Pacland's Philippine Boxing Forum

Discussion on boxing and other sports, Filipino greats and anything under the sun.
It is currently Tue Nov 13, 2018 1:50 am

All times are UTC + 8 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 44 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Aug 03, 2018 10:30 am 
Offline
Heavyweight
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 5:47 pm
Posts: 10057
Quote:
The name El is prior to Elohim, and El is both a proper and a common name of God. Originally it was either a proper name and has become a common name, or it was a common name and has become a proper name. In either case, El, and, therefore, also its derivative form Elohim, must have denoted the one true God.

This inference becomes clear after a little reflection. If El was, at first, the proper name of a false god, it could not become the common name for deity any more than Jupiter or Juno could. If it was, at first, the common name for deity, it could become the proper name only of that God who combined in him all the attributes of deity, who was the one true God. This does not imply that all the Semitic races had from the beginning a clear concept of God's unity and Divine attributes, though all had originally the Divine name El.


Elohim is a grammatically plural noun for "gods" or "deity" in Biblical Hebrew. In Modern Hebrew, it is often referred to in the singular despite the [b]-im ending that denotes plural masculine nouns in Hebrew.[3][4]

In Hebrew, the ending -im normally indicates a masculine plural. However, when referring to the Hebrew God, Elohim is usually understood to be grammatically singular (i.e. it governs a singular verb or adjective). Another possible related word is Ilāhīn (إلاهين), meaning two gods, while alīha (gods, آله) is the collective form of īlah (a god, إله).[citation needed]

It is generally thought that Elohim is derived from eloah, the latter being an expanded form of the Northwest Semitic noun ’il.[5] The related nouns eloah (אלוה) and el (אֵל) are used as proper names or as generics, in which case they are interchangeable with elohim.[5] The term contains an added heh as third radical to the biconsonantal root. Discussions of the etymology of elohim essentially concern this expansion. An exact cognate outside of Hebrew is found in Ugaritic ʾlhm, the family of El, the creator god and chief deity of the Canaanite pantheon, in Biblical Aramaic ʼĔlāhā and later Syriac Alaha "God", and in Arabic ʾilāh "god, deity" (or Allah as "The [single] God").

"El" (the basis for the extended root ʾlh) is usually derived from a root meaning "to be strong"
and/or "to be in front".[5]
[*] wiki- references and links indicaed for clearer understanding.


Quote:
Logical fallacy of non sequitur.

But, even then, I don’t see any strong reason why the Gospels were written not by the Evangelists themselves.
You know, the Gospels provide accounts of numerous things that Jesus said and did during his earthly ministry. They are the principal sources of historical evidence for our knowledge of his life. So, the question here should rather be: how did the Evangelists themselves come by this evidence?


I dont think so. If theres one susceptible to fallacious suppositions its the enigma in you. :lol: ```

The christian sources, oral and traditional, attributes the gospels to the early apostles, meaning that by authority the apostles names were attached to these texts. Its possible some of them may have scribbled something but being mostly illiterate, sans a few of them, the construction of a narrative of events, places, circumstance to form a body of work or a 'gospel' is a hard pill to swallow, so to speak. Evidence, historicity of its origins are sorely absent, lacking.

Strictly speaking, each Gospel is anonymous.[56][57] The Gospel of John is something of an exception, although the author simply refers to himself as "the disciple Jesus loved" and claims to be a member of Jesus' inner circle.[58] During the following centuries, each canonical gospel was attributed to an apostle or to the close associate of an apostle.[59] Most scholars have rejected the traditional attributions.[60]
[*] wiki - links, referrnces are indicated - Historical reliability of the Gospels


Quote:
Nope! Only for unreliable sources. :)

The Gospel of Barnabas, for instance, does not present the real Jesus. To know why, follow the link:

https://y-jesus.com/more/gbs-the-gospel-of-barnabas-secret-bible/


And,,,, the source you shared, a xtian site, is NOT unreliable or bias ? :lol: ;;;

an excerpt of the GoBarnabbas - '' your posted source...'
A Different Jesus?
Although the document entitled the Gospel of Barnabas contains much of the same information
as the four New Testament Gospels, it differs greatly with regard to the identity of Jesus Christ.
A few of the significant differences are that the Gospel of Barnabas:

- Denies Jesus’ deity
- Rejects the Trinity
- Denies Jesus’ crucifixion


`Image'''

_________________
,
"...Lets do it to them before they do it to us..." Sgt. Stan Jablonski, Hill Street Precinct


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 03, 2018 11:12 am 
Offline
Heavyweight
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 5:47 pm
Posts: 10057
Quote:
The idea that the exodus did not occur is a recent invention. The Jewish people have been observing Passover for a long time.

There is no indication among the Israelite people before the time of Jesus, from Jesus himself, the apostles, the first Christians, or the entire Tradition of the Church that the Exodus is non-historical. The Passover is still celebrated among the Jews today as it was when Jesus was on earth. You know, the sacrifice of the Passover lamb was a figure of the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross for the redemption of all humanity.

Nope.., not correct. Its been discussed, pointed out, debated on for many years and has only been more prominent and obviously tiresome for xtian, jewish apologists in the recent years mainly due to the advent of modern technology - WWW, internet, socmed, etc...,,' Thank goodness...'' :lol: ''

To argue, justify that bec of the jewish Passover being still practice leads to the 'authenticity, truthfulness or historicity..'' of the mythical Exodus is beyong logical comprehension, considering historical and archaeological records, proof and evidences are pitifully absent and non-existent.

But as a matter of faith..,,

'' the passover sacrificial lamb connection to yeshua's hanging is just an embellished account,
story of jewish myth and a metaphor in xtian doctrines
...'' :D ;;;


Quote:
Lacking independent attestation from sources outside the Bible, the story presented in Exodus and retold elsewhere in Scripture is suspected of being religious propaganda written up after the Babylonian Exile with no real basis in history.

I thought, hoping that the 'details' would come or presented from a 'non-biblical narratives..'' ?

surely,, a narration from an apologists -jewish or xtian, would NOT be considered/accepted
as 'independent or authoritative'' as ALL his premise rest solely on biblical passages,
references and sources.

''.,ergo..,a lifted, copy and paste would not work ,,in this case..'' ' :D ..

Quote:
Careful analysis of Exodus shows that historical skepticism of this sort is both simplistic and problematic. As I have mentioned above, there are numerous details in the book that bear witness to real-life conditions in Egypt and Sinai that are difficult to account for if the Exodus story was thought up by Jewish writers in Palestine hundreds of years after the alleged time frame of the narrative.


an excerpt -
There is no direct evidence that people worshipping Yahweh sojourned in ancient Egypt, let alone during the time the Exodus is believed to have happened. There is indirect evidence that at least some did. What's for sure is that thousands of years ago, Egypt was crawling with Semitic-speaking peoples.

[*]https://www.haaretz.com/archaeology - a conservative israeli/jewish newspaper.

