Can a religious text be used for evidence?

[cormac mac airt]

21 hours ago, cormac mac airt said:

What is your source for these alleged etymologies?

cormac

Would anyone care to explain how one could get "YHWH" from the hieroglyphs designated M17 (double reed) - G43 - M17 (single reed) - G1 from the name Yuya who lived during the Egyptian Eighteenth Dynasty?

cormac

[+Sherapy]

1 hour ago, simplybill said:

The cross symbol predates Christianity, and was used for various purposes. As far as I know, there is no evidence that 'symbolic' crosses were used by early Christians, though the concept seems legitimate (IMO) in the sense that the cross, having been for the Jews a symbol of oppression, had now become a symbol of redemption (for those Jews who accepted Jesus as Messiah). From Wikipedia:

"The cross-shaped sign, represented in its simplest form by a crossing of two lines at right angles, greatly predates the introduction of Christianity, in both East and West. It goes back to a very remote period of human civilization. It is supposed to have been used not just for its ornamental value, but also with religious significance."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_cross

Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying with certainty that it was, but the concept of the cross being a 'symbol of hope' is in line with a foundational theme in Christianity: "You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives." (Genesis 50:20)

There definitely is evidence that the cross symbol came into prominence later (around 150-160 AD). I found an interesting article about Christian symbolism that supports your and Paul's opinions:

http://www.christianitytoday.com/history/2009/february/when-did-cross-supplant-ichthus-fish-as-symbol-of.html  

 

The cross as a symbol of oppression for the Jews? Where are you getting this from? 

MW?

Point 2, what is the scholary consensus on Genesis 50:20. The rule of thumb is when in the OT one must interpret based on scholarly consensus. To often Chri stains offer a literal interpretation, I get this is how it is done NT style , but it isn't when in the OT while this has a place on a personal level it really only tells us what you think? Being academically honest is important for me. 

James Kugel "How too read the Bible" is the go to on all things Jewish. 

Edited March 24, 2018 by Sherapy

[simplybill]

2 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

The cross as a symbol of oppression for the Jews? Where are you getting this from? 

 

In terms of Roman occupation, crucifixion was the 'Sword of Damocles' that the Romans used to intimidate conquered nations, somewhat similar to the way ISIS intimidates with YouTube videos of beheadings.

"In the first century BC, during the revolt of Spartacus, there were reports of over 6,000 crosses with crucified victims on the road from Capua to Rome, and in the first century AD, the Romano-Jewish scholar Josephus reported that up to 500 Jews were crucified every day during the siege of Jerusalem."

Aside from historical references, there is only one set of crucified remains that are dated to the time of Jesus. The bodies were left to hang until they were completely decomposed, which added to the intimidation factor:

"Although the ancient Jewish historian Josephus, as well as other sources, [which?] refers to the crucifixion of thousands of people by the Romans, there is only a single archaeological discovery of a crucified body dating back to the Roman Empire around the time of Jesus. This was discovered at Givat HaMivtar, Jerusalem in 1968. It is not necessarily surprising that there is only one such discovery, because a crucified body was usually left to decay on the cross and therefore would not be preserved. The only reason these archaeological remains were preserved was because family members gave this particular individual a customary burial."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixion

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kristinakillgrove/2015/12/08/this-bone-provides-the-only-skeletal-evidence-for-crucifixion-in-the-ancient-world/#20a263bf476d

   

  

[+Sherapy]

3 hours ago, simplybill said:

In terms of Roman occupation, crucifixion was the 'Sword of Damocles' that the Romans used to intimidate conquered nations, somewhat similar to the way ISIS intimidates with YouTube videos of beheadings.

"In the first century BC, during the revolt of Spartacus, there were reports of over 6,000 crosses with crucified victims on the road from Capua to Rome, and in the first century AD, the Romano-Jewish scholar Josephus reported that up to 500 Jews were crucified every day during the siege of Jerusalem."

