Mythology with real places & people

Peg writes:

quote:

---

and if those gods were real, then surely they would have followers but they dont.

---

Except they do. Don't confuse your personal experience with an actual survey of the population.

quote:

---

How is it possible for a small group of ancients to create a God that billions of people still worship?

---

Ask any of the followers of the other religions that are just as old and older than Christianity.

quote:

---

Surely even you would admit that the God of the bible is unique in this regard.

---

Nope, not at all. Christianity isn't that old. Even the Judaism it morphed from isn't the oldest religion around. And the only reason Christianity ever managed to become more than a local, regional cult is because Constantine managed to be converted.

quote:

---

People have willingly died for this God and lived their lives according to his rules.

---

The same can be said for all religions. The kamikaze bombers at Pearl Harbor were dying for the sake of the divinity of the emperor. By your logic, Hirohito was god. The cultists at Waco died for the sake of the divinity of David Koresh. By your logic, he was god.Why do you think you can get away with special pleading?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

but the bible isnt about a particular religionits about a particular God and that God has been in existence from times immemorial.And regarding your earlier comment about God not needing to have a son, the bible says that God has myriads of Angelic Sons. Jesus was the foremost of the Angelic Sons of God. Sorry, still cant agree that Jesus is The Almighty.

So you agree thata) reporting an historical event accurately does not mean being right about the causes of that event.b) even if the conclusion was that a supernatural cause was in play was accurate, that doesn't mean that the supernatural agent credited with the event actually had anything to do with it.?It seems to me, that by agreeing to this you have undermined your own point.The rest of your post about how nobody follows people with psychic powers, or Roman, Greek, Egyptian or Germanic-Norse deities is as demonstrably false as it is irrelevant.

Though my heart lies with Peg's beliefs, you are right. No matter how accurate the story is, you can't use it to prove the spiritual part, the cause of the event. Even with Noah's flood, we have more than two versions, One connects the flood with the God of the Bible, the others connect with Gods devoutly worshiped in Mesopotamia for thousands of years. How does one know which one, if any, had anything to do with it. Though, for us Christians, it is important that the Bible reports history accurately, it doesn't prove God's existence, or that he had a hand in the event. Thus, Christians focus on changed lives. The letter of 1 John lists about 25 signs to look for in a Christian.
As a sidelight, a good case can be made that the Hindus still worship gods that are related to the Roman gods. I have even seen articles proposing that the worship of Mary and the saints is a modern incarnation of the Roman gods. You are right, it is rather irrelevant.
Thus, I can try to show that the the Garden of Eden or the flood were a Historical events, and even try to show that they were involved with religious conflicts between two different sets of beliefs. Proving them true eliminates a reason to reject the religion, it doesn't prove the religion right. Therefore, I agree with Modulous' points a and b with this caveat, it does not mean being wrong either. You can't unequivocally state that the Bible is myth with real people, places, and events.

There are poems in the Torah, but the Torah itself isn't a poem. The Song of the Sea (Song of Moses) in Exod 15 for example.I'm not sure what you are trying to say with your second point, it appears that you are saying that the Torah is called the Song of Solomon, or are you saying there's a reason they the Song of Solomon is called a 'song'? (it's also called the song of songs)Plus there's the Song of Deborah in Judges 5.

There's two versions intertwined in the Bible itself, (gen. 6-9).Part of the problem with the discipline of history is that some people aren't very sure what history actually is, they think it is something that happened in the past. It is also very difficult to gauge how accurate a story is, what tools would we use for this job?Also, different historians will accept different types of evidence.I have always said that any Christian who searches for things such as Noah's Ark, and accepts the tripe that they can find on the Internet, must have a very weak faith.The problem with events such as the Flood is that there are huge mountians of contradictory evidence, the Flood simply didnt happen. Does this mean that Jesus isn't God? Of course it doesn't.

Based on your faith. Other than this is irrelevant to the topic. it matters not whether your God exists from times immemorial or not. The point is that just because a real person or place is mentioned in writings does not give any creedence to the actuality of the story.Edited by bluescat48, : typos

---

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

Naturally - there are plenty of other reasons to think the accounts are wrong. Unless we frame things to be deliberately unfalsifiable, but that simply renders it pointless to debate about. But you can equivocally say it since myth doesn't necessarily mean false(though it can do):

quote:

---

A traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society

---

The Bible fits that definition of myth perfectly.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

I am saying that.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Thanks, I was going with the frequent belief that myth meant therefore false. I was wrong, according to the Dictionary. There was no statement on truth or falseness of the myth.

Well then you're wrong.It also has laws, poems, songs, prayers, etc.

Hi,So how do you arrive at your conclusion?