``Image;;;;

_________________
,
"...Lets do it to them before they do it to us..." Sgt. Stan Jablonski, Hill Street Precinct


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 03, 2018 11:40 am 
Offline
Heavyweight
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 5:47 pm
Posts: 10057
Quote:
To address Mang Zorro’s questions -- and perhaps some of his doubts -- from his previous post, we now present an excerpt from an article by Jimmy Akin relating as to where the Evangelists got their information. This is going to be long, but worth reading.


``The Exodus story is MYTH, FICTION.

The Babylonian captivity roughly 60-70 years in the 6th-latter 5th era BC is recorded in historical
context as it was during the time of Persian kings Nebuchadnezzar II and Cyrus the great.

The Cyrus Cylinder exists.
Image


Reference to babylonian captivity written in the book of Ezra, after the historical event happened ...,, and the author/writer is not named Ezra. '' :D ...

''yung details pala ng estorya sa ehipto eh narration ng pseudo-evangelist,, plus
mga verses at huna-huna lang ng mga apostol,,,.., waley na konkreto ibidins...''
:-D '''


The heresies and doctrinal errors taught by Jimmy Akin
A summary of Akin's errors on faith, morals, and salvation.
[*] http://www.catechism.cc/articles/Jimmy- ... ummary.htm

`` :lol: ''''

_________________
,
"...Lets do it to them before they do it to us..." Sgt. Stan Jablonski, Hill Street Precinct


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 03, 2018 11:02 pm 
Offline
Middleweight
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 11:56 am
Posts: 515
Location: Sa daigdig ng inyong panaginip
zorro05 wrote:
Quote:
The name El is prior to Elohim, and El is both a proper and a common name of God. Originally it was either a proper name and has become a common name, or it was a common name and has become a proper name. In either case, El, and, therefore, also its derivative form Elohim, must have denoted the one true God.

This inference becomes clear after a little reflection. If El was, at first, the proper name of a false god, it could not become the common name for deity any more than Jupiter or Juno could. If it was, at first, the common name for deity, it could become the proper name only of that God who combined in him all the attributes of deity, who was the one true God. This does not imply that all the Semitic races had from the beginning a clear concept of God's unity and Divine attributes, though all had originally the Divine name El.


Elohim is a grammatically plural noun for "gods" or "deity" in Biblical Hebrew. In Modern Hebrew, it is often referred to in the singular despite the [b]-im ending that denotes plural masculine nouns in Hebrew.[3][4]

In Hebrew, the ending -im normally indicates a masculine plural. However, when referring to the Hebrew God, Elohim is usually understood to be grammatically singular (i.e. it governs a singular verb or adjective). Another possible related word is Ilāhīn (إلاهين), meaning two gods, while alīha (gods, آله) is the collective form of īlah (a god, إله).[citation needed]

It is generally thought that Elohim is derived from eloah, the latter being an expanded form of the Northwest Semitic noun ’il.[5] The related nouns eloah (אלוה) and el (אֵל) are used as proper names or as generics, in which case they are interchangeable with elohim.[5] The term contains an added heh as third radical to the biconsonantal root. Discussions of the etymology of elohim essentially concern this expansion. An exact cognate outside of Hebrew is found in Ugaritic ʾlhm, the family of El, the creator god and chief deity of the Canaanite pantheon, in Biblical Aramaic ʼĔlāhā and later Syriac Alaha "God", and in Arabic ʾilāh "god, deity" (or Allah as "The [single] God").

"El" (the basis for the extended root ʾlh) is usually derived from a root meaning "to be strong"
and/or "to be in front".[5]
[*] wiki- references and links indicaed for clearer understanding.

I think there’s not much disagreement here. As has been stated previously, Elohim is plural in form but its usage (as applied to the God of Israel) does not support such supposition referring to early polytheism. It’s a plural of majesty or of rank, as grammarians put it. You know, plurality is sometimes used as a marker of respect in many languages. For instance, "Adonai" means "my lords" as well.

Yes, as you have mentioned above, although the form of the word elohim, with the ending -im, is plural and masculine, the construction is usually singular (i.e., it governs a singular verb or adjective when referring to the Hebrew God) -- but it reverts to its normal plural when used of pagan divinities (Psalms 96:5; 97:7).


zorro05 wrote:
Quote:
Logical fallacy of non sequitur.

But, even then, I don’t see any strong reason why the Gospels were written not by the Evangelists themselves.
You know, the Gospels provide accounts of numerous things that Jesus said and did during his earthly ministry. They are the principal sources of historical evidence for our knowledge of his life. So, the question here should rather be: how did the Evangelists themselves come by this evidence?


I dont think so. If theres one susceptible to fallacious suppositions its the enigma in you. :lol: ```

The christian sources, oral and traditional, attributes the gospels to the early apostles, meaning that by authority the apostles names were attached to these texts. Its possible some of them may have scribbled something but being mostly illiterate, sans a few of them, the construction of a narrative of events, places, circumstance to form a body of work or a 'gospel' is a hard pill to swallow, so to speak. Evidence, historicity of its origins are sorely absent, lacking.

Strictly speaking, each Gospel is anonymous.[56][57] The Gospel of John is something of an exception, although the author simply refers to himself as "the disciple Jesus loved" and claims to be a member of Jesus' inner circle.[58] During the following centuries, each canonical gospel was attributed to an apostle or to the close associate of an apostle.[59] Most scholars have rejected the traditional attributions.[60]
[*] wiki - links, referrnces are indicated - Historical reliability of the Gospels

Granting -- without conceding -- that the Gospels were not written by ‘people whose names are attached to them’, it does not necessarily follow that the Gospel message is not real and authentic. Suppose Luke did not “write” his Gospel, but instead dictated the words and his message to his secretary, do you think it wouldn’t be the Gospel according to Luke?

This is the kind of reasoning that I was pointing out as non sequitur in your earlier statement. It’s simply a logical fallacy.

And who says the evidence and historicity of the Gospels’ origins are sorely absent or lacking? I’m not very trustful of these so-called wiki references, either.


zorro05 wrote:
Quote:
Nope! Only for unreliable sources. :)

The Gospel of Barnabas, for instance, does not present the real Jesus. To know why, follow the link:

https://y-jesus.com/more/gbs-the-gospel-of-barnabas-secret-bible/


And,,,, the source you shared, a xtian site, is NOT unreliable or bias ? :lol: ;;;

an excerpt of the GoBarnabbas - '' your posted source...'
A Different Jesus?
Although the document entitled the Gospel of Barnabas contains much of the same information
as the four New Testament Gospels, it differs greatly with regard to the identity of Jesus Christ.
A few of the significant differences are that the Gospel of Barnabas:

- Denies Jesus’ deity
- Rejects the Trinity
- Denies Jesus’ crucifixion


`Image'''

You haven’t read the entire document, have you?

LOL. What do you think is a reliable and ‘unbiased’ source on these matters – a non-Christian and secular site? If I may borrow the words of G.K. Chesterton:

“It is assumed that the skeptic has no bias; whereas he has a very obvious bias in favor of skepticism.” :lol:

_________________
Let my thoughts come to you, when I am gone, like the afterglow of sunset at the margin of starry silence. -- Rabindranath Tagore


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 03, 2018 11:20 pm 
Offline
Middleweight
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 11:56 am
Posts: 515
Location: Sa daigdig ng inyong panaginip
zorro05 wrote:
Quote:
The idea that the exodus did not occur is a recent invention. The Jewish people have been observing Passover for a long time.