Aside from historical references, there is only one set of crucified remains that are dated to the time of Jesus. The bodies were left to hang until they were completely decomposed, which added to the intimidation factor:

"Although the ancient Jewish historian Josephus, as well as other sources, [which?] refers to the crucifixion of thousands of people by the Romans, there is only a single archaeological discovery of a crucified body dating back to the Roman Empire around the time of Jesus. This was discovered at Givat HaMivtar, Jerusalem in 1968. It is not necessarily surprising that there is only one such discovery, because a crucified body was usually left to decay on the cross and therefore would not be preserved. The only reason these archaeological remains were preserved was because family members gave this particular individual a customary burial."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixion

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kristinakillgrove/2015/12/08/this-bone-provides-the-only-skeletal-evidence-for-crucifixion-in-the-ancient-world/#20a263bf476d

   

  

This doesn't support your original  claim that the cross was a sign of oppression for the Jews in particular. 

I have no dispute that the Romans used crucifixion as a form of death. 

And you didn't address my second question. 

Edited March 24, 2018 by Sherapy

[Only_]

On 23/03/2018 at 0:56 PM, Liquid Gardens said:

ILet me put it this way, I find meaning for example in taking good care of my cat and making sure she seems happy, comfortable, and content.  The fact that we seem to both only be material things is irrelevant in that.  Why then am I wrong to say that this is meaningful?  What does 'mind' have to do with anything in this assessment?

Why we're here can't be an accident. A random fluke that created life. Whether it's due to some grand Divine plan, or we're cast into a prison-planet enslaved by Cosmic Ranchers, that's the debate and I'll leave it up to you. Those who know me, know where I stand (among Christ's followers). But you stand where you best have sight into higher truths, that liberate you and only you.

Edited March 25, 2018 by Clockwork_Spirit

[+Hammerclaw]

5 minutes ago, Clockwork_Spirit said:

Why we're here can't be an accident. A random fluke that created life. Whether it's due to some grand Divine plan, or we're cast into a prison-planet enslaved by Cosmic Ranchers. That's the debate and I'll leave it up to you. Those who know me, know where I stand (among Christ's followers). But you stand where you best have sight into higher truths, that liberate you and only you.

One may believe what one wishes; just remember, belief isn't the same as knowledge. If it was, there would be no need for Faith.

[+Hammerclaw]

5 hours ago, cormac mac airt said:

Would anyone care to explain how one could get "YHWH" from the hieroglyphs designated M17 (double reed) - G43 - M17 (single reed) - G1 from the name Yuya who lived during the Egyptian Eighteenth Dynasty?

cormac

Just turn the fan up on high and listen to the voices.

[XenoFish]

I think there is a certain horror to the idea that we were created on purpose. 

[XenoFish]

1 minute ago, Hammerclaw said:

Just turn the fan up on high and listen to the voices.

I know the exact forum member you need to talk to.

[+Hammerclaw]

1 minute ago, XenoFish said:

I think there is a certain horror to the idea that we were created on purpose. 

On porpoise frightens me.

[XenoFish]

13 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

On porpoise frightens me.

 Narwhal'cha talking about now?

[cormac mac airt]

1 hour ago, Hammerclaw said:

Just turn the fan up on high and listen to the voices.

Damn, and all this time I was playing a tape backwards. 

cormac

[Will Due]

 

I think Room 101 ought to do the trick.

 

 

[cormac mac airt]

50 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

 Narwhal'cha talking about now?

I seahorsing around again you two? 

cormac

[+joc]

1 hour ago, Clockwork_Spirit said:

Why we're here can't be an accident. A random fluke that created life. Whether it's due to some grand Divine plan, or we're cast into a prison-planet enslaved by Cosmic Ranchers, that's the debate and I'll leave it up to you. Those who know me, know where I stand (among Christ's followers). But you stand where you best have sight into higher truths, that liberate you and only you.

Are we supposed to believe then that Moby Dick is real?

[Davros of Skaro]

On 3/21/2018 at 4:58 AM, eight bits said:

davros

I don't think there is enough said about the exorcist character to make him out to be anybody in particular.

The character who I think "represents" Paul, or personifies his perspective, is the unnamed scribe who feeds Jesus the softball question about the greatest commandment during the final round of debates before the big hats take Jesus out,

https://uncertaintist.wordpress.com/2017/07/18/mark-dramatized-if-paul-had-met-jesus/

Of course it isn't a coincidence, but the relationship isn't fairly represented by an equal sign, either.

Mark was not innocent of Paul. That could be because Mark had read the letters, or it could be that Paul and his critics had raised issues that were still current topics of discussion in Christian circles when Mark wrote, and Mark explored those issues creatively.

But Mark "=" Paul? Look at your own example, the exorcist incident (9:38-41):

No faith, no belief, just an absence of opposition and maybe some trivial overt act of support, and you're counted as "for us" and will be rewarded.

