ForumGarden

I can't agree with that. First of all the Bible is mostly midrash and an understanding of midrash gives a far different interpretation. The first five books attributed to Moses were compiled from a few oral traditions and put into writing during the Babylonian exodus. Some of the "books" are just a midrash on another one.

Can you imagine Moses writing about his own death and burial? LOL

Ted;1484047 wrote: Can you imagine Moses writing about his own death and burial? LOL


Joshua wrote the end of it and the Book of Joshua, but the Holy Spirit could have guided Moses if He had wanted to. You do realize that Joshua took over when Moses died right?

If that is what you think that is fine with me. Scholarly research indicates otherwise. The Pentateuch was put together from oral tradition during the Babylonian exile. Several oral traditions were put together thus we have at least 2 creation stories and 2 Flood stories along with irreconcilable genealogy's among other stories. How did Jus die?? Apparently two different ways. Interesting trick. I could start a thread on the inconsistencies is any one wants.

Jus should have read Judas.

Ted;1484194 wrote: Jus should have read Judas.


Get a grip on your typing Teddles, I read it as 'Jesus'.:-5

If that's not possible, would you be able to employ a proof reader?

fuzzy if that is all you have to worry about we are in good shape. Yes I do make typos. So?

fuzzy, I will not apologize for typos. I am extremely visually impaired. I do try to search them out but do miss some or many. I still read but it takes a long time. I am not complaining since that is life and a speed bump on the road of life. That is just the way it is.

Fair enough, Ted. Sorry, I didn't know. I should have read your profile earlier.

fuzzy sorry about that but I'm not sure I ever mentioned it. I don't need sympathy just understanding. Anyway not to worry. To fill it in completely I have been told I could go totally blind at any moment but I haven't let that stop me. LOL

Ted;1484118 wrote: If that is what you think that is fine with me. Scholarly research indicates otherwise. The Pentateuch was put together from oral tradition during the Babylonian exile. Several oral traditions were put together thus we have at least 2 creation stories and 2 Flood stories along with irreconcilable genealogy's among other stories. How did Jus die?? Apparently two different ways. Interesting trick. I could start a thread on the inconsistencies is any one wants.


I find it interesting how unbelievers try to claim that "Scholars" indicate otherwise, when the vast majority of them don't indicate otherwise. The Pentateuch was written by Moses and the books were placed in the Ark of the Covenant. You can claim that it was oral tradition, but there is no evidence of that and the writings themselves tell you who wrote them and that they were placed in the Ark of the Covenant. Liberal "Scholars" may agree with you, but most credible scholars wouldn't.

That story about Moses writing the Pentateuch is a great myth. A good deal of the Bible is from oral tradition with the exception of the letters that the historical Paul wrote and not the pseudo-Pauls. Most of the comments that pertain to Jesus can be found in the OT. After their experience of the very human Jesus of Nazareth they then wrote them up to fit supposed prophesy. Jesus was likely born in Nazareth since that is how he is referred to. But the OT said he should be born in Bethlehem so that is how it was written. That the prophesy might be fulfilled.

Ted;1484827 wrote: That story about Moses writing the Pentateuch is a great myth. A good deal of the Bible is from oral tradition with the exception of the letters that the historical Paul wrote and not the pseudo-Pauls. Most of the comments that pertain to Jesus can be found in the OT. After their experience of the very human Jesus of Nazareth they then wrote them up to fit supposed prophesy. Jesus was likely born in Nazareth since that is how he is referred to. But the OT said he should be born in Bethlehem so that is how it was written. That the prophesy might be fulfilled.


It's not a myth. It was written by the Eyewitnesses to the events. Yes, Jesus is mention all through out the Old Testament. That should be interesting to you since He wasn't even born until hundreds of years after it was completed. The NT says He was born in Bethlehem so yes the prophesy was fulfilled. That's how Herod knew where He was by reading the OT. Think about that.

xfrodobagginsx;1484881 wrote: It's not a myth. It was written by the Eyewitnesses to the events.