There is no indication among the Israelite people before the time of Jesus, from Jesus himself, the apostles, the first Christians, or the entire Tradition of the Church that the Exodus is non-historical. The Passover is still celebrated among the Jews today as it was when Jesus was on earth. You know, the sacrifice of the Passover lamb was a figure of the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross for the redemption of all humanity.

Nope.., not correct. Its been discussed, pointed out, debated on for many years and has only been more prominent and obviously tiresome for xtian, jewish apologists in the recent years mainly due to the advent of modern technology - WWW, internet, socmed, etc...,,' Thank goodness...'' :lol: ''

To argue, justify that bec of the jewish Passover being still practice leads to the 'authenticity, truthfulness or historicity..'' of the mythical Exodus is beyong logical comprehension, considering historical and archaeological records, proof and evidences are pitifully absent and non-existent.

But as a matter of faith..,,

'' the passover sacrificial lamb connection to yeshua's hanging is just an embellished account,
story of jewish myth and a metaphor in xtian doctrines
...'' :D ;;;

Once again you have resorted to a historical “minimalist” or “revisionist” way of thinking that seems to go like this: since Egyptian historical records never mention the bondage and liberation of Israel – and since historical and archaeological records are pitifully absent and non-existent (although this is debatable) -- it follows that the Exodus never actually happened.

Well, these historical minimalists used to point to many details in the Old Testament books. For instance, they said Jericho never had walls, that the Hittites never existed, that Jerusalem wasn't a royal power until long after the time of David, etc. But archaeologists found the walls, they found the Hittites, and they found a royal seal close to the time of David. So far, the pattern is not in your favor, Mang Zorro. :lol:

And oh, by the way, the Passover sacrificial lamb is not the only “embellished account of Jewish myth” as you have described it. Rather, there are many elements (persons, places, things, and events) of the Bible that have a deeper meaning because God, the divine author of the Bible, intended that these elements foreshadow further things. For example, the evangelist John presents the raising of the bronze serpent by Moses in the desert as a type of Christ crucified (3:14).

Paul also appears to delight in establishing types between the New Testament and the Old Testament. In 1 Cor 10:6 Paul typifies those events which occurred to the Israelites in the desert of Sinai throughout the Exodus to those things that happen to Christians.


zorro05 wrote:
Quote:
Lacking independent attestation from sources outside the Bible, the story presented in Exodus and retold elsewhere in Scripture is suspected of being religious propaganda written up after the Babylonian Exile with no real basis in history.

I thought, hoping that the 'details' would come or presented from a 'non-biblical narratives..'' ?

surely,, a narration from an apologists -jewish or xtian, would NOT be considered/accepted
as 'independent or authoritative'' as ALL his premise rest solely on biblical passages,
references and sources.

''.,ergo..,a lifted, copy and paste would not work ,,in this case..'' ' :D ..

Mang Zorro, instead of attacking the source of information, why won’t you try refuting the proofs presented? What you’ve done here is simply a veiled form of argumentum ad hominem.

The relevant question is not who makes the argument, but whether the argument is valid.


zorro05 wrote:
Quote:
Careful analysis of Exodus shows that historical skepticism of this sort is both simplistic and problematic. As I have mentioned above, there are numerous details in the book that bear witness to real-life conditions in Egypt and Sinai that are difficult to account for if the Exodus story was thought up by Jewish writers in Palestine hundreds of years after the alleged time frame of the narrative.


an excerpt -
There is no direct evidence that people worshipping Yahweh sojourned in ancient Egypt, let alone during the time the Exodus is believed to have happened. There is indirect evidence that at least some did. What's for sure is that thousands of years ago, Egypt was crawling with Semitic-speaking peoples.

[*]https://www.haaretz.com/archaeology - a conservative israeli/jewish newspaper.

``Image;;;;

One consideration is that the Hebrews / Israelites are also unreliable narrators when it comes to precise history. They are telling the story of their tribe and nothing else. They kept an oral history for a long time before writing it down. So, they generally ignore or downplay the achievements and misfortunes of any non-Hebrew Canaanites during biblical times except when it comes to waging war against them.

That doesn't mean the things depicted in Exodus are fictional, but that many things probably were going on at the same time that were simply excluded from the narrative as irrelevant to the story being told.

Finally, if we take together the details I have presented earlier, these observations make it probable that the Book of Exodus rests on the firm foundation of history. It is highly unlikely that its account is simply imaginative fiction composed many centuries after the setting of the story. For one thing, it is difficult to believe that the authors in post-exilic Palestine could have accurately portrayed the conditions of second-millennium Egypt. One might rather have expected the story to reflect something of the times, experiences, and circumstances of these post-exilic authors.

Beyond this, denying the historicity of the Exodus fails to account for the antiquity and pervasiveness of the Exodus tradition within the Bible as a whole. Far from being confined to the Book of Exodus, memories of God freeing his people from Egypt have left their mark on an array of Biblical psalms, prophetic oracles, confessions of faith, and historical recitals of Israel's past -- a great many of which predate the post-exilic period.

_________________
Let my thoughts come to you, when I am gone, like the afterglow of sunset at the margin of starry silence. -- Rabindranath Tagore


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 03, 2018 11:27 pm 
Offline
Middleweight
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 11:56 am
Posts: 515
Location: Sa daigdig ng inyong panaginip
zorro05 wrote:
Quote:
To address Mang Zorro’s questions -- and perhaps some of his doubts -- from his previous post, we now present an excerpt from an article by Jimmy Akin relating as to where the Evangelists got their information. This is going to be long, but worth reading.


``The Exodus story is MYTH, FICTION.

The Babylonian captivity roughly 60-70 years in the 6th-latter 5th era BC is recorded in historical
context as it was during the time of Persian kings Nebuchadnezzar II and Cyrus the great.

The Cyrus Cylinder exists.
Image


Reference to babylonian captivity written in the book of Ezra, after the historical event happened ...,, and the author/writer is not named Ezra. '' :D ...

''yung details pala ng estorya sa ehipto eh narration ng pseudo-evangelist,, plus
mga verses at huna-huna lang ng mga apostol,,,.., waley na konkreto ibidins...''
:-D '''


The heresies and doctrinal errors taught by Jimmy Akin
A summary of Akin's errors on faith, morals, and salvation.
[*] http://www.catechism.cc/articles/Jimmy- ... ummary.htm

`` :lol: ''''

My post above was meant to show how the Evangelists got their information in their ‘writing’ the Gospels. Perhaps again you haven’t read the entire thing, have you?

I don’t see any causal connection between the writing of Ezra and the Evangelists’ writing of the Gospels. Be careful of not falling into a “slippery slope” type of argument.

Nice exchanging pleasantries with you.