Thank you for the exchange ...
Hope all is well. So far so good ... lol - so religious pranksters begin to refer to the Father as 'I AM', and whenever somebody says the phrase, 'I am', they are blasphemous. Nice ...First you said that Yeshua was put on trial for admitting to be the Anointed One, the Son of the God of Yisrael. Now you are changing your story.Nevermind that the question was not 'Are you the I AM?' or 'Are you YHWH', but rather simply 'Art thou the Anointed One, the Son of the Blessed?'.So, now you are apparently charging that Yeshua claimed divinity - which is it?Your dual charges appear to remain mutually exclusive.[emphasis added]Are we just posting random jew faqs now? Oh, sorry - that last point was probably meant to prop up this crooked shanty.You said HaMashiach 'claimed divinity for Himself'; is that what Yeshua meant by 'sitting at the right hand of power'?At first glance, I thought when Yeshua said 'ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power', he really meant He would be sitting at the right hand of another's power. Had you not interpreted that for us we may have never got that ...It should be fairly obvious to anyone who does not refer to God as 'I AM' that Yeshua was saying the phrase 'I am' in response to the question He was originally asked; that being, 'Art thou the Anointed One, the Son of the Blessed?'.Let's take a peek at the tenth chapter of John as well, where Yeshua's confused and angry siblings again attempt to cornhole Him.The Jewish leaders surrounded him and asked,
'How long will you keep us in suspense?
If you are Mashiach, tell us plainly.'Yeshua replied,'I told you and you do not believe.

​

The deeds I do in my Father’s name testify about me.

​

But you refuse to believe because you are not my sheep.

​

My sheep listen to my voice, and I know them, and they follow me.

​

I give them eternal life, and they will never perish; no one will snatch them from my hand.

​

My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one can snatch them from my Father’s hand.

​

The Father and I are one.'So, as we can see, Yeshua was under the impression that various deeds that He had performed in His Father's name, like Moses before Him, testified that He was the Anointed One of Yisrael, the Son of the Blessed. Yeshua was in one accord with the Father, as Moses similarly was.At this point, the cultic defenders prepare to stone Him and, after a quick exchange, Yehoshua answers ... Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, you are gods’?'.This reference is found within the Septuagint, which, in addition to the standard Torah, Yeshua occasionally applies the term 'law' to, and is found, more specifically, in Psalms 82:6. One issue in this verse concerns the meaning of Yeshua’s quotation from the Psalm.It is important to immerse ourselves within the context of the Original Testaments; the whole line reads ...I say, you are gods, sons of the Most High, all of you'The Psalm was understood in rabbinic circles as an attack on unjust judges who, though they have been given the title ‘gods’ because of their quasi-divine function of exercising judgment, are just as mortal as other men. Yeshua picks up on the term 'sons of the Most High' in John 10:36, where he refers to Himself as the Son of God.What is the argument here? It is often thought to be something like this: If it was an OT practice to refer to men like the judges as gods, yet not be considered blasphemy, why did the Jewish authorities object when this term was applied to Yeshua?However, some will suggest this really doesn’t seem to fit the context, arguing if that were the case Yeshua would not be making any claim for 'divinity' for Himself over and above any other human being - and therefore He would not be subject to the charge of blasphemy.Yet, it does not appear Yehoshua was establishing any claim for ‘divinity’ for Himself over and above the acceptable interpretation - the rabbis were, in part, likely pissed that their precious logic was defunct (checkmate) and their primary source of income and sustenance had the potential to suffer immensely as a result.This is, evidently, a case of arguing from the lesser to the greater - a common form of rabbinic argument. The reason the OT judges could be called gods is because they were vehicles of the word of God (10:35). But granting that premise, Yeshua would seem to deserve, much more than they, to be referred to as a God, considering a bunch of corrupt poli-religious pranksters were getting away with it left and right, and makin' a killin' doin' it.After all, Yeshua is ‘the Word incarnate’, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world to ‘save the world’ (10:36). In light of the prologue to the Gospel of John, it seems this interpretation would have been most natural for the author. If it is permissible to call men ‘gods’ because they were the vehicles of the word of God, how much more permissible is it to use the word ‘God’ of him who presents himself as the Word of God knowing full well He will not gain a penny?One LoveEdited by Bailey, : sp.

---

I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe ...
Tho my intentions are no less than to tickle your thinker.
Why trust what I say when you can learn for yourself?
Think for yourself.Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary

It is as much mythology as the greek and roman myths or the egyptian myths or any other myths from the bronze age.The laws , poems, songs, prayers etc. are all based upon the myths and legends. Without the myths and legends you don't have all of the rest.Saying I am wrong is pretty strong statement. You can believe what you want, but to me it is all myth and legend.Edited by Theodoric, : spelling

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

What other conclusion is logical? It is full of myths and legends. Anything that speaks of the supernatural or of magic is myth and legend. Show any of the stories have a non-biblical, historical source to back them up and I might reconsider. Til then they are myth and legend.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts