Mythology with real places & people

Theodoric, you tickle me. We agree that even myths like the Iliad and the Odessy have some historical fact behind them. If we do like you say and show the historical basis, such as Sennacherib's caging Hezekiah like a golden bird, you can still claim the spiritual aspects, such as the angel of the lord putting 185,000 to death, as myth. Isn't it really the spiritual aspect that you question? No matter how many historical facts that someone might present, this is not a way that has a chance of convincing you.

Present the historical facts.You do realize that though some of the bible stories may have some basis in historical events, adding the supernatural makes them mythology just like other myths of that time period.Condescension does not become you and has no place in this debate. Do not give me that christianist attitude, that I am just some silly unbeliever that should be laughed at.

---

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

Peg responds to me:

quote:

---

but the bible isnt about a particular religion

---

Huh? If that is so, where is the description of how humans were made from maize?

quote:

---

its about a particular God and that God has been in existence from times immemorial.

---

But you just said the Bible isn't about a particular religion. How can that be when the gods that truly exist are the ones born from the mating of Earth and Sky? You didn't really think that the god that truly exists was the Christian one, did you?

quote:

---

And regarding your earlier comment about God not needing to have a son, the bible says that God has myriads of Angelic Sons.

---

No, not in the Torah, it doesn't. Are you, perchance, referring to Genesis 6 or Psalms 82? It would help if you would actually bother to quote the text directly.

quote:

---

Sorry, still cant agree that Jesus is The Almighty.

---

You mean you deny the direct statement of Jesus that he is ("I and my father are one")? Are we about to find another person who seems to think that words don't actually mean what they mean? When Jesus said "one," he really meant "not one"? What about the direct statement in John that the "word was god" and that the "word was made flesh"? The direct statement in Colossians that the godhead resided fully within Jesus? The direct statement in 1 Timothy that god was made manifest in flesh? The direct statement in Philippians that Jesus was "in the form of god"?Well, no wonder we're having trouble. You're like Paul: You seem to think that you are able to overrule Jesus about what he actually said about himself.Seriously, Peg...have you never heard of Unitarians? Do you seriously not understand why they even exist? Trinitarianism is one of the main points of Christianity: Jesus was not just a special man but was god made flesh.Compare this to the statement of Judaism:Deu 6:4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:There is no "son of god."

---

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.

Brian responds to me:

quote:

---

There are poems in the Torah, but the Torah itself isn't a poem.

---

The Torah is oral tradition and is meant to be sung. That's where the cantors come from. While it certainly isn't poetry in the same class as, say, the epic poetry of Greece, it isn't simple prose.Peg's argument is that the Bible is akin to a scholarly history treatise. It isn't. It's dramatic text at least and poetic throughout.

---

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.

Bailey responds to me:

quote:

---

so religious pranksters begin to refer to the Father as 'I AM', and whenever somebody says the phrase, 'I am', they are blasphemous. Nice ...

---

Huh? That isn't what the text says. Instead, it says that Jesus was directly asked if he was the son of god and he directly replied, "I am." The physical words, "I am," in that particular order aren't blasphemy. You seem to think that "blasphemy" is tied to a particular sequence of letters of phonemes. Instead, blasphemy is a concept. There is no god but god in Judaism. For Jesus to claim that he is the son of god is to blaspheme. The specific words used to express that claim are immaterial: It is the claim that is the problem.

quote:

---

Your dual charges appear to remain mutually exclusive.

---

Since you misquoted, your claim is trivially proven false.

quote:

---

Are we just posting random jew faqs now?

---

Oy.

quote:

---

You said HaMashiach 'claimed divinity for Himself'; is that what Yeshua meant by 'sitting at the right hand of power'?

---

What? You mean the Bible contradicts itself! (*gasp!*) Oh, noes! Say it isn't so! A book cobbled together over hundreds of years by multiple authors, redacted by others, and compiled by still others isn't completely consistent in every phrase? Surely you jest!I guess I get to ask you the same question:Do you not know about trinitarianism?

---

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.

Are you using Paul's words as evidence about Jesus' nature while simultaneously dismissing him? And are you citing Unitarians as evidence that Trinitarianism is a main point of Christianity? Trinitarianism is certainly predominant, but not all encompassing. There are still plenty of groups that would be commonly called "Christian" but either reject the Trinity or don't consider worrying about it particularly vital, as well as the historical groups such as the Cathars and Marcionites, there are also the Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses.

yes, i guess i havethank goodness for prophecy!