It’s now your turn. Good luck! :D

_________________
Let my thoughts come to you, when I am gone, like the afterglow of sunset at the margin of starry silence. -- Rabindranath Tagore


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 04, 2018 10:23 am 
Offline
Heavyweight
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 5:47 pm
Posts: 10057
Quote:
I think there’s not much disagreement here. As has been stated previously, Elohim is plural in form but its usage (as applied to the God of Israel) does not support such supposition referring to early polytheism. It’s a plural of majesty or of rank, as grammarians put it. You know, plurality is sometimes used as a marker of respect in many languages. For instance, "Adonai" means "my lords" as well.

Yes, as you have mentioned above, although the form of the word elohim, with the ending -im, is plural and masculine, the construction is usually singular (i.e., it governs a singular verb or adjective when referring to the Hebrew God) -- but it reverts to its normal plural when used of pagan divinities (Psalms 96:5; 97:7).

It is the general usage in the hebrew language of treating it as singular only bec it refers, denotes to a ' one true god' the israelites worship in the succeding centuries. But, how can you be so sure that they were not worshiping just 'one god' but many other gods ? Its just how the evolvement of jewish faith, much like other faiths, are where errors, imperfections of olden ancient rituals, teachings, doctrines are steadily corrected as times goes on.

'its like saying.., yeah the original texts says 'many'.., but now, today.., we just see
and translate it as 'one'..'
:D ''


Quote:
But, even then, I don’t see any strong reason why the Gospels were written not by the Evangelists themselves.
You know, the Gospels provide accounts of numerous things that Jesus said and did during his earthly ministry. They are the principal sources of historical evidence for our knowledge of his life. So, the question here should rather be: how did the Evangelists themselves come by this evidence?

Unfortunately, you dont realize or refuse to accept the fallacy of the 'duplicity, sly' manipulation of a written document , more so since it is a 'canonical religious document'. It is clear deliberate actions made by religious authorities then to ' create, manipulate, invent' religious texts as 'gospels' and present them as ' true genuine, authentic' written accounts by the apostles of yeshua as a form of doctrines/guidelines for the folowers of a new emerging religious group;

' if you dont see anything wrong or refuse to realize the effect of the actions in manipulating
religious texts and presenting the edited ones as canonical texts,, theres something not right in you..''
:lol: '''

The gospels are NOT direct historicity of his life, not even viable proof, but 'narratives, embellished stories' created by religious/patristic authorities thru a group of writers and scribes. They even contradict themselves on many issues and instances even though the synoptic ones is a copy of one another in most details.

''if its the evidence of yeshua's life, surely, there has to be many of it wanting in the missing years,,, right..?' :wink: ''

As to how the evangelists got their evidence...?,dont fret yourself.., They didn't. Its the scribes/writers job/work to reconcile , create and invent ALL those
connections, circumstances in the canonical gospels.


Quote:
Granting -- without conceding -- that the Gospels were not written by ‘people whose names are attached to them’, it does not necessarily follow that the Gospel message is not real and authentic. Suppose Luke did not “write” his Gospel, but instead dictated the words and his message to his secretary, do you think it wouldn’t be the Gospel according to Luke?

This is the kind of reasoning that I was pointing out as non sequitur in your earlier statement. It’s simply a logical fallacy.

And who says the evidence and historicity of the Gospels’ origins are sorely absent or lacking? I’m not very trustful of these so-called wiki references, either.

Theres the fallacy in you,, enigma.

If someone else/ writers wrote the gospel, say Mark's, how would you know its 'true, authentic' that its ALL Marks own words, idea, recollections ? IF luke, as you assume, dictated the 'message, words, ideas' to his secretary or mistress,,, how would you know that ''it is what it is ..?''

Besides, there are NO PROOF that they did just that, i.e. dictating words, ideas or recollections. Apologists, theologians, religious authorities SIMPLY ASSUMED the apostles did just that. Its pure Conjecture. A convenient means to justify the 'gaps' in bible narratives.

You are simply accepting the apologists own fallacies in trying to justify such errors in argumentation..,and in your own assumption that they were correct in them.

Its called gullibility. :wink:'''

Have you presented independent non-biblical evidences, proof to 'support, justify' your own argument that can be verified and scrutinize,,, other than an apologists OWN self-serving blabberings, who are not historians nor archaeologist or researchers in the first place,, that are also anchored on biblical fallacies ?''' :lol: '''

Quote:
You haven’t read the entire document, have you?

LOL. What do you think is a reliable and ‘unbiased’ source on these matters – a non-Christian and secular site? If I may borrow the words of G.K. Chesterton:

“It is assumed that the skeptic has no bias; whereas he has a very obvious bias in favor of skepticism.” :lol:

Not only did I read the whole GoBarnabbas..., I even posted a topic of it that was discussed,
debated, scrutinized and wd it the presentation of proof/evidences and links/sources.
=FACT CHECKING THE BIBLE--http://forum.philboxing.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t

I guess you are unaware, clueless of it. I suggest you visit the link...., for your enlightenment. :) '''

And frankly speaking.., we all have our bias, leanings ,, in ife or pov's.
But in matters of what is true and correct, unlike you...,being credulous and gullible
is definitely not my cup of tea.

btw - ''skepticism is not being bias, just being prudent and meticulous..''

`Image;;;;

_________________
,
"...Lets do it to them before they do it to us..." Sgt. Stan Jablonski, Hill Street Precinct


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 04, 2018 11:14 am 
Offline
Heavyweight
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 5:47 pm
Posts: 10057
Quote:
Once again you have resorted to a historical “minimalist” or “revisionist” way of thinking that seems to go like this: since Egyptian historical records never mention the bondage and liberation of Israel – and since historical and archaeological records are pitifully absent and non-existent (although this is debatable) -- it follows that the Exodus never actually happened.

Well, these historical minimalists used to point to many details in the Old Testament books. For instance, they said Jericho never had walls, that the Hittites never existed, that Jerusalem wasn't a royal power until long after the time of David, etc. But archaeologists found the walls, they found the Hittites, and they found a royal seal close to the time of David. So far, the pattern is not in your favor, Mang Zorro.

So,, I guess the article of the conservative jewish/israeli newspaper HAARETZ.COM that '' the jewish/israelite sojourned in Egypt is not historically correct, true.., and not supported by archaeological, historical records and evidence..'' is a “minimalist” or “revisionist” propaganda. :lol: ,,,,

'while modern israelites today, except the ultra-orthodox leaders, followers, believe and accept the Exodus story, Egypt captivity, red sea crossing ...,as historically untrue, untenable,, a metaphor of faith on their gods power.....''

Unfortunately for you enigma,, you're still stuck in Limbo. :lol: '''

IF you can support your assumption abt minimalist view on your 'historical' examples, pls. indicate who are they, their links and/or their articles..., I will be glad to offer my input,, otherwise,, I dont respond to 'guesswork conjectures.' :D '''


Quote:
And oh, by the way, the Passover sacrificial lamb is not the only “embellished account of Jewish myth” as you have described it. Rather, there are many elements (persons, places, things, and events) of the Bible that have a deeper meaning because God, the divine author of the Bible, intended that these elements foreshadow further things. For example, the evangelist John presents the raising of the bronze serpent by Moses in the desert as a type of Christ crucified (3:14).