Eyewitnesses don't lie or make up stories, do they? It's written in a book, so it must be true.:wah:

First of all it is a myth. Moses describes his death and burial?? Never saw that one before. No Jesus is not mentioned in the OT. After the experience of Jesus the scribes went to the OT to fit the stories to Jesus.He had to e born in Bethlehem because that is what the OT indicated of the Messiah. They had to write the story that way in order to make It fit even though Jesus was born in Nazareth. Prophesy is not about predicting the distant future. They were writing about their own time. Example If I don't eat I will get sick. That is the nature of prophesy. The book of Revelation was not about the end of the world it was about the end of the Roman empire which they thought was immanent. 666 is a reference to Nero. They made Jesus fit the stories.

I have yet to meet a talking snake or anyone walking on water or the sun standing still for 24 hours. These are absurdities.

With the possible exception of some of the authentic letters of Paul most of the Bible is midrash. It is an ancient Jewish method of both writing and interpreting. It makes a great use of metaphor. Archaeology does not support the great historicity of the Bible. There are some bits of history spread throughout.

Just to clarify. I have been studying the Bible both informally and formally for over 40 years. I still relate to and will take more courses at the Vancouver of Theology. I have spent much time on the Bible as a book and how it came to be as well as interpretation. In addition I have several years of formal study at universities. Not bragging that is just a fact. In all of this my faith has gone from very little in a fundamentalist church to a very strong faith and one getting stronger by the day. I also learned translation from both Hebrew and Greek.

Fuzzy;1484908 wrote: Eyewitnesses don't lie or make up stories, do they? It's written in a book, so it must be true.:wah:


One could, Two maybe, but not 40, many of which didn't even know each OTHER!! Yet it fits together as one book. God knew what He was doing.

Jesus is talked about all throughout the OT, but not by name, in writings written hundreds of years before His birth. Those writings are why Herod Knew when and where Jesus would be born and why he tried to kill Jesus. Interestingly, it does ask what His name is if you can tell:



Pr 30:4 Who has ascended into heaven, or descended? Who has gathered the wind in His fists? Who has bound the waters in a garment? Who has established all the ends of the earth? What is His name, and what is His Son's name, If you know?

xfrodobagginsx;1485990 wrote: Jesus is talked about all throughout the OT, but not by name, in writings written hundreds of years before His birth. Those writings are why Herod Knew when and where Jesus would be born and why he tried to kill Jesus. Interestingly, it does ask what His name is if you can tell:



What is His name, and what is His Son's name, If you know?


Who cares? I'll have a guess.....Bruce and Trevor?

Fuzzy;1485995 wrote: Who cares? I'll have a guess.....Bruce and Trevor?
Naahh - Brian. He's a very naughty boy!!

Names like Yeshua (YESHUWA) Was derived from and Arabic storm god. Elohim was a Canaanite god at one time. Jesus is not mentioned in the OT. Many have created God in their own image. The scribes searched the OT and tried to make it apply to Jesus but it is not there.

I know The Life Of Brian is only intended as a farcical parody, but I really believe there's probably more truth to it than meets the eye. An oppressed people looking for an answer - if something from the prophecies doesn't quite fit, then 'creatively reinterpret' the scenario. Add a few little bits of literary licence here & there. Make it look good. Make it look magical, and lo & behold you have yourself a long awaited Messiah (a very naughty boy).

I call that creative dancing.

I can't help thinking that Jesus was a weirdo just like the one on the street corner with the big sheet saying 'Repent, the end is neigh' or something stupid like that.

Jesus was very much a subversive. He was totally anti-Rome. His mission if I can use that term was to the poor and the oppressed. Yes he was a sh+t disturber. We could use a few more today.

I think it was in an episode of Rising Damp, when Rigsby referred to Jesus as being a Hippy. When challenged on the matter he replied something like, "Long hair, wore sandals, didn't have a job, spent his time drinking wine with his mates. What else do you want?"

Of course his mates were the ones he was trying to help, the oppressed and the marginalized. Of course he drank wine. The Greek is very clear about that.. ps just don't tell and fundy that.

Ted;1486029 wrote: Names like Yeshua (YESHUWA) Was derived from and Arabic storm god. Elohim was a Canaanite god at one time. Jesus is not mentioned in the OT. Many have created God in their own image. The scribes searched the OT and tried to make it apply to Jesus but it is not there.


You have no idea what you are talking about. Yeshua is the same as Joshua, which means "Savior", it's the name that translates Jesus in the Greek. Jesus IS meantioned all through the OT, but not by name. The evidence is overwhelming that Jesus is all through out the OT. That's also why King Herod Knew where and when Jesus would be born is because of the OT writings of Him.

There is only one way to get into heaven. You need to be alive and train to be an astronaut and hope they will let you join the ISS.

Fuzzy;1486343 wrote: There is only one way to get into heaven. You need to be alive and train to be an astronaut and hope they will let you join the ISS.


Since heaven is a spiritual place, I don't think you could take a Rocket Ship there.

Oops I goofed. I should have typed YEHWEH instead of YEAHUA>

xfrodobagginsx;1486355 wrote: Since heaven is a spiritual place, I don't think you could take a Rocket Ship there.


This heaven thing is highly overrated.

xfrodobagginsx;1486308 wrote: You have no idea what you are talking about. Yeshua is the same as Joshua, which means "Savior", it's the name that translates Jesus in the Greek. Jesus IS meantioned all through the OT, but not by name. The evidence is overwhelming that Jesus is all through out the OT. That's also why King Herod Knew where and when Jesus would be born is because of the OT writings of Him.
You only need to look in a Baby Name Dictionary to see how stupid that claim is. Almost every name in there means something like "Blessed One", or some such twaddle. No-one is likely to give their child a name that means something like "Child of the Abominable One" are they. .... mind you, having said that, I think, perhaps I might, but that's just me. For example - my actual name is Jeremy (although I use Jerry) which is defined as follows:

The Meaning Of The Name Jeremy

Definition of Jeremy: God will exalt, appointed by God

Meaning of Jeremy: Medieval English form of JEREMIAH, and the form used in some versions of the New Testament.
(Jeremy: What Is The Meaning Of The Name Jeremy? Analysis Numerology Origin)

So there you have it. I am the Messiah. Does the Bible not repeatedly speak of He who is Appointed by God, who will come to be the Saviour of the Earth? There is the proof. Bow down & give homage to me!

The fact that the Bible constantly refered to some mythical Saviour(s) (I'm not even accepting the references refer to the SAME 'Saviour') certainly has no bearing on someone having a name that happens to mean the same thing.

Furthermore, with there not being any physical record that he ever really existed, except in the metaphorical sense, how are we to know that was really his name? How can someone who never existed have a name?

The references to 'Saviours' are merely conceptual, and a concept shared by all Religious scriptures. Christianity is probably unique inasmuch as they have made one up to have actually existed, with no evidence to support the claim as it is nothing but wishful thinking which over the years has been blown out of all proportion.

FourPart;1486462 wrote: You only need to look in a Baby Name Dictionary to see how stupid that claim is. Almost every name in there means something like "Blessed One", or some such twaddle. No-one is likely to give their child a name that means something like "Child of the Abominable One" are they. .... mind you, having said that, I think, perhaps I might, but that's just me. For example - my actual name is Jeremy (although I use Jerry) which is defined as follows:

(Jeremy: What Is The Meaning Of The Name Jeremy? Analysis Numerology Origin)

So there you have it. I am the Messiah. Does the Bible not repeatedly speak of He who is Appointed by God, who will come to be the Saviour of the Earth? There is the proof. Bow down & give homage to me!

The fact that the Bible constantly refered to some mythical Saviour(s) (I'm not even accepting the references refer to the SAME 'Saviour') certainly has no bearing on someone having a name that happens to mean the same thing.

Furthermore, with there not being any physical record that he ever really existed, except in the metaphorical sense, how are we to know that was really his name? How can someone who never existed have a name?