Well, I think that would depend on which particular story we examine.It is a perfectly logical conclusion to assume, for example, that many of the stories have kernels of history within then that are indeed surrounded by myths and legends. Do you really think that if one part of a story is supernatural then we should reject the entire account? What about the Babylonian exile, don’t you think that happened?From a personal point of view, I used to believe everything in the Bible was true, then I went to the other extreme where I rejected everything in it. Today though, in regard to the historicity of the stories, I sit somewhere in between the two extremes. The spiritual claims can never be proven, you either accept them or you don’t, I personally don’t. However, after a lot of years of studying theology, history, and archaeology at 3 unis I think the logical conclusion is that the authors of the Bible were the same as the authors of any other ancient text, propagandists. The area I am interested in is really the origins of Israel debate, from enslavement to the united monarchy, and the authors of the texts that relate to this were obviously not interested in recording an accurate history, they were as biased as any other ancient author. They were not writing a critical history for us to dissect many hundreds of years later, they were creating texts to persuade people that they best do what Yahweh wants them to do or else!I think a lot of Bible believers would benefit from reading the Bible alongside some of the many extant ancient near eastern texts then they would appreciate the skill of the narrators a lot more. They would also be surprised at how similar it is to other texts and how heavily the Bible authors borrowed from surrounding cultures, a part of the story of Joseph for example is clearly borrowed from the Egyptian ‘Tale of Two Brothers’, Moses’ early escape is lifted from Sargon the Elder, the Exodus Route could have been lifted from the Tale of Sinuhe etc.There are characters from the Bible that are supported from external sources, The Mesha Stele (Moabite Stone) does give support for an historical King Omri:Lines 4-5 of the stone: because he has delivered me from all kings, and because he has made me triumph over all my enemies. As for Omri
the king of Israel, and he humbled Moab for many years (days), for Chemosh was angry with his land. Now some of the stories written about King Omri may indeed be myths, but does that mean that King Omri didn’t exist?What I would say that you may agree with is that if any other ancient text’s history was as poorly supported as that of the Bible, that text would be put on the fiction shelf of the world’s libraries long ago.As your signature says, facts are facts, and in regard to the accuracy of the ‘history’ presented in the early books of the Bible, the fact is the accuracy of the Bible is appalling.

Hopefully, one day, Peg will come to realise the disservice that she is doing the Bible, and how much she is missing out onThanks for the clarification.

Job 1:6 'the sons of God entered, and Satan entered'
JOb 2:1 ' the sons of the true God took their station before him'
Job 38:7 'and all the sons of God began shouting in applause'
Deut 33:2 'and with him were his holy myriads'
Ps 148:2 'Praise him all you his Angels, his heavenly army'
Lu 2:13 'with the Angel, a multitude of the heavenly army'
Gen 6:2 'the sons of the true God...'
Ps 103:20 'O you his Angels carrying out his word' well thats very debatable but I wont debate it here. If you want to start a new thread on proving the trinity, by all means do so.If 'Trinity' means a triune or three-in-one that means God is three Persons, namely, 'God the Father', 'God the Son', and 'God the Holy Ghost'.
Correct???Assuming this is a correct definition, then the term 'God' must mean the 'Trinity' and the Trinity and God must be interchangeable. Correct???Assuming again i'm correct i'd like you to explain something for me.How does the trinity fit into John 1:1"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the Trinity, and the Word was the Trinity. The same was in the beginning with the Trinity."If the 'Word' was himself a Person and he was with the Trinity, then there would be four Persons.
But the 'Word' is said to be the Second Person of the Trinity, 'God the Son.'Could you please shed some light on this? And i really do look forward to your answer.

I have not said anything about rejecting anything. All I have stated is the bible is a book of mythology and legend. By virtue of definitions the moment the supernatural enters, the stories become mythology and legend.I agree that there are parts of the bible based on actual historical events. "Gone with the Wind" has historical events in it, is it real? The Iliad and the Odyssey seem to be based on historical events, do you not perceive them as myth and legend?You can intersperse any number of historical facts and events into a work of fiction, but that does not make the story true. There is no other non-biblical verification of the supernatural elements of the bible. As there are no external verifications of any other books of legend and mythology. Once there is you can represent the case that the bible is not a book of legend and mythology.

---

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

Sure, but its not JUST mythology. You don't even know what you're talking about. You're just making stuff up. Thanks for the unsupported assertion. Well whoopty-frickin-do.A list of laws for a group of people doesn't really qualify as a myth or a legend. A prayer or a song is not a myth or legend, its a prayer or a song.Its obvious that you're wrong when you say that it is JUST myth and legend.But as you say, you can believe whatever you want. Even wrong stuff.

Well explain how the the laws , poems, songs, prayers etc. have any meaning without the myth and legend that accompanies them. How is it an unsupported assertion? Show an external source that gives them relevance without their mythological basis. Do you have an external source for this list of laws? A prayer to a supernatural entity may not be directly itself a myth but it is a prayer to a mythological being. The songs, prayers, whatever are part of the mythology that is the bible.Again I have to ask what is the whole rudeness and condescension that comes from christianists whenever anyone makes a comment about their book? Have I been rude? There is no reason to be an a-hole. Present your evidence to try to convince of your argument. If you can't do that politely, then please don't respond.

---

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

Disservice?if i claimed the bible to be nothing more then myth and legend based on mythical characters with no historical merit, that would be a credit to the bible???I suppose then you would congratulate me for seeing the light.However, I take the whole bible as historical and factual and I am doing it a disservice???Hmmmm im confused!

According to some the bible is actually folklore. Myth is part of folklore.

quote:

---

"myth" is not a synonym for error or fallacy but is rather a sacred narrative explaining how the world and mankind came to be in their present form. Myth is one genre out of several hundred genres of folklore

---

Holy Writ as Oral Lit
Alan Dundes
Rowman and Littlefield Publishers
1999
Page 2You might want to read this book. Well written by a folklore scholar. Most christianists won't bother to read books like this because of how the books question their preconceived mindset and world view.Oh and if you have any doubts about the credentials of the author of the above book here is the wiki entry. Alan Dundes

---

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