I didn't said..,'' passover as an embellished account..',, did I. ? There are jewish myths wd lots of embellishments but the passover is a jewish religious practice till today. The 'story' of the israelites in egypt ''painting their houses wd blood.., so as as their god will not punish the dwellers in that house wd death..''. That 'event' was carried on today by orthodox followers today.

Thats just john's translation or better, a latter centuries scribes/writers translation taken from Moses' entrance from the Mt Sinai peninsula.

Thers nothing 'mystifying or amazing or magical.' from your quoted passage. You even forgot the 'ben ben' that hovered nearby. :lol: ..


Quote:
Mang Zorro, instead of attacking the source of information, why won’t you try refuting the proofs presented? What you’ve done here is simply a veiled form of argumentum ad hominem.

The relevant question is not who makes the argument, but whether the argument is valid.

IF you refrain from posting ''kilometric, non-sensical apologists own personal assumptions'' and taking it as true and correct even w/out proof or tangible evidence to support such assumptions, perhaps, I will oblige you wd my own input.

Try to be sensible and respond directly to questions , comments posted. '' and,, I dont respond to 'sources, links of one apologists whose credility is in the gutter and a cheat..'' :D '''


Quote:
ONE consideration is that the Hebrews / Israelites are also unreliable narrators when it comes to precise history. They are telling the story of their tribe and nothing else. They kept an oral history for a long time before writing it down. So, they generally ignore or downplay the achievements and misfortunes of any non-Hebrew Canaanites during biblical times except when it comes to waging war against them.

That doesn't mean the things depicted in Exodus are fictional, but that many things probably were going on at the same time that were simply excluded from the narrative as irrelevant to the story being told.

Now.., its the jews FAULT pala.

Its becoming 'talkies na lang' on your part enigma.., just like an apologist.

Trying to prove a point in a discussion specially historical events, accounts MUST be supported by 'facts, records, documents, etc..'. A holy book is NOT a viable historical book or document, per se, but merely narrates events in the past in correlation wd biblical passages purposely to suit an objective, meaning or moral foundation.

Nothing else.

Image ;;;;

p.s. - 'the rest of your blabber is no longer sensible..'' :lol: ..

_________________
,
"...Lets do it to them before they do it to us..." Sgt. Stan Jablonski, Hill Street Precinct


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 04, 2018 11:36 am 
Offline
Heavyweight
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 5:47 pm
Posts: 10057
Quote:
My post above was meant to show how the Evangelists got their information in their ‘writing’ the Gospels. Perhaps again you haven’t read the entire thing, have you?

I don’t see any causal connection between the writing of Ezra and the Evangelists’ writing of the Gospels. Be careful of not falling into a “slippery slope” type of argument.

Nice exchanging pleasantries with you.

It’s now your turn. Good luck! :D

Funny.., but you haven't 'showed' anything 'tangible or concrete' proof, evidence to support your assumptions - '' that the apostles wrote those gospels all by themselves.., No assistance from other people, secretaries, ghost writers, or any one else..., just themselves alone,, verbatim even..?.

You mean to say that posting jimmy akins own assumptions was meant to show that as evidence and proof of the apostles writing their very own gospels..?
''Really.., now..
?//? :lol: '''

''well.., it took patristic fathers/authorities nearly 350 years since yeshua's hanging before they
finally compiled the whole gospels of the apostles into one holy canonical book as the foundation
of a new religious group..''


You missed the 'jab' ,,err,, connection...'' abt ezra's book.., oh better.., the OT book wd ezra's
name on it. :lol: ,,,

''I can't believe that one...,, slippery slope...?'

Image ''''...

_________________
,
"...Lets do it to them before they do it to us..." Sgt. Stan Jablonski, Hill Street Precinct


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 04, 2018 6:03 pm 
Offline
Heavyweight
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 5:47 pm
Posts: 10057
Quote:
And who says the evidence and historicity of the Gospels’ origins are sorely absent or lacking? I’m not very trustful of these so-called wiki references, either.

` IF that assumption is truthful..., wheres the pudding..?

Show us your proof, evidence then and present it for everyone to know.

` :smoke: ;;;

_________________
,
"...Lets do it to them before they do it to us..." Sgt. Stan Jablonski, Hill Street Precinct


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 30, 2018 6:59 pm 
Offline
Middleweight
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 11:56 am
Posts: 515
Location: Sa daigdig ng inyong panaginip
zorro05 wrote:
Quote:
I think there’s not much disagreement here. As has been stated previously, Elohim is plural in form but its usage (as applied to the God of Israel) does not support such supposition referring to early polytheism. It’s a plural of majesty or of rank, as grammarians put it. You know, plurality is sometimes used as a marker of respect in many languages. For instance, "Adonai" means "my lords" as well.

Yes, as you have mentioned above, although the form of the word elohim, with the ending -im, is plural and masculine, the construction is usually singular (i.e., it governs a singular verb or adjective when referring to the Hebrew God) -- but it reverts to its normal plural when used of pagan divinities (Psalms 96:5; 97:7).

It is the general usage in the hebrew language of treating it as singular only bec it refers, denotes to a ' one true god' the israelites worship in the succeding centuries. But, how can you be so sure that they were not worshiping just 'one god' but many other gods ? Its just how the evolvement of jewish faith, much like other faiths, are where errors, imperfections of olden ancient rituals, teachings, doctrines are steadily corrected as times goes on.

'its like saying.., yeah the original texts says 'many'.., but now, today.., we just see
and translate it as 'one'..'
:D ''


Am I still seeing much disagreement here? You asked: “How can you be so sure that they were not worshipping just one god but many other gods?”

Did I say that? You were the one who proposed that they were not worshipping just one god but many other gods, so the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate this.

Notwithstanding, I thought we were discussing primarily about the ‘correctness’ of translation of the word “Elohim” -- not so much about the ‘sureness’ of the number of gods the Hebrews were worshipping. The matter on translation and usage of the word, not to mention its nuances, was already explained by grammarians.

I never made a categorical statement saying that the Hebrews didn’t go through a polytheistic phase. In fact, I find it more reasonable to say that the name “Elohim” (the gods) is a linguistic artefact of that polytheistic phase the Hebrews went through. Be that as it may, they later settled on a single god (‘the one true God’, as you put it), but calling him "Elohim" may have smoothed the transition for the older generation.

Hence, it is clearly understood from the above context that the intended usage of the word “Elohim” – and what it signified (before any Hebrew translation) -- was never meant to substantiate early polytheistic interpretations.

_________________
Let my thoughts come to you, when I am gone, like the afterglow of sunset at the margin of starry silence. -- Rabindranath Tagore


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 30, 2018 7:15 pm 
Offline
Middleweight
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 11:56 am
Posts: 515
Location: Sa daigdig ng inyong panaginip
zorro05 wrote:
Quote:

But, even then, I don’t see any strong reason why the Gospels were written not by the Evangelists themselves.
You know, the Gospels provide accounts of numerous things that Jesus said and did during his earthly ministry. They are the principal sources of historical evidence for our knowledge of his life. So, the question here should rather be: how did the Evangelists themselves come by this evidence?