The references to 'Saviours' are merely conceptual, and a concept shared by all Religious scriptures. Christianity is probably unique inasmuch as they have made one up to have actually existed, with no evidence to support the claim as it is nothing but wishful thinking which over the years has been blown out of all proportion.


You are lacking in understanding. I didn't say that Yeshua means Savior, therefore.... Yeshua would be translated Joshua into english. There is overwhelming evidence that Jesus Christ is the Messiah. I don't need that to prove it.

I believe the suffix, "Christ" itself means Messiah. The name is Jesus.

The evidence is certainly NOT overwhelming. There is NO evidence that he is, or ever was the Messiah, nor is there ANY evidence that he even existed in the first place. All the scriptures are just fantasised exaggerations upon exaggerations of hearsay & folklore.

FourPart;1486516 wrote: I believe the suffix, "Christ" itself means Messiah. The name is Jesus.

The evidence is certainly NOT overwhelming. There is NO evidence that he is, or ever was the Messiah, nor is there ANY evidence that he even existed in the first place. All the scriptures are just fantasised exaggerations upon exaggerations of hearsay & folklore.


The evidence certainly IS overwhelming. There is a mountain of evidence that He is the Messiah and there is overwhelming evidence that He existed in the first place. I don't need the Eyewitness testimony of Scripture to prove that Jesus Christ existed. Your beliefs are based on ignorance of the evidence.

xfrodobagginsx;1486607 wrote: The evidence certainly IS overwhelming. There is a mountain of evidence that He is the Messiah and there is overwhelming evidence that He existed in the first place. I don't need the Eyewitness testimony of Scripture to prove that Jesus Christ existed. Your beliefs are based on ignorance of the evidence.
I certainly am ignorant of the evidence. Hardly surprising. There is none. Where is this "Mountain of Evidence? Where is this "Overwhelming Evidence" that he existed? Despite their best efforts to creatively interpret the vagueries of archaeology, even the most dedicated have not been able to prove his existence.

It is interesting that major scholars around the world accept that Jesus was indeed a real person. Thinking about his life leads me to believe that the historical Jesus would be appalled at what we have done with him. Assuming he was a real being he was a very subversive character. He was not and is not God but we see the true nature of God manifest in him. He was not crucified to save us from out sins but due to the fact they felt he was living a and speaking treason. The rest is just ideas appended to this rather human being.

xfrodobagginsx;1486607 wrote: The evidence certainly IS overwhelming. There is a mountain of evidence that He is the Messiah and there is overwhelming evidence that He existed in the first place. I don't need the Eyewitness testimony of Scripture to prove that Jesus Christ existed. Your beliefs are based on ignorance of the evidence.


There is no evidence whatsoever. If there were any we would all know about it by now. There have been so many jesus-like figures right throughout history. They all were able to suspend the laws of nature at will, like walking on water, feeding thousands with very little or turning water into wine. Strangely they could do that in the past but not nowadays when we could actually prove that it is possible.

David Copperfield, and other illusionists, for instance have duplicated his 'miracles' many times.

I guess some folks think they know more that the scholars and researchers. LOL.

Fuzzy;1486648 wrote: There is no evidence whatsoever. If there were any we would all know about it by now. There have been so many jesus-like figures right throughout history. They all were able to suspend the laws of nature at will, like walking on water, feeding thousands with very little or turning water into wine. Strangely they could do that in the past but not nowadays when we could actually prove that it is possible.


Wrong. People do know about it. It's just that people like you prefer to remain ignorant or discount the evidence and not real evidence, even when it is clear as the nose on your face. There wasn't anyone like Jesus in history. No one else could perform miracles. Only Jesus. No one else claimed to be God in the flesh. Only Jesus. No one else fulfilled hundreds of prophecies, which were written of them hundreds of years before their birth. Only Jesus. Jesus is the Lord and all men will bow before Him.

Ted;1486673 wrote: I guess some folks think they know more that the scholars and researchers. LOL.


