served under Alexander the Great. (320 BCE)
i. Sieges of Akra (southern hill of Jerusalem) and the temple. (163-162 BCE)
j. Siege of Akra (southern hill of Jerusalem).(146 BCE)
k. Siege and leveling of Jerusalem's wall's by Antiochus VII of the Hellenistic Seleucid Empire. (134 BCE)
l. Brief and successful siege by the Nabateans (Arabs of southern Palestine and northern Arabia) (65 BCE).
m. Siege, capture and partial destruction by Roman leader, Pompey. (63 BCE)
n. Sack of Jerusalem's temple by Roman general Marcus Crassus. (54 BCE),
o. Capture and pillaging of Jerusalem by Parthians of the Arsacid Empire. (40 BCE)
p. Siege and partial destruction by Herod the Great and Solsius (37 BCE).So no less than 16 times (at least 6 times in the 100 years preceding Jesus birth) was Jerusalem and it's temple attacked during its Israelite history.So why would it be a stretch of the imagination even if Jesus had actually stated that the stones of Jerusalem's temple would be thrown down since the temple itself had been destroyed 2 times and rebuilt 2 times (once by the Babylonians and again by Herod the Great in order to rebuild a grander and more elaborate temple) in its history during Jesus' day.Is this really a prophecy from God or more of an educated prediction based on previous catastrophic events? The strife between the Jews and there Roman oppressors was very evident to all who lived in Palestine at that time and to make the predictions that Jesus did about the temple would really not be all that extraordinary but would actually be, predictable, to all accept those blinded by the Jewish zealots who foolishly (but bravely) thought they could wrest control from the Roman empire to gain total independence of Israel and Jerusalem.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

---

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

Thanks for the exchange Brian ...
Hope all is well. This is the risk associated with education ...lol - it does not often pay well.Even still, in cahoots with the liberal methods of presentation readily accepted, it appears that the variety and quality of substantiated materials often presented here may be responsible for providing EvC with a clear distinction from the endless host of mindless blathering pits flowin' heavy with verbal diarrhea while poisonin' the interwebz. lol - I hear ya. Peg has left me pissin' in the wind all too often ...But in all fairness, there are others, such as Rrhain, who continue this behavior with her concurrently.It appears as though nuggin naturally assumes his inability to provide any substantial scholarly evidence in support of his assertion that the Hebrew prophet who's rememberance became latched onto by the RCC was indeed imaginary; yet, he claims no less. Not for nothin', but it is easy to ignore someone when they are unwilling or unable to support their dogma ...You know that ... you were once a 'Christian' - lol It is evident, by the quality and quanity of his resources, that nuggin has debated nothing. Nevertheless, I appreciate much of what he attempts to explain ... First I would have to imagine them as wise.I'm still having trouble with that ...Thankfully.One Love

Which means that Horus is a real historical person who did those miracles - first - and therefore the Egyptian deities are real, thus proving that the Bible is false in it's claim that Yahweh the Child Killer is the one and only God.

No, he was pointing out that the ACTUAL authors are not the one's you believe they are.Judas did NOT write the Gospel of Judas which contains in it's pages Judas' death.The Gospels were written AT LEAST 70 years later. That means that these people were between 90 and 110 years old at the time - ie long dead.

I am debating a Fundamentalist Christian who's tactics include ignoring evidence and outright lying.ANY website I reference is going to be rejected out of hand. So, I don't reference a specific website. I instruct her to check out MANY websites.It's not like I'm talking about an obscurred scientific study done by one scientist and published in the back pages of an unheard of journal.She's doubting the a CORE figure in Egyptian mythology.That's like you referencing George Washington and me asking you for evidence that he existed, was president and is on the one dollar bill.It's PERFECTLY acceptable for you to say "look it up" when the evidence is ABUNDANT.Googling "Horus" gives 4,680,000 links. The first two of which are:
1) A wiki page explaining who he is
2) A comparison between Horus and JesusBoth RIGHT ON TOPIC.However, she didn't go look these up because he tactic is to ask for information and then ignore it.By the way... You didn't reference "this is a debate forum", you didn't reference "the burden of proof", you didn't reference "scholarly materials"...See how annoying it gets when someone asks you to prove things which are accepted by all?

Don't be a douchbag.The FACT of the matter is this. Peg's question:"Im very curious as to where you got this information from which is why I asked. "Was worded in such a way that it was CLEAR that her intent was to discredit any sources I provided.SO, rather than provide her with a SPECIFIC source, I gave her to tools to find HUNDREDS of autonomous sources which have the SAME information.If you ask for proof of something, and I provide you with A LINK, then you can say "I characteristically disregard your source of out hand because I'm a Christian and therefore I'm always right".Peg has already explained and demonstrated that this is her intended tactic.As such, I've given her only one option - REJECT THE ENTIRE INTERNET.If you have a problem with that. Tough crap.

Thanks for the exchange Peg.
Hope things are good ... Are you suggesting that honesty is a hallmark of anonymous letters? The fact that you would present a question of this nature seems to indicate that authenticity maintains no value to you. That is craziness Peg.Below are three methodological areas of concern often employed by earnest researchers who intend to identify markers of authorship ...1) linguistic data sampling2) establishing the reliability of authorship markers3) establishing the validity of authorship markersSo, linguistics aside, when reliability and validity begin to seek priority towards your research, authors identities will perhaps become relevant. It should seem apparent that the content value may be effected by the genuine motivation of the authors in question.The value one places on the 'importance' of various works may depend, to a large degree, on the determination of reliability and validity that an author's character and reputation often provide.So, supposing the authors are reliable and valid, the content may be important. Yet, supposing the authors had more pressing concerns than reliability and validation, the importance may decrease.One may contemplate in what ways a fancified account of Yeshua's life, that interweaved various familiar religious traditions, may have provided a relief to the primary concerns that permeated medieval Rome, while considering it was likely one of the most prominent and final editors of its final masterpiece.Yeremiah tells us, matter of factly, that Levite scribes forged Torah documents to their own ends.Perhaps you may contemplate in what ways the Levite forgeries effected Yisrael as well.One Love

Thank you for the exchangw nuggin.
Hope all is well in your camp ... YOU DON'T TALK TO ME LIKE THAT !! (nah, I'm just kiddin' - I don't mind)lol - yea, I am still workin' on that one and havin' a bit of a hard time apparently ...Nevertheless, you present what seems to be a fairly tall claim, all things considered. C'mon nuggin - don't sink to fundamental depths ... the fact of the matter is you're not debating.Peg's lame attempts to discredit any substantive scholarly materials you provide will likey fall as flat as your own attempts when you decide not to support your claims. lol - you gave her 'Google'; not that it is necessarily scholarly, but I am assuming she already had it. You resort to similar tactics nuggin and one would have to be partially blind, or bias, to see otherwise.It seems too bad though, because much of what you are attempting to explain and understand about Horus and Yeshua appears very relevant imho. Now, you see, I would have expected that option from a fundamentalist; yet, I preserved a separate bias on your behalf.Perhaps a dogmatic is a dogmatic after all, but still ... I ain't countin' no chick'ns before they hatch. No problems mate ... matter of fact, I got nuttin' but love for the nuggin.One Love

I did support my claims. What's the difference between a link to the top two pages on Google and instructions on how to call them up?Peg isn't going to check either one. You are ASSUMING she'd heard of it, but you know full well that she didn't check it - did she? She asked me where I was getting my info. I told her how to find SEVERAL sites with the same info.Did you google Horus? Did you read the pages? Do you still believe my evidence is unsupported?I'm talking about general knowledge of Egyptian mythology.Do you HONESTLY think that if I had provided her with 5 links that she would have checked ANY of them?Do you HONESTLY think that if she HAD checked them, that she was accept the information on those sites?No, of course she wouldn't. She flat out told us that NO AMOUNT of information is EVER going to change her mind.When she asked for a source, she was being deliberately dishonest, because that's all she is capable of.If you reject my information, why don't YOU provide a source that contradicts what I am saying.