Unfortunately, you dont realize or refuse to accept the fallacy of the 'duplicity, sly' manipulation of a written document , more so since it is a 'canonical religious document'. It is clear deliberate actions made by religious authorities then to ' create, manipulate, invent' religious texts as 'gospels' and present them as ' true genuine, authentic' written accounts by the apostles of yeshua as a form of doctrines/guidelines for the folowers of a new emerging religious group;

' if you dont see anything wrong or refuse to realize the effect of the actions in manipulating
religious texts and presenting the edited ones as canonical texts,, theres something not right in you..''
:lol: '''

The gospels are NOT direct historicity of his life, not even viable proof, but 'narratives, embellished stories' created by religious/patristic authorities thru a group of writers and scribes. They even contradict themselves on many issues and instances even though the synoptic ones is a copy of one another in most details.

''if its the evidence of yeshua's life, surely, there has to be many of it wanting in the missing years,,, right..?' :wink: ''

As to how the evangelists got their evidence...?,dont fret yourself.., They didn't. Its the scribes/writers job/work to reconcile , create and invent ALL those
connections, circumstances in the canonical gospels.


Boy, where to begin with such inanities!

You wrote:
“It is clear deliberate actions made by religious authorities then to ' create, manipulate, invent' religious texts as 'gospels' and present them as ' true genuine, authentic' written accounts by the apostles...”

How preposterous! How did you know that? Is that how you present your counter-position?
So, how can you be so sure about that? :lol:

It’s either you’re so trusting and confident with your sources, or you’re just making assumptions and wild speculations, thus blindly promoting the product of a skeptic’s senile imagination. For either reason, I’m now getting a better understanding of how the word ‘gullibility’ applies more to you, rather than to me.

If you think that such was the case with the gospels, I would love to see you elaborate on this contention with some real arguments, not just desperate salvos for lack of any real reasoning or response. And please leave out the “fallacy of the 'duplicity, sly' manipulation of a written document” remark, if you would for logic’s sake, since I don’t buy it.

Your post goes from bad to worse:
' if you dont see anything wrong or refuse to realize the effect of the actions in manipulating religious texts and presenting the edited ones as canonical texts,, theres something not right in you..'

What lunacy! Is that how you finally express your argument? You have no case, pure and simple. Your preceding statements above appear like wishful and baseless theories of a half-baked skeptic.

And, lastly, you wrote:
“As to how the evangelists got their evidence...?,dont fret yourself.., They didn't. Its the scribes/writers job/work to reconcile , create and invent ALL those connections, circumstances in the canonical gospels.”

Again, how do you know that? Have you just heard that? That’s ignorant gullibility on your part!

As I’ve posted before, the Gospels are the principal sources of historical evidence for our knowledge of Jesus’ life. They provide accounts of numerous things that Jesus said and did during his earthly ministry. But, of course, an important fact is this: in the Bible, whole chunks of Jesus’ life are missing. That’s probably why you asked about the ‘missing years’. Jesus goes from age 12 – 30 without any word of what happened in between. So this is the idea here -- how can we trust the Gospels if there are many pieces that are absent?

Well, the problem here is that when people read the Gospels they treat them as biographies of Jesus – and they are biographies – but they are not biographies like we read today. We live in an age today where you’ve got all the paper in the world that you want. You have almost unlimited hard drive, cloud space, Wikipedia, and so on. We live in a data “lotness” society – we have more data than we know what to do with. So when we write about and catalogue a famous person’s life, we can include as much information as we want. And we just include it because what we care about is being comprehensive – it’s getting all the information down. But in the ancient world, biographies were not like that. Scholars regard the Gospels as bioi (from the word which signifies life). A bioi is an ancient biography. It’s similar to modern biography -- it tells the story of an important person but there are some key differences:

No. 1 – Ancient biography is focused on what was most important about the person, and it would skip over whole aspects of his life that are relatively unimportant. (So, if nothing really happened, you didn’t hear anything about that.)

No. 2 – They were written not just for the sake of writing them. Writing was an expensive endeavor. It was a time consuming endeavor. You wrote biographies of famous people in the ancient world to edify others – to show that, hey, there’s something you can learn here from this important person. (So, that’s why of course you’re going to focus on the most teachable moment in that person’s life.)

And when it comes to Jesus, if he was living from age 12 – 30, what probably happened there? We know that some time after Jesus’ finding in the Temple, Joseph disappears from the picture. Joseph probably died some time after that episode. What probably happened, if St. Joseph passed away, Jesus took over the “carpentry” or “building” business (or whatever you might call it), and Jesus took that over with caring for his mother (carrying on this work and living a very mild-mannered life in ancient Israel) until his baptism – the beginning of his public ministry inaugurated after God called John the Baptist to prepare the way.

You see? We need focus only on the “most teachable moment” in that person’s life.
So, no problem there! It’s evident to any ‘plowboy’.

_________________
Let my thoughts come to you, when I am gone, like the afterglow of sunset at the margin of starry silence. -- Rabindranath Tagore


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 30, 2018 7:44 pm 
Offline
Middleweight
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 11:56 am
Posts: 515
Location: Sa daigdig ng inyong panaginip
zorro05 wrote:
Quote:

Granting -- without conceding -- that the Gospels were not written by ‘people whose names are attached to them’, it does not necessarily follow that the Gospel message is not real and authentic. Suppose Luke did not “write” his Gospel, but instead dictated the words and his message to his secretary, do you think it wouldn’t be the Gospel according to Luke?

This is the kind of reasoning that I was pointing out as non sequitur in your earlier statement. It’s simply a logical fallacy.

And who says the evidence and historicity of the Gospels’ origins are sorely absent or lacking? I’m not very trustful of these so-called wiki references, either.

Theres the fallacy in you,, enigma.

If someone else/ writers wrote the gospel, say Mark's, how would you know its 'true, authentic' that its ALL Marks own words, idea, recollections ? IF luke, as you assume, dictated the 'message, words, ideas' to his secretary or mistress,,, how would you know that ''it is what it is ..?''

Besides, there are NO PROOF that they did just that, i.e. dictating words, ideas or recollections. Apologists, theologians, religious authorities SIMPLY ASSUMED the apostles did just that. Its pure Conjecture. A convenient means to justify the 'gaps' in bible narratives.

You are simply accepting the apologists own fallacies in trying to justify such errors in argumentation..,and in your own assumption that they were correct in them.

Its called gullibility. :wink:'''

Have you presented independent non-biblical evidences, proof to 'support, justify' your own argument that can be verified and scrutinize,,, other than an apologists OWN self-serving blabberings, who are not historians nor archaeologist or researchers in the first place,, that are also anchored on biblical fallacies ?''' :lol: '''


There you go again! Your first statement above just proved the fallacy inherent in the framing of your earlier statement. Let me quote your original post:

“Look.., many today still believe the 'NT gopels' are/were 'true, real, authentic' even when it wasn't written by people whose names were attached to it ?”

First, how do you know that?
You see? From what you hinted above, whether or not it is written by someone whose name is attached to it, the Gospel’s authenticity is still in question. Right?

And, secondly, you said: “IF luke, as you assume, dictated the 'message, words, ideas' to his secretary or mistress,,, how would you know that ''it is what it is ..?''

But then, how would you know that “it is not what it is...?”

You see? The point is that your premise on people’s believing in the authenticity of the Gospels is weakly framed when argued from one hypothetical condition only. Since the other condition also applies, the conclusion is distorted or vague when deduced from an ambiguous starting premise. One does not necessarily follow from the other. Hence, non sequitur.

Well, so much for that, I suggest that you now take a short breather and have a look at the following: “Historical Reliability of the Gospels”.

https://evidenceandanswers.org/article/historical-reliability-of-the-gospels/

Full reading is recommended. This will address some of your concerns above.


zorro05 wrote:
Quote:
You haven’t read the entire document, have you?

LOL. What do you think is a reliable and ‘unbiased’ source on these matters – a non-Christian and secular site? If I may borrow the words of G.K. Chesterton:

“It is assumed that the skeptic has no bias; whereas he has a very obvious bias in favor of skepticism.” :lol:

Not only did I read the whole GoBarnabbas..., I even posted a topic of it that was discussed,
debated, scrutinized and wd it the presentation of proof/evidences and links/sources.
=FACT CHECKING THE BIBLE--http://forum.philboxing.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t

I guess you are unaware, clueless of it. I suggest you visit the link...., for your enlightenment. :) '''

And frankly speaking.., we all have our bias, leanings ,, in ife or pov's.
But in matters of what is true and correct, unlike you...,being credulous and gullible
is definitely not my cup of tea.

btw - ''skepticism is not being bias, just being prudent and meticulous..''

`Image;;;;


Really? On the contrary, I think your whole enterprise presents a quite humorous (but tragic-comic) episode in self-delusion and blindness to the absurdity of one’s own position.

On matters of what is true and correct -- of what is good and beautiful -- I’m not a skeptic, like you. I use right reason to lead me to the truth -- that truth which finds fulfilment in my faith.

So, being faithful and reasonable is rather my cup of tea. If I may borrow the words of Pope (St.) John Paul II:

Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth.” :)

_________________
Let my thoughts come to you, when I am gone, like the afterglow of sunset at the margin of starry silence. -- Rabindranath Tagore


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 30, 2018 8:08 pm 
Offline
Middleweight
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 11:56 am
Posts: 515
Location: Sa daigdig ng inyong panaginip
zorro05 wrote:
Quote:
Once again you have resorted to a historical “minimalist” or “revisionist” way of thinking that seems to go like this: since Egyptian historical records never mention the bondage and liberation of Israel – and since historical and archaeological records are pitifully absent and non-existent (although this is debatable) -- it follows that the Exodus never actually happened.

Well, these historical minimalists used to point to many details in the Old Testament books. For instance, they said Jericho never had walls, that the Hittites never existed, that Jerusalem wasn't a royal power until long after the time of David, etc. But archaeologists found the walls, they found the Hittites, and they found a royal seal close to the time of David. So far, the pattern is not in your favor, Mang Zorro.

So,, I guess the article of the conservative jewish/israeli newspaper HAARETZ.COM that '' the jewish/israelite sojourned in Egypt is not historically correct, true.., and not supported by archaeological, historical records and evidence..'' is a “minimalist” or “revisionist” propaganda. :lol: ,,,,

'while modern israelites today, except the ultra-orthodox leaders, followers, believe and accept the Exodus story, Egypt captivity, red sea crossing ...,as historically untrue, untenable,, a metaphor of faith on their gods power.....''

Unfortunately for you enigma,, you're still stuck in Limbo. :lol: '''

IF you can support your assumption abt minimalist view on your 'historical' examples, pls. indicate who are they, their links and/or their articles..., I will be glad to offer my input,, otherwise,, I dont respond to 'guesswork conjectures.' :D '''



Wow! I wonder how I got “stuck in limbo”, when I was just dropping by purgatory on my way to heaven. :lol:

Unfortunately, I saw skeptics getting “stuck in hell”. :lol:

Of course, what else is new? I presume that the article from that “Jewish newspaper HAARETZ.COM” (which you praised as “conservative”) is biased and unreliable. It is evidently espousing a “historical minimalist” view. In fact, the credibility (hence integrity) of the paper pertaining to all matters is questionable.

Here are a few links to bolster my presumption of bias as regards this Israeli newspaper:

1. Haaretz Admits its Politicized Agenda
http://honestreporting.com/haaretz-admits-its-politicized-agenda/

2. Haaretz’s Textbook Case of Media Bias
https://www.algemeiner.com/2017/09/27/haaretzs-textbook-case-of-media-bias/

3. Media Watchdog Blasts Haaretz, Daily Mail for Anti-Israel Bias in “Dishonest Reporting” Awards
https://www.breakingisraelnews.com/57157/2015s-dishonest-reporting-on-israel-awards-go-to-jerusalem/


On the other hand, here are a few sample links (out of many) that should address some of your concerns above:

1. Did the Israelites Conquer Jericho? A New Look at the Archaeological Evidence
http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2008/05/Did-the-Israelites-Conquer-Jericho-A-New-Look-at-the-Archaeological-Evidence.aspx

2. Impression of King Hezekiah’s Royal Seal Discovered in Ophel Excavations South of Temple Mount in Jerusalem
http://new.huji.ac.il/en/article/28173

3. The Last Days of Hattusa (The mysterious collapse of the Hittite empire)
https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/ancient-cultures/ancient-near-eastern-world/the-last-days-of-hattusa/


Some additional info:

There’s a documentary (available on Instant Netflix) about “Patterns of Evidence: Exodus”. You can watch some trailer videos here:

http://patternsofevidence.com/trailer-videos/

(You might have never seen a finer or more interesting piece of biblical archaeology on film. The crux of the issue at stake, and featured in the piece, is the theory that the Exodus happened around 1450 BC, rather than 160 - 200 years later.)

If I may refer to one of your trusted sources, Wikipedia has a lengthy article entitled “New Chronology (Rohl).”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Chronology_(Rohl)

This is a reference to Egyptologist David Rohl (b. 1950), who is featured in Patterns of Evidence. Rohl is an agnostic, so he can’t be accused of special pleading based on a prior acceptance of the Bible as inspired revelation.

Archaeologist Bryant G. Wood (also in the documentary) wrote an excellent summary (2009) of the biblical and archaeological evidence for a date of 1446 BC for the Exodus:

The Biblical Date for the Exodus is 1446 BC: A Response to James Hoffmeier

http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2009/03/30/The-Biblical-Date-for-the-Exodus-is-1446-BC-A-Response-to-James-Hoffmeier.aspx#Article

Now I hope that “you’ll be glad to offer your input, as you don’t respond to ‘guesswork conjectures’...” :D

_________________
Let my thoughts come to you, when I am gone, like the afterglow of sunset at the margin of starry silence. -- Rabindranath Tagore


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 30, 2018 8:40 pm 
Offline
Middleweight
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 11:56 am
Posts: 515
Location: Sa daigdig ng inyong panaginip
zorro05 wrote:
Quote:
And oh, by the way, the Passover sacrificial lamb is not the only “embellished account of Jewish myth” as you have described it. Rather, there are many elements (persons, places, things, and events) of the Bible that have a deeper meaning because God, the divine author of the Bible, intended that these elements foreshadow further things. For example, the evangelist John presents the raising of the bronze serpent by Moses in the desert as a type of Christ crucified (3:14).