You could argue that that's taking Paul to his logical extreme, that if there's no Law, then anybody can do anything. That is a position, advocated by unnamed others, which Paul discusses (e.g. 1 Corinthians 6:12; 10:23). But Paul doesn't agree (6:9-11, 10:24ff).

Paul's yoke is light, compared with the James Gang's Christian Judaism, but not as light as Mark's Jesus'. The very framework of Paul's remarks depends on a coherent, collective church-based approach to salvation. Jesus doesn't even suggest recruiting the guy - let him do his thing, by himself, he's OK. (The Gerasene ex-demoniac also gets an unsupervised, frankly apostolic commission to the regional Gentiles - Mark's Jesus simply isn't an organization man. Paul was.)

Conclusion to davros: You might well say "related themes" or "similar issues," maybe notated with an infix tilde (Mark 9:38-41 ~ 1 Corinthians 6:9-12), but these are not "just the same," and ought not be marked as if they were equal (=).

Bearing on thread: Behold! It seems that in some discussions, religious texts can indeed be used as evidence.

-

@davros of skaro

The point is that whoever wrote Mark fabricated an allegorical micro OT inline with Pauline theology. This was done by directly quoting scripture (or Pauline reference) in the narrative, or through symbolism.

Mark 12:28-34

"28 One of the scribes came near and heard them disputing with one another, and seeing that he answered them well, he asked him, "Which commandment is the first of all?" 29 Jesus answered, "The first is, 'Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God, the Lord is one; 30 you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.' 31 The second is this, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no other commandment greater than these." 32 Then the scribe said to him, "You are right, Teacher; you have truly said that 'he is one, and besides him there is no other'; 33 and 'to love him with all the heart, and with all the understanding, and with all the strength,' and 'to love one's neighbor as oneself,' — this is much more important than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices." 34 When Jesus saw that he answered wisely, he said to him, "You are not far from the kingdom of God." After that no one dared to ask him any question."
Deuteronomy 6:4-5

"4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD is our God, the LORD alone. 5 You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might."

Leviticus 19:18b

"18b you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the LORD."

Romans 13:8-10

"8 Owe no one anything, except to love one another; for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. 9 The commandments, "You shall not commit adultery; You shall not murder; You shall not steal; You shall not covet"; and any other commandment, are summed up in this word, "Love your neighbor as yourself." 10 Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore, love is the fulfilling of the law."

Galatians 5:14

"14 For the whole law is summed up in a single commandment, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself."'

1 Samuel 15:22b

"22b Surely, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to heed than the fat of rams."

Hosea 6:6

"6 For I desire steadfast love and not sacrifice, the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings."

As for my previous example; Paul forbids partnership with demons, or drinking of their cup.

Mark 9:38a, :41

"38a John said to him, "Teacher, we saw someone casting out demons in your name,"

"41 For truly I tell you, whoever gives you a cup of water to drink because you bear the name of Christ will by no means lose the reward."

1 Corinthians 10:3-4, :20-21

"3 and all ate the same spiritual food, 4 and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was Christ."

"20 No, I imply that what pagans sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons and not to God. I do not want you to be partners with demons. 21 You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons."

Exodus 16:15

"15 When the Israelites saw it, they said to one another, "What is it?" For they did not know what it was. Moses said to them, "It is the bread that the LORD has given you to eat."

Exodus 17:5-6

"5 The LORD said to Moses, "Go on ahead of the people, and take some of the elders of Israel with you; take in your hand the staff with which you struck the Nile, and go. 6 I will be standing there in front of you on the rock at Horeb. Strike the rock, and water will come out of it, so that the people may drink." Moses did so, in the sight of the elders of Israel."

[Davros of Skaro]

On 3/21/2018 at 2:14 PM, Clockwork_Spirit said:

As is the idea that we are biological robots living in a meaningless Universe?

We the "biological robots" are very fallible which effects our thoughts, and behaviors. For instance older fictional propaganda pieces inspired later fictional propaganda pieces which people still believe as history to this day.

2 Maccabees 3:27, :34, :36

"27 When he suddenly fell to the ground and deep darkness came over him, his men took him up, put him on a stretcher,"

"34 And see that you, who have been flogged by heaven, report to all people the majestic power of God.” Having said this they vanished."

"36 He bore testimony to all concerning the deeds of the supreme God, which he had seen with his own eyes."

Acts 9:8

"8 Saul got up from the ground, and though his eyes were open, he could see nothing; so they led him by the hand and brought him into Damascus."

Tobit 11:7-8

"7 Raphael said to Tobias, before he had approached his father, "I know that his eyes will be opened. 8 Smear the gall of the fish on his eyes; the medicine will make the white films shrink and peel off from his eyes, and your father will regain his sight and see the light."

Acts 9:18, :20

"18 And immediately something like scales fell from his eyes, and his sight was restored. Then he got up and was baptized,"

"20 and immediately he began to proclaim Jesus in the synagogues, saying, “He is the Son of God.”'

 

The sad part is some "biological robots" are stuck in slow thinking mode. These units are casting aside reason for gluttonous appetites wether it be for the flesh, or alternately labeled names for the imagination.

The universe is waiting to be explored, but slow thinking mode is like chewing gum in a burning house.

At least I can enjoy the "biological robot" we have that turns grass into steak.

 

 

 

 

On 3/21/2018 at 2:14 PM, Clockwork_Spirit said:

Mew!

 

Edited March 25, 2018 by davros of skaro

[+Hammerclaw]

1 hour ago, cormac mac airt said:

Damn, and all this time I was playing a tape backwards. 

cormac

The White Album?

[stereologist]

On 3/23/2018 at 7:02 PM, Mr Walker said:

Those aren't evidence against  an exodus only against the particular story we now read about the nature of that exodus This goes to the nature of your dispute with Doug.  You are arguing that if  the exodus dint happen exactly as it is described in the Torah or bible then it didnt happen. Human history does not evolve or get recorded like that, and with that much clarity and definition.

  Of course the writes of such a "history" of their nation  would embellish it to say this resulted in a loss of Egyptian military power  But  realistically why should the loss of as few chariot squadrons materially harm the might of an Egyptian empire  So exodus CAN be used to test and examine historical events Indeed that is what Doug is doing, and doing very well.

Without the religious texts describing exodus, we might never have known or examined the  fact hat the people who later became Israelites actually lived and worked, and were possibly some forms of slaves, in Egypt,  before settling into  and forming  a Jewish state.  ANd yes it is physically possible that a group of people and even a considerable military force of chariots could be trapped and suffer casualties  under natural conditions without any miracles involved. It has happened to me, and many others,  on tidal flats under certain conditions. I've seen a car roof glittering in the moonlight 100 yards from shore and with the car almost totally submerged, where a few hours before it was driving on sand many yards from the  water line, before becoming bogged and  caught in the incoming tide.

And we have rescued dozens of people from similar events  

The issue is the religious text and exodus. You are pretending that some other event is the issue when that is definitely not the case.

I am arguing that the event describe in the bible did not happen. I am not arguing that it is not quite like the story, but rather than no parts of the story are supported by evidence. There was no mass movement out of Egypt by Hebrew slaves. They did not cross the sea.  There was no loss of an Egyptian army. They did not remain lost for 40 years in the Sinai. They did not conquer Canaan. No parts of the story appear to have happened.

Making slight or large alterations to the story is pretty useless when the story appears to be fiction.

just because the writings suggest they were slaves in Egypt means little. They were not there. There was no loss of an Egyptian army. No need to conjure up some tale today for an event that never happened.

[stereologist]

On 3/23/2018 at 7:08 PM, Mr Walker said:

The article I read was thoroughly and comprehensively researched and explained. It was geographically accurate, and logical,  considering; sailing conditions in the area,  times vs distance between destinations   and the forms of navigation and daily routines on such sailing ships   It was written by expert and reliable sources, and it got in first . That makes every challenge to it required to prove their own  degree of qualifications and also to be able to prove the first group got it wrong.       They have to convince me the first group got it wrong, and so far no one has been able to do that. 

The same has been done by lots of other experts as the link revealed. You are latching onto your unnamed story and it is just one of many as I showed.  You have not revealed whatever piece of flotsam you are hanging onto.

 

[stereologist]

On 3/23/2018 at 7:18 PM, Mr Walker said:

And as i just pointed out that is one explanation and one purpose for the account   In that sense it can be considered like aboriginal dream time myths.