Would it be asking too much to bring this topic, back on topic. The topic is not Peg or nuggin.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

Jesus words describe the method of how the city would be taken. He said the 'enemies will build a wall of fortified stakes and encircle the city' That piece of information is exactly how the Romans did it and this is why there is so much talk about this particular prophecy. Its too specific to be an educated guess. with regard to when Luke wrote his Gospel, the internal evidence points to a much earlier time then scholars suggest. Acts 1:1 indicates that the writer of Acts (who was also Luke) had already composed 'the first account' which was the Gospel. So we know that Lukes Gospel was in circulation before the book of Acts.Acts was completed before Pauls appeal to Caesar for it concludes with Paul still in custody in Rome.Paul was first imprisoned under Felix governorship(52-58). He was still in prison in 58 when Porcius Festus took over the governorship of Felix.
Then Festus sent Paul to Rome in 58 to appeal to Ceasar. The account of Acts ends with Paul being in prison there for 2 years and still waiting to appeal, so that puts Paul in rome about 60-61CE.Now because Acts finishes with Paul still awaiting his trial, it means Acts must have been complete by about 61-62CE at the latest. And this means that the 'first account' (Luke) was completed and in circulation before Acts was.So the prophecy was written well in advance of its fulfillment.And, why is it always assumed the that writers were telling tall tales? Lets assume that the followers of Christ were on the level. In that case the prophecy was actually spoken before Jesus death in 33CE.

you'll have to elaborate...im only familiar with the Gospels of Matthew Mark Luke and John.There is a letter of JUDE, if thats what you are talking about???

but this is exactly what a fundamentalist athiest does. They reject any evidence provided by anyone who is a christian. Any scientist who happens to be a christian is no longer a scientist but a creationist, and any scholar who provides evidence FOR the bible is an apologist.Any christian material I might provide is automatically rejected because it is not secular.And by your own logic, If you google Jesus Christ you will likely get millions of links about Jesus so why are you denying his existence?I wanted YOUR view of the information. What is YOUR conclusion and WHY?
Or is it easier to just cut and paste long snippets of something from your google search? I suppose you dont really have to think about it, you can just say, here's the information and its all true.but is it true? Have you really thought about it?Thats why i ask specifically for your opinion. If you cant give it then you either havnt thought it through enough, or your opinion is the links opinion.

No, the Gospel of Judas. It was relatively recently uncovered and translated.There were more than four apostles. Why disregard 75% of the record in favor of four which can't even agree amongst themselves.

Oh please.First of all, the VAST majority of evolution supports are Christian. Check out the Vatican's position on the topic.It's not a scientist who is a christian is a creationist. It's a christian who is a creationists CAN NOT be a scientist. Creationism is the opposite of evidence based logical reasoning. It's substituting "MAGIC!" for reason.And, as far as the Bible is concerned, I'd hardly consider you a "scholar".Apologists don't provide evidence, they provide excuses. If you'd like some examples, scroll up and re-read your posts. No. Your material is rejected because it's presented in a dishonest manor.Someone points out that Mark didn't actually write G of Mark, you respond with a quote about Paul in a different book.That's not evidence. That's trying to mislead people into believing something that isn't there. Wow. You HONESTLY don't know the difference between a site being ABOUT something versus having INFORMATION ABOUT something?By this standard, Harry Potter and Superman are both just as likely to be real as Jesus. No you didn't. You wanted to show us how "strong" a Christian you are by catagorically rejecting all information which comes your way.We get it. We can't convince you that your fantasy is incorrect. You win. Congrats. Care to find a SINGLE example of my cutting and pasting long snippets?No? Didn't think so. That's because I haven't done that.Of course, why let that FACT interrupt your dishonesty. Just keep on making crap up - it's what you're good at. No, you didn't. You asked for a website detailing the information I gave you. I explained how you could find it.Did you? Did you both to look up ANY of the websites? Did you read EVEN ONE OF THEM?NO. No you didn't. That's because it was NEVER your intention to do so. That's because you didn't ask the question to be able to go find out this stuff for yourself. You asked the question because you wanted to try and discredit the facts.How did that work out for you? Oh right, it didn't because you didn't bother to actually go check out the websites.Why is that exactly? Afraid of what you might find? Or just intellectually lazy?