I didn't said..,'' passover as an embellished account..',, did I. ? There are jewish myths wd lots of embellishments but the passover is a jewish religious practice till today. The 'story' of the israelites in egypt ''painting their houses wd blood.., so as as their god will not punish the dwellers in that house wd death..''. That 'event' was carried on today by orthodox followers today.

Thats just john's translation or better, a latter centuries scribes/writers translation taken from Moses' entrance from the Mt Sinai peninsula.

Thers nothing 'mystifying or amazing or magical.' from your quoted passage. You even forgot the 'ben ben' that hovered nearby. :lol: ..



Your description of Passover is incomplete and even deliberately “minimized” (I suspect) in order to mislead us.

It’s not just ''painting their houses wd blood.., so as as their god will not punish the dwellers in that house wd death..'' (as you noted above), but there’s a more relevant substance to it than that.

Passover is one of the most important religious festivals in the Jewish calendar. So, you are only partially right on your description of the story. You know, the final plague was the death of the first born. God told Moses that the Israelites should mark their doorposts with lamb's blood so that God could 'pass over' their houses and spare them from this plague. This is why the festival is called Passover.

But, more than that, Jews celebrate Passover as a commemoration of their liberation by God from slavery in ancient Egypt and their freedom as a nation under the leadership of Moses.

In the last part of my post which you quoted above, I was simply illustrating “biblical typology”. You know, one of the most interesting ways to read the Bible is through the lens of typology. Typology is where a person or event in the Old Testament foreshadows a greater person or event in the New Testament. The word “typology” comes to us from St. Paul himself, in Romans 5:14, where he referred to Adam as a “type” of Christ. So, let’s get started on this with a few more examples:

Desert Wanderings

Remember the story about the Israelites coming up out of the water of the Red Sea and wandering in the desert for 40 years? They came upon bitter water in a pool at Marah, and Moses threw some wood in the pool to make the water drinkable. During the 40-year sojourn in the desert, they managed to worship a false idol, put God to the test, and demanded bread to eat.

Now fast forward to the New Testament. Jesus Christ came up out of the water of the Jordan River to go into the desert for 40 days. During this time, he was also tempted to worship a false idol (Satan), but refused. Satan tempted Jesus to put God to the test as well, by throwing Himself off of a tower and allowing God to catch him. Jesus, unlike his ancestors in the desert, refused to do this. Likewise, Satan tempted Jesus to command the stones to be turned into bread, but Jesus refused, instead saying that man does not live by bread alone, but on every Word that comes out of the mouth of God (FYI, bread and the Word of God are the two components of the liturgy of the Mass!). In short, Jesus passed the three tests that the Israelites failed under Moses. And what about the wood that Moses threw into the bitter water to make it drinkable? This is a type of the Cross making the sacrament of baptism holy!

Moses and Jesus

• Both Moses and Jesus fasted for 40 days.
• Both of their lives as infants were threatened by powerful rulers (Pharaoh and Herod).
• Both of their lives as infants were saved by family members.
• Both were in Egypt for a time as youths.
• Both left Egypt later on and returned to Israel.
• Both were commissioned by God to give the law.
• Both had faces that shone like the sun (Moses after talking to God, and Jesus at the Transfiguration).
• Both were lawgivers on a mountain (Moses on Mount Sinai, and Jesus giving the Sermon on the Mount).
• Moses met Jesus at the Transfiguration of Jesus to discuss Jesus’ “exodus” from this life.
• Moses changed water into blood; Jesus changed water into wine, and then wine into His Precious Blood.
• Moses led his people out of the slavery of Pharaoh; Jesus led his people out of the slavery of Satan.
• When the woman was caught in adultery, the Pharisees questioned Jesus about the Law of Moses, which was written by the finger of God in the 10 Commandments. As if to shout to them that He was indeed God, Jesus started writing with His finger in the dirt (what, we don’t know, but it’s the writing with His finger that is important).


Other interesting types are as follows:

Joseph in the Old Testament; Joseph in the New Testament

• Both had fathers named Jacob.
• Both received messages in dreams.
• Both went to Egypt under duress.
• Joseph in the Old Testament saved Israel by giving them bread to eat; Joseph in the New Testament saved Jesus, who saves us by giving us the Eucharist to eat.


Joseph in the Old Testament and Jesus

• Both were stripped of their bloody garments.
• Both were sold to unbelievers - Joseph for 20 pieces of silver, Jesus for 30.
• Both were unjustly incarcerated.
• Both suffered for the sake of Israel’s benefit.
• Both gave bread to save Israel (Joseph gave regular bread; Jesus gives us the Eucharist).
Joseph was set over all the land of Egypt by becoming Pharaoh’s right hand man; Jesus is seated at the right hand of God our loving Father and has all authority over heaven and earth.


The Old Testament Ark of the Covenant and Mary

• Both were created from the purest elements.
• The Ark’s mercy seat was overshadowed by the cherubim. Mary was overshadowed by the power of the Holy Spirit.
• Both carried the Word of God (in stone/in the flesh) and The Bread from Heaven (manna/Eucharist) inside them.
David danced in front of the Ark; the unborn John the Baptist leaped for joy at the sound of Mary’s voice (quite a feat for what is referred to as an unviable tissue mass by Planned Parenthood!)
• Both stayed away for 3 months (the Ark in the house of Obed-edom, Mary at the house of Elizabeth).


Baptism

• The Holy Spirit moved over the waters of the earth in Genesis 1:2 (a new creation).
• Noah and his family were saved by floating on the water.
• Moses is saved by floating on the water of the Nile, as an infant (a prefigurement of infant baptism!).
• Moses and the Israelites are saved by going through the waters of the Red Sea, with the Lord in a pillar of cloud by day, and a pillar of fire by night (pillar = The Holy Spirit).
Moses struck the rock in the desert, and saving water poured out. Jesus is our Rock, and he saves us through the waters of Baptism.
Naaman the Syrian has his leprosy (in the Old Testament, leprosy was a biblical prefigurement of sin) washed away by bathing in the Jordan River.
• The Holy Spirit descended over the waters when Jesus was baptized (we are a new creation in Christ after Baptism).
• Jesus tells Nicodemus that “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.”

Of course, there are many, many others, but hopefully the few examples above will give you an idea of just how rich the Bible is when it comes to truly understanding God’s Holy Word!

_________________
Let my thoughts come to you, when I am gone, like the afterglow of sunset at the margin of starry silence. -- Rabindranath Tagore


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 44 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC + 8 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

philboxing.com | pinoygreats.com
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group