Yeah I know. Even though the Scholars support what the Christians believe.

xfrodobagginsx;1486692 wrote: Wrong. People do know about it. It's just that people like you prefer to remain ignorant or discount the evidence and not real evidence, even when it is clear as the nose on your face. There wasn't anyone like Jesus in history. No one else could perform miracles. Only Jesus. No one else claimed to be God in the flesh. Only Jesus. No one else fulfilled hundreds of prophecies, which were written of them hundreds of years before their birth. Only Jesus. Jesus is the Lord and all men will bow before Him.
There is a total contradiction in terms. If it's not REAL evidence, then it's not evidence at all - or more to the point, it's MAKE-BELIEVE evidence, and the MAKE-BELIEVE evidence definitely IS overwhelming. There is overwhelming MAKE-BELIEVE evidence that Elvis is alive & well & living as a Tax Exile, or that thousands of people are kidnapped by aliens every year & anally probed.

Yes, I believe in the teachings of this mythological person. There may even be a grain of truth that such a person with such revolutionary ideas 'may' have existed. In fact, more likely than not, there were hundreds of them & it was there combined philosophy that eventually became merged into one imaginary being in an attempt, deliberate or evolved, to make the abstract concept into a physical thing. As for him being a Deitific Messiah, with all the apocryphal tales surrounding him - that is simply laughable. If they were true there would most certainly be major records of such events (not counting the Bible which, itself is founded on hearsay & creative interpretation centuries after the event).

You begin by saying that there is overwhelming evidence, then you admit that there's no REAL evidence at all, which is exactly what I have said all along. As with anything in Science, events can be proved to exist with the support of hard evidence, but they cannot be proved not to exist with or without it. It is impossible to prove the negative, but with no evidence to support the positive, the probability of it ever having existed continues to diminish. Can you prove that the Greek Gods never existed? I can't, yet there is overwhelming hearsay evidence that they did. Not 'REAL' evidence, mind you, but overwhelming evidence nonetheless. Your case for the existence of Jesus is no different.

xfrodobagginsx;1486692 wrote: Wrong. People do know about it. It's just that people like you prefer to remain ignorant or discount the evidence and not real evidence, even when it is clear as the nose on your face. There wasn't anyone like Jesus in history. No one else could perform miracles. Only Jesus. No one else claimed to be God in the flesh. Only Jesus. No one else fulfilled hundreds of prophecies, which were written of them hundreds of years before their birth. Only Jesus. Jesus is the Lord and all men will bow before Him.


As far as I can see there's only one ignorant person here, and there are billions of others just like you. But even if a billion people tell a lie, it still is a lie and doesn't become the truth.

Fuzzy;1486696 wrote: As far as I can see there's only one ignorant person here, and there are billions of others just like you. But even if a billion people tell a lie, it still is a lie and doesn't become the truth.
I think once again they are trying to take their cue from the Bible. Wasn't it said that it was the followers of Barabas who shouted loudest - as I understand it, not a majority of numbers, but those that make the most noise.

FourPart;1486726 wrote: I think once again they are trying to take their cue from the Bible. Wasn't it said that it was the followers of Barabas who shouted loudest - as I understand it, not a majority of numbers, but those that make the most noise.


Small people have to make loud noises to be noticed.:guitarist:yh_party

First of all the miracles are not historic events. They are midrash. Let's leave the magic and make believe out of this . Learn about midrash as it was iin biblical times. It was both a method of interpretation and a method of writing. I go to church on a regular basis but I do not hang my brain up at the door.

FourPart;1486726 wrote: I think once again they are trying to take their cue from the Bible. Wasn't it said that it was the followers of Barabas who shouted loudest - as I understand it, not a majority of numbers, but those that make the most noise.


I don't hear anyone shouting, except those who are Anti Christian.

I am not anti-Christian. I am a follower of "The Way". Parts of the scriptures have been borrowed from other sources: Satan from Mesopotamia, Stories borrowed or usurped from the Egyptians, Some stories even from the pagans. Neat right. Creation came from the law code of Hammurabi. This does not deter from the truths as myth that they are presenting. The famous ten were either borrowed from Egypt or the Hittites as found in an ancient treaty..