On the other hand, there is written and contextual evidences  that  the founders of Israel did spend  considerable time in Egypt

Historically the period in Egypt did affect both the " Israeli"  psyche and the evolution of their religion   Thus exodus also has historical and contemporary  significance   no matter what exact form it took. 

The Israelis DO have an historical right to their possession of the modern state of Israel But of course it does not hinge just on exodus being a real event.  It is a part of a much deeper wider and historical geo political reality.

   Am i right in thinking that one reason you might totally dispute exodus is because, personally, you dispute Israels modern right to the land it currently exists upon?

The aboriginal creation myths explaining their existence do not affect their actual  historical possession of Australia  for over 50000 years, nor their current rights within that land  curtailed as they might be by colonial occupation and current legal possession

I believe you are making things up now. Why not provide a source for your stories here. You can provide a source for your "the founders of Israel did spend  considerable time in Egypt" because I do not believe that is correct.

Your idea that I am disputing exodus because of some personal belief of mine about modern Israel is nonsense. As I explained many times no part of the exodus story appears to be correct. The archaeological evidence makes it clear that no part of exodus happened.

You might try reading my posts to see that is the only reason. Your suggestion is the sort of thing I expect from someone trying to avoid admitting they are wrong.

[stereologist]

On 3/23/2018 at 8:42 PM, Mr Walker said:

You cant use the bible to prove the bible.  That is just silly :0

However the bible lands have been the source of historical and archaeological interest for a couple of centuries now, and huge amount of work has been done both by interested parties such as Christian and jewish scholars, but also by disinterested academics both in the field and in interpreting manuscripts etc  There are hundreds of confirmed historical descriptions in the bible but i will give you a couple of my favourites.

  The bible described the  roman garrison of a small jewish town.  For a couple of millennia this was just biblical based .  Modern scholars working on Roman  records, found records which confirmed that the bibles details were correct .

The bible describes a secret water channel  providing Jerusalem with water in time of siege. Modern archaeologists rediscover the existence of this channel .

There are many academic books and a lot of documentaries on biblical archaeology, and how it has confirmed a lot of biblical writings about places, rulers and events recorded in the bible.      

So the bible mentions minor things that have been verified?

Some of the big stories such as exodus are fictional. Noah's flood is fiction as well. So are the two creation myths in genesis wrong.

Big items wrong, two little items might be correct. Wonderful.

[cormac mac airt]

30 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

The White Album?

No. Nazareth: Hair of the Dog.

cormac

[simplybill]

3 hours ago, Sherapy said:

This doesn't support your original  claim that the cross was a sign of oppression for the Jews in particular. 

I have no dispute that the Romans used crucifixion as a form of death. 

And you didn't address my second question. 

The 'cross' had a double meaning for the Jews. Crucifixion was a form of intimidation used by the Romans against all of their conquered peoples, but the Jews also had a passage in the Tanakh related to 'hanging from a tree':  

"If a man guilty of a capital offense is put to death and you hang him on a tree, his corpse shall not remain on the tree overnight. You must bury it the same day; anyone who is hanged is a curse of God. You shall not defile the land which the Lord, your God, is giving you as a heritage."   (Deut. 21: 22-23)

In relation to my comment about the cross as a 'symbol' for the Jews: the Jews didn't have crosses on the walls of their homes as some Christians do, but it was understood that someone 'hanging from a tree' was cursed by God. The significance to Christians is that Jesus voluntarily took the curse upon Himself in order to reconcile us to God.

You may have edited your post as I was responding, so I didn't see the 2nd question until just now. Yes, there are Bible commentaries that explain the writings in context of the original culture and the unique writing styles of the Jewish people, though I'd have to do some research to find a manageable commentary on the significance of the Crucifixion that ties together the Old Testament prophecies of a future crucified Messiah and the crucifixion of Jesus. It's a theme that runs all through scripture, so the commentary would likely be in book form. 

Edited March 25, 2018 by simplybill

[Only_]

1 hour ago, davros of skaro said:

We the "biological robots" are very fallible which effects our thoughts, and behaviors. For instance older fictional propaganda pieces inspired later fictional propaganda pieces which people still believe as history to this day.

 

 

 

 

 

I can't help it if some people lack critical thinking and take these texts literally, as history. They were probably never intended as such. The Bible is not infaillible. But I do believe the best lessons come from scripture and if you do read carefully, a veil will lift from your eyes.

Edited March 25, 2018 by Clockwork_Spirit